29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreCan you explain the rationale behind your concept that
does "the flood of other users who have left the site because of fear of getting caught" include many human players?
this is a difficult question to answer ... but should we lose 5 good humanplayers just to get rid of 5 computers?
this is a delicate matter, it needs to be done well.
it needs to be done, but it needs to be done carefully.
many ...[text shortened]... y want to take.
russ insists that we step very carefully on this matter for very good reason.
honest people would leave the site because of the cheat
police?
Why would anyone be more likely to leave because
cheaters are being kicked off of the site?
Nemesio
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioprofessional police make mistakes all the time.
Can you explain the rationale behind your concept that
honest people would leave the site because of the cheat
police?
Why would anyone be more likely to leave because
cheaters are being kicked off of the site?
Nemesio
amateur cheat-police are also bound to make mistakes.
a strong player with a choice of sites to play on may not have a lot of faith in our police.
for many strong players chess is their life.
to be branded a cheat would be disastrous.
they may have accounts in a variety of other chess sites as well, with the same username or with all their friends knowing they are the same person.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreMy understanding is that most other chess sites have systems in place to detect engine users and other forms of cheating. Why should RHP be different? And why would people leave the site BEFORE the cheat police are even up and running and BEFORE they've been accused of anything?
professional police make mistakes all the time.
amateur cheat-police are also bound to make [b]mistakes.
a strong player with a choice of sites to play on may not have a lot of faith in our police.
for many strong players chess is their life.
to be branded a cheat would be disastrous.
they may have accounts in a variety of other chess sites as well, with the same username or with all their friends knowing they are the same person.[/b]
29 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderwell i know of players with high ratings on other sites, considering just that.
My understanding is that most other chess sites have systems in place to detect engine users and other forms of cheating. Why should RHP be different? And why would people leave the site BEFORE the cheat police are even up and running and BEFORE they've been accused of anything?
i will not say who they are.
they seem to be respected on other sites and here (except by idiots who simply claim their rating proves engine use).
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreWell, we have to do a payoff matrix here.
professional police make mistakes all the time.
amateur cheat-police are also bound to make [b]mistakes.
a strong player with a choice of sites to play on may not have a lot of faith in our police.
for many strong players chess is their life.
to be branded a cheat would be disastrous.
they may have accounts in a variety of other chess sites as well, with the same username or with all their friends knowing they are the same person.[/b]
How many high-level players are there that don't cheat?
Not many (certainly not more than low-level players
that don't cheat). So, we are dealing with a small
group of people that can be harmed by the police.
However, it's easy to become a high-level cheater, and
we have already seen a number of these people leave
even before the cheat police have started. A few people
on this site can give you evidence to this effect.
Furthermore, all players are affected by cheaters, high-
level non-cheating players and low-level ones, too. So,
the benefit-risk analysis is certainly in the favor of the
majority of the community (as the poll shows).
Yes there is a small chance that a high-level non-cheater
will be branded as a cheater, but there are always some
risks to imposing any system.
The question is: Will more people be attracted or repulsed
by a site with cheat controls in place? The answer, I think,
is most certainly 'More will be attracted.'
Thus, implementing this is a boon, not a liability.
Nemesio
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreI don't understand your statement.
well i know of players with high ratings on other sites, considering just that.
i will not say who they are.
they seem to be respected on other sites and here (except by idiots who simply claim their rating proves engine use).
well i know of players with high ratings on other sites, considering just that.
What is the "just that" that "players with high ratings on other sites" are "considering"?
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesiohave you played at chess clubs with strong players?
.....
How many high-level players are there that don't cheat?
Not many ....
there are thousands of players in this world who will totally destroy players like you and me in simuls while blindfolded.
you can expect to find them playing chess on the net.
you can hope they will play here.
there are also some people who would like to test their engine.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreI think Nemesio misspoke; I believe he meant to say that he didn't think many high-level players cheated.
have you played at chess clubs with strong players?
there are thousands of players in this world who will totally destroy players like you and me in simuls while blindfolded.
you can expect to find them playing chess on the net.
you can hope they will play here.
there are also some people who would like to test their engine.
If people leave the site because the site is putting in safeguards against engine use that 90% of the paying subscribers support, that's up to them. I'd say they're being unreasonable. Russ has already stated he'll require "overwhelming evidence" of cheating before anybody is punished, so I fail to see what any honest player has to be afraid of.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderi think you, russ and i agree on the essentials .... i just wanted to mouth off a bit to make this point as clear as possible:
I think Nemesio misspoke; I believe he meant to say that he didn't think many high-level players cheated.
If people leave the site because the site is putting in safeguards against engine use that 90% of the paying subscribers support, that's up to them. I'd say they're being unreasonable. Russ has already stated he'll require "ove ...[text shortened]... heating before anybody is punished, so I fail to see what any honest player has to be afraid of.
"Russ has already stated he'll require "overwhelming evidence" of cheating before anybody is punished, "
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmore#1 is right; I was unclear.
have you played at chess clubs with strong players?
there are thousands of players in this world who will totally destroy players like you and me in simuls while blindfolded.
you can expect to find them playing chess on the net.
you can hope they will play here.
there are also some people who would like to test their engine.
What I meant was 'how many naturally high-level
players supplement their play with engines?' Not many.
They will be safe, because their moves, when analysed
will not match up with a 90%+ ratio with an engine.
Perhaps greyeyesofsorrow can do an analysis of a Kasparov
game. I suspect that this won't line up greater than 90%,
even though the play is brilliant.
I hope this clears up what I was trying to say.
Nemesio
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderNo honest player of any rating -- low, middle, high,
Russ has already stated he'll require "overwhelming evidence" of cheating before anybody is punished, so I fail to see what any honest player has to be afraid of.
or GM -- has anything to worry about.
The only ones who have to worry are the cheaters.
Nemesio
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioYour statement is unacceptable.
Yes there is a small chance that a high-level non-cheater
will be branded as a cheater, but there are always some
risks to imposing any system.
Nemesio
If just ONE innocent player is branded a cheater, then the system will have failed.
FWIW I cannot wait for something to be done, but I also wish to see only genuine cheaters kicked.
29 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI made a number of proposals on page 17 of this thread regarding how I see the system functioning (which Nemesio stated he endorsed "100%"😉. I'll repost them here:
How can you be certain of this,when you don't even know how the 'police' will work?
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n number of complaints which are adjudged to be genuine and not for the purposes of harassment and/or "sorelosership".
2. The player who was being investigated would be informed of the investigation by PM and the reason for it. He would be given an opportunity to admit or deny cheating. If he denies cheating, he would be given a chance to produce evidence supporting his denial and would be entitled to study any evidence being used against him in the investigation.
3. The cheat police would make a finding in the case as to whether the player had cheated. Such a finding would be based on a "clear and convincing" evidence standard and would require the positive vote of a large majority of the cheat police, perhaps 3/4 agreeing that the person had cheated. The player would be informed of this finding and of the results of the vote (a number not how individuals voted)
4. The finding would be forwarded to the site admins. The player would have a chance to PM Russ disagreeing with the finding or producing mitigating circumstances. Russ would then make a final decision and publicly announce it.
I would tend to think that either a ban from the site or a ban from clan and tournaments games would be acceptable. I would support an amnesty only if the player who had cheated confessed to the site admins and was placed on some sort of probation to be monitored by the cheat police, although his name need not be made public.
To Derek9037: To say that a system MUST be 100% infallible is to say that it cannot be used at all since human beings are imperfect and the possibility of error is always present. The proposals given make such error as unlikely as humanly possible, provide the accused with a full range of due process rights and have multiple safeguards against an incorrect finding. I think that's all that can be reasonably asked for if we are to attempt to limit engine use as much as possible as other sites do and has 90% of the subscribers here want to do.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, you have my full backing and the sooner the better. It's just I cannot go along with that statement (to accept that there will be innocent casualties). I hope it doesn't happen and I accept it looks as if all steps will be taken to see it doesn't.
To Derek9037: To say that a system MUST be 100% infallible is to say that it cannot be used at all since human beings are imperfect and the possibility of error is always present. The proposals given make such error as unlikely as humanly possible, provide the accused with a full range of due process rights and have multiple safeguards against an incorr ...[text shortened]... engine use as much as possible as other sites do and has 90% of the subscribers here want to do.
Any word from Russ on when we expect to begin?