yeah why would chess players take steroids
Ding! Dong! the Witch is Dead!
Sort:
Reb wrote:
rooperi wrote:
hmmm, waiting for all the I told you so's...
Actually, it's quite sad. I look forward to the day when the top players on this site are all above suspicion, but that is probably a pipedream.
Why in the world should the top players not be under suspicion ?! I would always check top players first, especially when they are rated higher than titled players and have NO OTB credentials or very weak credentials...
Yes & also low loss/draw ratios & frequent moves in many games in progress.
These are all good indicators for selection for analysis.
LisaV wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED] -- the comment was funny, but not family friendly lol
Did it have something to do with testicles?
it's sad that so many people cheat- especially our top players. on the other hand though, now that the witch is dead, the munchkins are free! - Gerik
Schachgeek wrote:
Reb wrote:
Why in the world should the top players not be under suspicion ?! I would always check top players first, especially when they are rated higher than titled players and have NO OTB credentials or very weak credentials...
A person's lack of OTB credentials, or weak credentials by itself is not especially relevant, because for one it requires that they have been active recently and often, which at least here in the USA is prohibitively expensive unless you are already a FIDE GM and can get travel, hotel and entry fees comped.
Second, you're assuming under common time OTB controls (say, G/90) that player plays at the same level as 1/3/5/7/10 or 14 days PER MOVE. It's a fairly well known fact that correspondence players tend to play deeper chess (not always better) because they have more time to reflect.
Third, a titled player over the board may or may not have time to probe the depths of a correspondence game position. They are too busy preparing for a playing in over the board tournaments.
Now that's not to say he/she is going to need the same number of days as your average patzer to come up with strong moves but still...if the GM FM NM or whatever plays correspondence as if it's an OTB time control, then the chances are good that a decent player using their reflection time wisely can often counter whatever is thrown at them.
I don't pretend to know what websites use what methods to detect cheating, but I can tell you that comparing otb ratings with correspondence ratings will always been an apples vs oranges argument...ie useless.
You may be right in a few cases. I think in more cases I will be right. There are players here with 1800 otb ratings that have ratings here 2700 and 2800. I am sorry but a player of 1800 otb strength will NOT suddenly play 1000 points better/ higher no matter how much more time they take for their games/moves ! To think it would shows a huge ignorance concerning chess ability/knowledge. Most online ratings are inflated over the otb ratings for various reasons but the normal inflation is usually 100-400 points, now 1000 , which is ridiculous. A B class players is not going to play like an IM or GM simply because he is given more time for his moves because the extra time does not increase their chess "understanding" . The extra time will enable them to perhaps avoid gross blunders and raise their level maybe a whole class, but 3 and more classes ?! NO
"Second, you're assuming under common time OTB controls (say, G/90) that player plays at the same level as 1/3/5/7/10 or 14 days PER MOVE. It's a fairly well known fact that correspondence players tend to play deeper chess (not always better) because they have more time to reflect."
If every correspondance player is playing stronger chess then the ratings would remain the same. Ratings work on a sliding scale.
Now just wait for that Haddad56 guy to come on and say "wait for me, I'm coming" as he will now believe he is even nearer his goal...
Oct 26, 2009
0
#29
Ugh, not another ratings thread.
Point 1. Chess.com ratings and FIDE (or any other rankings) are not the same.
Point 2. It is simply not true that every single member on chess.com, whether they have an OTB rating in any other system or not, plays the same way on chess.com that they would OTB. Example: Player A and B put the same amount of energy into their OTB matches and are both 2100 FIDE. Player A comes to chess.com and takes it uber-seriously and has a 2600 rating here. Player B, on the other hand, uses chess.com to mess around with stuff he wouldn't dare play OTB where it actually "counts." For him, chess.com is basically a laboratory for chess experiment.
So far the arguments have assumed that players of equal (or different) skill must have chess.com ratings that correspond in some way with their OTB ratings, and that's simply not true.
johnkorean wrote:
Ugh, not another ratings thread.
Point 1. Chess.com ratings and FIDE (or any other rankings) are not the same.
Point 2. It is simply not true that every single member on chess.com, whether they have an OTB rating in any other system or not, plays the same way on chess.com that they would OTB. Example: Player A and B put the same amount of energy into their OTB matches and are both 2100 FIDE. Player A comes to chess.com and takes it uber-seriously and has a 2600 rating here. Player B, on the other hand, uses chess.com to mess around with stuff he wouldn't dare play OTB where it actually "counts." For him, chess.com is basically a laboratory for chess experiment.
So far the arguments have assumed that players of equal (or different) skill must have chess.com ratings that correspond in some way with their OTB ratings, and that's simply not true.
No, not another ratings thread (although it's going that way).... click on the link in post #1 for the latest dirt.
"The argument that there should be some correlation between ELO and Glicko and otb vs. correspondence is specious, because it assumes the two rating systems and forms of chess are identical."
It assumes that there is enough similarity of skills employed, thereby making meaningful comparisons possible.
*checks the beeb...*
liar!
Oct 26, 2009
0
#33
Reb wrote:
Why in the world should the top players not be under suspicion ?! I would always check top players first, especially when they are rated higher than titled players and have NO OTB credentials or very weak credentials...
I have mixed feelings about this topic. Not so much ouachita specifically; he was something of a jerk and if he was really cheating, then I'm glad he got caught. Rather, it's more about the notion of how cheaters are caught, and how people draw their conclusions about that based on OTB ratings.
On the one hand, I get why the staff is very close-mouthed about *how* they catch the cheaters. I mean, it's obvious -- you advertise your anti-fraud controls, you're giving people a blueprint of how to get around them. And I understand why people would be suspicious of a weaker OTB player carrying a very high rating here.
But on the other hand, it worries me because I feel like I'm an example. If you look me up at USCF, my OTB rating is like 1600. In fact, my Live rating, another common "giveaway" I've seen elsewhere, was like 1500 before they got wiped. In Online, I'm over 2200. My ambition is to continue to improve; I think it's not unreasonable to think someday in the not-too-distant future it might be 2300,2400,maybe 2500? That's a sizable difference.
I don't cheat. But I can't explain why there's such a gap -- no idea. I guess I'm just better at correspondence time controls. I doubt it will be reconciled anytime soon, either; that OTB rating is like 10 years old, and I have small intention of playing in an OTB tournament anytime soon. I may play only Internet chess in the years to come, so I'm sure not going to be getting a "real" title, even if my chess dream is to be of that strength.
Am I under suspicion by my opponents? I dunno, maybe. It sucks, but there's not much I can do about it.
And while I have faith in the staff's competence & discretion at being absolutely sure about cheaters, there's always that little bit that worries I'm going to log in some day and find out my account was closed and marked as a cheater, due to a bad judgement by someone. I like it here, and I'm proud of my accomplishments to this point, but there's no appeal process -- your participation and reputation are just wiped away in the click of a button. That's a scary prospect.
This is getting to be like the Tour de France.
... but with fewer drugs!?