Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 1st 10, 05:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

Is there rampant cheating online? Playchess.com sometimes outs
cheaters, and FICS has a cheating detection engine, but is it
"rampant" as one poster here claimed? And for ICC, where you pay for
the privilege of playing, why would anybody cheat, risk getting
caught, and lose their membership?

I suspect cheating is not rampant but less than 10% of the playing
public online.

RL
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 06:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 1, 12:48*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Is there rampant cheating online? * *Playchess.com sometimes outs
cheaters, and FICS has a cheating detection engine, but is it
"rampant" as one poster here claimed? *And for ICC, where you pay for
the privilege of playing, why would anybody cheat, risk getting
caught, and lose their membership?

I suspect cheating is not rampant but less than 10% of the playing
public online.



'I suspect'? That's too weak a wording for a really good troll
post, Phil.

Something to consider is that there are a lot of strange people out
there
and it is not always easy to guess their motives or comprehend their
thinking. I don't watch a lot of television but tonight I was
visiting and the
TV was on and I saw one 'news story' after another in which the
culprits'
thinking seemed utterly incomprehensible. Multiple cases had a
vehicle's
driver fleeing the scene of an accident only to be caught by the
police
(who always had the faster car). One case showed a pair of robbers
on
video (smart!) waving a gun in a cashier's face. The lesson here is
that
your 'back door' method of reasoning to a conclusion is just
wrongheaded.

First, accept the *fact* that you can't discover the truth about
online
cheating by way of idiotic 'backdoor' un-reasoning. You have to use
real
logic and reason, just as with any other subject. Backdoor un-
reasoning
can often lead to crazy 'conclusions.' Witness for example what
Aristotle
did when faced with the facts regarding correleated movement of the
moon
with the earth's tides. He noted that there was no fat iron cable
between
the moon and the earth and thus concluded that it was impossible for
the
moon's relative movement to be the cause of tidal action. He
completely
overlooked the possibility of an *invisible* (but very thick) nylon
cable... or
some other invisible connection. Well, he simply wasn't a very bright
guy.




  #3   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 11:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 8:13*am, The Master wrote:


TV was on and I saw one 'news story' after another in which the
culprits'
thinking seemed utterly incomprehensible. *Multiple cases had a
vehicle's
driver fleeing the scene of an accident only to be caught by the
police
(who always had the faster car). *


That's because in the USA, police cruisers may look like regular stock
cars but they are souped-up racing cars underneath. They actually are
the faster car.


One case showed a pair of robbers
on
video (smart!) waving a gun in a cashier's face. *The lesson here is
that
your 'back door' method of reasoning to a conclusion is just
wrongheaded.


Don't follow your "logic" but neither does anybody else.


Aristotle
Well, he simply wasn't a very bright
guy.


A howler by The Minor! Aristotle is not a bright guy says The Minor.
Aristotle, father of logic, physics, biology, political science,
philosophy, astronomy, mathematics...probably have left out a half
dozen other disciplines. A recent manuscript, discovered about 10
years ago underneath another manuscript, showed Aristotle doing a math
proof; various professional mathematicians said only a handful of
people in the world today could do a similar proof, and only few
professional mathematicians could understand it--certainly not you (or
I). Then of course there's his observation that a certain octopus had
a penis on his tentacle. This was used for centuries as "proof" that
Aristotle just made **** up, without observation, until, about 100
years ago, that very same species of octopus was discovered off the
coast of Greece. I won't tell you what he thought about
homosexuality, but it is provocative, well reasoned, and not
politically correct (and no, he did not just condemn it on moral
grounds, but he made an interesting observation).

Vamos blanco basura!

RL
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 01:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 292
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 6:13*am, The Master wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:48*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Is there rampant cheating online? * *Playchess.com sometimes outs
cheaters, and FICS has a cheating detection engine, but is it
"rampant" as one poster here claimed? *And for ICC, where you pay for
the privilege of playing, why would anybody cheat, risk getting
caught, and lose their membership?


I suspect cheating is not rampant but less than 10% of the playing
public online.


* 'I suspect'? * That's too weak a wording for a really good troll
post, Phil.

* Something to consider is that there are a lot of strange people out
there
and it is not always easy to guess their motives or comprehend their
thinking. *I don't watch a lot of television but tonight I was
visiting and the
TV was on and I saw one 'news story' after another in which the
culprits'
thinking seemed utterly incomprehensible. *Multiple cases had a
vehicle's
driver fleeing the scene of an accident only to be caught by the
police
(who always had the faster car). *One case showed a pair of robbers
on
video (smart!) waving a gun in a cashier's face. *The lesson here is
that
your 'back door' method of reasoning to a conclusion is just
wrongheaded.

* First, accept the *fact* that you can't discover the truth about
online
cheating by way of idiotic 'backdoor' un-reasoning. *You have to use
real
logic and reason, just as with any other subject. *Backdoor un-
reasoning
can often lead to crazy 'conclusions.' *Witness for example what
Aristotle
did when faced with the facts regarding correleated movement of the
moon
with the earth's tides. *He noted that there was no fat iron cable
between
the moon and the earth and thus concluded that it was impossible for
the
moon's relative movement to be the cause of tidal action. *He
completely
overlooked the possibility of an *invisible* (but very thick) nylon
cable... or
some other invisible connection. *Well, he simply wasn't a very bright
guy.


Oh dear. Simple facts mean nothing to deranged ****wits:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...5a6eadb7497e70

I disapprove of Ray's trolling this group. I do approve of his
trolling YOU, however,
I hope that the two of you enjoy a long and fruitful relationship...
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 07:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 6:03*am, raylopez99 wrote:

Don't follow your "logic" but neither does anybody else.



And you 'know' this... how? By way of your usual 'backdoor logic.'


Aristotle Well, he simply wasn't a very bright guy.


A howler by The Minor! *Aristotle is not a [very] bright guy says The Minor.
Aristotle, father of logic, physics, biology, political science,
philosophy, astronomy, mathematics...



[Rest of ignorance-revealing rant deleted.]

Phil, you really need to study history a bit before mouthing off
like
this. The Babylonians and the Egyptians already had done much of
what you are trying to pawn off on us as Aristotle's inventions. Not
that he was to blame for this, mind you. A man cannot help the era
into which he is born, and if he comes along too late to say, invent
the Ruy Lopez opening, he cannot be blamed for just 'copying' his
forebears by playing: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5. By the same
token, if a man comes along too late to 'invent' language, geometry,
politics or astronomy, he cannot be held accountable -- the Fates
are to blame.


*A recent manuscript, discovered about 10
years ago underneath another manuscript, showed Aristotle doing a math
proof;



If it is indeed 'recent' as you say, it cannot be genuine for
Aristotle
died a good while back.


various professional mathematicians said only a handful of
people in the world today could do a similar proof, and only few
professional mathematicians could understand it



Are you struggling to suggest that most modern mathematicians are
just a bit daft? Out with it -- speak up, man.


--certainly not you (or I).



You seem to labour under the impression that I make my living from
mathematics -- which I don't.


*Then of course there's his observation that a certain octopus had
a penis on his tentacle. *This was used for centuries as "proof" that
Aristotle just made **** up, without observation



It should be noted that you failed to specify *who* was using this
as
a 'proof.' This sort of sloppiness would not be tolerated by a
squid,
let alone any self-respecting octopus.


until, about 100 years ago, that very same species of octopus was
discovered off the coast of Greece. *I won't tell you what he thought
about homosexuality, but it is provocative, well reasoned, and not
politically correct (and no, he did not just condemn it on moral
grounds, but he made an interesting observation).



No! You did not just put on display *for the entire newsgroup*
yet
another peculiar obsession of Phil Innes under your Ray Lopez handle.
Take that move back.

Phil, I am beginning to get frustrated with you and your utter
inability
to comprehend simple concepts like deception, deflection, pins,
forks,
skewers, double attacks and opposition. I must say that you are
the worst student I've ever had -- or perhaps a dead on tie with
Sanny.

Try to pay attention: the whole point of your posting under another
handle (i.e. Ray Lopez) was to deceive everyone here (well, almost
everyone) into thinking that some independent person was agreeing
with and backing up the nonsense you had to say under your other
handle, ChessFart. Now, since you have made numerous blunders
which reveal to any half-way intelligent creature (even some humans)
your true identity, this deception is unveiled. It's like in the
movie
'The Wizard of Oz' when Toto pulled back the curtain and revealed a
mere man operating the controls.


  #6   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 11:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 292
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 7:45*pm, The Master wrote:
On Jul 2, 6:03*am, raylopez99 wrote:

Don't follow your "logic" but neither does anybody else.


* And you 'know' this... how? *By way of your usual 'backdoor logic.'

Aristotle *Well, he simply wasn't a very bright guy.


A howler by The Minor! *Aristotle is not a [very] bright guy says The Minor.
Aristotle, father of logic, physics, biology, political science,
philosophy, astronomy, mathematics...


* [Rest of ignorance-revealing rant deleted.]

* Phil, you really need to study history a bit before mouthing off
like
this. *The Babylonians and the Egyptians already had done much of
what you are trying to pawn off on us as Aristotle's inventions. *Not
that he was to blame for this, mind you. *A man cannot help the era
into which he is born, and if he comes along too late to say, invent
the Ruy Lopez opening, he cannot be blamed for just 'copying' his
forebears by playing: 1.e4 e5 *2.Nf3 Nc6 *3.Bb5. *By the same
token, if a man comes along too late to 'invent' language, geometry,
politics or astronomy, he cannot be held accountable -- the Fates
are to blame.

**A recent manuscript, discovered about 10
years ago underneath another manuscript, showed Aristotle doing a math
proof;


* If it is indeed 'recent' as you say, it cannot be genuine for
Aristotle
died a good while back.

various professional mathematicians said only a handful of
people in the world today could do a similar proof, and only few
professional mathematicians could understand it


* Are you struggling to suggest that most modern mathematicians are
just a bit daft? *Out with it -- speak up, man.

--certainly not you (or I).


* You seem to labour under the impression that I make my living from
mathematics -- which I don't.

*Then of course there's his observation that a certain octopus had
a penis on his tentacle. *This was used for centuries as "proof" that
Aristotle just made **** up, without observation


* It should be noted that you failed to specify *who* was using this
as
a 'proof.' * *This sort of sloppiness would not be tolerated by a
squid,
let alone any self-respecting octopus.

until, about 100 years ago, that very same species of octopus was
discovered off the coast of Greece. *I won't tell you what he thought
about homosexuality, but it is provocative, well reasoned, and not
politically correct (and no, he did not just condemn it on moral
grounds, but he made an interesting observation).


* No! * You did not just put on display *for the entire newsgroup*
yet
another peculiar obsession of Phil Innes under your Ray Lopez handle.
Take that move back.

* Phil, I am beginning to get frustrated with you and your utter
inability
to comprehend simple concepts like deception, deflection, pins,
forks,
skewers, double attacks and opposition. *I must say that you are
the worst student I've ever had -- or perhaps a dead on tie with
Sanny.

* Try to pay attention: the whole point of your posting under another
handle (i.e. Ray Lopez) was to deceive everyone here (well, almost
everyone) into thinking that some independent person was agreeing
with and backing up the nonsense you had to say under your other
handle, ChessFart. *Now, since you have made numerous blunders
which reveal to any half-way intelligent creature (even some humans)
your true identity, this deception is unveiled. * It's like in the
movie
'The Wizard of Oz' when Toto pulled back the curtain and revealed a
mere man operating the controls.


You say you're beginning to get frustrated with Phil. Imagine how I
feel
when I keep telling you--it's NOT Phil, it's RAY, you dumb, deranged
****.

You're not often right, but you're wrong again....

Keep banging those rocks together.......
  #7   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 10, 11:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 6:04*pm, Mark Houlsby wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:45*pm, The Master wrote:





On Jul 2, 6:03*am, raylopez99 wrote:


Don't follow your "logic" but neither does anybody else.


* And you 'know' this... how? *By way of your usual 'backdoor logic..'


Aristotle *Well, he simply wasn't a very bright guy.


A howler by The Minor! *Aristotle is not a [very] bright guy says The Minor.
Aristotle, father of logic, physics, biology, political science,
philosophy, astronomy, mathematics...


* [Rest of ignorance-revealing rant deleted.]


* Phil, you really need to study history a bit before mouthing off
like
this. *The Babylonians and the Egyptians already had done much of
what you are trying to pawn off on us as Aristotle's inventions. *Not
that he was to blame for this, mind you. *A man cannot help the era
into which he is born, and if he comes along too late to say, invent
the Ruy Lopez opening, he cannot be blamed for just 'copying' his
forebears by playing: 1.e4 e5 *2.Nf3 Nc6 *3.Bb5. *By the same
token, if a man comes along too late to 'invent' language, geometry,
politics or astronomy, he cannot be held accountable -- the Fates
are to blame.


**A recent manuscript, discovered about 10
years ago underneath another manuscript, showed Aristotle doing a math
proof;


* If it is indeed 'recent' as you say, it cannot be genuine for
Aristotle
died a good while back.


various professional mathematicians said only a handful of
people in the world today could do a similar proof, and only few
professional mathematicians could understand it


* Are you struggling to suggest that most modern mathematicians are
just a bit daft? *Out with it -- speak up, man.


--certainly not you (or I).


* You seem to labour under the impression that I make my living from
mathematics -- which I don't.


*Then of course there's his observation that a certain octopus had
a penis on his tentacle. *This was used for centuries as "proof" that
Aristotle just made **** up, without observation


* It should be noted that you failed to specify *who* was using this
as
a 'proof.' * *This sort of sloppiness would not be tolerated by a
squid,
let alone any self-respecting octopus.


until, about 100 years ago, that very same species of octopus was
discovered off the coast of Greece. *I won't tell you what he thought
about homosexuality, but it is provocative, well reasoned, and not
politically correct (and no, he did not just condemn it on moral
grounds, but he made an interesting observation).


* No! * You did not just put on display *for the entire newsgroup*
yet
another peculiar obsession of Phil Innes under your Ray Lopez handle.
Take that move back.


* Phil, I am beginning to get frustrated with you and your utter
inability
to comprehend simple concepts like deception, deflection, pins,
forks,
skewers, double attacks and opposition. *I must say that you are
the worst student I've ever had -- or perhaps a dead on tie with
Sanny.


* Try to pay attention: the whole point of your posting under another
handle (i.e. Ray Lopez) was to deceive everyone here (well, almost
everyone) into thinking that some independent person was agreeing
with and backing up the nonsense you had to say under your other
handle, ChessFart. *Now, since you have made numerous blunders
which reveal to any half-way intelligent creature (even some humans)
your true identity, this deception is unveiled. * It's like in the
movie
'The Wizard of Oz' when Toto pulled back the curtain and revealed a
mere man operating the controls.


You say you're beginning to get frustrated with Phil. Imagine how I
feel
when I keep telling you--it's NOT Phil, it's RAY, you dumb, deranged
****.


I tend to agree with Mark Houlsby that Phil Innes and Ray Lopez are
probably not the same person. I have met Innes personally and know him
to a certain extent. While it's certainly not inconceivable that he
would adopt a pseudonymous newsgroup identity, the Ray Lopez
personality does not strike me as one he'd take on. Admittedly that's
a subjective hunch, but a somewhat informed hunch.
Furthermore, there are certain habitual phrases, slogans, tropes,
stylistic traits, modes of argument, areas of interest etc. that Innes
has always evinced, which Lopez does not. While one can consciously
try to disguise one's style, these habits are, IMO, so ingrained in
Innes that I am very doubtful he could suppress them altogether.
So while I can offer no conclusive proof that they are not the same
person, if I had to bet, I would bet they are two separate people. Not
that it really matters much at all.
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 10, 12:08 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 292
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 2, 11:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

snip

* I tend to agree with Mark Houlsby that Phil Innes and Ray Lopez are
probably not the same person. I have met Innes personally and know him
to a certain extent. While it's certainly not inconceivable that he
would adopt a pseudonymous newsgroup identity, the Ray Lopez
personality does not strike me as one he'd take on. Admittedly that's
a subjective hunch, but a somewhat informed hunch.
* Furthermore, there are certain habitual phrases, slogans, tropes,
stylistic traits, modes of argument, areas of interest etc. that Innes
has always evinced, which Lopez does not. While one can consciously
try to disguise one's style, these habits are, IMO, so ingrained in
Innes that I am very doubtful he could suppress them altogether.
* So while I can offer no conclusive proof that they are not the same
person, if I had to bet, I would bet they are two separate people. Not
that it really matters much at all.


It matters not one whit to me, either, but GK seems pretty hung up on
it.

The unequivocal evidence (I maintain) is contained in this post:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...b7497e70?hl=en

It appears to me that as he has changed personae over time, his mental
health (and,
more specifically, its having gradually deteriorated) has been
reflected in the
choices of handle which GK has made.

Unfortunately, it seems that he is now so completely out-of-touch with
realisty that
he regards Sam Sloan as some kind of god, and admits of no possibility
other than
that Ray is Phil (which, unequivocally, is not so).
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 10, 12:19 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 292
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Jul 3, 12:08*am, Mark Houlsby wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

snip

* I tend to agree with Mark Houlsby that Phil Innes and Ray Lopez are
probably not the same person. I have met Innes personally and know him
to a certain extent. While it's certainly not inconceivable that he
would adopt a pseudonymous newsgroup identity, the Ray Lopez
personality does not strike me as one he'd take on. Admittedly that's
a subjective hunch, but a somewhat informed hunch.
* Furthermore, there are certain habitual phrases, slogans, tropes,
stylistic traits, modes of argument, areas of interest etc. that Innes
has always evinced, which Lopez does not. While one can consciously
try to disguise one's style, these habits are, IMO, so ingrained in
Innes that I am very doubtful he could suppress them altogether.
* So while I can offer no conclusive proof that they are not the same
person, if I had to bet, I would bet they are two separate people. Not
that it really matters much at all.


It matters not one whit to me, either, but GK seems pretty hung up on
it.

The unequivocal evidence (I maintain) is contained in this post:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...cs/msg/df5a6ea...

It appears to me that as he has changed personae over time, his mental
health (and,
more specifically, its having gradually deteriorated) has been
reflected in the
choices of handle which GK has made.

Unfortunately, it seems that he is now so completely out-of-touch with
realisty that
he regards Sam Sloan as some kind of god, and admits of no possibility
other than
that Ray is Phil (which, unequivocally, is not so).


er... that should be "reality"...

Mark "out-of-touch-with typisty" Houlsby
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 10, 02:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Cheating rampant on-line?

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Mark Houlsby
wrote:

On Jul 2, 11:57*pm, Taylor Kingston

It matters not one whit to me, either, but GK seems pretty hung up on
it.



I think Kennedy finds that a way of pulling Phil's chain, and doesn't
really believe Ray and Phil are the same person.

Witty.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheating accusations gone wild. Chess One rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 March 15th 07 12:52 PM
CHEATING is rampant in chess Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\ rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 17 October 9th 06 09:20 PM
CHEATING is rampant in chess Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\ rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 17 October 9th 06 09:20 PM
The cheating IBM Chess One rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 100 July 22nd 06 02:52 PM
Center Counter Game Ken Lovering rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 19 April 10th 06 08:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017