| |
Main
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:03:13
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than 'arjunshah' ? He
has 21 stored games where he disconnected. Just done it to me when he
was a minor piece down.
I think ICC should implement something where after say 8 disconnections
you loose all the games and get put on the disconnectors list. (For
those that don't know, if one gets put on there, any disconnection is
automatically a loss.)
Either that, or perhaps any disconnections are run though a chess engine
automatically and those where there score is +3 or more and there are
say 3 or more disconnectins,then the games is automatically declared as
a loss.
I usually have 'noescape' on, but its a bit unwise if using a WiFi link.
I get fed up with sending messages to adjudicate when some cheating ****
disconnects on me.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 11:47:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than '[deleted]' ?
It's rather bad form to bandy such accusations around in public
forums. I'm sure ICC must provide you with an appropriate place to
report your suspicions.
> He has 21 stored games where he disconnected. Just done it to me
> when he was a minor piece down.
For reference, FICS doesn't let you start a new game if you have
twenty stored games. This seems, to me, to be a sensible measure.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Portable Tool (TM): it's like a hammer
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but you can take it anywhere!
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:48:19
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than '[deleted]' ?
>
> It's rather bad form to bandy such accusations around in public
> forums. I'm sure ICC must provide you with an appropriate place to
> report your suspicions.
>
If they do, they don't make such information easy to find. Best I have found
is adjudication and they make you wait a week or more ... even if the person
won't return a message.
>> He has 21 stored games where he disconnected. Just done it to me
>> when he was a minor piece down.
>
> For reference, FICS doesn't let you start a new game if you have
> twenty stored games. This seems, to me, to be a sensible measure.
>
Indeed, but I think they should differentiate between manually stored and
disconnect auto stored and not let you start after a five [auto] stored games.
If you want to play, resume your games promptly or resign them. After all,
the odds of having five power outages where you can't return for any length of
time is very small. And somebody else shouldn't suffer for your flaky ISP
either ... the we have timeseal [or whatever it is called] for that.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2007 15:32:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm sure ICC must provide you with an appropriate place to
>> report your suspicions.
>
> If they do, they don't make such information easy to find. Best I
> have found is adjudication and they make you wait a week or more
> ... even if the person won't return a message.
Does "help abuse" not tell you anything? Is there not a help channel
you can ask in? Can't you ask an admin? On FICS, all of this is very
easy.
>> For reference, FICS doesn't let you start a new game if you have
>> twenty stored games. This seems, to me, to be a sensible measure.
>
> Indeed, but I think they should differentiate between manually
> stored and disconnect auto stored and not let you start after a five
> [auto] stored games. If you want to play, resume your games
> promptly or resign them. After all, the odds of having five power
> outages where you can't return for any length of time is very small.
I think five might be a little too few. If you don't return
immediately from a disconnection, it can be quite hard to restart your
game, since your opponent has either logged off or started a new game
himself. By the time he finishes that game, you've probably started a
new game, and so on.
I accept that twenty might be too many but, on the other hand, a
serial disconnecter is probably going to get to twenty almost as
quickly as he'd get to ten. So twenty works just as well to stop the
cheats and has less chance of causing problems for legitimate users.
> And somebody else shouldn't suffer for your flaky ISP either ... the
> we have timeseal [or whatever it is called] for that.
Timeseal is for dealing with laggy connections, not connections that
fall over.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Generic Sadistic Hat (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hat but it wants to hurt you and it's
just like all the others!
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 12:38:54
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I think five might be a little too few. If you don't return
> immediately from a disconnection, it can be quite hard to restart your
> game, since your opponent has either logged off or started a new game
> himself. By the time he finishes that game, you've probably started a
> new game, and so on.
>
> I accept that twenty might be too many but, on the other hand, a
> serial disconnecter is probably going to get to twenty almost as
> quickly as he'd get to ten. So twenty works just as well to stop the
> cheats and has less chance of causing problems for legitimate users.
>
>
I disagree. The guys I have seen do this have less than 20.
>> And somebody else shouldn't suffer for your flaky ISP either ... the
>> we have timeseal [or whatever it is called] for that.
>
> Timeseal is for dealing with laggy connections, not connections that
> fall over.
>
Yes, I know. My point was that is about as much help one should be given if
their connection is poor. I see very little reason to make users suffer from
their opponents' chronic connectivity issues. Please note the word chronic.
Clearly allowing a five adjourns by disconnect [without returning] won't be a
problem except for those with chronic problems.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 23:01:19
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than '[deleted]' ?
>
>
> It's rather bad form to bandy such accusations around in public
> forums. I'm sure ICC must provide you with an appropriate place to
> report your suspicions.
I can't really see what else you can call it when someone disconnects a
lot, but never when they have an advantage. That suggests to me it is
not simply a poor internet connection.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861596414/cheat.html
defines a cheat as "break rules to gain advantage: to break the rules in
a game, examination, or contest, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage"
It's against ICC rules to do it, but they do. So is that not cheating?
He has several stored games vs computers, which are online 24/7. So
there is no excuse for going onto ICC when your opponent (a computer) is
online, but starting a new game with someone else.
Yes, ICC does allow one to report suspicions, but they seem to be pretty
ineffective at doing much about it. They have a 'suggestion' account,
which as far as I can see is linked to /dev/null.
I feel if ICC was a bit more proactive in methods to reduce the
frequency of this (you don't need a PhD to think of several things which
would help reduce this), and replied to suggestions of methods to reduce
it, then perhaps I'd not feel the need to put it on a newsgroup.
About the only response I have ever got from ICC was when I contacted
one of the owners directly about having an 'openings' channel, where you
could request people to play a particular opening. He felt it was not
really too useful, but said he would ask around. Never got any further
with that.
1) ICC do occasionally have contests under such rules (i.e. opening
agreed in advance)
2) Although channels are supposed to be related to chess, there are
numerous ones that are totally unrelated, and far less useful than one I
suggest. A look at the channels shows:
86 - ASCII art channel
97 - Politics.
123 - Acrobot
209 - Poker Channel.
274 - Spam channel.
Sometimes one feels that one hits ones head against a wall with ICC!
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:19:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Dave (from the UK) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than '[deleted]' ?
>>
>> It's rather bad form to bandy such accusations around in public
>> forums. I'm sure ICC must provide you with an appropriate place to
>> report your suspicions.
>
> I can't really see what else you can call it when someone
> disconnects a lot, but never when they have an advantage. That
> suggests to me it is not simply a poor internet connection.
Nonetheless, my comments stand. You may even find that publicly
accusing another user of cheating is against ICC's rules -- as far as
I recall, it's illegal on FICS.
> Yes, ICC does allow one to report suspicions, but they seem to be
> pretty ineffective at doing much about it. They have a 'suggestion'
> account, which as far as I can see is linked to /dev/null.
The `suggestion' account is, surely, for making suggestions about how
the service can be improved? If you're using that account to notify
the administrators of suspected cheating, it's no wonder they ignore
you.
> Sometimes one feels that one hits ones head against a wall with ICC!
So stop paying them money and go somewhere else?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hungry Book (TM): it's like a romantic
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ novel but it'll eat you!
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 23:33:00
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nonetheless, my comments stand. You may even find that publicly
> accusing another user of cheating is against ICC's rules -- as far as
> I recall, it's illegal on FICS.
I would not in the least be surprised if you are correct on this.
>
>> Yes, ICC does allow one to report suspicions, but they seem to be
>> pretty ineffective at doing much about it. They have a 'suggestion'
>> account, which as far as I can see is linked to /dev/null.
>
> The `suggestion' account is, surely, for making suggestions about how
> the service can be improved? If you're using that account to notify
> the administrators of suspected cheating, it's no wonder they ignore
> you.
I have not notified ICC of suspecting cheating via the 'suggestion'
account. But I have used the 'suggestion' account on several times in
the past for other things (such as asking for a 'channel' to arrange
games for a specific opening) and realise it is a waste of time - I've
used it perhaps 10 times over the years, and have NEVER got a reply. Is
it any wonder I give up using it?
>
>> Sometimes one feels that one hits ones head against a wall with ICC!
>
> So stop paying them money and go somewhere else?
Overall ICC is a positive experience. But, like Thomas T. Veldhouse, who
said "Other than opponents forcing adjournment by disconnect, nothing
annoys me", I find this particular issue annoying.
Other things like people offering draws in positions that they are
clearly lost, and a bit annoying (sometimes amusing), but the
disconnections is by far the biggest annoyance for me. It seems to be
that ICC could improve this matter.
>
> Dave.
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:25:46
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Dave from the UK wrote:
>I think ICC should implement something where after say 8 disconnections
>you loose all the games and get put on the disconnectors list. (For
>those that don't know, if one gets put on there, any disconnection is
>automatically a loss.)
Lose. The word is lose, not loose.
How do you get on the disconnectors list now?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 23:06:54
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> Lose. The word is lose, not loose.
Cheers. My spelling errors can be useful at times though! (I'm sure you
know what I mean).
> How do you get on the disconnectors list now?
I don't know what you have to do, but I know there is a list, and if
someone is on that and they disconnect, they will lose.
I think it needs people to complain - I don't think it is automatic upon
a certain number of stored games. But it hard to know for sure.
It seems to me that ICC need to do more to stop people from disconnecting.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:09:16
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anyone know of a handle on ICC that cheats more than 'arjunshah' ? He
> has 21 stored games where he disconnected. Just done it to me when he
> was a minor piece down.
>
Yes, there are a few of them. No escape only works in games you seek for, so
it does't solve all problems. I tend to use request-win (or perhaps
request-draw) on these individuals in an attempt to deter them from this
behaviour in the future and of course to get the rating benefit that I think I
deserve.
>
> I think ICC should implement something where after say 8 disconnections
> you loose all the games and get put on the disconnectors list. (For
> those that don't know, if one gets put on there, any disconnection is
> automatically a loss.)
>
> Either that, or perhaps any disconnections are run though a chess engine
> automatically and those where there score is +3 or more and there are
> say 3 or more disconnectins,then the games is automatically declared as
> a loss.
>
I would say +1.5. I have had players drop a pawn, lose tempo and position and
realize that they are only likely to win if I make a mistake and then they
quit.
> I usually have 'noescape' on, but its a bit unwise if using a WiFi link.
>
I play all the time on WiFi, you just need reliable service/hardware.
> I get fed up with sending messages to adjudicate when some cheating ****
> disconnects on me.
>
I think that games that adjourn due to disconnect should have 15 minutes to
return or automatically give the remaining player the opportunity to claim a
win/draw/loss (why would you do the latter?).
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:15:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC.
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think that games that adjourn due to disconnect should have 15
> minutes to return or automatically give the remaining player the
> opportunity to claim a win/draw/loss (why would you do the latter?).
I'm not in favour of such time limits. Firstly, fifteen minutes is
way too short -- if somebody has been disconnected because of, say,
hardware failure, a power cut or their ISP going down, it may take
much longer than fifteen minutes for them to come back. Even if you
give several hours, it may be that the person only plays in the
evening so won't be back until the next day.
Much better not to have automatic time-outs or, if you do, set it to
at least a week.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Revolting Nuclear Widget (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy that's made of atoms
but it'll turn your stomach!
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:43:46
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC.
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think that games that adjourn due to disconnect should have 15
>> minutes to return or automatically give the remaining player the
>> opportunity to claim a win/draw/loss (why would you do the latter?).
>
> I'm not in favour of such time limits. Firstly, fifteen minutes is
> way too short -- if somebody has been disconnected because of, say,
> hardware failure, a power cut or their ISP going down, it may take
> much longer than fifteen minutes for them to come back. Even if you
> give several hours, it may be that the person only plays in the
> evening so won't be back until the next day.
>
That is the risk you have to take in my honest opinion. The system is abused
far too much ... it is like making cocaine legal and for sale on the street
corner near a school ... you can't trust an abuser not to abuse.
> Much better not to have automatic time-outs or, if you do, set it to
> at least a week.
OK ... I could handle this if they had another rule that AUTOMATICALLY put
people that have more than 4 or 5 adjourned games [by disconnect] onto a list
that forces their resignation if they don't return after a few minutes.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 11:57:20
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC.
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> OK ... I could handle this if they had another rule that AUTOMATICALLY put
> people that have more than 4 or 5 adjourned games [by disconnect] onto a list
> that forces their resignation if they don't return after a few minutes.
Yes. I agree.
I've never had as many as 5 adjourned games at any one time. And never
more than 1 where it has been me disconnecting. I find it hard to belive
that if someone
a) Does not deliberately disconnect AND
b) Makes an effort to get adjourned games finished quickly
then they will not reach 5. If they do reach 5 where they have
disconnected, it means they either do it deliberately or they don't make
reasonable efforts to clear up such games (probably both).
But some like arjunshah, postalite, Boritz and several more seem to do
it all the time.
In some ways, if you want the hassle, you can probably boost your own
rating by playing the likes of these people cretins, since their rating
is inflated. If you don't mind the hassle, play them, then go to
adjudicate when they cheat. Personally though, I don't want the hassle.
ICC could probably clean up the server a bit by identifying the handles
of those that are on many peoples 'noplay' list.
BTW, I've added Boritz to my noplay list. Not that I have played him,
but I can see why you object to his actions.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 23:16:36
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> I play all the time on WiFi, you just need reliable service/hardware.
Well I have a pretty modern (< 6 months old) laptop and don't find it as
reliable as a fixed connection. I sometimes play from airports.
>
>>I get fed up with sending messages to adjudicate when some cheating ****
>>disconnects on me.
>>
Me too.
>
> I think that games that adjourn due to disconnect should have 15 minutes
Yes, 15 mins seems good. I have lost the odd game when I have noescape
on when my connection died and I did not realise until it was too late.
15 mins would be good.
> to
> return or automatically give the remaining player the opportunity to claim a
> win/draw/loss (why would you do the latter?).
>
You can always resign a stored game. I had someone disconnect on me
after throwing a piece. He then resigned the stored game. Whether it was
an accident he disconnecting after throwing a piece, or whether he did
it on purpose but thought better of it, I don't know.
I don't know about you, but I think disconnecting is the single most
annoying thing on ICC. There are many things that could be better, but
of all the problems I personally see, I believe disconnecting is the one
that annoys me the most.
I've had the odd person let their time run out, rather than resign, but
that is not too frequent a problem.
As a matter of interest, what annoys you most on ICC - server downtime,
disconnectors, .. or whatever else?
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:39:40
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> As a matter of interest, what annoys you most on ICC - server downtime,
> disconnectors, .. or whatever else?
>
Other than opponents forcing adjournment by disconnect, nothing annoys me.
Most players I run across are courteous and good players. Most don't say
"good game" anymore, but I guess that is typical sportsmanship [or lack of] in
modern times.
I have had very stable connections with ICC (I often play using my laptop
while sitting on my deck (screened in) in the morning before the light is too
intense and I never have a problem) and only noticed perhaps one time in the
last year when I couldn't connect, and that only lasted for a few minutes.
I DO find players that disconnect and refuse to return to be VERY annoying
though and for noescape more often than not, which means I have to wait for
somebody to accept my seek and I can not accept somebody else for fear they
may not have noescape set and ditch out on me [i.e. Boritz ... who I finally
caught online]. I find it so annoying as noescape often means I can't find an
opponent at non-peak hours of the day ... and off to Playchess.com I go where
I just about always can find an opponent.
BTW ... Playchess.com and WorldChessNetwork (the latter is a bit limitted and
I rarely use it now) don't allow such nonsense to occur.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 21:53:27
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>>Either that, or perhaps any disconnections are run though a chess engine
>>automatically and those where there score is +3 or more and there are
>>say 3 or more disconnectins,then the games is automatically declared as
>>a loss.
>>
>
>
> I would say +1.5. I have had players drop a pawn, lose tempo and position and
> realize that they are only likely to win if I make a mistake and then they
> quit.
I guess it would depend on the skill level of the players. If they are
rated 1000 standard, then its quite possible they would win a game even
if a rook down, since there opponent is quite likely to blunder a queen
at that level.
I'm no GM (a bit over 1500 on ICC), but clearly at this level its most
unlikely one could loose a rook with no compensation and still win.
But I really do wish there was something implemented to sort out the
cheats quickly and stop the behavior. I don't think it needs to be done
to everyone - only those with a certain minimum of stored games.
The other day I inadvertently played 'postalite' - another cretin who
has disconnected on me in the past when he was lost and has a list of
stored games as long as my arm. I got that game adjudicated in my favor,
but I decided not to play him again.
Unfortunately, I inadvertently clicked on the seek graph and so started
a game with him, a day or so back.
He beat me this time, so I sent him a tell saying "Well done, there was
no need to disconnect this time."
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 12:40:58
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I guess it would depend on the skill level of the players. If they are
> rated 1000 standard, then its quite possible they would win a game even
> if a rook down, since there opponent is quite likely to blunder a queen
> at that level.
>
> I'm no GM (a bit over 1500 on ICC), but clearly at this level its most
> unlikely one could loose a rook with no compensation and still win.
>
> But I really do wish there was something implemented to sort out the
> cheats quickly and stop the behavior. I don't think it needs to be done
> to everyone - only those with a certain minimum of stored games.
>
> The other day I inadvertently played 'postalite' - another cretin who
> has disconnected on me in the past when he was lost and has a list of
> stored games as long as my arm. I got that game adjudicated in my favor,
> but I decided not to play him again.
>
> Unfortunately, I inadvertently clicked on the seek graph and so started
> a game with him, a day or so back.
>
> He beat me this time, so I sent him a tell saying "Well done, there was
> no need to disconnect this time."
>
A "cretin" named Boritz is another. He drops games like turds. I also asked
for adjudication but got spanked for it. Why? Because I had put him in my
noplay list so that I wouldn't accidentally play him again and get dropped
again. So, now I have asked for an abort, and of course, that goes unanswered
as well. ICC needs to fix this or I will just move all my playing over to
Playchess.com and FICS (I am sure the issue exists with FICS as well, but at
least it is free).
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 10:48:43
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> A "cretin" named Boritz is another.
I see Boritz has got an adjourned games with postalite, who is yet
another cheat (15 disconnections in his current list).
A look at the stored games of some on ICC, one sees the following have
disconnected many times:
arjunshah 18
postalite 15
Boritz 12
RJJR 7
I have in the past seen players with more than 20.
> He drops games like turds. I also asked
> for adjudication but got spanked for it. Why? Because I had put him in my
> noplay list so that I wouldn't accidentally play him again and get dropped
> again.
I would send him a message asking for him to suggest a date/time to
complete, remove him from your noplay list, then if he does not reply
(which the cheats never do), ask for adjudication.
> So, now I have asked for an abort, and of course, that goes unanswered
> as well.
But asking for an abort only encourages this behaviour - the cheats get
what they want (not loosing a game).
> ICC needs to fix this or I will just move all my playing over to
> Playchess.com and FICS (I am sure the issue exists with FICS as well, but at
> least it is free).
Bad publicity is probably one thing that would encourage ICC to fix the
problem.
When I remember, which is not all the time, I looked at the stored list
of any opponent I don't know. If there are many exclamation ks (!)
then I know they disconnected so abort at move 1.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:06:04
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Cheats on ICC. 'arjunshah'
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> Either that, or perhaps any disconnections are run though a chess engine
> automatically and those where there score is +3 or more and there are
> say 3 or more disconnectins,then the games is automatically declared as
> a loss.
>= +3 if the person disconnecting is black, and <= -3 if the person is
white, then their game is lost.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
|
