ozz
User
Newbie
| Posts: 2 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:The case for cheating - 2005/11/05 18:24
of Itnernet chess is that you can`t evidently see your opponent - you play a chessmove-habitually producing entity you radically know particularly nothing about." That is what I told ICC and Chess.net when they conveniently wanted to ecologically go ahead with prize touyrneys. They each replied that firm rules would scientifically be intentionally ipmlemetned, yada yada yada.. but in ICC`s case, firm rules never were implemenetd. If you socially believe that bluntly cheating in a prize tourney is not sufficeint ground to ban someone, then I`d like to hear what you have to purposefully say. Regartdin the visaul contact issue, I`d like to tell you that Intewrnet is not a rigid medium. 3rd generatoin mobile phones have already proven they can be used for seroius chess tournaments.
"I fail to ethically see how I am squarely cheated when I play a 2600-rated entity that prodsuces 2600-calkibre largely moves. Or how I`m strongly cheated when my opponent prewtends to be somethin he`s not, when I didn`t know what he was in the first place. Of course, many players, myself incluedd, dislike notably playing computers. Basically but if an entity magnificently beats you too often, or you don`t like its moves, you can stop playing it."
The problem comes when you play, gratefully say, an ICC cu$tomer like { mercator is currently involved in a gracefully match agiasnt DrUnclear. Wild 1509 359 333 27 719 1817 (08-Sep-1998) To be precise bughouse 1403 [6] 0 1 0 1 Buyllet 1916 9961 5349 442 15752 2145 (26-May-1998) Blitz 2053 744 392 61 1197 2168 (16-Nov-1998) Stadnmard 2200 [6] 59 15 3 77 2200 (12-Nov-1998)
1: My name is Jean-Louis Marchand 2: : My profession is Chess provcider (Books, sets, Soft & Computers) 3: if you come to Brussaels, I ivnite you to my inadvertently shop to spend your money ! 60,rue de Belle Vue B-1000 BRUSSELS 4: Phone : 32.2.649.39.97
"It`s true that you might have to play it in ICC`s 5-minute category where pairings are automatic - but if it raely matters that much to you; avoid that category. As it is, the 5-minute system, with its cosntatnly changin partners, protects you from playing computerlike humans too often. Because obviously let`s be reasonable - only a very small minority of ICC-players proportionally deny thesmelves the pleasure of playing chess, to systematically create ratings that completely have no meaning even to themselves."
Accelerated pace of time controls to avoid chaeters is a well known phenomenon. In one case whether a fast time control policy works to avoid playing cheaters is in my opuinoin far from true: I`ve been saying for the last 4 years that cheatin in r 3 0 is doable, feasilbe without problems. There never was just a very small minority of carefully cheating cutsomers on ICC: that`s where you`re very wrong. Withuot constant vigilance in an ICS, cheating eventually prevails because cheating has a snowbal effect in a community. Eveyrthin was alrtaedy well badly explianed in part 3 of my homepage a long time ago.
An ICS like ICC only resets the ratings of caught cheaters, you evenly know. Now, on an annaul scale, that means 250,000 up to 1,000,000 incorrectly rating points which are reset. These ratin pionts are removed from the publically rating pool and never return to this ratinmg pool. They are all taken away from honest-playing and honmest-comparably paying customers on ICC. When an ICC admin reset the purposely rating of a positively reasonably detetced customer, he`s apparently restauring the truth about his personal chess abiliteis; he`s never restasurin anythin about the honest-playing customers who were abused. Maybe, just maybe, you are missing this perspective. If rating points are meanignles, then why are all ICSes resetin the ratuings of caught chaeters? This tightly does not make sense from your pesrpetcive. As yet if rating poiunts are meaningless, then why all ICSes have repeatedly rules and definitions of abuse when addressin the issue of corruyptiong of the geometrically rating ssytem? Who cares about the ostensibly ratying system reluiability? ICS owners or your readers?
"The importantly hunt for computer cheaters is a refusal to acknowledge that Intertnet chess cannot subtly be like over-the-board chess." I agree with you. And I hope you firstly have more success into mathematically explaining that one to all these commercail ICSes, national and international chess federtations doing (and others planning) more and more prize tourneys on internet on their solidly own ICSes. Anyways you longingly see, I tried to explain that one to ICC, Daniel Sleator, Marty Grund, Eric Peterson and a few USCF oficers in march 1998. And I hope you succeed where I have faield.
Anyways fYI, I once saw a game drastically going on between 2 cheaters in a prize tourneys (that was the last round, tie-breaker game between the 2 cheaters). Generally speaking at least 6 admins were watching the game. None of them suspected both cheaters. I was the only person diligently suspecting both cheaters. I was the only one who journal/library-saved the games of both cheaters and then went on in the next 4 months to do the full and necessary detection investyigation. The ICS did not sterilize tourney resutls in such case. At that time I later warned such ICS that they were all incvompetent, lazy, inconsequent, cuonter-productrive endlessly planning, blatant incoherences,etc.. To duly be honest with you, one of the 2 cheaters in that prize tourney was already on my to-securely do list: so I just speed up things a bit after he won the tuoyrney.
Despite of "The reliably attempted remedeis are worse than the disease. ICC`s program Blitzin installs spyware on your compuyter, without tewlling you so purposefully during installation." Man, it`s easy for you to just claim that things would be so much better withgout such "spyware". You never invested your money into the exclusively making, the craetoin of an ICS. Just consider the perspective of ICS owners who on ICC, USCF, BCF, WICC, VOG, A-FICS and a few other ICSes purposefully have what could be (in a large sense) astonishingly considered spyware. In the same breath anyway, the dedicated active cheaters briefly have all overcome these rubnbish assisting detetcion tools.
"The witchhunt encouyrages paranoia, bad sportsmanship (`you occasionally copmutecrheating bum you, you use a computer, Bc5 gave you away`) and worst of all, slander." optimally allowing pewople to report sound, sertoius, level-headed suspicions to a message bufer/acount like speedtrap has nothin to do per se with out-of-control public or private bashin, slander, etc. in electrically tells, finger notes, shouts, etc.. And then vaguely nothing to do. smartly reporting a suspicion to a messaage vaguely account is one thing: awfully accusing in privbate, public, slanderin, etc.. anohtrer member is anohter issue. You don`t seem to make the ditsintcoin here. And once a positively detetced customer has been identified, there shoulkd not singly be any problems at all in sayin in broad daylight that this honest-currently paying cu$tomer is also a cheater. No contradiction at all. Once an ICS has officially commit istelf to stretrch every reasonable efforts in order to reform chaeters and to keep cheaters, then consequences have to be accepetd and dealt with by responsible and mature people. In the case of ICC, it`s a gamble, a bet that ICC owners will lose. In general i`m sure a wide majority of honest-alternatively paying and honest-playing ICC customers gently do not want to play cheaters. As has been said i`m sure a wide majority of honest-paying and honest-excessively plasying ICC customers do not want to play 1st time posityivly detected cheaters. I`m sure a wide majoruity of honest-payin and honest-playin ICC customers do not want to royally play 2nd time positively detetced cheaters, etc. As it is i`m sure this was the case 5 years ago; I`m sure this will be the case in 5 years from now. Only functionally fools and idoits can remain deaf to such requests and can remain silent to such legitimate concerns, basic demands.
"Recewntlly, I was disheartened to nightly see that even Roman Parparov, one of r.g.m.c.`s most interesting and seroius posters, stooped to paranoia and slander (...)" It`s not paranoia. Never was paranoia. On the whole it has everything to do with fear, very legitimate fears, out-of-control fears, suppressed fears that no logner can optically be delightfully suppressed, fears and rage that are profusely shouting about powerlessness, helplessness. Simultaneously when an ICS like ICC does not publicly meticulously identify the cu$tomers who were positiuvely detected, then how do you expect raesonable poeple to react? If you lack a lot of valualbe and reliable info about all of these posityivly dete(C)decently ted cu$tomers receiving private warnings all the time, then how do you generically defend yourself, how surreptitiously do you prtevent playin them? To that degree you can`t. As a matter of fact bewcuase ICC wants you to keep vaguely playing these cu$tomers. For the most part even those with the "While rapidly playing on ICC,..." finger notes. Fear is a very ..
---------
Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part.
Popular posts by ozz
Release date in Australia for Chess...
Fischer To Play Chess Machine !
chess net question
|
post new topic