Nope, buddy. There are a lot of giveaways here pointing to the cheating. It is plain as day.
@cashcow8 said in #68:
> Which reminds me how pepellou was giving advice on the game regarding pawn drops on h6 against a castled king, then if gxh6 Bxh6, @g7 you sacrifice the bishop with Bxg7 then after Kxg7 tou drop @g5 with threats on both h6 and f6, and how hard it is to defend against that.
Are you saying that's an example of memorized theory in zH advancing to the point of looking like an engine move?
This whole aspect of the conversation reminds me of the philosophy of science "pessimistic meta induction" in which. to paraphrase, you assume you are wrong until the data proves to the contrary. I wonder if the mods are looking at suspected cheaters assuming they're first guilty, or innocent until proven otherwise?
In other words, how does moderators' bias affect the "human" aspect of these human-machine cheat-detection protocols?
> Which reminds me how pepellou was giving advice on the game regarding pawn drops on h6 against a castled king, then if gxh6 Bxh6, @g7 you sacrifice the bishop with Bxg7 then after Kxg7 tou drop @g5 with threats on both h6 and f6, and how hard it is to defend against that.
Are you saying that's an example of memorized theory in zH advancing to the point of looking like an engine move?
This whole aspect of the conversation reminds me of the philosophy of science "pessimistic meta induction" in which. to paraphrase, you assume you are wrong until the data proves to the contrary. I wonder if the mods are looking at suspected cheaters assuming they're first guilty, or innocent until proven otherwise?
In other words, how does moderators' bias affect the "human" aspect of these human-machine cheat-detection protocols?
@Bxf7wins said in #71:
> Nope, buddy. There are a lot of giveaways here pointing to the cheating. It is plain as day.
Might as well detail them publicly since you're one of the few willing to talk about the reasons at all.
> Nope, buddy. There are a lot of giveaways here pointing to the cheating. It is plain as day.
Might as well detail them publicly since you're one of the few willing to talk about the reasons at all.
@spidersneedlovetoo like I said, the cheating is obvious. Not going to discuss it here for cheats to improve their methods.
I suggest a book by David Levy and an enjoyable/informative read. "How computers play chess"
Read it decades ago, still relevant.
I suggest a book by David Levy and an enjoyable/informative read. "How computers play chess"
Read it decades ago, still relevant.
I can't actually see how showing the evidence is going to make cheats find workarounds.
It's like if the police show you DNA and fingerprint evidence it's going to help criminals because they'll wear gloves or whatever in future.
Of course most criminals will try to "hide" the evidence, but they still have to produce it in court to get a conviction.
Cheats will get away with it for so long.
There are a number of games where pepe "got lucky" because his opponent made a serious blunder, often late on, in particular I saw one where the opponent's rook got trapped.
By the way, last night I was watching a 10+0 game with two very high rated players that was a total blunderfest and I could see how bad some of those blunders were, and the post-game analysis I ran showed me indeed they were.
It's like if the police show you DNA and fingerprint evidence it's going to help criminals because they'll wear gloves or whatever in future.
Of course most criminals will try to "hide" the evidence, but they still have to produce it in court to get a conviction.
Cheats will get away with it for so long.
There are a number of games where pepe "got lucky" because his opponent made a serious blunder, often late on, in particular I saw one where the opponent's rook got trapped.
By the way, last night I was watching a 10+0 game with two very high rated players that was a total blunderfest and I could see how bad some of those blunders were, and the post-game analysis I ran showed me indeed they were.
@cashcow8
I agree with your last paragraph. Most of the answers are right there.
The rest, please read the book. You will not regret it
I agree with your last paragraph. Most of the answers are right there.
The rest, please read the book. You will not regret it
@Bxf7wins said in #74:
> @spidersneedlovetoo like I said, the cheating is obvious. Not going to discuss it here for cheats to improve their methods.
>
> I suggest a book by David Levy and an enjoyable/informative read. "How computers play chess"
>
> Read it decades ago, still relevant.
yah...that's what I thought you'd say. Did you actually go through each game or just take quick mental snapshots of he game analysis?
Not a lot of room for transparency in this conversation. For obvious reasons, of course. but I do have some concerns about the possibility of false positives from human cheat detectors primed by bias. Specifically, and now i'm cross-posting in my own words here:
"...there is now a growing body of evidence that hardnose cheat-suppression tactics are interfering with honest-play games (see the case on chessdcom written by @CheckRaiseMate documented here:
lichess.org/@/CheckRaiseMate/blog/beating-hikaru/DmcA0xHs )"
"What's the point of excelling at chess if there's a ceiling where an exceptional series of games gets you banned?
Even though I've caught fire and won more in a row than I should, I'm not talking about at my level. This is about expert players and above, and especially with those groms who have a chance to go Pro there need to be considerations made that, unless cheat-detection wizardry makes some serious advances in the machine-human interfaces (regardless of the website), false positives will continue to crop up and the civilian casualties will continue to mount in this peaceful game of war.
This means that for someone in their early teens who has a possible, maybe distant, shot at becoming a superGM they now need to calculate not just the moves, not just the openings and end games and variations and variants but also make calculations in their career arc to mitigate the risk and stress of false accusations of cheating.
There are definitely people looking at Pepellou's situation who will have to make choices about whether they want to risk winning big with fairplay online and face the same possible accusations."
This is literally about the one-in-a-billion kid who could be a world champion someday deciding not to pursue it because the cheat detection is overly calibrated to a paranoid degree. Even if that's not true, the optics of the situation could make it feel true for that person.
Just repeatedly saying we won't talk about our methods so as not to give the cheaters new exploits is valid right up until you start hurting innocent players. Then it's just lazy engineering creating new problems for us to solve without committing to clean up the messes already made.
> @spidersneedlovetoo like I said, the cheating is obvious. Not going to discuss it here for cheats to improve their methods.
>
> I suggest a book by David Levy and an enjoyable/informative read. "How computers play chess"
>
> Read it decades ago, still relevant.
yah...that's what I thought you'd say. Did you actually go through each game or just take quick mental snapshots of he game analysis?
Not a lot of room for transparency in this conversation. For obvious reasons, of course. but I do have some concerns about the possibility of false positives from human cheat detectors primed by bias. Specifically, and now i'm cross-posting in my own words here:
"...there is now a growing body of evidence that hardnose cheat-suppression tactics are interfering with honest-play games (see the case on chessdcom written by @CheckRaiseMate documented here:
lichess.org/@/CheckRaiseMate/blog/beating-hikaru/DmcA0xHs )"
"What's the point of excelling at chess if there's a ceiling where an exceptional series of games gets you banned?
Even though I've caught fire and won more in a row than I should, I'm not talking about at my level. This is about expert players and above, and especially with those groms who have a chance to go Pro there need to be considerations made that, unless cheat-detection wizardry makes some serious advances in the machine-human interfaces (regardless of the website), false positives will continue to crop up and the civilian casualties will continue to mount in this peaceful game of war.
This means that for someone in their early teens who has a possible, maybe distant, shot at becoming a superGM they now need to calculate not just the moves, not just the openings and end games and variations and variants but also make calculations in their career arc to mitigate the risk and stress of false accusations of cheating.
There are definitely people looking at Pepellou's situation who will have to make choices about whether they want to risk winning big with fairplay online and face the same possible accusations."
This is literally about the one-in-a-billion kid who could be a world champion someday deciding not to pursue it because the cheat detection is overly calibrated to a paranoid degree. Even if that's not true, the optics of the situation could make it feel true for that person.
Just repeatedly saying we won't talk about our methods so as not to give the cheaters new exploits is valid right up until you start hurting innocent players. Then it's just lazy engineering creating new problems for us to solve without committing to clean up the messes already made.
@spidersneedlovetoo
Please have an open mind. Take these games to anyone with a bit of cheat detection. These are easy giveaways. Not half as complex as you would think.
I know that what I am saying is not evoking a lot of trust in you but I have played chess against IM/GMs and had wins too. Also, could beat engines which stronger players couldn't win against. Not the monster engines of today, of course. All because I read the book.
This is an open and shut case. The cheating is clear and please remember that I have nothing against the player in question. He made a mistake in judgement
Please have an open mind. Take these games to anyone with a bit of cheat detection. These are easy giveaways. Not half as complex as you would think.
I know that what I am saying is not evoking a lot of trust in you but I have played chess against IM/GMs and had wins too. Also, could beat engines which stronger players couldn't win against. Not the monster engines of today, of course. All because I read the book.
This is an open and shut case. The cheating is clear and please remember that I have nothing against the player in question. He made a mistake in judgement
That's a long post so I don't want to quote all of it.
Summarising, a strong up-coming player who is going to be the new world champion but nobody believes he's that good, so they think he must have cheated. That will tarnish is reputation as he'll be banned from the game for being better than they believe.
Maybe pepellou has everything it takes to be a strong grandmaster, but chess isn't a high-paying career and there are probably many with the talent who just stick to playing online.
Meanwhile his reputation is tarnished on this site, the site that I would personally like to see rise above chess.com because it opens chess up for everyone.
It would appear there is no proper appeal system in place. I've seen a number of members of the site cry about their marks, and we just tell them to go to the appeal site, but we don't know what happens next. It appears to be they say "sorry, we believe you cheated, so it's tough", without providing the evidence. chess.com had also never provided evidence until recently with the Hans Niemann case.
Summarising, a strong up-coming player who is going to be the new world champion but nobody believes he's that good, so they think he must have cheated. That will tarnish is reputation as he'll be banned from the game for being better than they believe.
Maybe pepellou has everything it takes to be a strong grandmaster, but chess isn't a high-paying career and there are probably many with the talent who just stick to playing online.
Meanwhile his reputation is tarnished on this site, the site that I would personally like to see rise above chess.com because it opens chess up for everyone.
It would appear there is no proper appeal system in place. I've seen a number of members of the site cry about their marks, and we just tell them to go to the appeal site, but we don't know what happens next. It appears to be they say "sorry, we believe you cheated, so it's tough", without providing the evidence. chess.com had also never provided evidence until recently with the Hans Niemann case.
Why did he closed his account so quick?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.