One general question - why can't the reason be on the closed person's profile?
People having accounts closed
Sort:
Not so sure. Pelger didn't have "account banned for cheating", but "account closed". And if they cheated, was it using a computer?
Jun 14, 2009
0
#5
Kacparov wrote:
One general question - why can't the reason be on the closed person's profile?
if it's been closed by the site for cheating, it says so. If the person closes the account voluntarily for whatever reason, they find they are getting addicted to being online playing chess, their employer caught them playing on company time and insisted they close it, they were asked by chess.com to prove some ccredentials re their ability etc etc then no reason is or should be given.
LucidDream played like a very strong GM, played correspondence chess whilst supposedly not using books, analysis board or opening databases etc since he was a member of Circle odf trustg...that would be enough to get some people asking questions. My understanding is that once you get to the top 20 or so here chess.com ask for proof of identity (not to be disclosed publicly of course)...perhaps some people might prefer to close trheir account, no cheating comments then for that closure.
Yes, but LucidDream was closed for cheating and, as you said, he was a menber of some trust circle, so he shouldn't have been cheating.
Another person gone is 2750+ from Italy, Nonnetruveno or something like this (sorry for misspelling).
Jun 14, 2009
0
#7
'Where did Pelger go' a forum topic by rockyc... along similar lines
With regard to ratings, players can achieve 2700 plus after say twenty or thirty unbeaten games which seems wrong to me. (too quick)
Thank You
John Boy
Kacparov wrote:
Yes, but LucidDream was closed for cheating and, as you said, he was a menber of some trust circle, so he shouldn't have been cheating.
Another person gone is 2750+ from Italy, Nonnetruveno or something like this (sorry for misspelling).
The reason is that because the Cheat Engine Detector has been back up and now they are looking at every game of high rated and seeing if it matches with there engine.
All i can say it, they get 100% proof that the person is cheating before closing an account.
I don't like the idea of this detector, because even engines vary, and a good move according to one engine can turn out a bad move. So such a detector may say "100% agreed", but in fact play wasn't perfect.
Kacparov wrote:
I don't like the idea of this detector, because even engines vary, and a good move according to one engine can turn out a bad move. So such a detector may say "100% agreed", but in fact play wasn't perfect.
how they test this is, if some1 makes all the moves an engine would do,
so like if its a 50 move game and they do all 50 moves same as Rybka for example, its obvious there using an engine, they check several of ur games, no1 can do more then 80% moves of an engine, even liek fischer did like 60% of rybkas move, so its pretty obvious u cant be smarter then fischer..
and engines are like 3000 elo, no1 is that high so they cant do 90%+ of moves from an engine that is over 2900 elo.
Well, I disagree with the percentage. When I play OTB ames at 2100-2200 level, we often have about 80% percentage. It also depends on luck, because there may be many moves differing by 0.01, and sometimes it gets the percentage up, sometimes down.
Jun 14, 2009
0
#12
Kacparov wrote:
Well, I disagree with the percentage. When I play OTB ames at 2100-2200 level, we often have about 80% percentage. It also depends on luck, because there may be many moves differing by 0.01, and sometimes it gets the percentage up, sometimes down.
The world champions were somewhere in the 50-60% range. If you are saying that somebody who is not even an active tournament player can go online and consistently play 95%-99% computer moves for a large number of games, then you are for some reason not willing to accept common sense.
That's a very strange point of view. But then, how can they draw against best engines if they play only 60% correct moves? I think that such a low percentage comes from the fact that there are many equal moves, and only 1 of them is counted as "correct" by the engine.
Kepler wrote:
Not as such, no. I did some analysis of Berliner's games and put the results on another chess site a while ago. There is another member who has done the same for Fischer and some other players. I think he goes by the name SteveCollyer on this site. He posted in the official cheat discussion thread about cheat detection methods.
Where is this discussion? I would like to read it.
Jun 14, 2009
0
#16
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455#icga
Here's the article I was referring to. It would be cool if they redid the analysis using Rybka 3 instead of crafty. Results would be more accurate.
87654321 wrote:
'Where did Pelger go' a forum topic by rockyc... along similar lines
With regard to ratings, players can achieve 2700 plus after say twenty or thirty unbeaten games which seems wrong to me. (too quick)
Thank You
John Boy
Straying off the topic here, but this seems to be because the RD is inflated on this site, so you can get too many points beating weaker players.
I must say, I agree with Lucid's points.
If you're going to delete the account of anyone, notwithstanding the contributions of Lucid to this site;
- Admin of many groups
- Active promoter of chess.com
- Active TEACHER as well, teaching a variety of subjects in a human language (an action which faces far too many programming complexities for any 'computer' to be able to accomplish; there is no computer that can speak any human language fluently enough to answer any given question from a group of humans)
- A paying member of this site
Please, chess.com, if you're not going to conduct an investigation of adequate depth in the interest of ethical means, atleast do so in your own interest; this member was an important figure in the chess.com community (as well as a paying member of the chess.com community) who is depended on by many members of your site (and exterminating this member without a fairly conducted investigation may not be so well-received by many users of your site).
If, after a PROPER investigation, this user is found to have been using computer assistance, I will rest my case. But I think you will find that this is not so possible, due to the many things that this person did that computers are not capable of.
Regards,
BD
A few days ago, Pelger's account was closed. Now LucidDream is banned for cheating. Strangely, he was a diamond member and he was active in groups, so he wasn't suspected of anything. What's happening with high-rated people - can anyone from the staff tell?
It's possible that more 2700+ people will be closed, someone should look at that.