cheat exposed
helmet
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------33DFD48028C7F5C90F8D2297
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5
8.dxe5 Be6 9.Be3 Na5
10.Nd4 Qd7 11.Qe1 Nxb3 12.axb Be7 13.b4 c5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.f3 d4
16.Bf4 Ng5 17.bxc 0-0
18.Qd2 Nf7 19.b4 a5 20.Rxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Bxc5 22.Qd3 Qc7 23.Nd2
Nxe5 24.Qe4 Rxf4
25.Qxf4 d3+ 26.Kh1 dxc2 27.Nb3 Ba3 28.a6 Bb2 29.Qb4 Qd7 30.Nc5 Qd1
31.Qxb5 Kf7
32.Nb3 Nd3 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Kg1 Ne1 35.Qc7 Bd4+ 36.Kh1 Nd3 37.Qd8+ Kg6
38.Qe8+ Kf6+
i posted this game earlier but it may of been in wrong format.
i was white . i knew my opponent was a cheat ,i decided to prove it by
"cheating" myself
using hiarcs 6. im determined to prove he is cheat as there are prizes
at stake.
i need one of you computer chess whizzes to
Aconfirm black used a computer and
B if possible which computer.
ps i have never used a computer myself before but decided
it was the best way to unmask this cheat.i think it worked as
blacks play is obviously played by computer.
helmet
--------------33DFD48028C7F5C90F8D2297
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="cheat.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="cheat.txt"
<HTML>
As some of you may know , last year i tried to have a player banned from
chessnet for using computers
<BR>during the prize tournaments which were held.It was agreed that the
player had been cheating.However
<BR>nothing much was done about it.
<BR> this year i am playing in the stc bunch club
championship.i qualified from fics to play in the double round robin. guess
who had qualified from the ICC sectio.the same player .
<BR> in the first game i was black and played a benoni,which
i lost. After the game i checked game on fritz 4
<BR>and it was obvious he had been cheating.but i knew he would.
this time i was determined to catch him
<BR>and have him thrown out. SO i set a trap.
<BR> i have just played the second game .this time i used a
computer hiarcs 6. this led to a typical computer game very tactical .im
now 100%sure he is a cheat. im sending a copy of this to the tournament
director.admins on ICC should also take note. heres the game
<BR> [event "ICC
r 60 5"]
<BR> [site "internet
chess club"]
<BR> [white "helmet"]
<BR> [black ?
]
<BR> [whiteElo"1798"]
<BR> [blackElo"2207"]
<BR> [result "1/2-1/2"]
<P>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4
<BR>6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Be3 Na5 10.Nd4
Qd7
<BR>11.Qe1 Nxb3 12.axb Be7 13.b4 c5 14.Nxe6 fxe 15.f3
d4
<BR>16.Bf4 Ng5 17.bxc 0-0 18.Qd2 Nf7 19 b4 a5 20.Rxa5
Rxa5
<BR>21.bxa5 Bxc5 22.Qd3 Qc7 23.Nd2 Nxe5 24.Qe4 Rxf4
25.Qxf4 d3+
<BR>26.Kh1 dxc2 27.Nb3 Ba3 28.a6 Bb2 29.Qb4 Qd7
30.Nc5 Qd1
<BR>31.Qxb5 Kf7 32.Nb3 Nd3 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Kg1 Ne1
35.Qc7 Bd4
<BR>36.Kh1 Nd3 37.Qd8+ Kg6 38.Qe8+ Kf6 1/2-1/2
<BR> </HTML>
--------------33DFD48028C7F5C90F8D2297--
helmet
In article <64e3oh$3pa$2...@news3.texas.net> baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) writes:
>Path: ihug.co.nz!nntp.flash.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.texas.net!news.texas.net!not-for-mail
>From: baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao)
>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
>Subject: Re: cheat exposed
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:43:31 GMT
>Organization: Texas Networking, Inc.
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <64e3oh$3pa$2...@news3.texas.net>
>References: <346A87DC...@es.co.nz>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pm3hgr1-66-220.intrepid.net
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: ihug.co.nz rec.games.chess.computer:35161
>helmet <acu...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> i posted this game earlier but it may of been in wrong format.
>> i was white . i knew my opponent was a cheat ,i decided to prove it by
>>"cheating" myself
>>using hiarcs 6.
>How many "wrongs" is it that makes a "right"? Would someone please
>check the math and post here?
>-- Steve Lopez
in future lopez, take my comments in context you *ucking dimwit
helmet
pulgao
Ron Moskovitz
On the contrary, how on earth do you expect anyone to 'prove' your
opponent was using a computer? That task is impossible.
Furthermore, you admit using a computer when there are prizes at
stake. Hello? Because, what, you suspect (even strongly) that
your opponent is cheating?
And, let me guess, what makes you think he's cheating? That he's
playing stronger than you expected? That you can't beat him?
The implied logic of your post is that because you can't beat him,
you feel justified in cheating in an attempt to prove that he is
cheating. That's the context of your post. That's the context
Steve was reacting to. Don't call him a dimwit when he's just
reading what you wrote.
da...@taic.net
pulgao <baays...@intrepid.net> wrote:
: > i was white . i knew my opponent was a cheat ,i decided to prove it by
: >"cheating" myself using hiarcs 6.
: How many "wrongs" is it that makes a "right"? Would someone please
: check the math and post here?
Are you congenitally stupid, or is this something you have
developed by close association with rotisserie baseball at ChessBase?
Obviously, if he is posting a message here describing what he has
done, he is not intending to claim a prize. He is openly stating that he
did so because he feels, wrongly or rightly, that by using a computer to
play his moves, the computer nature of the opponent will be more obvious.
Get a clue.
pulgao
da...@taic.net wrote:
> Get a clue.
Oh, I absolutely have a clue.
And, for the 27,000th time, it wasn't rotisserie.
BTW, do you still beat your wife, Jimmy? ;-)
-- Steve Lopez
James Long
This whole thread has turned into one big waste of bandwidth.
Please - either examine the game as the poster asked or don't.
This isn't the place to discuss who has a clue and who beats
his wife. I'm sick of getting worthless off topic posts.
--
James
helmet
> Obviously, if he is posting a message here describing what he has
>done, he is not intending to claim a prize. He is openly stating that he
>did so because he feels, wrongly or rightly, that by using a computer to
>play his moves, the computer nature of the opponent will be more obvious.
> Get a clue.
Thanks for that, the people who are claiming otherwise are either
incredibly stupid, or deliberatly sidetracking the issue. What i really
want is for some strong players ,or computer chess experts to examine
the game and prove that black was cheating.I Let the dop know how i tried
to catch him out. I dont expect the game result to stand. in fact if the player
of black is not thrown out of the tournament i shall be withdrawing,and
forfitting my prize, which is free time on icc.
helmet
pulgao
da...@taic.net wrote:
> Please do let me know what it was then, if I'm remembering
>correctly. I want to get it right when I think of what ChessBase USA
>spends its time on.
Chess. Check the website. Any mention of baseball is purely by
accident. Oh, I think I mentioned one week that my column was a day
early as I was going to a soccer match one Sunday. Please forgive me.
I'm not going to explain the difference between rotisserie and
statistical sports gaming to you again. You're obviously just too
dense to get it. Either way, ChessBase USA is not involved in it
(unless you count the fact that I play statistical soccer games in my
spare time -- is that OK with you, Jimmy?).
-- Steve Lopez
Tim Mirabile
acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
[...]
>if you want to jump to the defence of a low life cheating scumbag fine.
[...]
This reminds me of an incident which happened to a friend of mine. He went into
a large department store to buy a new pair of sunglasses. He took off the ones
he was wearing, and tried on a few pairs. He decided not to buy any, so he put
his own back on and tried to leave the store. The counter woman thought he was
trying to steal a pair on glasses and called security. Two guards stopped him
as he tried to leave, and they brought him back to that counter. After it was
found that the store didn't even sell the brand he was wearing, he was allowed
to leave. The counter woman didn't say a word after this, so he asked "don't
you think you owe me an apology?", to which she replied "No, why should I
apologize to a thief!"
So if you want to convince us that your opponent was a "low life cheating
scumbag" you are welcome to try. But don't expect us to espouse your conclusion
until you've proven it. Why not post the game in a proper format like true PGN
without all that embedded HTML and we might take a look at it. Are there any
specific moves which lead you to believe he was using a computer? Also, what
makes you think that using a computer against him would expose him?
--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
da...@taic.net
pulgao <baays...@intrepid.net> wrote:
: da...@taic.net wrote:
: > Please do let me know what it was then, if I'm remembering
: >correctly. I want to get it right when I think of what ChessBase USA
: >spends its time on.
: Chess. Check the website. Any mention of baseball is purely by
: accident. Oh, I think I mentioned one week that my column was a day
: early as I was going to a soccer match one Sunday. Please forgive me.
You are going to deny that Don's ChessBase USA newsletter, several
years ago, had an article describing some form of alternative venture he
and/or ChessBase USA was involved with that is rotisserie baseball or some
form of gaming?
On an international newsgroup, with no doubt hundreds of people
who have been getting these newsletters in the United States?
Rolf Tueschen
t...@mail.htp.com (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
>[...]
>>if you want to jump to the defence of a low life cheating scumbag fine.
>[...]
>This reminds me of an incident which happened to a friend of mine. He went into
>a large department store to buy a new pair of sunglasses. He took off the ones
>he was wearing, and tried on a few pairs. He decided not to buy any, so he put
>his own back on and tried to leave the store. The counter woman thought he was
>trying to steal a pair on glasses and called security. Two guards stopped him
>as he tried to leave, and they brought him back to that counter. After it was
>found that the store didn't even sell the brand he was wearing, he was allowed
>to leave. The counter woman didn't say a word after this, so he asked "don't
>you think you owe me an apology?", to which she replied "No, why should I
>apologize to a thief!"
>So if you want to convince us that your opponent was a "low life cheating
>scumbag" you are welcome to try. But don't expect us to espouse your conclusion
>until you've proven it.
Please, master of chess and technical advisor and constructor of the new
CCC, could I repeat this last sentence once more?
>But don't expect us to espouse your conclusion
>until you've proven it.
Do you think, that it was proven with simple possible Dejas checks that
the expulsion of yours truly was justified beyond every doubt. Are you
convinced that I reacted maleviciously on Schroder (from REBEL) after he
had insulted me as "pig" for my attacking of a nazi poster here in rgcc?
And do you think it must speak without any professional doubts for a
psychiatric syndrom if someone (yours truly) attacked or criticised
maybe a dozen posters here on the usenet in a period of over 12 months
by now?
If you can't find any convincing answer, then please stop to act like a
superior smart guy against the desperate tries of "helmet" to seek
competent help. Give him for what he asked. You are a chessmaster. But
don't act like a mean politician, understood? The game notation is clear
and was posted a second time by helmet. Just open your eyes/mind please.
Helmet asked for your help too. Don't take him to task as if he has
acted provenly wrong. The whole style of your post insinuated just this.
If he had found the proof 100% he wouldn't have asked you for help. See
the difference?
Rolf Tueschen
pulgao
da...@taic.net continued to flog a dead horse by typing:
> You are going to deny that Don's ChessBase USA newsletter, several
>years ago, had an article describing some form of alternative venture he
>and/or ChessBase USA was involved with that is rotisserie baseball or some
>form of gaming?
Note the use of the words "several years ago". You have provided
yourself with your own answer, grasshopper.
R&D (Chess) Publishing became a completely separate entity in 1995,
took the Replay! franchise with them, and stopped publishing the
magazine shortly thereafter. Prior to that, it was a *separate*
company owned in part by Don Maddox, President of ChessBase USA. The
fact that Don chose to talk about it in a ChessBase newsletter doesn't
alter that fact.
However, I am (as of last month) a writer with these folks and will be
a regular columnist in SmartChess Online, R&D's WWW chess magazine.
If you doubt what I say, please contact Paul Hodges at
hod...@smartchess.com and he will confirm my statements.
You can stop beating that dead horse now, Jimmy. However, as you are a
master of deflection, I'm sure you'll find another subject (something
equally silly) to rant at me about. Or, since we seem to have this
same moronic conversation at least twice a year (as you're obviously
too damn stupid to understand what I'm saying), I'll just eagerly
await your next semi-annual rant.
-- Steve Lopez
da...@taic.net
pulgao <baays...@intrepid.net> wrote:
: magazine shortly thereafter. Prior to that, it was a *separate*
: company owned in part by Don Maddox, President of ChessBase USA. The
: fact that Don chose to talk about it in a ChessBase newsletter doesn't
: alter that fact.
"Yes" would have been a shorter answer, saving about 3-4 rounds of
articles.
ChessBase GmbH
da...@taic.net wrote:
>
> Please do let me know what it was then, if I'm remembering
> correctly. I want to get it right when I think of what ChessBase USA
> spends its time on.
I'd like to accept this invitation to introduce an interesting product
sold by ChessBase USA. Its called Albert and its a complete physics
tutorial package which I wrote three years ago. Consists of 43 Windows
programs ranging from simple kinematics to two-dimensional quantum
scattering. About 200.000 lines of code. One CD for $99 (price
resonable?). It has been installed by colleges/universities like
Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge.
Have a look at http://www.chessbase.com/products/albert/albert1.htm
--
Matthias
Tim Mirabile
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>t...@mail.htp.com (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>
>>acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>>if you want to jump to the defence of a low life cheating scumbag fine.
>>[...]
[...]
I will answer your case in another message. I will talk about helmet some more
here.
>If you can't find any convincing answer, then please stop to act like a
>superior smart guy against the desperate tries of "helmet" to seek
>competent help. Give him for what he asked. You are a chessmaster. But
>don't act like a mean politician, understood? The game notation is clear
>and was posted a second time by helmet.
I guess I am too lazy to type these moves manually into a chess program or to
replay the game by hand on a real board. But I was not too lazy to log in to
ICC and look up helmet's history. The games in question are there, and anyone
could see that the person he accuses of cheating is DrMate. The games are still
in DrMate's history as I write this.
Now it seems helmet has some odd ideas about how to detect a computer cheater.
I played over the first game which he lost. There I saw helmet jettison a pawn
for no apparent reason on move 25. White's 34th might look suspicious, flinging
the queen far from the action, but it also overlooks a shot which helmet then
missed. 34...Bxh3 and if 35.gxh3 Rxh3+ 36.Kg(1|2) Qh4 with a strong attack and
at the very least a draw in hand. After missing this black's game deteriorated
rapidly, but I didn't see anything which should be beyond a mere mortal.
In another message helmet wrote:
"i have just played the second game .this time i used a
computer hiarcs 6. this led to a typical computer game very tactical .im
now 100% sure he is a cheat."
Well, what do you expect? White was a computer (Hiarcs 6), and black thought he
was still playing against the person he had just beaten tactically. DrMate
played well in this game to squeak out a draw, but white practically forced him
to find these moves. Again, taking it move by move I didn't see anything so
conclusive.
>Just open your eyes/mind please.
>Helmet asked for your help too. Don't take him to task as if he has
>acted provenly wrong. The whole style of your post insinuated just this.
>If he had found the proof 100% he wouldn't have asked you for help. See
>the difference?
What bothered me is the statement helmet made in reply to Ron Moskovitz, which
*I* will now repeat:
"if you want to jump to the defence of a low life cheating scumbag fine."
So without the proof you say he still seeks, he has nevertheless concluded in
his mind that DrMate is a "low life cheating scumbag", and therefore anyone who
defends him is branded a defender of low life cheating scumbags. This I did not
like.
Rolf Tueschen
t...@mail.htp.net (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>If you can't find any convincing answer, then please stop to act like a
>>superior smart guy against the desperate tries of "helmet" to seek
>>competent help. Give him for what he asked. You are a chessmaster. But
>>don't act like a mean politician, understood? The game notation is clear
>>and was posted a second time by helmet.
>I guess I am too lazy to type these moves manually into a chess program or to
>replay the game by hand on a real board. But I was not too lazy to log in to
>ICC and look up helmet's history.
Tim, I'd like to thank you for your detailed posting in reaction to a
somewhat "motivating" post of mine. It was not my special case. Although
I still follow the question theoretically because Bob Hyatt once taalked
about measures that had to be taken (and first developped) to stop
misuse with computers on your American servers.
I personally haven't yet seen a single game on ICC or some such. It's a
stupid situation calling from Germany.
The comment I threw in your direction came out of an astonishment about
your singular post, or better to say not, out of an analysis of the
whole thread. So I want to excuse my superficial view so far that I
didn't take the further effect your reply must have had after helmet
wrote to Ron (see your quote below, which I hadn't read before) and so
on.
But let me take the opportunity to write at least one sentence about
usenet in general. And that explains hopefully convincingly for you why
I had to have a point of view different from yours. Usenet is a pin
wall. I have *read* something that stirred my attention. That was the
discrepancy between helmet's problem (is someone to prove my hypothesis
out there?) and your teacher's-like approach (first give the data
correctly...). At that moment I had the hypothesis that you wanted to
oppose him without speaking it out. Because, and I still maintain that
reproach at least, a *master* of your class (in my personal view) simply
wouldn't answer on that stuff OR IF he did, then he had to do some
homework too. Jumping in as a known respected entity in chess and then
whining about the incomplete data seemed contradictious to me. Sorry
that were more than one... :)
And again, I want to beg for your understanding that I probably gave the
impression that I expected the like from you. Having known all that and
the choice of to a foreigner strange vocabulary would have led me to a
more relaxed questioning or nothing at all... Or a post that was more
related to the once proposed idea from Bob.
But basically this is always the question on usenet. And I want to end
my post with serious thanks that you took the scores under your
searching eyes. That honours you and justifies the respect we normal
people have in front of real masters.
Even more so after you were in some people's eyes attacked by me for no
good reasons. I plea for a general pardon of usenet and not guilty. :)
Rolf Tueschen
Dwight VandenBerghe
On 14 Nov 1997 11:52:50 GMT, Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH)
wrote:
>I'd like to accept this invitation to introduce an interesting product
>sold by ChessBase USA. Its called Albert and its a complete physics
>tutorial package which I wrote three years ago. Consists of 43 Windows
>programs ranging from simple kinematics to two-dimensional quantum
>scattering. About 200.000 lines of code. One CD for $99 (price
>resonable?).
Price is great. Is it copy-protected? I know, I know ... "U don't
have to buy it" ... but what if I want to?
Dwight
James Long
helmet wrote:
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5
> 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Be3 Na5
> 10.Nd4 Qd7 11.Qe1 Nxb3 12.axb Be7 13.b4 c5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.f3 d4
> 16.Bf4 Ng5 17.bxc 0-0
> 18.Qd2 Nf7 19.b4 a5 20.Rxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Bxc5 22.Qd3 Qc7 23.Nd2
> Nxe5 24.Qe4 Rxf4
> 25.Qxf4 d3+ 26.Kh1 dxc2 27.Nb3 Ba3 28.a6 Bb2 29.Qb4 Qd7 30.Nc5 Qd1
> 31.Qxb5 Kf7
> 32.Nb3 Nd3 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Kg1 Ne1 35.Qc7 Bd4+ 36.Kh1 Nd3 37.Qd8+ Kg6
> 38.Qe8+ Kf6+
I looked at this game over the board, and later typed the moves into Tristram.
I set the minimum depth to 8 ply, and the capture quiescence to a max of
10 ply. My conclusion is that black didn't make any obvious tactical mistakes,
but I'm not prepared to say that he was definitely using a computer.
I believe Black's move 5 (Nxe4) is rare for programs with opening books, but it's
not impossible. Actually, probable for a program without an opening book.
I couldn't get Tristram to agree with black's moves 13,19,or 24 no matter how
long I let it search. Again, though, over the board these moves look ok, so
this doesn't prove anything either way.
How close are his response times? Does this guy ever play fast blitz or
bullet games?
Bottom line is it's tough to say. Maybe the only way to prove your point is to
find the program he's using.
---
James
helmet
I
>>I played over the first game which he lost. There I saw helmet jettison a pawn
>>for no apparent reason on move 25. White's 34th might look suspicious, flinging
>>the queen far from the action, but it also overlooks a shot which helmet then
>>missed. 34...Bxh3 and if 35.gxh3 Rxh3+ 36.Kg(1|2) Qh4 with a strong attack and
>>at the very least a draw in hand. After missing this black's game deteriorated
>>rapidly, but I didn't see anything which should be beyond a mere mortal.
the game was suspicious from the first move he played out of his
computers book.i analysed after the game, Nd4, which suprise suprise all the
computers thoughtwas slightly better than the numerous other alternatives.
he continued to play computer moves all the way through. after i blundered
he played all computer moves. i tried to attack on the kingside which a human
would of tried to stop .like you say he ignored my growing attack.Probably
because the move you claim draws 34...Bh3 dosent quite work.you are also right
about my game going downhill due to his usual mistake free clinical finishing.
i have looked at many of his games and have yet to see him lose so much as a
pawn. although in his next game he will probably deliberatly blunder
helmet
Ron Moskovitz
Please post those games and explain how they provide 'evidence' that
he cheats.
Thanks.
-Ron
helmet
>helmet wrote:
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5
>> 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Be3 Na5
>> 10.Nd4 Qd7 11.Qe1 Nxb3 12.axb Be7 13.b4 c5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.f3 d4
>> 16.Bf4 Ng5 17.bxc 0-0
>> 18.Qd2 Nf7 19.b4 a5 20.Rxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Bxc5 22.Qd3 Qc7 23.Nd2
>> Nxe5 24.Qe4 Rxf4
>> 25.Qxf4 d3+ 26.Kh1 dxc2 27.Nb3 Ba3 28.a6 Bb2 29.Qb4 Qd7 30.Nc5 Qd1
>> 31.Qxb5 Kf7
>> 32.Nb3 Nd3 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Kg1 Ne1 35.Qc7 Bd4+ 36.Kh1 Nd3 37.Qd8+ Kg6
>> 38.Qe8+ Kf6+
>How close are his response times? Does this guy ever play fast blitz or
>bullet games?
the two move he took the longest over were
16... Ng5 which is a forced move any human would play instantly
and 29...Qd7 which was because at first computers thought
black in trouble .hiarcs 6 found a few minutes to find this one.
Both these moves involved the score dropping for black
which is why he took longer
his bullet rating is 1300
helmet