PDA

View Full Version : Ethical cheating art



Observer
15-01-2004, 12:12 PM
Hello,

I am a proud ethical cheater. Severs authorities condone it, most people curse at it, I however am proudly cheating for years on several servers and still uncaught. Methods range from simply consulting a chess engine to sophisticated lagcheating and ip masking devices.

When asked if using computers in online chess is "inherently unethical" many consider it so. Users of computers are labeled "cheaters." Many competitors mention that they would personally gain no satisfaction from winning if they used computer assistance. Many also equated using computers to letting the computer totally generate the moves without any involvement from the player. Using computers has been labeled by many as unethical and unsatisfying without any further thought about more subtle and creative uses of using analyzing computers as tools.

When assistance of computers to analyze positions is forbidden by the rules of play some difficulties arise. First of all if done properly computer aided play in online chess cannot be detected. Additionally there are all sorts of minor infractions that can occur with computer use. How about using a computer to study openings, say by using it as a practice opponent or allowing it to suggest lines of play for you to consider, when would you have to stop playing these lines ? If you consider this example trivial allow me to point out that such considerations have led to lengthy and heated debate already.

Here is my personal opinion on this subject. I see nothing "inherently" unethical about using computers. They are just one additional tool we can use to determine the move we wish to make. I wouldn't obtain personal satisfaction from plugging my positions into a computer and just accepting the generated moves but I'll allow that it is possible that some competitors would find this a fun way to play chess. There will always be competitors who want to play without computer assistance. I have no problem with that as long as they respect my perception too.

Chess is a magnificent activity. The art/sport/science of chess is great enough to encompass all competitors, whether they pursue correspondence, OTB, problem solving/composing, chess set collecting, chess-on-stamps collecting, chess forms designing, chess journalism, tournament directing, organizing, or the many other forms of chess activities. It would be grossly unfair for one set of chess enthusiasts to prohibit others from pursuing their preferred forms of the game. I would specifically encourage existing chess competitions be made available for using computers to analyze or generate moves. I see no reason to satisfy those who are opposed to these ideas : I refuse to accept the tyranny of those who would force others to play only by their preferred rules !

To some degree everyone cheats. Not everyone does the hi-tech stuff, but I donít believe there is a single person who can honestly say he never cheated, the system is so unrealistic you NEED to cheat. Cheating is a striking a defiant blow against a fraudulent system where highrated players have all mouth and no trousers. The system forces to try to outsmart it. The system taught us to cheat in order to survive it.

The links below are representing two different viewpoints that people have about computer cheating art in online chess. After you look at each of them, you can vote in the poll.

http://www.compcheaters.netfirms.com/
Manuals and technical articles on how to cheat and improve your cheating skills, articles containing thoughts and viewpoints of numerous world-wide cheaters, cheaters forum, join the organization of computer cheaters and much more. Shortly, the ultimate computer cheating site.


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Realm/8655/DoctorUnclear.htm
Tips on how to spot a computer cheater, what to do if you think someone cheated on you, official answers of all major ICSs to 8 questions regarding their policy on computer cheating, psychological profile of cheaters from author's perspective, personal testimonials of cheaters, messages and emails from both cheaters and non-cheating players and much more. Shortly, the ultimate anti-cheating site.

Thank you in advance for participating.

Rincewind
15-01-2004, 01:41 PM
I haven't read either of the links. But it seems pretty simple to me. Using a computer to generate moves, look up opening books, endgame database lookup, etc is not inherently unethical. How could it be.

However, when playing a game on line there is a standard of fair play which is involved. If the standard is that use of computer references during play is not to be done, and you do it anyway, then you are cheating and it is unethical. By agreeing to play in a non-computer assisted tournament you are explicitly or implicitly gving your word that you will not do these things. So if you do, then you are effectively lying.

Personally, if someone cheats against me it doesn't bother me too much. They will win and from my point of view I won't know if they were cheating or if they are just a better player. However, if it is used for things like prize money tournaments, entry places in the FIDE WCh, etc then they are beginning to interfer with other people who may be honestly making a living from chess and thats is where I start to be concerned.

Using computers in training (before the game) for example if generally considered ok by everyone. As is referencing books before (and during a game of postal chess). This is because there is no agreement not to do these things.

But when your actions are described as cheating you have to wonder the ethical standing they have.

Obviously
16-01-2004, 06:32 AM
Having in mind all the knowledge and skills that a professional computer cheater must possess, including the knowledge of chess engines and their commands, chess servers and their commands, skills of masking computer play, the elementary knowledge of computer programming for cheating in lightning/bullet games, the knowledge and skills of using lag-cheating and hacked timeseals, as well as the knowledge of the techniques used by cheating detection systems on many servers and much, much more, computer cheating can almost be considered a science. But because of the two most important factors, the cheaterís good estimation of different situations and the cheaterís talent, computer cheating is an art in first place Ė the art of computer cheating.

Computer cheating is a game as well. The cheaterís main goal is to trick the server authorities and other cheater-catchers, while their goal is to catch a cheater. So it is a game Ė analogously to the game of chess, the more skillful one wins. Caught cheaters (amateur cheaters, that is) are losers, professional cheaters are winners most of the time. Also the server authorities lose the game to professional cheaters.

Finally, because of its competitive element, computer cheating is a sport . The cheater competes with his fellow cheaters in the sphere of cheating skills, while he competes with chessplayers at the same time in games of chess.

J. Kazinski
CCO public affairs department

Rincewind
16-01-2004, 08:58 AM
No one is denying that cheating is a skill. This is not unique to chess. At nearly any sport there is the potential for cheating and to get away with it requires skill.

Online chess is a little different in that it is so easy to do that someone not very good at cheating can easily improve their performance (substantially unless they are also very good at chess).

Anyway, the question of whether it is skillful is besides the point. The question is whether it is ethical to use computers against an opponent without their knowledge in a tournament where such use is not allowed. Obviously, it is not.

There should be tournaments where players who like cheating can play computer+human vs computer+human, like the advanced chess match they have in France. That would be art, if you are just using your computer to beat guys who aren't using theirs then you are performing the artistic equivalent of shooting fish is a barrel.

It might feel good but I would think it would be ultimately unsatisfying.

Commentator
06-10-2004, 01:21 PM
No one is denying that cheating is a skill. This is not unique to chess. At nearly any sport there is the potential for cheating and to get away with it requires skill.

Online chess is a little different in that it is so easy to do that someone not very good at cheating can easily improve their performance (substantially unless they are also very good at chess).

Anyway, the question of whether it is skillful is besides the point. The question is whether it is ethical to use computers against an opponent without their knowledge in a tournament where such use is not allowed. Obviously, it is not.

There should be tournaments where players who like cheating can play computer+human vs computer+human, like the advanced chess match they have in France. That would be art, if you are just using your computer to beat guys who aren't using theirs then you are performing the artistic equivalent of shooting fish is a barrel.

It might feel good but I would think it would be ultimately unsatisfying.

Can anyone advise about the practice in various forms of correspondence chess games. Is computer assistance allowed?

Recherchť
06-10-2004, 01:41 PM
Can anyone advise about the practice in various forms of correspondence chess games. Is computer assistance allowed?

It varies by league and tournament. In some it is, in others it's disallowed.

Rincewind
06-10-2004, 04:05 PM
Can anyone advise about the practice in various forms of correspondence chess games. Is computer assistance allowed?

In general, correspondence email and snail mail allows the use of reference material but disallows the use of computer engines.

So things like opening books, electronic encyclopediae and databases of games are permissable. Fritz, crafty, etc, are not.

However, mileage will vary so best to check with your TD.

JGB
06-10-2004, 10:48 PM
I though Correspondance chess died in the 80's when the strength of computers became strong. Cheating in Correspondance chess today is too easy isn't it?

Rincewind
06-10-2004, 11:22 PM
I though Correspondance chess died in the 80's when the strength of computers became strong. Cheating in Correspondance chess today is too easy isn't it?

Have to ask Sutek about that. ;)

JGB
06-10-2004, 11:29 PM
Have to ask Sutek about that. ;)
Who? :D

Rincewind
06-10-2004, 11:57 PM
Who? :D

http://chesschat.org/member.php?u=736

He is a strong correspondence player.

JGB
07-10-2004, 12:12 AM
http://chesschat.org/member.php?u=736

He is a strong correspondence player.

Sorry that was meant to be a joke, :doh:

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2004, 01:11 AM
The computers are still only weak grandmaster strength at CC, if that. Using a computer in a CC game will stop blatant tactical errors but it won't win you the game against a very strong CC player.

JGB
08-10-2004, 04:48 PM
True the computers are not much chop alone but an average stronger chess player who really knows how to use the new chess programmes on a strong computer can really compete at very high level.

Duff McKagan
20-12-2004, 08:52 PM
Hello,

I am a proud ethical cheater. Severs authorities condone it, most people curse at it, I however am proudly cheating for years on several servers and still uncaught. Methods range from simply consulting a chess engine to sophisticated lagcheating and ip masking devices.

Can you PM me with some sources of these ip masking devices. Thanks.


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Realm/8655/DoctorUnclear.htm
Tips on how to spot a computer cheater, what to do if you think someone cheated on you, official answers of all major ICSs to 8 questions regarding their policy on computer cheating, psychological profile of cheaters from author's perspective, personal testimonials of cheaters, messages and emails from both cheaters and non-cheating players and much more. Shortly, the ultimate anti-cheating site.

DoctorUnclear's site is referred to by many as the best on computer cheating, but as for other forms of cheating, his site does not even hit the spot. I emailed him once about including other forms, but he seemed to dismiss other suggested forms of cheating to be included on his page, probably because it would require a lot of effort.

The bottom line these days is that there is no 100% way to prove anyone is cheating or not cheating, unless there is another way of human supervision, which some people might find offensive as it would take away the anonimity factor of being on the internet.

Rincewind
20-12-2004, 09:12 PM
Can you PM me with some sources of these ip masking devices. Thanks.

I would assume he is talking about masking your IP via use of a public proxy server. This performs IP masking which will give its IP address on any connect you open through the proxy server.

There are some software packages like A4Proxy, GetAnonymous etc which enable this sort of function.

Spiny Norman
20-12-2004, 09:59 PM
Can you PM me with some sources of these ip masking devices.

Many years ago there was a free public proxy service run by www.anonymizer.com (http://www.anonymizer.com) ... just looking at it now they appear to have gone very commercial, but still offer some kind of free service that might be worth investigating if you're into privacy.

If you're like me and you're a bit paranoid and think that they are looking at you surreptitiously when you least expect it, then you may be right!

Of course, we don't know who they are, but they know who they are ... and if you're a 'they' and you're reading this then I'm really not interested in privacy and would never promote the use of tools like 2048-bit PGP-based email encryption that would stop 'them' knowing what I'm doing (unless they crack my systems and install keystroke loggers, or send the van with those big aerials down my street to read the signal off my monitor, or ... :eek:

What, me paranoid? :uhoh:

Samson
13-09-2008, 12:24 PM
The cheaters ruin it for the rest. Because of increased scrutiny some others get labelled cheats when they are not.

Dougy
14-10-2008, 08:25 AM
Ever played chess against your computer at home and didn't bother paying attention because you know you will lose? It's not worth investing the effort to play this heartless monster. I've done it - I end up losing to elementary tactics, things I definitely would spot against a human opponent.

Whenever I play chess on online chess servers (I play standard, I don't play blitz) I'm not ready to put the effort into concentrating knowing that there's some chance my opponent is using the computer (or some other dodgy tactic). When the game is finished I'm never sure if I have genuinely won (he might be deliberately losing a few so the admins aren't suspicious), lost or drawn.

I've even been accused of using a computer! GrrrRRRrrRrrRr!!!!! Win => using computer.

I'm certainly not going to pay good money for this "experience" anymore.

Miranda
14-10-2008, 01:32 PM
I thinkn if you're playing on the internet, there's no point in using a computer to cheat. It's unfair to your opponenets, and what's the point in playing if the computer's playing for you - you're just relaying the moves!

Rincewind
14-10-2008, 02:36 PM
I thinkn if you're playing on the internet, there's no point in using a computer to cheat. It's unfair to your opponenets, and what's the point in playing if the computer's playing for you - you're just relaying the moves!

This is true but it certainly does happen. There is a well known case of a 1500 OTB rated player involved in the internet qualification tournament for the FIDE world championship (such as it was a few years ago). In that case the player was eventually disqualified but not before some very surprising results against strong opposition. (Draws and wins against OTB grandmasters).

Even when spots in the World Championship are not up for grabs it still seems to me that some people must regularly use computers (or at least sometimes). When I used to play on FICS there was one player I suspected of playing unaided in the first game but then rechallenged and used a computer in the follow up game.

I think for players under 2000 or strength or so perhaps it is pretty easy to tell if they are systematically using a computer because there will be a few tactically suboptimal moves. However for stronger players it probably becomes more guesswork as they are often making tactically optimal moves anyway.

Anyway I have drifted away from playing much chess online, but I don't believe disillusionment with people using computers is the cause. When I was playing I thought I did run into too many computer moves as they would be playing at higher levels. :) (Except people like the one I suspected of using a computer occasionally).

Miranda
14-10-2008, 03:50 PM
At my level of chess online, you don't see much computer cheating.

[because i suck at chess ;) ]

Desmond
14-10-2008, 04:22 PM
Something that I learned recently is that card counting in blackjack is completly legal, provided that you do it with your mind and do not use any external aids. Casinos can kick you out but that is only because it is private property and they can kick anyone out for any reason.

danat1953
30-01-2009, 10:02 PM
Hello,

I am a proud ethical cheater. Severs authorities condone it, most people curse at it, I however am proudly cheating for years on several servers and still uncaught. Methods range from simply consulting a chess engine to sophisticated lagcheating and ip masking devices.

When asked if using computers in online chess is "inherently unethical" many consider it so. Users of computers are labeled "cheaters." Many competitors mention that they would personally gain no satisfaction from winning if they used computer assistance. Many also equated using computers to letting the computer totally generate the moves without any involvement from the player. Using computers has been labeled by many as unethical and unsatisfying without any further thought about more subtle and creative uses of using analyzing computers as tools.

When assistance of computers to analyze positions is forbidden by the rules of play some difficulties arise. First of all if done properly computer aided play in online chess cannot be detected. Additionally there are all sorts of minor infractions that can occur with computer use. How about using a computer to study openings, say by using it as a practice opponent or allowing it to suggest lines of play for you to consider, when would you have to stop playing these lines ? If you consider this example trivial allow me to point out that such considerations have led to lengthy and heated debate already.

Here is my personal opinion on this subject. I see nothing "inherently" unethical about using computers. They are just one additional tool we can use to determine the move we wish to make. I wouldn't obtain personal satisfaction from plugging my positions into a computer and just accepting the generated moves but I'll allow that it is possible that some competitors would find this a fun way to play chess. There will always be competitors who want to play without computer assistance. I have no problem with that as long as they respect my perception too.

Chess is a magnificent activity. The art/sport/science of chess is great enough to encompass all competitors, whether they pursue correspondence, OTB, problem solving/composing, chess set collecting, chess-on-stamps collecting, chess forms designing, chess journalism, tournament directing, organizing, or the many other forms of chess activities. It would be grossly unfair for one set of chess enthusiasts to prohibit others from pursuing their preferred forms of the game. I would specifically encourage existing chess competitions be made available for using computers to analyze or generate moves. I see no reason to satisfy those who are opposed to these ideas : I refuse to accept the tyranny of those who would force others to play only by their preferred rules !

To some degree everyone cheats. Not everyone does the hi-tech stuff, but I donít believe there is a single person who can honestly say he never cheated, the system is so unrealistic you NEED to cheat. Cheating is a striking a defiant blow against a fraudulent system where highrated players have all mouth and no trousers. The system forces to try to outsmart it. The system taught us to cheat in order to survive it.

The links below are representing two different viewpoints that people have about computer cheating art in online chess. After you look at each of them, you can vote in the poll.

http://www.compcheaters.netfirms.com/
Manuals and technical articles on how to cheat and improve your cheating skills, articles containing thoughts and viewpoints of numerous world-wide cheaters, cheaters forum, join the organization of computer cheaters and much more. Shortly, the ultimate computer cheating site.


http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Realm/8655/DoctorUnclear.htm
Tips on how to spot a computer cheater, what to do if you think someone cheated on you, official answers of all major ICSs to 8 questions regarding their policy on computer cheating, psychological profile of cheaters from author's perspective, personal testimonials of cheaters, messages and emails from both cheaters and non-cheating players and much more. Shortly, the ultimate anti-cheating site.

Thank you in advance for participating.
If you sign an agreement not to use a computer in online games and do anyway, you are nothing but a bald face liar! That is one reason I quit playing chess online. Enjoy your thrills now. We will all give an account after this life is over.

antichrist
31-01-2009, 04:06 PM
If you sign an agreement not to use a computer in online games and do anyway, you are nothing but a bald face liar! That is one reason I quit playing chess online. Enjoy your thrills now. We will all give an account after this life is over.

I won't play Gunnar again because of this - I beat him and his rubby computer

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2009, 06:29 PM
I won't play Gunnar again because of this - I beat him and his rubby computerWhen did this supposedly happen.

antichrist
02-02-2009, 06:03 PM
When did this supposedly happen.

about 2 years ago at Crissie time in a CC game on this board, the first time he used beloved tromp I believe. He admitted it afterwards.

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2009, 09:47 PM
about 2 years ago at Crissie time in a CC game on this board, the first time he used beloved tromp I believe. He admitted it afterwards.

Link?

If you can't substantiate this claim I'm inclined towards deleting it (to say the least).

antichrist
03-02-2009, 02:47 PM
Link?

If you can't substantiate this claim I'm inclined towards deleting it (to say the least).

Well God All Bloody Almighty - you and him even discussed how the computer said move xyz would be strong for white - you and Bill are the retrievers - go for it doggies. Now I know how poor old Starter was victimised for not providing a link

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2009, 02:59 PM
Well God All Bloody Almighty - you and him even discussed how the computer said move xyz would be strong for white - you and Bill are the retrievers - go for it doggies.

Do you mean this game here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=135876#post135876) and his comment "Yes, the comp did like h5 at around that time."?

If so, how do you know he was talking about the computer thinking something during the game as opposed to running it through the computer after the game?


Now I know how poor old Starter was victimised for not providing a link

No idea what you are babbling about.

antichrist
03-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Do you mean this game here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=135876#post135876) and his comment "Yes, the comp did like h5 at around that time."?

If so, how do you know he was talking about the computer thinking something during the game as opposed to running it through the computer after the game?



No idea what you are babbling about.

the "at around that time" sounds like past tense during game, and I think he commented somewhere that he did not follow the computer's suggestion that I thought implied that the could have. If he has followed the discussion he could have corrected my impression.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2009, 04:26 PM
No idea what you are babbling about.He is babbling about the thread here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4189) and starters unsupported claim in post #2.

When pressed to substantiate his claim Starter refused to post a link to back it up and just resorted to obfuscating dribble.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2009, 06:14 PM
He is babbling about the thread here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4189) and starters unsupported claim in post #2.

When pressed to substantiate his claim Starter refused to post a link to back it up and just resorted to obfuscating dribble.

Ah yes, I am already on record saying that TPFKA starter got what he deserved on that one. Hardly victimisation if someone who can't back up a dubious claim is called on a failure to do so.


the "at around that time" sounds like past tense during game, and I think he commented somewhere that he did not follow the computer's suggestion that I thought implied that the could have. If he has followed the discussion he could have corrected my impression.

It does read ambiguously although I suspect that was unintentional. I shall await Gunner's comment if any.

Basil
03-02-2009, 11:25 PM
I shall await Gunner's comment if any.
I had thought from the beginning (about a week ago in the shoutbox) that AC's line on cheating was all jest. I never actually thought I was being accused of cheating.

I appreciate Bill checking AC's intent when when the comment appeared in a thread for the first time (that I am aware of). I still thought very little of it as I have served quite a bit up to AC recently ;)

However now I am little disconcerted to learn that the claim does appear to 'have legs'.

For the record, I have never cheated in a game of chess, be it OTB, online live or corro - and never would. I feel very safe in the knowledge that that would be taken as a bankable 'given' by anyone that remotely knows me.

For the record, yes my post-game "h5" comment referred to post-game checking.

I do agree that my comment wass ambiguous in that context (which was post-game informal chatting within the corro thread), but a simple written ambiguity is not in any way one shred of a basis point to form an accusation. Further AC must know that.

If he's jesting with me, I'm fine with that - but when asked by a mod (or even a genuine 3rd party), that's the time to play it straight. I don't believe AC has/ had genuinely formed the idea that I was cheating (and picked an inferior move :eek:). I think his failing to come clean on his jest has given him a serious problem in that he is now constructing a half-cocked argument in which he claims he did form that opinion, which is:
-- a poorly judged idea
-- insults me
-- legitimately weakens our online association
-- necessarily must mean that as part of my cheating I outed myself in the discussion immediately following the game :eek:

AC, pull yer freakin' 'ed in.* You can't have it both ways by jesting about it with me and claiming a genuine belief with others.

*Copyright The Snail King

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2009, 11:44 PM
It's notable that AC's unproven claim was picked up by firegoat7 (David Beaumont) in the Toolbox and that firegoat went on to draw various unfounded hostile conclusions about Gunner's character just because Gunner hadn't replied. It's quite clear from Gunner's response that he didn't reply because he thought AC was joking, and that firegoat's speculations are hostile gibberish as usual.

Even if someone thought a cheating accusation was serious, not replying wouldn't necessarily say anything against them. After all, they might just think the comment didn't deserve a response.

In my view the most appropriate course would be for AC to sign up on the Toolbox and post over there that he does not really believe Gunner used a computer during the game. But I am not going to force him to do this, since if I did, he would be able to say that he did so under duress and insincerely.

I will, however, delete any of the above discussion that Gunner wishes me to.

As for firegoat, in my view he should voluntarily subject himself to a form of shock personality therapy in which he listens to tapes of Ayn Rand novels daily for six months. While I hate to wish such a gruesome fate on anyone there is no way it could actually make him worse.

Basil
04-02-2009, 12:27 AM
It's notable that AC's unproven claim was picked up by firegoat7 (David Beaumont) in the Toolbox and that firegoat went on to draw various unfounded hostile conclusions about Gunner's character just because Gunner hadn't replied.
:rolleyes:


In my view the most appropriate course would be for AC to sign up on the Toolbox and post over there that he does not really believe Gunner used a computer during the game.
Peter, NOW is the time to come clean and make a no nonsense statement on your position. That will be the one that I take to the bank. Until now I thought your comments to me had been in jest. I thought your comments about me to the mods were you squirming and fiddling. I certainly wouldn't have engaged as I have over the past two years had I thought you thought I was a cheat. Indeed you haven't made the suggestion until a week ago :hmm:


But I am not going to force him to do this, since if I did, he would be able to say that he did so under duress and insincerely.
Agreed. He should do whatever he believes is right and entirely of his own volition, without any threat of sanction. That is my preference in this situation.


I will, however, delete any of the above discussion that Gunner wishes me to.
Thanks but no thanks. Rather leave it all here for the (complete) record.

Basil
04-02-2009, 12:40 AM
the "at around that time" sounds like past tense during game
It also can mean (and was what I meant) at around that time in the game (move number) as is commonly used vernacular.


and I think he commented somewhere that he did not follow the computer's suggestion
I didn't say anything of the sort, unless you have a link to the contrary that I can't find.


... that I thought implied that the could have.
Follow all the red text. This is your basis for an accusation of cheating?


If he has followed the discussion he could have corrected my impression.
Not an impression, dude. It's a f*cking accusation.

I'll await your final statement on the matter.

antichrist
04-02-2009, 02:47 PM
Gunnar, Hi mate. I will start off with what KB sometimes accuses me of - I am not sure what I was thinking - I was confused. I did not know what really transpired, if using computers was accepted practice but thought it possible that you had only because you had mentioned consulting it at some stage, but regardless, I never thought you received any advantage or followed its suggestions.

Now you lead me where to go from here.

Now is it obvious that you did not use one during the game, I unreservedly apologise for raising the issue in any context and apologise for any hurt and embarrassement it may have caused you. I appreciate that you are a person of high integrity, good sportsmanship and character, examplefied by you letting me taking a losing move back in that game.

I will do my best to correct any impression that may have taken up in other forums.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2009, 02:52 PM
^^^
:clap: :clap: :clap:
I'm impressed!

Garrett
04-02-2009, 06:37 PM
me too actually.

well done AC.

on the downside, you've diminished the chance of getting that 3rd moron norm, even if you spend some time at the 'other' forum.

Cheers and CAGLES
Garrett.

Basil
04-02-2009, 07:18 PM
AC, all forgotten. Thanks for your PMs as well.

As for posting elsewhere, that's not necessary (as the readers over there are glued to this place like prime-time :wall:) as your posting here is sufficient.

ER
05-02-2009, 12:21 PM
I will do my best to correct any impression that may have taken up in other forums.

That should include
1000 Hail Marys, ... and a couple of hours self flagellation!:whistle: :P :owned:

antichrist
05-02-2009, 12:42 PM
That should include
1000 Hail Marys, ... and a couple of hours self flagellation!:whistle: :P :owned:

I went to a church wedding recently, and no bull, all the youngsters were on their mobile fones. They could not bless themselves to save their life.

antichrist
05-02-2009, 12:52 PM
I registered and posted on OZ Chess explaining that my comments about Gunnar were in jest but that have not seen fit to publish??

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2009, 02:14 PM
I registered and posted on OZ Chess explaining that my comments about Gunnar were in jest but that have not seen fit to publish??

New posters over there often get put in a moderation queue so that their posts don't appear until they are approved by a moderator.

This was something they started because they were getting a lot of spam. Why they continue it now that they are no longer getting spam I have no idea, except that they must be paranoid about chesschatters signing up and telling the truth about them all.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2009, 12:05 AM
Carrier-Pigeon over there has claimed AC's post had been up in the Toolbox for almost 24 hours as of 5:18 pm 5 Feb.

This is presumably on account of AC's post appearing there with a date stamp of 4 Feb 9:24 pm.

I was online reading both sites last night sporadically until at least 12:02 am and did not see AC's post during this time. AC also clearly does not believe his post appeared immediately.

I have not tested this but I expect that when a post is moderation-queued the time at which the post was submitted is the time that appears on the post when it appears on the board, rather than the time at which the post was cleared. I therefore doubt CP's claim concerning the timing of the appearance of the post.

ElevatorEscapee
07-02-2009, 09:32 AM
Where is that thread "over here" that mentions the correspondence chess games, and people who thought that using computers was ok? :)

Bill doesn't believe me that it exists... mabye it was deleted by the mods???

It's the one with GG using Rybka.

@ Kevin, wasn't someone else complaining about the time & date stamps "over there"... maybe there is an "obvious malfunction" in the operating? :P

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2009, 01:58 PM
Where is that thread "over here" that mentions the correspondence chess games, and people who thought that using computers was ok? :)

There is at least one thread here (Acceptable practice in correspondence games (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4462)) where posters discuss general standards relating to computer use, including on this site, and how some codes of CC allow the use of computers while others do not.

At the time it was not clear what the standards for CC games on this board were and following that thread things became much clearer. Tournaments are divided into those where computer use is allowed and those where the use of analysis engines is banned. Players in casual games should clarify standards with their opponents before starting if in doubt but it is generally assumed computers are not being used to analyse the position.


Bill doesn't believe me that it exists... mabye it was deleted by the mods???

In the shoutbox last night, in discussing the proposed Chesschat Tournament #8, you made a blanket accusation that players cheat in the tournaments on this site. This is although the tournaments on this site are clearly divided into those where players are allowed to use analysis engines (freestyle) and those where they are not. The proposed tournament would be one of the latter.

You stated there were posters who openly admitted to cheating in the tournaments here and you completely failed to substantiate that false claim. There is no evidence that any player here has ever used computers in those CC tournaments where computer use has been disallowed.

Bill asked you specifically to substantiate your claims about cheating, not claims about the general discussion of computer use in CC games.

Not only did you slur the friendly low-key CC tournaments that occur here with your baseless accusation but you did so in front of a new poster who you could have turned off playing in the event with your comments.

Fortunately that poster saw exactly what was going on very quickly.

In my view you were pretty lucky to escape with only a brief shoutbox suspension for all this.

You also refer to a thread with comments about Garvin using Rybka.

The search function (which for me includes deleted posts) gives me 50 mentions of "Rybka" by Garvin, the earliest being 22-05-2006. There are also a few posts containing both "Rybka" and "Garvin" or both "Rybka" and "ggrayggray".

None of these could possibly relate to any non-freestyle tournament Garvin has played in here as he only played in one non-freestyle tournament and that ended in July 2005.

Where Garvin has used Rybka on this site it has been in freestyle tournaments where use of computers is allowed, or in matches where people have specifically played against Rybka.