If he was interested in playing chess, he would play, not have a machine play for him.
Sad case of high school chess cheating
Sort:
No it isn't poor reasoning and you haven't justified any objection to the statement. The interest in chess is chosing moves, not moving the pieces. If he was interested in chess he would want to play for himself. It's like claiming you love driving and hiring a chauffeur.
Kids also know right from wrong. I don't actually agree with a lifetime ban, but I think any sort of "he's an innocent kid, he didn't know what he was doing" is completely the wrong way to look at it.
pfren wrote:
IMO a rather poor reasoning. Quoting bigpoison, "kids, especially, do stupid things".
I read somewhere that crap kids usually grow up to crap head adults.
He played tournament chess. He's, obviously, interested in chess.
Of course he knew he was acting immorally. He needs to be punished.
The punishment, though, should be a reasonable one.
bigpoison wrote:
He played tournament chess. He's, obviously, interested in chess.
Doesn't follow. Perhaps his parents pushed him. Perhaps he just found something where he found a way to win. Perhaps he saw the trophies and cheques. Maybe he liked it at one point and got bored and so started cheating.
"Perhaps he just found something where he found a way to win."
Now there's some ironclad logic.
Your last statement was no more 'ironclad logic' (plenty of sportmen admit to not really liking their sport), and mine being a hypothetical situation (one of a few most of which you conveniently ignored) had far less need to be.
I just picked out the silliest one. I have no greater basis to claim he is interested in chess than you have to say he isn't.
It doesn't really matter. The only way to find out which of us is right is to ban the kid for a couple of years and see if he ever again plays competitive chess.
street fighter wrote:
Death penalty for the boy and 20 years hard labour for the mother. Or vice-verse. That ought to do the trick
You know that's ridiculous! It should be death by slow torture for both.
Sep 18, 2012
0
#71
Teenage boy + lots of testosterone = bad decisions. Been there done that.
Name changes seem pretty extreme. But then again, the name "Smiley" is just retarded anyway.
Kvothe1988 wrote:
I think it's actually pretty great that this guy got caught after a whopping seven months of cheating. Shows there's a lot of good faith in honest play in the chess community. Shame there's the bad apple cases that burst that bubble.
Nevertheless Smiley is still a young kid, no need for a lifetime ban, he'll already have a lifetime stigma if he continues his chess career.
No, it should be lifetime, because do you really believe someone is going to remember he is a cheater 5 years from now? And honestly do we really want to keep someone who will do it again?
And what if it happened to you? You play a great tournament, you are going to win money, and then play against this guy who is using a computer, you lose the money, and he gets your money, will you really like it? Because if you answer yes, then I will definitely do it to you, and remind you that you were ok with it.
I believe it is all too easy to forgive/forget when it is done to others, not when happens to us.
This guy cheated many other players of money, and tons of hours of study/game, and he did it, because he knew he could get away with it.
Does any of his opponents get the rating back? I doubt. So, a lifetime ban is a minimum that he should pay with, to avoid more people get hurt, by him, and others who like him could follow the example.
Now how much money would a 16 year old playing High School tournaments win? Not that much I'm sure.
streetfighter wrote:
Death penalty for the boy and 20 years hard labour for the mother. Or vice-versa. That ought to do the trick
Can you imagine if someone would lose a norm, after years working at it, just because this guy used a computer?
I do believe this guy should be ashamed in his community, church, and let everyone know he is a cheater.
Nobody is speaking up for all the other players who have been cheated by him, and that maybe gave up the game, because they didn't know they were playing against a computer.
They didn't know they were playing against a 2600 rated computer, they were thinking to play against someone rated 1500-1700, and instead they lost a game without even having a chance.
Yep I agree with you on principle. Just not on the "money" aspect of it. It's not like the kid won tens of thousands of dollars or anything.
But hell, even $500 is a lot of money to a 16 year old. It was to me back then. Now $500 is just "walking around" money for the coffee shop.
AnthonyCG wrote:
That must be some damn good coffee.
Must be that kind that came out the back of a lemur.
johnmusacha wrote:
Name changes seem pretty extreme. But then again, the name "Smiley" is just retarded anyway.
Maybe this ain't the first time...
Zero tolerance policies are silly.
Kids, especially, do stupid things. A lifetime ban is draconian.