And on what basis shoud I trust you ?

Regards,
Jerzy

As the guy who created the Dos Hermanas event? As someone who knows most of
these GMs? I used to be responsible for this stuff.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
And on what basis should I trust you ?


As the guy who created the Dos Hermanas event? As someone who knows most
of
these GMs? I used to be responsible for this stuff.


OK, so why don`t you just publish what "wallhacks" or "autoaims" or other
cheats they used ? I don`t ask who you are but what were their cheats and
how did you prove them.

Regards,
Jerzy

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...

OK, so why don`t you just publish what "wallhacks" or "autoaims" or other
cheats they used ? I don`t ask who you are but what were their cheats and
how did you prove them.

Regards,
Jerzy



That is what I have often wondered. How has it been determined they were
cheating? Is it because they play Fritz lines rather than the lines that
have normally been played in that same position? Could the player be
playing the Fritz line because they have been using Fritz analysis in their
opening repertoire? I am really curious to know the heuristics that are
used for detection.

David Bohm

"David Bohm" wrote in message
news:dcWRc.3715$yh.123@fed1read05...
That is what I have often wondered. How has it been determined they were
cheating? Is it because they play Fritz lines rather than the lines that
have normally been played in that same position? Could the player be
playing the Fritz line because they have been using Fritz analysis in
their
opening repertoire? I am really curious to know the heuristics that are
used for detection.


Frequent switching between open windows or answering in extremely constant
time intervals come to my mind first. But the list can be, for sure,
enlarged.

I don`t claim that Pablo Zarnicki or Alexandra Kosteniuk were innocent in
the mentioned ICC tournaments but if somebody excludes them from competition
it`s obvious that more reasons should be given and not only enigmatic
accusation of "cheating".

Regards,
Jerzy

That is what I have often wondered. How has it been determined they were
cheating? Is it because they play Fritz lines rather than the lines that
have normally been played in that same position? Could the player be
playing the Fritz line because they have been using Fritz analysis in their
opening repertoire? I am really curious to know the heuristics that are
used for detection.

David Bohm

There's a lot of things. I guess the most popular ones are comparison with
other computer programs, task switching, move times, etc.

A few cases tend to be paricularly blatant. I know one player who was using
Shredder 8 or so, and someone with Shredder 8 actually would announce this GM's
moves before he made them, and almost always he matched.

I'm sure there's other stuff, but I confess I don't know all the details.

John Fernandez

"StanB" wrote (to John Fernandez):
"John Fernandez" wrote in
message ...
Like GMs haven't cheated before and often?

You're kidding! Name her, oops, them.

Stan Booz's statement could be an allusion to his earlier comment to
GM Susan Polgar.

"Okay, now I say this: I have heard you that you (GM Susan Polgar) were
caught cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match. Is it true?"
--Stan Booz (23 October 2003, RGCP "Marshall Meeting?")

As I recall, Bill Brock then demanded that Stan Booz cite any evidence about
GM Susan Polgar's alleged 'cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match'.
As far as I know, however, Stan Booz has not yet cited that evidence.

--Nick

Stan Booz's statement could be an allusion to his earlier comment to
GM Susan Polgar.

"Okay, now I say this: I have heard you that you (GM Susan Polgar) were
caught cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match. Is it true?"
--Stan Booz (23 October 2003, RGCP "Marshall Meeting?")

As I recall, Bill Brock then demanded that Stan Booz cite any evidence about
GM Susan Polgar's alleged 'cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match'.
As far as I know, however, Stan Booz has not yet cited that evidence.

--Nick

If I recall correctly, the claim was it was on US Chess Live (well, what used
to be US Chess Live), and that it wasn't Polgar playing but Truong.

Again, not saying it's true/false, just saying what the claim was.

My mind seems to recall that the EB dealt with the matter, actually.

John Fernandez

I have played internet chess for years.

Cheating is everywhere.

Someone hired by the current exec dir to work at the uscf has boosted
his icc blitz rating 700 points. Now he is pushing 3k.

According to this individual, this was not done by switching windows
but via the use of multiple computers.

It seems this individual also played against a duplicate account to
increase the rating still further.

While sometimes I find this annoying, sometimes I don't care. Either
way, its not right.

It is my belief that the intent may be to amplify the impression of
personal strength, not to win prize competitions, but to sell one's
self as a teacher and/or anywhere else it is financially beneficial.
(Not that I believe much money can be had in such a manner).

I have heard ridiculous claims about these methods of catching
computer cheaters through move-matching. Even IF high correlation is
legitimate grounds for labelling someone a CC (Computer Cheat), as the
question seems to be in the Zarnicki case, these only catch the more
careless CC.

Taking the example of my anonymous friend, for I like the person very
much despite what he is doing (and incidentally not because of it!),
there are several easy ways to mask the CC'ing.

1) Play the opening lines of your choice. (From FICS I can remember a
particularly annoying offender who kept claiming b4 was good in q pawn
games on like move 3... and another who seemed to be on a crusade to
justify any and all "misunderstood" and perfectly ridiculous openings)
Then, at a certain point, let the computer take over. Playing set
openings may to a small degree help to evade correlation, especially
if they're outside the software's book)

2) When running Fritz, Shredder, etc on the other computer, have it
set to "infinite analysis" and have it show several lines. Choose
among them by preference(if time allows) or more randomly if speed is
needed. There are often many acceptable moves in a given position, you
only really need the comp for those sparkling combinations ... and for
evading blunders.. Hell, you can make intentional blunders here and
there (like b4 in the opening example above) ... the computer will
probably save you anyway... and if it doesn't and you lose so what,
all the better to evade detection if you only win 8/10.

3) In speed games, ditch the computer to blitz the ending. As long as
you don't have a terrible time deficit, premove gives you a shot vs
anyone with 10 seconds a piece.

And all of this can be accomplished with no particular programming
knowledge.

In an incident on USCL I played in a QR in which it was very easy to
tell my opponent used a computer program to generate his moves. (Of
course I lost in very embarassing fashion) Anyway, I complained to the
administration. They looked into the matter and decided I had indeed
been cheated. They assured me this game would be stricken from the
crosstable. Checking in our wonderful new MSA, I can see that it was
rated after all.

Incidentally, my opponent the game defended himself by saying
something like "How dare you accuse me, I'm a USCF certified chess
teacher." (Therefore, noone with = $5 can ever be rightfully
convicted of being a CC)

While I'm griping, I'm reminded of the time I played a house game (in
place of a bye) against the TD in an OTB tournament as a youth.
Promised the game would be rated, I defeated the man 300 pts higher
rated than I. Thanks to MSA, my suspicions of that TD's lack of moral
character are confirmed. (No, the game was never rated ).

eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in
message ...
Nick wrote:
Stan Booz's statement could be an allusion to his earlier comment to
GM Susan Polgar.

"Okay, now I say this: I have heard you that you (GM Susan Polgar) were
caught cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match. Is it true?"
--Stan Booz (23 October 2003, RGCP "Marshall Meeting?")

As I recall, Bill Brock then demanded that Stan Booz cite any evidence about
GM Susan Polgar's alleged 'cheating in a sanctioned internet chess match'.
As far as I know, however, Stan Booz has not yet cited that evidence.

If I recall correctly, the claim was it was on US Chess Live (well, what
used to be US Chess Live), and that it wasn't Polgar playing but Truong.

Then did Stan Booz misrepresent that claim in his post addressed directly
to GM Susan Polgar (which I have quoted above)?

Again, not saying it's true/false, just saying what the claim was.
My mind seems to recall that the EB dealt with the matter, actually.

What did the USCF Executive Board do?

--Nick

(Terrapin) wrote in message
. com...
I have played internet chess for years. Cheating is everywhere. ...

In about five percent of my games at the Chess21 server, the server has
concluded that my opponents were cheating by their excessive 'task-switching'.
I have little doubt that some of my other opponents were clever or fortunate
enough to have been able to cheat without being detected by the server.

I have been more disappointed, however, when the server has attributed a 'loss'
to me after I have been *unintentionally* disconnected in a winning position.

--Nick