you
________ Are Ruining Online Chess
Sort:
Jul 1, 2022
0
#83
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody.
I edited my post.
Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.
As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.
You are assuming that those 2000+ players are closed because of some reports. But I would say that they are checked automaticaly without your reports in frequency which copying the statistical probability that you would find a cheater there.
For example myabe you report some person with 2000 rating. The program will check your tip and because of that then it will not check automaticaly some other person with lets say 2200 rating which would have statisticaly higher chance to be a cheater.
If chess.com has statistics that says my report is not as likely to be a cheater vs someone else, then chess.com is free to ignore my report.
But chess.com doesn't do that, because such statistics don't exist, and you're just imagining things.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#84
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody.
I edited my post.
Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.
As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.
You are assuming that those 2000+ players are closed because of some reports. But I would say that they are checked automaticaly without your reports in frequency which copying the statistical probability that you would find a cheater there.
For example myabe you report some person with 2000 rating. The program will check your tip and because of that then it will not check automaticaly some other person with lets say 2200 rating which would have statisticaly higher chance to be a cheater.
If chess.com has statistics that says my report is not as likely to be a cheater vs someone else, then chess.com is free to ignore my report.
But chess.com doesn't do that, because such statistics don't exist, and you're just imagining things.
The obvious reason for why personaly yours reports would be useless in that case is that in yours scenario you don't bother to checking people's game or anything. You only pick some random person or person from some rating group and report them for no reason.
Thats stupid and obviously its not how reporting people should be done. Go and ask some cc moderator, if its good idea to reporting every lost game with people above 2000. I am sure that they will tell you that its a stupid idea.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#85
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody.
I edited my post.
Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.
As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.
You are assuming that those 2000+ players are closed because of some reports. But I would say that they are checked automaticaly without your reports in frequency which copying the statistical probability that you would find a cheater there.
For example myabe you report some person with 2000 rating. The program will check your tip and because of that then it will not check automaticaly some other person with lets say 2200 rating which would have statisticaly higher chance to be a cheater.
If chess.com has statistics that says my report is not as likely to be a cheater vs someone else, then chess.com is free to ignore my report.
But chess.com doesn't do that, because such statistics don't exist, and you're just imagining things.
The obvious reason for why personaly yours reports would be useless in that case is that in yours scenario you don't bother to checking people's game or anything. You only pick some random person or person from some rating group and report them for no reason.
Thats stupid and obviously its not how reporting people should be done. Go and ask some cc moderator, if its good idea to reporting every lost game with people above 2000. I am sure that they will tell you that its a stupid idea.
Moderators don't know anything about this. They're volunteers who enforce rules like don't post curse words in the forums.
Similarly, most of staff don't know anything except for the specific job they do.
In any case it's a simple argument. If 1 out of 400 games they check result in a ban, then they will catch more cheaters if out of 400 of my reports at least 2 people are banned (although... they might check more than the game you report, I don't know).
And you're wrong to say I report them "for no reason." I would report because I'm not able to know if my opponent was a cheater. It's a way to protect myself against cheating.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#86
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody.
I edited my post.
Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.
As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.
You are assuming that those 2000+ players are closed because of some reports. But I would say that they are checked automaticaly without your reports in frequency which copying the statistical probability that you would find a cheater there.
For example myabe you report some person with 2000 rating. The program will check your tip and because of that then it will not check automaticaly some other person with lets say 2200 rating which would have statisticaly higher chance to be a cheater.
If chess.com has statistics that says my report is not as likely to be a cheater vs someone else, then chess.com is free to ignore my report.
But chess.com doesn't do that, because such statistics don't exist, and you're just imagining things.
The obvious reason for why personaly yours reports would be useless in that case is that in yours scenario you don't bother to checking people's game or anything. You only pick some random person or person from some rating group and report them for no reason.
Thats stupid and obviously its not how reporting people should be done. Go and ask some cc moderator, if its good idea to reporting every lost game with people above 2000. I am sure that they will tell you that its a stupid idea.
Moderators don't know anything about this. They're volunteers who enforce rules like don't post curse words in the forums.
Similarly, most of staff don't know anything except for the specific job they do.
In any case it's a simple argument. If 1 out of 400 games they check result in a ban, then they will catch more cheaters if out of 400 of my reports at least 2 people are banned (although... they might check more than the game you report, I don't know).
And you're wrong to say I report them "for no reason." I would report because I'm not able to know if my opponent was a cheater. It's a way to protect myself against cheating.
The 400 is only applied for reported games not for those which are picked by an algorithm. By protecting yourself you denying the protect for somebody other, it means it's a selfish reason.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#87
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
The 400 is only applied for reported games not for those which are picked by an algorithm.
No, it's all together, both reported and automatic.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#88
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
The 400 is only applied for reported games not for those which are picked by an algorithm.
No, it's all together, both reported and automatic.
Ok so how do you know for example that you will not report somebody who were already checked automatically?
Again you are saying that you are able to do what cc do better than their programs and statistics, thats not possible for a one person.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#89
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
The 400 is only applied for reported games not for those which are picked by an algorithm.
No, it's all together, both reported and automatic.
Ok so how do you know for example that you will not report somebody who were already checked automatically?
Again you are saying that you are able to do what cc do better than their programs and statistics, thats not possible for a one person.
If the report button was as bad as you say, that any one person would be so wrong, then they wouldn't allow a report button.
I would not be reporting people randomly, and after some time we can easily check if I'm helping chess.com since chess.com says they ban around 1 account for every 400 games checked.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#90
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
The 400 is only applied for reported games not for those which are picked by an algorithm.
No, it's all together, both reported and automatic.
Ok so how do you know for example that you will not report somebody who were already checked automatically?
Again you are saying that you are able to do what cc do better than their programs and statistics, thats not possible for a one person.
If the report button was so bad that any one person would be wrong, then they wouldn't allow a report button.
I would not be reporting people randomly, and we can easily check if I'm helping chess.com sine chess.com says they ban around 1 account for every 400 games checked.
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
That would be nice but I don't think you can do it enough public and transparent to I would believe the results of your research.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#91
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#92
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#93
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Unsurprisingly, intuition alone is not enough to be knowledgeable about the world. You feel it is wrong, but I have given an argument for why your intuition is wrong.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#94
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Unsurprisingly, intuition alone is not enough to be knowledgeable about the world. You feel it is wrong, but I have given an argument for why your intuition is wrong.
And I have tried to explain you why its stupid. Sadly you are not able to understand that cc is better in seeking cheaters than a cookie clicker player who is teached to press "report" every time he would see a rating starting with a number two.
it's amazing how you're arguing over something so passionately that quite loosely relates to the forum topic.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#96
Uživatel cloud_town napsal:
it's amazing how you're arguing over something so passionately that quite loosely relates to the forum topic.
yeah.. welcome in chess.com forums..
If you will see a really long thread somewhere here, it would be most likely a case like this..
Jul 1, 2022
0
#97
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Unsurprisingly, intuition alone is not enough to be knowledgeable about the world. You feel it is wrong, but I have given an argument for why your intuition is wrong.
And I have tried to explain you why its stupid. Sadly you are not able to understand that cc is better in seeking cheaters than a cookie clicker player who is teached to press "report" every time he would see a rating starting with a number two.
Your intuition says chess.com catches cheaters very efficiently.
Chess.com says on average there are about 400 analyzed users per 1 banned cheating account.
Don't argue with me, argue with them.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#98
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Unsurprisingly, intuition alone is not enough to be knowledgeable about the world. You feel it is wrong, but I have given an argument for why your intuition is wrong.
And I have tried to explain you why its stupid. Sadly you are not able to understand that cc is better in seeking cheaters than a cookie clicker player who is teached to press "report" every time he would see a rating starting with a number two.
Your intuition says chess.com catches cheaters very efficiently.
Chess.com says on average there are about 400 analyzed games per banned cheating account.
Don't argue with me, argue with them.
well heck I won't add anyone to my friends list that doesn't have at least 200 games in a single time control played. I guess now I have to start upping that to 400. Thanks.
It doesn't mean it requires 400 games to ban someone, it means they check a lot of innocent people's games.
AFAIK sometimes 1 game is enough to ban someone (when it's really bad).
Jul 1, 2022
0
#99
Also, please note somewhere along the way I mixed up game and account...
About 1 out of every 400 ACCOUNTS they check is banned... not games.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#100
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel nMsALpg napsal:
Obviously because report button is a good thing if you are not use it as an idiot like you propose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Sorry but you don't need to be somehow clever to understand that reporting everybody with who you have lost or people above some rating is stupid.
Unsurprisingly, intuition alone is not enough to be knowledgeable about the world. You feel it is wrong, but I have given an argument for why your intuition is wrong.
And I have tried to explain you why its stupid. Sadly you are not able to understand that cc is better in seeking cheaters than a cookie clicker player who is teached to press "report" every time he would see a rating starting with a number two.
Your intuition says chess.com catches cheaters very efficiently.
Chess.com says on average there are about 400 analyzed games per banned cheating account.
Don't argue with me, argue with them.
well heck I won't add anyone to my friends list that doesn't have at least 200 games in a single time control played. I guess now I have to start upping that to 400. Thanks.
It doesn't mean it requires 400 games to ban someone, it means they check a lot of innocent people's games.
AFAIK sometimes 1 game is enough to ban someone (when it's really bad).
I don't know how any of that correlates. But it sounds like it can take up to 400 games on a single persons account to decide on a ban. And so in that case I will not be adding anyone to my friends list who doesn't have at least 400 games played in a single time control. Originally my requirements were 200. Thanks for informing me that was too low.
I apologize for getting this wrong... I'm pretty tired... sigh.
People can check here for stats reported by chess.com
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-month-in-review-may-2021
You can do division like number of accounts check vs number of accounts banned.
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody.
I edited my post.
Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.
As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.
You are assuming that those 2000+ players are closed because of some reports. But I would say that they are checked automaticaly without your reports in frequency which copying the statistical probability that you would find a cheater there.
For example myabe you report some person with 2000 rating. The program will check your tip and because of that then it will not check automaticaly some other person with lets say 2200 rating which would have statisticaly higher chance to be a cheater.