|2013-03-03 17:19 • Tatiana Volkova (1dalida1)|
missing match Thundrestorm-Czech-Layback
|I'm soory. By mistake we mixed up the dates, we thought that we had to play on the 3rd of March. Can we replay the game and to appoint another date which will be convenient to our opponent Czech Layback B.|
|2013-01-27 21:19:24 • Pavel Laube (kedlub)|
RE: CHEATING IN GOMOKU EUROLEAGUE 2011/2012
|Good to see a pleased Dragon:) Wich is the only good thing actually.. I share the disgust about these players. We happened to have our own "Tour de France", probably they think it's just "normal" to cheat. Considering this morality, I would rather not imagine how far got their "techniques" during the last seasons. I'm affraid we've just caught Al Capone with tax evation.. but again, at least something, thank you all for the investigation.
Personally, I consider the punishment rather very modest. I would probably feel very weird playing with these guys the next season. I hope that if there are honest players in their teams (and I hope so), they will react accordingly.
Oh and I don't see very clearly, why has Bulatovsky lower punishment than Muratov:)
|2013-01-27 17:12:42 • Ondrej Nykl (pandik1)|
RE: CHEATING IN GOMOKU EUROLEAGUE 2011/2012
|Unfortunately I can't share the same sentiment as dragon. I wasn't aware of the things mentioned in the decission, for me it's shocking and disgusting. This is not some random act of a random cheater, this is a cancer, slowly but steadily killing gomoku. Instead of removing the tumor we will just take few painkillers and let the cancer continue killing us.
I can't see myself ever joining EL again if such people are allowed to play.
|2013-01-27 15:44:55 • Beniamin Costinas (blackdrag00n)|
RE: CHEATING IN GOMOKU EUROLEAGUE 2011/2012
You got yourselves a happy dragon. I shall spare you... for now! :D
Was getting REEEAAAAALLLYYY repelled from gomoku because of the likes of this Popiel and his crowd of cheaters. The only fair player in Lords of Cheat0 is adi. I can't say that I am sure 100% that they use programs. But I do have a gut feeling that they do...
While playing vs them last round I never felt so discouraged of playing gomoku. Thus I rage quitted (not a good thing, I know... but either that or going berserk on their asses :)) ). Should have not played at all, or just fill the corners while they (except adi) got their so "hard worked" wins.
Let us make two leagues in the upcoming years. One for those of us that enjoy playing and one for them cheaters and program users. I suppose it is interesting to see who's the best code developer (not for me... but who knows).
Dragon pleased!( http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yxlsiN0lNTE/TmqZqK_Oy1I/AAAAAAAAAHw/qEyXeJeVs4A/s1600/zodiac-dragon-pic.gif )
|2013-01-27 00:00:05 • Ales Rybka (autickocz)|
CHEATING IN GOMOKU EUROLEAGUE 2011/2012
I have posted the decision regarding the cheating in the season 2011/2012. Please, see the message # 6557 in "The Decission" part.
|2013-01-23 20:22:54 • Ales Rybka (autickocz)|
the common work of the committee is solving normal problems like "+/- points, fake nicknames etc." It is not easy to decide fast. Guys have own duties, families, jobs and waiting for comments is sometimes long. Don't forget that this work is unpaid and voluntary. During whole year guys have been preparing the rules to be as best as possible because you all know that even small bug is very fast misused, unfortunately. We started with "10-row-rules" and what do we have now?
The case "Drabosz" and the case "Lamaza" are different and very serious. If I should choose the priority of these cases, I would choose "Lamaza" case. If it is true, then it is very sophisticated cheating and more serious than "program cheating". I guess zukole has done a great job and we can thank him and I am sure that decision will be easier than in "Lamaza" case. It might even happen that the committee will ask the captains and the players for help by voting.
Btw, "Anti-cheaters" committee is very good idea, the experienced players can prepare analysis of suspected games and then everything will be faster and better. There might be more committees for sure. If anyone is going to participate somehow, then he (she) is very welcome. But I am not sure if you are going to do that, if you have time to do that. I left the committee years ago because I had no time and imagine, that Igor, Piotrek and Tomo have been working there from the begininng (I admire them).
We have been facing the biggest crisis here. So please, if you have any ideas how to solve the current problems, how to make the EL better and more serious, write me at rybka (a) piskvorky.cz. I have got some ideas, maybe good, maybe bad, but we can start discussing it.
I like EL, I like meeting friends and other players and I definitely want the EL to continue.
|2013-01-17 01:25:42 • Igor Eged (outiec)|
Change in the EL committee
|I would like to inform you about change in the EL committee with immediate effect.
Instead of Andrey Sviridov we have a new member, Vladimir Nipoti (angrypanda).
Thanks Andrey for your work as a committee member and good luck to Vladimir!
|2013-01-15 20:49:26 • Adam Horvath (anakinnmoose)|
|Hey Zukol, I would like to see that thanks. email@example.com|
|2013-01-15 19:48:11 • Michał Żukowski (zukolepl)|
|If someone is interested, I can send analysis by e-mail (they are on forum.gomoku.pl, but probably most players have problems with understanding the polish).
For me this case is clear, pity that personal opinion is more important than the evidence.
|2013-01-15 03:02:22 • Pavel Laube (kedlub)|
can you explain me why do you think involving more people and transparency is not right? Firstly, I think you can be only benefited by experiences and opinions of people such as zukole and ondik who has been long active in this matter. Secondly, even a player like me who has no experience with progs whatsoever can evaluate if he sees good arguments or not, I dare to say. If there are some. And I can't see no particular reason why not to add participants (captains) in deciding these matters. It's our competition after all. And I think we have right for some info if the credibility of this competition was questioned so widely.
I'd like to point out that there are no publicly decided standards according which the committee would then evaluate the chaters. So I have basicly no idea how the committee is deciding about cheaters whatsoever. I think a public discussion (not an abstract one) would be very helpful also in this way, to get to know the deciding process and to discuss the standards.
You write about 2000 comments in the private forum and difficult evaluating and seem to be offended by questioning the activity of the committee. But who can blame me for that if I can see absolutely nothing of it. All I have seen during the last monthes was a serious accusation and then several weeks literally nothing (exept of iec's: We do not find the evidences sufficient but we're watching it). I'm sorry, but this is a bit too long and too few for not beeing curious (after all, I found a funny rule: 13.2. The Committee has to decide about the punishment not later than 7 days after the end of the particular round. If the Committee does not decide, the Organizers of EL have the right to decide.. but that is not my point). But I saw the results of the analysis from Zukole on gomoku.pl and I saw also Drabost games myself, in Budapest as well as in the EL. And yes, based on this I came to a pretty clear opinion. If you think otherwise, I would be more than happy to hear your arguments - but that moves us again to the suggested open discussion; which is my only point which I'm arguing. Otherwise I can only ask..if we can't solve such an obvious case, how can we investigate much more complicated cases which are likely to be present in EL? And what signal do we give by that to cheaters?
Thanks for your reaction.
|2013-01-14 01:58:08 • Gergő Tóth (ycgergo)|
despite the Committee's work is not transparent, it does not mean that there is none at all – just to compare, there is almost 2000 comments altogether in the Committee’s private forum. Your opinion (and public opinion as well) about drabos's case is quite obvious, the only problem is that any result opposed to it would mean ineffective and incompetent work according to your thinking. Personally I don't think that involving more and more people just for their opinion and transparency is right, unless they have well-worked out and conspicuous proofs about current cases and ready to help in effective work in such cases.
Zukole's both accusations were very well made, so investigating every aspects takes more time than expected, therefore the whole evaluation and final comments cannot be seen yet. Currently his second accusation is still under consideration. Partly it's because I haven't had time recently, I admit it. I would gladly take some help in it, because one part is quite mechanic and the more data we collect the better decision we can make. The whole process gave me an idea about a survey (yeah, another one :), which will have nothing to do with accusing others but will mainly focus on player's goals, habits and customs in connection with gomoku, but again due to lack of time I have to postpone it. By the way, if you have such analysis or evaluation about drabos's or any other case, which I surmise so after your certainty, please do not hesitate to pass it over.
|2013-01-13 23:57:11 • Pavel Laube (kedlub)|
|If you don't understand the difference than I really don't know how to describe it more clearly. But I try. I don't agree with some non address popular opinion poll ostracism. I propose voting only in case of clear accusation when it will be clear who is accused, why is he accused and which evidences there are. Then the players who feel competent can argue their point in the public discussion. (Ideally in Drabost case I would like to see at least the results of the analysis, used method, comparation of Drabost % and % of some of the best players and records of his live games or opinions of people who know him)
After that I think every player can make his opinion based on solid arguments and even if they don't know any program they can decide fairly.
That is why this needs to be open discussion and open investigation. The former system with secret investigation of EL committee proved to be ineffective and I don't see any reason why to keep it like that. If you do, please tell me. You can't avoid speculation about someones cheating anyway and this way it becomes at least clear if it's justified or not. We need to be transparent and open. I see the voting of captains as a bit extrem solution, but in our situation, considering the so far activity of committee and comparing to the other proposals, I see it as a quite reasonable solution. Also I think the result which leads to punishment should be probably higher then 50%, therefore I suggested 60. The committee can (and should) of course give its stance. I hope this way can also encourage people to be more active and maybe bring additional arguments and evidences.
|2013-01-13 22:45:52 • Piotr Małowiejski (dt_angst)|
|First of all, I haven't suggested that Ondik took part in "funny nicknames" story. I'm just curious how should look such protest against cheaters.
Sceondly, I still don't see answer to my basic question. What competence shall be used in this particular case? Should I know all the existing programs to be able to decide what to do if this is clear what program could be probably used and what is the comparability? Why is so? Moreover, the fact I'm relatively weak player must mean I don't know programs? Taking into consideration current EL rules you should be aware of the fact that it is not so necessary as our role is not to look for programs, but to decide in situations of accusations.
I don't think that publishing all data is really best thing for such "investigations". On Polish Forum I tried to explain my reasons, especially to the accuisng one. It wasn't formal statement of Committee and this is why I don't treat it as necessary to publish it also here.
Finally, I don't really understand difference between Furla's and Kedlub's proposal. In my opinion there are only two possibilities until we won't find something better: 1) to establish another formal body which will be giving its recommendations to The Committee (let's call it Anti-cheaters Committee) including high-class and trustful players (chosen by Committee or selected in regular voting) that have enough experience and deep gomoku knowledge to be trustful in this matter, 2) survey in Furla's or Kedlub's way - to be decided later how it should work exactly (both solutions).
I mentioned it before - cheaters are cheaters - is Gonzalez someone's idol in Kurnik? I really doubt it, but he and his followers are still present. I don't believe that without formal exclusion they will stop their activities, especially if we take into consideration people well-known in our community that we can hear or read rumours about.
|2013-01-13 21:38:58 • Pavel Laube (kedlub)|
|Too much emotions in the wrong direction Angst..
I have to agree with Ondik, the case of Drabost shows that we cannot entrust these matters to committee alone. You write that everything has been written. And yet I cannot find absolutely anything on this forum regarding Drabost and the analysis which made you decide. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's nice that it's partly on the polish forum, but I don't think that everyone can speak polish or go there regularly. And as I wrote in my first message, it's absolutely essential that we all can get the info and hear the arguments. Then everyone can think for himself if we play with cheaters or not.
So once more, and this time more clearly, what I suggest:
I encourage Zukole to publish his analysis here. Then I encourage anybody else who has something to say regarding this topic to say it here also.
Based on these infos, I suggest voting of captains. If there will be more than 60% accepting Drabost cheating, I propose to punish him accordingly.
I suggest that this should become the standard procedure of dealing with accusations of cheating. First the arguments and than the public voting.
What do you think?
|2013-01-13 21:04:54 • Ondrej Nykl (pandik1)|
Your (not yours personally, but of committee as a whole) incompetency lies in the fact that you don't know enough about programs and thus you're not able to draw a conclusion clear enough. As you say, everything has been written, everyone knows about the % of moves comparable with program. And still, you weren't able to make a decission which is obvious for most of us.
Just to be clear, I'm talking only about the drabost case now.
And as for my idle talk messages - maybe you should remind yourself how my idle talk messages here and on polish forum helped things to get moving again in this case.
Just because we're not able to find a proper solution - and yes, I implied with my previous post that I can't see any solution either, except the one I mentioned - doesn't mean that we should accept stupid solutions (kedlub and jezek explained it well). People can decide themselves who's a cheater and who isn't and then act accordingly. If you think about what makes people cheat - usually a prospect of profit, and the only profit in internet gomoku is some "e-fame". When the cheaters see that other players despise them and ignore them, their "profit" will be gone and as I said, maybe they will give up and leave.
(Btw, I'm aware of this "funny nicknames" incident since few people asked me about it, but I'm sorry to disappoint you, I wasn't even present at the match because thanks these things my interested in gomoku dropped close to zero)
|2013-01-13 19:39:09 • Piotr Małowiejski (dt_angst)|
If you feel competent, please give us wonderful solution how to solve problems with cheaters. And what competence in this particular case would be helpful? Everything has been written. Everyone knows what was the comparability of moves with program.
The difference is that we need to decide and you just feel the need to write your idle talk messages.
We are trying to find some solution, but everyone knows it's almost impossible to prove using program. And every proposition is criticised. You propose to show cheaters that you don't want their presence. But who will decide who is cheater and who is not? And how you would like to show them that you don't accept them? By coming to their matches with "funny" nicknames? Isn't it at least the same childish as proposed survey?
|2013-01-13 17:55:57 • Michał Żukowski (zukolepl)|
|Standing - http://gomoku.hu/index.php?view=article&catid=59%3Aeuroliga&id=87%3Aeuroliga-20042005&option=com_content&Itemid=64|
|2013-01-13 17:52:47 • Michał Żukowski (zukolepl)|
|that EL 05/06 is the 1st one because the data from EL 04/05 are not available Probably the results of all matches are here - http://forum.gomoku.pl/viewtopic.php?t=334. Regards to johnl :-).|
|2013-01-13 17:17:18 • Ondrej Nykl (pandik1)|
|Neither the proposal, nor the survey are good solution for the problem of cheaters. As we can see on the drabost case, EL committee is incompetent in this area, so the only real thing which can be done, is showing cheaters that we don't appreciate their presence in the world of gomoku and hope that they will finally give up.
However, I'm afraid it won't be enough and in the end EL will need to die totally, so that something fresh and clean can come in its place.
|2013-01-13 11:58:14 • Tomo Dernovšek (jezek_si)|
|Thanks for your proposal. I think, you have written it due to the case Drabost and I answer as a captain of SD and not as a member of the Committee.
SD is one of the 5 teams, which have played from the beginning in the season 05/06 (in fact EL started one season earlier, but Committee took the decision, that EL 05/06 is the 1st one because the data from EL 04/05 are not available). We have 4 Slovenian players, the last one joined in 2008, who have not played any live game. We havnt had any tournament in Slovenia. Your proposal means that our players have to travel 500 or 1000 km far away to one tournament to have right to play in EL. Hello? It is true that at that moment we have 3 Estonians, who have tournament experiences, but if one of them stop playing, we couldnt change him with a new Slovenian player and SD would not have conditions to play in EL in 1 or 2 seasons.
Do you maybe have a solution for our case?
|2013-01-13 05:46:45 • anatolie smirnov (sherhan)|
|Это предложение хоть и выглядет, как попытка хоть как то решить проблемы мошеничества в евролиге, но оно не может продвинуть это даже на сантиметр вперед. НИЧТО НЕ МЕШАЕТ игроку играющему вживую, применять программу .Надо решать кардинально и введение вебкамеры один из решающих ходов.|
|2013-01-13 02:08:19 • Michał Żukowski (zukolepl)|
|A month ago (13.12.2012) I sent a second e-mail to members of the EL Committee in this case (Drabost), in which I posted next analysis and still have not received a response. I thought, that personal culture undertakes to response, but apparently I was wrong. It's funnily, because iec wrotes I suggest if there is some suspicion, committee should be contacted directly without starting potential flamewars by public accusation. I now ask, where is response? As you can see, points of the team cicafanok has not changed, so for members of EL Committee Drabost isn't cheater. I would like to know, what was the reason for such a result. I hope, that aren't general opinion about player - problems in the past (if any), presence on live tournaments, performance in other competitions, opinion on player's reliability from trustworthy people who knows him/her personally. Second question - what is your (EL Committee) plan to detect cheaters? Another survey? :-)).|
|2013-01-12 19:00 • Alexander Bogatirev (pbayc)|
|Hi, everyone. I'll be brief.
I wanna tell about possible innovations in EL.
It is the limit of players in one team, who have no experience in live games.
Firstly, it will enable to assess the abilities of the players more better. We will compare the online level of understanding of game with their actual live performances.
Secondly, it will stimulate some players finally to take a part in live-tournaments.
I propose to introduce this rule in the EL next season.
I think committee can designate limit of 5 or 4 players who have no experience in live games.
It can be changed to 4 or 3 at EL season 2014/2015.
We can take into account renju live-tournaments too.
|2013-01-08 20:15:29 • Michał Żukowski (zukolepl)|
|"9. The duties of captains
9.1. The captain is in charge of the team.
9.2. If a captain fails to do his/her duties he/she has to transfer them to another player of the team.
9.3. The captain proposes match dates and has to confirm proposals on the site of EL.
9.4. The captain is responsible for all matters related to the match date agreement.
9.5. The captain of the 1st team (listed on the left in the ”Current round” section) has to fill in the results of the match in the “Match result” section of the EL website. The captain of the 2nd team is obliged to approve or to correct the results. It is allowed to fulfill this duty in the reverse order."
PP FOR THE TEAMS
9.4 captain doesn't follow the rules
|2013-01-08 20:03:08 • Alex Popiel (lolamaza)|
Nice to hear from you :D
We were running out of time and I had to fill in the results of LXO vs OUT, while Ilya could not do it in time and we agreed that I'd do so. Today, when I visited the site, Chrome must have used the most recent credentials and logged me in as lobromozel, which I just didn't notice and proceeded with posting my response.
I hope this helps.
|2013-01-08 19:18:52 • Adam Harmasz (dwhenry)|
RE: Re: Survey
|And one more, I asked Alex and Ilya answered;] maybe another chrome bug.|
|2013-01-08 19:12:03 • Adam Harmasz (dwhenry)|
RE: Re: Survey
|You are cap, and he is doing your stuff, it makes sense;)|
|2013-01-08 19:02:07 • Ilya Katsev (lobromozel)|
RE: Re: Survey
|No, we live in different countries :)
Alex has my credentials (on this site) to make proposal about dates of matches, because he organizes this staff.
|2013-01-08 18:24:41 • Adam Harmasz (dwhenry)|
RE: Re: Survey
|Why are you autologged as Bromozel? Bromozel and You have the same computer?;)|
|2013-01-08 16:51:31 • Alex Popiel (lolamaza)|
RE: Re: Survey
|Sorry, Chrome mixed up my autologin settings, choosing the wrong account. This message was intended from me.|