16264 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Slapping Mr. Happy.
why did you post this comment. this thread is ment to be about cheating on chess.com and not what you have just posted
I wouldn't know that since I posted in here a hundred time and have offered solutions and have watched these people go round and round like a dog chasing their tail.
Go back and read from the beginning and you will see that this has all been visited and revisted and now it is simple flagellation, pal.
You are slapping it as hard as anyone. Circling and eating your own tail.
I prefer a climax in my stories.
@littlehotpot Don't pay too much attention to Richie, he often posts stuff like that.
@Richie I have followed from the beginning, as you well know, and it seems as though we are actually getting somewhere now.
which other threads has he posted stuff like that in
We can take this offline perhaps
Ozzie, why are you such a spin doctor for the site?
Are you under their employ?
All of them, pal.
I speak my mind and deal with pragmatic realities. This thread has been one big Jamaican Jerk-Off (Written by Elton John and found on Goodbye Yellow Brick Road) designed to mollify people such as costelus and myself.
Ozzie has been complicit in the mollification process as has theGrobe (to a lesssor degree).
And it is hard to really understand why unless they are working de facto for the site because that is the water they consistantly have been carrying. They certainly do not seem to be on the same side as the people trying to eradicate cheating because they never adapt or accept the platform or use the rhetoric.
The old Yiddish maxim comes to mind: Don't make me think.
They only employ IMs and GMs, I've got a ways to go.
Kohai is not a GM, nor Patzer nor BaseballFan nor many of the others mods/employees/volunteers.
I suspect that they use volunteer plants in the forums and now I strongly suspect you of being one.
Straight up, and I say it to you directly, rather than just behind your back.
Also, I know people that do get checks from this site for their work and I also know a little more about what goes on than I ever post in public.
I just do not understand why you keep up your position unless you are carrying somebody else's water on the issue.
Or covering up your own cheating, which I am almost certain is not the case, which leaves us with the former.
Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
I'm not sure I understand what you understand to be my position.
So, I can see why you implore people to ignore what I have to say.
That you are carrying the water for the site.
That you have aligned yourself with the site and its operators, either voluntarilly or for monetary compensation, and that you are complicit in the spin doctoring regarding the cheating issue.
That it is your job to dissuade users such as costelus and to get them to refrain from making their points.
Maybe you chose this independently without being 'drafted' to do so, but it is become obvious that this is what you are doing. Whether it is your intention or not, that is the net result. IT IS THE NET RESULT.
So, if this is not your intention, to be the water carrier for others, then you need to change tactics. Now that you have been shown the net result, not changing your tactics and stance pretty much confirms things, to me, and to others that are paying close attention. I guarantee that. I am good at finding those people in the jury that are on the fence and speaking to them and there are a lot of them here, eyes in the dark...reading....thinking...deciding....
Why else would you meet each and every person in here with such skepticisms when they post valuable and such well reaserched info?
You alone have made contact with each and every person that has levied cheating accusations in this thread and every time you try to 'talk them down' as if it were your job to do so.
At no point have you fully supported the people that have been proven to be wholly correct like costelus has now on several occasions.
This was puzzling me for some time but now we have an answer that fits, and fits well.
You can't stop people from thinking what they will think, Ozzie, no matter how hard you try to do it. It will only back fire on you like rigged elections in Iran is backfiring now on the Mullahs.
It is against policy to make a public accusation.
I have a vision for what the cheating detection system should look like. It's important to recognize that it is an iterative process, i.e. the first cut will not be the final version. This is both because of a "bang for the buck" type of mentality, and because the problem itself changes with time. Fraud trends come and go.
I'm sympathetic to the scope of the problem and how important it is compared with other priorities of the site. I'm a believer that the armchair solutions nine times out of ten don't contain anything that the site operators haven't already thought about. It's their day job. You're just a forum poster. There's a big difference. I compare it to people who try to outsmart the stock market with fleeting thoughts, when several entire industries of very hard working and smart people are working on the exact same problem.
You're just a forum poster.
You do not know that unless you know it and the only way you could know it is if it were both true and you would have access to the site to verify.
You are confirming my suspicions. Your avoidance of direct answers is telling.
It is clear thar you are saying that I am just a user but you are something more.
Don't worry, most people here are not sharp enough to know your cover is now blown.
So, either we are equally just users or you are something more. Which is it?
If you are just a user too, you have no excuse for your position, which is clearly non-commital and has been to dissuade users from the subject. AND if you are just a user as well, then your opionion should not merit anymore than mine.
Your insistance that somehow your user POV is more valid than mine is absolute confimation of either your megalomanic persona or working in some form for the site.
"Why are you being so disagreeable"
"Me? I am not!"
"See, that's exactly what I'm talking about!"
I don't report people. I deal with them myself, and directly.
You refusal to be honest is alarming. You insistance in playing games is showing and doing a lot to convicne others what I say is the case. Of course, not the other shills that will come to protect the thin blue line, here. They will do their job as well, we'll see.
I can accurately predict who will post and what they will state. theGrobe should be junping in here anytime now.
You are like a suspect that proclaims innocence while all along refusing to be cooperative with an investigation. All the time working to really mis-lead the effort and extinguish its flame.
I never said he got paid for sure. I said he may have voluntarilly aligned himself in some sort of psychological bid to get closer to the action.
Like police groupies do.
The site has volunteers, you know. Also undercover mods.
Many possibilities, but it is clear when he dropped the 'regular user' rhetoric what he thinks his position here is.
If it is official, then turn on the lights and make it clear you are now an undercover cop.
If not, back off tailing people and greeting them and grilling them in this thread. Because you are no more than any other user. Or, are you? Eh? If you are just another user, move along and let the people do their job, but you won't do that will you?
Ozzie is doing it for them for some reason. Either in his own volition or because he was recruited to do so.
At least the latter saves some dignity. The former is just pure pathos.
Richie, you should reread my post.
I did...several times.
I do not see where you directly address any of my direct questions to you. Just more blather and spin and non-comittal rhetoric while doing an unatheletic but complete side-step around the main point.
So are you just a user too, like me? Yes, or not?
Yes, mean yes, Not, means you are working for the site. Which is it?
Were you recruited or did you volunteer?
Cant we all just get along ?
What's the quickest way to get a title?
by Martin_Stahl a few minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by Zobbu a few minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by tanmay_chakrabarti 2 minutes ago
Should I stop to play?
by bastiaan 3 minutes ago
King's Indian vs Queen's Indian- which is best and why?
by HectorPerez 4 minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by pdela 5 minutes ago
Battles Against Stockfish DD
by Coder_On_Ster01ds 12 minutes ago
should i consider myself lucky??
by jonnin 13 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by cardinal46 14 minutes ago
by dineshlancerevo 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!