|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: no actually i got a virus from chess.com and stopped visiting that site a long time ago |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: <just wondering, now-a-days, where are you visiting?> ummm....chessgames.com, chesspub.com, chessvideos.tv, ICC, FICS, etc, etc...lots of interesting and worthwhile chess resources available on the web, lots of other great correspondence sites too, like gameknot, queenalice, redhotpawn, etc, etc. why? incidentally, got bored and finally signed up for chessgames.com this evening after browsing for years, this is one of my favorite websites |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: ok, i just read up a bit on this whole mess, here's what is most confusing about this to me - why would she cheat in a chess.com game? i understand why someone would cheat in some international tournament, or some swiss event with a big cash prize, but why would she cheat in a meaningless game? did she win any money for winning these games that she supposedly cheated in? did she get any FIDE rating pts? earn a new title? the international prestige and admiration gained from winning a chess.com game? is she just a crazy person? pathological cheater? i don't get it. it's like robbing a bank full of monopoly money. why would you do that? |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | bullyboy12708: Good question why don't you ask her? |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: well, you see, that's the point of a defamation lawsuit, now isn't it? because of chess.com's accusation, Dembo now has to deal with completely random people like me who know absolutely nothing about her asking her why she's such a stinking cheater. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: LittleRiver: I repeat my earlier question, then. What means does a player accused of cheating have of appealing or defending him- or herself? Or is the initial decision final? Boom, that's it, and the player has no way to respond. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | bullyboy12708: She should have not cheated then don't you think? |
|
Sep-20-10
 | | sisyphus: I'm familiar with both chess.com and Yelena Dembo, and I'd throw my lot with her anytime. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | bullyboy12708: I am fairly sure that she has/had the opportunity to discuss things with staff members through email |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: <She should have not cheated then don't you think?> you know, just because chess.com calls her a cheater, doesn't make it true. i don't know if Dembo is a cheater or not, and i don't particularly care, but i do know that if chess.com told me the sky was blue, i'd go outside and check for myself, just to make sure. |
|
Sep-20-10
| | sisyphus: I imagine Mr. Bullyboy has inside knowledge on this situation. He joined chessgames.com four days ago, apparently for the purpose of publicizing chess.com's action. Since then, he's posted 20 times, all of them on Ms. Dembo's pages. I don't need fancy analysis. Twenty out of twenty tells me this is someone with an ax to grind. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Loser Of Threads: yeah, but the complete absence of subtlety is somewhat disappointing, don't you think? |
|
Sep-20-10
| | sisyphus: In addition, we have the contribution of Mr. "littleRiver," who claims to be the owner of chess.com. (Though declining to use his real name makes anything he says suspect.) His comment – ungrammatical, marginally coherent, with gratuitous profanity – makes me understand why chess.com is a haven for wackos. It starts at the top. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | bullyboy12708: I have never played a single game against Yelena ever so no axe from me apart from the fact she cheated. Now it is no secret her games were analysed by no less than 4 people using different engines and she scored massively with all of them. I believe in chess.com cheating detection simply because i've seen time and again people getting banned and top 3 analysis has backed it up. Now even if I don't trust in chess.com cheating detection I DO trust in top 3 analysis especially when being faced with 4 completely different sources |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: So, once again, what chance was she given to defend herself? |
|
Sep-20-10
| | sisyphus: So Mr. Bullyboy, you "live international," as you put it. It's no secret that Ms. Dembo lives in Athens. Perhaps you asked her for a date, and she turned you down? That might explain why you're so worked up about this. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | bullyboy12708: You haven't even considered the possibility that I could be female? lol. I am aware from past people who have been banned (not necessarily for cheating either) that when your account is closed you can contact staff at chess.com via email. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | CCplayer: If littleriver is really the owner of chess.com he has just provided a very good reason not to ever go near that website again. I wouldn't have expected such a person to show such a complete lack of understanding and almost hateful behaviour. The whole post about "My Site" etc is oozing with self-importance and showing a total neglect for the fact that it is for the users he builds the site. The dominating feature of the whole post to me is that he assumes that the fact that he owns chess.com also means that he has a right to rule the rest of the world as well. I'd say: stay clear, this doesn't sound like a friendly place. Go to gameknot or some other place where you are not spat on in public because of unproven suspicions. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | SugarDom: It's probably she's more comfortable with a 2-d chess set rather than the 3D in OTB... Sorry, i thought this way the odd lie page. heh :D |
|
Sep-20-10
 | | tamar: I understand chess.com's dilemma. But the net effect will be that no titled player will knowingly go there after this incident. Yelena Dembo has always been helpful and above-board on this site, and she never tries to conceal her identity, or profit from her games. Very few titled players have the courage to do this, and the others will see this as confirmation they should never identify themselves on chess.com or chessgames.com |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | SugarDom: Nope. Coz the real big stars play in ICC or playchess. |
|
Sep-20-10
| | sisyphus: <bullyboy12708: You haven't even considered the possibility that I could be female? lol. I am aware from past people who have been banned (not necessarily for cheating either) that when your account is closed you can contact staff at chess.com via email.> Since you brought it up, I'm aware that you could be a female who's adopted a masculine handle as a matter of wish fulfillment. But I'm not going to go there. I'm familiar with the staff at chess.com. Earlier this year I asked them to cancel my own account. For me, it wasn't just a matter of stopping use of it; I wanted to eliminate every connection with the site. That's a reflection of how bad my experience was. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jupp53: Interesting examples of human reasoning are to read here. hmm There are two ways of playing CC nowadays and I do both of them. Here it's about playing without engines, which I do on chess.com. This is according to the rules there. The problem is about how to prove the use of engines. The most dull argument so far in the discussion here was, that there must be a way to prove it. Reality has to be concordant with my dreams or so. Maybe there are controlled studies about detection of cheaters. Knowing something about confidence intervalls and probabilities I'm sure: There will always be a doubt till someone admits cheating. I'm looking with engines after the games at every game and use this for two types of corrections of my game:
1. detecting blunders
2. correcting my openings
Someone looking at my games at chess.com will surely detect a high correlation between engines and my moves for several reasons. The first is an intense use of new opening literature by my side. Today this is mostly engine checked. So a 100% correlation between my moves and the first 4 moves of Rybka 3/4 or appropriate engines in the first 15 to 20 moves will be the normal case for my CC games on chess.com. In otb chess this holds for 10+ moves only. But it happened in otb games, where I knew nearly no theory but an idea, that I followed GM games over 15-20 moves without knowing them. The second reason lies in the analysis of my old games. Entering every game over some years into CPT and adding book moves and computer checked analysis leads to a high part of computer moves in my "handmade" database. If this makes me a cheater I will have to stop playing CC under the Chess.com rules. Even blunder checking of otb games prevents some blunders in CC on chess.com. After having looked deeper in the chessboard reasons for the blunder probability to blunder in CC reduces. It's not the same chess - otb I get tired. In CC I can stop playing if I remark a lack of attention. Probably the best way detecting cheaters will be endgame analysis. There are always positions where engine propose completely different moves compared to good endgame players. In my games in lss.chess-server.net I find in each and every endgame before the simple technical part different moves compared to the proposals of the engines. The reason is simple: Engines do moves in accordance with equitations about a given position, humans follow plans. That's about CC and detecting the use of engines.
Another problem is the way chess.com is acting if it believes to have found a cheater. I wasn't aware of the list here about cheaters in the forum. And I have to admit - I was superficial when I once detected a 'closed for cheating site' of a player. You may think about this your way. I will not discuss it. For me holds that I must quit chess.com. I will finish the games/tournaments on the run and let my account fall into sleep then. As there is no 100% secure way to detect cheaters imo - you may think differently - this way of acting out aggressions against people accused of cheating is an example of dark age behavior. There are good reasons for putting the pillory out of the criminal law in european civilizations. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | cotoi: People have a very hard time figuring out that the engine match-up for Yelena Dembo was obtained not counting the database moves. So, as long as the game follows an existent game (from mega database or so), the moves are not counted as engine matches. Sure, the database must be between two humans. You can't program Crafty to play vs. Crafty in a certain opening (say Marshall attack after move 20), store the results in a database and claim that your play is still human. To analyze endgames with an engine? Haha, how silly. Cheaters use tablebases :) |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | jmi: <Jupp53> Detecting cheating these days is much more complex than that. Many sites (eg. playchess/ICC) typically run their analyses against multiple engines at a variety of time intervals and ply moves and these moves are only taken and examined when the moves have gone out of book (opening book). Likewise, I expect chess.com to have done their proper research before taking this drastic action. It's not a matter to be taken lightly. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
