If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
From the level of trust I'm seeing here, there is no way this should get off the ground. Players are simply leaving themselves open to unfounded allegations of cheating in the hope an opponent will get a win from the claim.
There are ways through software to monitor what applications are running on a person's machine, and what % of time is spent in each application - even down to the level of what specific web pages were being looked at in the internet browser. This information can be transmitted to a common place for reporting.
If every participant were required to run such software it would make it extremely difficult to cheat without being caught.
A few points:
I attended IM Regan's lecture at the Canadian Open about cheating in chess. He made it clear that as a mathematician and someone who has been consulted on many cheating allegations, including the current ones in France, that engine analysis cannot be the first line of accusation when confronting possible cheating.
Secondly, the CCL reserves the right to make any team have a neutral third party oversee their games. We also reserve the right to ask any player or team to leave the league for any reason we see fit.
Thirdly, I am surprised at the focus on cheating, but of course this would not be Chesstalk if everyone wasn’t complaining and bashing new ideas down. Sometimes one loses because the opponent plays better. As Vlado said elsewhere, there is not enough money involved here and you need 3 others who are cheaters also. Cheating is an extremely small problem when you think of the number of people who play online chess and the number who cheat. It is not a "big" problem.
Finally, as Vlado said, the biggest problem will be where to play. In a place where anyone can go to watch - like a workplace, school, library, or home as a last resort if you don't mind anyone dropping by.
From what I read, cheating is an extremely difficult issue in any on-line chess. It is not easy over-the-board, and only seems to be under control with stringent control of various devices, and a strong arbiter. And being the doubter that I am, I don't really believe that you can establish a cheater by comparing his/her play against a computer program, even over more than one game. At least not for the sanctions being suggested here.
The "best" solution is to have a well-recognized arbiter, or a genuinely respected person, to ride herd on each team, in person, on-site. Perhaps the league might help encourage such stalwarts to "volunteer"?
Just my opinion.
P.S. I read Brian's latest post after I posted this, and he seems to cover my main points very well!
Last edited by Fred Harvey; Monday, 18th July, 2011, 10:30 PM.
Reason: update
There are ways through software to monitor what applications are running on a person's machine, and what % of time is spent in each application - even down to the level of what specific web pages were being looked at in the internet browser. This information can be transmitted to a common place for reporting.
If every participant were required to run such software it would make it extremely difficult to cheat without being caught.
The only machine that I would be willing to install such software on would be a throw away machine that I set up just for purposes of playing in this league. Such monitoring software would not go anywhere near any one of my main computers that I use for online banking, email and other such applications.
We're not playing for the world championship here. It is for fun. It is modelled on the old Detroit Metro Chess League from what Brian was telling me at the Canadian Open with the only difference being that it occurs over the internet and that it is CFC rated instead of using its own rating system. It is being run through ICC so presumably they have some protections against cheating.
If this idea were to catch on it could rejuvenate chess in Canada especially in areas where there are no clubs, tournament directors nor sufficient numbers to allow tournaments to be organized.
Let's be CANadians not CAN'Tadians to steal a line from a forgetable movie.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Monday, 18th July, 2011, 10:53 PM.
Players can check over their opponent's play with an engine after the game. If the player plays "too well" for their rating, then the game can be submitted to an "Ethics Arbiter".
So are you aware of any study that correlates a players rating against a particular program's choice of moves on particular set of hardware with a particular set of time being used? (bearing in mind that the answers will be different if any of those variables are changed?). How do you determine where the players book knowledge (including any private unpublished analysis) ends (and hence those moves should not be included in the comparison)? What if the player is under / over rated? What about long sequences of forced only moves that raise the percentage? Is it different for positional games, endgames, or tactical games? Is one game even enough to be sure?
By saying anyone can just compare against a random computer program you are grossly simplifying the problem. I've never seen any sort of analysis that would suffice to allow presentation of percentage agreement with the computer to be considered "good" evidence.
The only machine that I would be willing to install such software on would be a throw away machine that I set up just for purposes of playing in this league. Such monitoring software would not go anywhere near any one of my main computers that I use for online banking, email and other such applications.
You are willing to open a program that allows you to play on ICC and closing it when you are done. How about 1) Open ICC software 2) Open CCL monitoring software and then when done 3) Close ICC software 4) Close monitoring software.
If this idea were to catch on it could rejuvenate chess in Canada especially in areas where there are no clubs, tournament directors nor sufficient numbers to allow tournaments to be organized.
Let's be CANadians not CAN'Tadians to steal a line from a forgetable movie.
Please... I am not one of the people who have said anything negative here, I strongly believe this is something that has to happen. But something does have to be done to curb cheating. It is more rampant online than you would believe -on sites where people play just "for fun" and not even for any kind of official rating. It would be nice to ensure there are preventative measures to protect the CFC rating system from pollution, and that in a proper tournament there is no leeway for anybody to accuse a person with a well-earned win of having cheated.
Personally, I prefer a common location for the team to play with some sort of person sworn to uphold the rules presiding. However, as you have mentioned, it is important an idea such as this catch on and in order to do so it has to reach into the homes of people who can't make it to a common location with team mates.
Personally, I prefer a common location for the team to play with some sort of person sworn to uphold the rules presiding. However, as you have mentioned, it is important an idea such as this catch on and in order to do so it has to reach into the homes of people who can't make it to a common location with team mates.
So are you aware of any study that correlates a players rating against a particular program's choice of moves on particular set of hardware with a particular set of time being used? (bearing in mind that the answers will be different if any of those variables are changed?). How do you determine where the players book knowledge (including any private unpublished analysis) ends (and hence those moves should not be included in the comparison)? What if the player is under / over rated? What about long sequences of forced only moves that raise the percentage? Is it different for positional games, endgames, or tactical games? Is one game even enough to be sure?
By saying anyone can just compare against a random computer program you are grossly simplifying the problem. I've never seen any sort of analysis that would suffice to allow presentation of percentage agreement with the computer to be considered "good" evidence.
Which is why I think it would just be allegations at a point.
One can be fairly confident though that in a 60 move game, most < 2200 players will have at least 5 moves where a top engine will not have in its first choice.
There is research about how humans play versus how computers play (even now). A lot of the good sites use computer software to analyze for cheating (backed up by human verification). Of course they do tend to have more than one game as a sample. So perhaps the first instance in terms of punishment could be a warning or some such.
Online cheating to me is a big problem. There is a difference between online ratings that have no real meaning, and messing with the CFC ratings.
Notwithstanding the above, as this will be through ICC, it should be pretty safe. ICC is probably the most advanced in terms of online cheating detection. If the CCL games will be put through their monitoring then it should be pretty safe.
The league should still make clear its punishments for cheating though. Sometimes just knowing the punishment one faces can serve as a good deterrent.
Reading this thread one can sense that the "canadian chess league" idea is already in serious jeopardy. Trying to set up measures to counter possible cheating for a large number of players playing on-line will prove difficult and effort consuming. Futhermore an open formula where anyone can play, although attractive at first sight, will simply take away the best part of the potential interest for it.
What Ken MacDonald had in mind I believe is a team tournament where people would get a chance to see the top players in action, especially those who play rarely or would not travel to play other top players in other parts of the country. In essence a team competition is an elite thing, not a mass endeavour for every rank and file player out there. Sorry guys. But by "elite" I do not mean over 2200, over 2400 or over 2600, I mean "best of". If the top player of a certain club is 1856, then for that club he is "elite". But since enrollling new "members" (sometimes called "mercenaries") with higher ratings is not a difficult thing to do, that 1856 player should not necesarily expect to play board 1 for his club. This is a matter of the club's internal policy.
If a club, a city or a country sets out to be represented in a team competition, everyone expect to see the best players available representing that club, that city or that country, not necessarily those raising their hands first. How would you like to see an olympiad where countries are represented by teams randomly made of amateurs of any level ?
By keeping a possible canadian chess league low in numbers but high in quality there is a chance to create significant interest among chess fans and a good chance to keep cheating problems at a minimum. There are other simpler ways to make the rank and file players active and happy, one of them is face to face chess...
And before starting any such league, how about some trials to see if problems can effectively be taken care of ? Montreal-Toronto ? Toronto-Vancouver, Edmonton-Montreal ? I am surprised that someone would even consider starting the whole thing without such trials.
... before starting any such league, how about some trials to see if problems can effectively be taken care of ? Montreal-Toronto ? Toronto-Vancouver, Edmonton-Montreal ? I am surprised that someone would even consider starting the whole thing without such trials.
I'm also inclined to agree, broadly, with Jean's other points. With regard to cheating, ICC and USCL have oodles of experience, why not follow that, in detail? I'm not a computer maven, but I'd think that the ideal interface would be a bootable CD/DVD/USB stick which would not have access to the hard drive at all. It would be a CCL-UI, with only specified apps running during the matches (that's why a VM would be slightly less ideal). OTOH, if we're talking public space and computers, aren't we therefore talking public libraries, which in this area at least means Linux machines? Librarians have reservations about users installing any kind of software on their machines, just like Vlado does.
Two basic questions: will each player as an individual be required to join CFC? ICC?
1) Yes, do trial matches. Start now!
2) Don't bother with "CCL software." Use standard ICC.
3) Any attempt to detect chess engines can be easily thwarted. Don't bother trying.
4) Using public venues is the best way to minimize cheating. (Reducing prizes is another angle.) But this has me stuck:
Where could people go to get exclusive access to 4 computers with internet for 4 hours straight? Libraries don't offer that length usually. Universities restrict access to students. 16h of cafe time could be expensive.
1) Yes, do trial matches. Start now!
2) Don't bother with "CCL software." Use standard ICC.
3) Any attempt to detect chess engines can be easily thwarted. Don't bother trying.
4) Using public venues is the best way to minimize cheating. (Reducing prizes is another angle.) But this has me stuck:
Where could people go to get exclusive access to 4 computers with internet for 4 hours straight? Libraries don't offer that length usually. Universities restrict access to students. 16h of cafe time could be expensive.
Given the difficulties mentioned above (and to add to that, I don't think most Chess clubs have Internet access, but I might be wrong?)
it might make more sense to allow "virtual" teams (the players would all play from "anywhere" - at the same time), but I suppose that would only heighten the worries about cheating... but it sure would be convenient to have "virtual team matches"
Tweet
Comment