Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:24:17 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 21:20:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 24, 1999 at 15:27:09, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 24, 1999 at 14:53:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 1999 at 13:33:59, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 1999 at 13:13:39, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 1999 at 12:45:30, Terry Presgrove wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 24, 1999 at 08:28:48, Shep wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 24, 1999 at 04:02:10, rich wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First of all, how can you know for sure this person is a cheater? >>>>>>>>Innocent until found guilty, anyone ?!? >>>>>>>>Second, I can't find any evidence in any of the posts in this thread. >>>>>>>>Third, maybe all of you just can't realize that some unrated players >>>>>>>>are very good chessplayers.I have myself beaten a GM once(I'm 1761 club-rating) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Seconded. I happen to have quite a few friends who haven't played in rated >>>>>>>tournaments in years (so they have no current ELO/USCF/DWZ rating whatsoever), >>>>>>>yet still manage to play close to - and sometimes above - master strength. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think if that happens for about a dozen people I know, how many of them can >>>>>>>you meet in a crowded club such as ICC? Don't take the equation >>>>>>>"unrated=beginner" for granted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>Shep >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Shep >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with you that there are allot of very good unrated players >>>>>> that are capable of winning against top programs. But three in a row in blitz >>>>>> 5 5 using tactics without anti-computer techniques? Never using less than 3 >>>>>> seconds in the 3 0 game log is building up considerable evidence. Plus you >>>>>> have the experience of the operator who has watched thousands of comp vs. >>>>>> human games stretching over three decades. I'm not saying it is impossible but >>>>>> you would have to use scientific notation to compute the odds. I do agree a >>>>>> player is innocent until proven guilty and am opposed to using names/handles >>>>>> in an accusing manner in this forum unless there is clear condemning evidence >>>>>> presented. >>>>> >>>>>The real question is why do we even care about this, the games are meaningless, >>>>>the ratings are meaningless. Nothing people post, say, or do will stop people >>>>>from cheating. What do you expect from games played over the internet. >>>>> >>>>>I get hit all the time by people cheating with computers when I am testing a new >>>>>program online, but it does not make much sense to bitch about it on CCC, or >>>>>make protest after protest to the admin of fics or icc etc. I have better things >>>>>to do with my time, like play more chess:) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I also do not understand why people care so much about cheaters and ratings in >>>>on-line chess servers. >>>> I can see why the FIDE rating is important for professional players (higher >>>>rating implies more invitations to better tournaments), but rating points in >>>>chess servers seem completely worthless. >>>> Nobody is going to give one gram of tea for each rating point you have in a >>>>chess server, and if somebody does please tell me because I would be interested >>>>in that deal (: >>>> >>> >>>you are wrong there. On the servers, during events, people look at the ones >>>that are kibitzing analysis, and they take comments from a 2200+ player much >>>more seriously than they do comments from a 1600 player. So this boils down >>>to 'respect' even if it isn't 'deserved.'... >>> >>>that's mainly what it is about... you know that everyone will notice your >>>high rating and think you are a good player, whether you are or not... >> >>So it boils down to EGO...on both sides. Heaven forbid a 1600 rated player >>getting the respect of +2200 player on a chess server. And I thought it was just >>stupid for people to waste their time making web pages and posting such nonsense >>in a rant against cheaters on chess servers. But your words have shown me just >>how important this cause should be to all of us. >> >> >> > > >I don't think it is that important to "all of us" or I would be rated 3000+ >and be known as 'the great GM crusher'. :) But there are lots that feel that >rating points are all there is to chess... the more you have, the better you >are... or the more you have, the better others think you are. > >I happen to disagree, but I am afraid that there is a _huge_ group of cheaters >that are going unnoticed... Yes you are correct, and cheating is only getting worse. Its just the nature of the beast that is the internet. I don't bother reporting them anymore...or wasting my time complaining about it or even noplaying them. Its not worth the time and effort. I feel its not the full time cheaters that is the problem. If a player wants to cheat full time I think we should let them.:) The guy that do the damage are the part time cheaters. In terms of the rating system. When I see a 2200+/- rated player scoring over 30% against any good modern program on good hardware at blitz time controls. Its almost a sure bet he is cheating because the programs are just that good against anyone not cheating. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TP
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.