Announcements
01 Sep 05
- Joined
- 02 Sep 04
- Moves
- 188665
02 Sep 05
Good that the cheats have been unmasked and booted.
I myself resigned against IM a couple of days ago... but I am glad I did at least i will not get points awarded in the 3/7 league which might proof be crucial in the legandary knights fight for the second promotion spot against twin peaks clan...
It just would not feel right to get the points awarded just because I hang in long enough and Exy did not...
This way the cheaters at least did not decide who will be the runner-up in div. 2...
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Fast Pawnhis rating graph suggests that he cheated for a period of time, which is against the rules. They must have done analysis on those games and found a significant matchup rate.
My friend dominic 0987 wasent a cheater?? You have made a big mistake russ! i know him and i know he wouldnt cheat. He loses against 1200s and lower check his rating graph?
User 72095
Looks like he was suddenly granted magical skills overnight, then forgot them again, then got them for even longer. It's pretty obvious by looking where he was cheating.
02 Sep 05
If we (as a site) are in favour of Zero tolerance of cheats, why do we allow people to play using Joe Gallagher's published analysis. Surely this is cheating pure and simple. Especially as most GMs use chess engines in their analysis workflow. Shouldn't chess be a meeting of 2 minds?
3rd party help is cheating however you want to dress it up!
Edit@
Ok I accept my games may well be a meeting of 1 and a half minds
🙂
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 219566
02 Sep 05
I can only assume that it is to do with some of his current games as looking at his finished games he does not 'fit' the cheater profile.
There are others that are more obvious cheaters that this guy.
Maybe an explaination as to what prompted his exclusion would not go a miss?
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by SirUlrichYour point is absurd. Are you saying we shouldn't use established published opening theory? I make it clear in my profile that I use opening theory. I should imagine virtually all strong players on this site do, just as they do in standard correspondence chess.
If we (as a site) are in favour of Zero tolerance of cheats, why do we allow people to play using Joe Gallagher's published analysis. Surely this is cheating pure and simple. Especially as most GMs use chess engines in their analysis workflow. Shouldn't chess be a meeting of 2 minds?
3rd party help is cheating however you want to dress it up!
Edit@
Ok I accept my games may well be a meeting of 1 and a half minds
🙂
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by The Fast PawnReposted from the General Forum regarding Dom:
I would like to know which games he cheated in because I have looked at his games and there is none that looks odd.
Look at his list of games, pages 4 and 5. He's rated around a 1000 on July 28 and then wins HIS NEXT 30 GAMES IN A ROW!!! On August 7, he loses a games to Mattb5 a game that started on June 20, where our hero lost his Queen on move 9 (probably a month before he started engining up) and then he wins HIS NEXT 17 GAMES IN A ROW!!! That's a 1000 winning 47 out of 48 games out of the blue! Let's not be ridiculous, ladies.
'Nuff said.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by Northern LadI am saying that all modern theory is produced with a considerable input from engines, so as you admit to following it, you are gaining a big advantage on the back of Fritz, just as a user using Fritz directly would.
Your point is absurd. Are you saying we shouldn't use established published opening theory? I make it clear in my profile that I use opening theory. I should imagine virtually all strong players on this site do, just as they do in standard correspondence chess.
Of course your cheating is less direct but if anything more likely to bring success.
Obviously I would beat you OTB, but on here, with your software fuelled databases and books the advantage swings your way. I know that your methods are covered by the TOS, but from the pure spirit of a one to one challenge, cheating is cheating.
Maybe we should find a parkbench and play on my pocket set to sort the men from the lads
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by SirUlrichMaybe you should stop playing correspondence chess if the rules are soooooooooooooo offensive to your idea of "manliness".
I am saying that all modern theory is produced with a considerable input from engines, so as you admit to following it, you are gaining a big advantage on the back of Fritz, just as a user using Fritz directly would.
Of course your cheating is less direct but if anything more likely to bring success.
Obviously I would beat you OTB, but on here, with ...[text shortened]... ating.
Maybe we should find a parkbench and play on my pocket set to sort the men from the lads
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by ExyFor what it's worth, this is what he wrote to me a few months ago in reply to some questions that I put to him :
Ironman31 (Edmond Dantes) has been booted for cheating BUT was he Afro xxxxxx- will we ever know, have any of the Admins heard his side? 😕
"I could say many things. Some points:
1) I play chess since 1971, I earned my master title in 1991
2) The playing level of the site is not too high. On GK, for example is really higher.
3) Numbers are quite misleading. The greater part of my games was against very weak players who can't see a simple tactical threat, losing pieces or getting mated.
3) I got a losing position at least ten times and I managed to draw or also to win. One of my opponent resigned in a winning position. I put pieces under attack (once at move 4 - game vs henriquevs) and I missed forced mates, but it seems that nobody is looking at the games but at the numbers only
4) There are players on this site who knows me personally, some of then since long time (El Bruto is a personal friend of mine). Some of then saw me play in an internet café (without engines)
4) I'm not interested at all in ratings or points. I simply like to play chess.
5) A GM would have won all the games, without exception.
6) I can think on an important move for a very long time, as you know.
7) One thing is to analyze a difficult position with all the time, moving pieces on a chessboard one thing is to play over the board when your clock is ticking and you are disturbed by noise, opponent, tension etc.
Sorry for my bad english"
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by Northern LadYes I'm up a pawn too POSSIBLY towards a win against him. Now I'll never know!!
Strong players with experience of OTB chess and playing against computers can nearly always tell the difference. It's almost a stylistic thing. Engines will every now and then come up with moves a human being would hardly consider. Some times they are very strong. An example of this is my game against Ironman (810608 - unfinshed though I'm objectively ...[text shortened]... ittle, so objectively winning, but I don't suppose I'll get the chance to finish that one now.