viernes, 9 de septiembre de 2016

New rules to contact list

I will complete the top bar with my contact list, (as we can see Block list as well). Generally speaking, in my contact list will enter all players with 10 or most games played with me. For that condition, should be essential that the player have not been before in block list. I will comment candidates, and reason, and I will do because we cannot share in Playok who are in our contact list.

Other concern about Contact list, is the fact that some players often belive that they have right to make cheats when they are in my contact list. They think that I will not analyze the games, or they have 100% my trust. But indeed, they will be warned about that. In this point, helps that I could communicate with them through the Playok email system.

So, broadly, 10 games would be enough to enter in my contact list. The games will be 100 if the player resigned one game or have been blocked before. The games may raise to 20-50 if the player have one anonymous nick (actually I never play with anonymous nicks) or have not personal information in his profile. One photo should be usual. Age and country I think that would be at least, necessary for any player.

As a last, if the player doesn't write or resign, the games may raise between 20-50. Players who are suspects of being cheaters, may also need 20 games to be in my contact list. In any case, contact list doesn't means nothing, only it's useful for me, to see what kind of players might be "fair-players", because I have not doubts about his game style.

viernes, 2 de septiembre de 2016

Last time I play quick

Often I am playing in 5 minutes games and I end the game quickly because I want not that my opponent resign. But, many times happens what we can see in the screen. Our opponent is raging and resigns rather than end the game. So, why I should play rapid? For that? I play rapid and I made 2 more mistakes, till 11 mistakes, all because I played quick.

So, it is the last time in which I play rapid in the end game. Many of them simply waits because they feel wining the game and only resign when they know cannot win. Very bad loser behavior in any case. And I play rapid and sometimes I lose the game in the end, only because I am thinking in his bad conduct. So, from now, all bad losers can resign if they are sick, it's not my problem if they cannot enjoy the game 2 minutes more and they are raging. They are sick, If they are not able of waiting 1 single minute. So, they will be blocked for a months in their second surrender. Indeed, I don't find sane playing too many 1 minute games, and it's not my problem if they are not able to play fair. 

Not only affects to low Elo players, also some sick-1550 Elo players cannot wait till the game ends. Of course when they are wining the game, they never resign.  Resigning players are most frequently cheaters, because sometimes they don't care about fair play. I am thinking about raise the punishment to this players, maybe to 2-years block, but for now the maximun time will be 1 year.

viernes, 19 de agosto de 2016

New rule

10.000 games for anonymous nicks

I am tired of being swindled playing with anonymous nicks. It's a good tool which have to allow players who do not want to share the e mail, login and play. In fact, e mail only is used for password request (when forget), so I think that everybody should register a nick and choose in each case the favourite nick. It's more appealing the interesting tool to choose our own nick, nevertheless this nick would be ridiculous in some cases and absurd in another (for example a player who chose being called random numbers).

I respect that many players don't want to share personal information in his profile. And surprisingly, most of them not only do not share any photo (which don't communicate anything about who are they), but also don't share his age or even his real name. Why they do not show any photo? They are unfriendly? They are bots? I do not think that "anonymous" nicks are bots.. but, if the behavior of one player it's like a bot,  in the manner that he has not one autoselected nick, I will treat as a bot. So, anonymous nicks will need at least 10.000 games for play with me. Not surprisingly, most of this anonymous nicks not only are cheaters, also are players who have a few games, often less than 1.000 games. You can answer me that, that it is most likely because they are testing the game. But... ¡NO! Error, mistake.. FAIL. They are not testing the game because they are in fact very good players? (or cheaters? ;-)). So, If they are good, they should play 10.000 games, in other case, they should register with a nick.

In my opinion it's not costly registering one nick rather than login in with an anonymous nick. So, in my opinion, many anonymous nicks are good players, they should have other "real" nick, hidden in So, they should come in my table with this nick, and not with the anonymous nick. Most often also, this anonymous nicks has the chat option disabled, so I cannot communicate with them. Many of them are absolutly unfriendly as they never greet, and many of them also resign in the end game.

Moreover, anonymous nicks are created when we play directly from our mobile phone, allowing us to use the Wzebra with the computer to better cheater game without being catched. Other possibility, it is when we enter in the game zone through Facebook. Anyway, In my opinion has not sense playing as a rule with one anonymous nick, because we can create our single name, as the most people do. So, I raise my limitation for these players. Because if we need to play with mobile phone, we can do it with our good nick as well. If they try to be passed as a bots, I will treat him as a bots. This rule will not apply for friendly players who contact with me through private message and have personal information.

viernes, 12 de agosto de 2016



I am tired of being swindled by Impostors. Impostors are players who downgrade his own Elo Score, and later play with other high Elo players and laughs about win after applying their swindle. Often most of them create new nicks, and starting with 1200 points are ready to swindle other players in this manner. Other, simply are cheaters.

I will publish here a not comprehensive list and probably not-updated list. Because I have not enough proofs to accuse them as being a cheaters, I will not block him. Moreover, I will not publish his real nick, so I will post only his personal nick which I call them. A "troll" player who are a good player (or a cheater), may register a nick for example: "sexygirl", or "youloseman", and so on, all with the purpose to make you feeling more ridiculous about loosing with some of these players.

You can also check some of the players posted here searching in my profile, but, when the months pass, the list in my profile is changing and in, the history is renovated each 6 months. Roughly, the "changed" nicks I post here, boost his Elo more than 250 points after win. They are; impostors, as well I explained in my other article:

-Vicepresidente del Barça
-La placa
-Colega Ratón

Some of them I not change his nick too much because I not consider ridiculous. Other, have personal info and this help them to do not being even more suspicious. The challenge here would be also check each 1400 Elo player game to determine if he had more level than he showed, (which imply being an impostor or a cheater). Many of the nicks published here, had 1450-1500 points and a few games thereafter, they raised 1650-1750 points. Other I not show here because they are instead blocked. Is the case of "Lengüetazos" and "Brotes verdes", a couple of nicks which his real nick can be readed in "Block List". This changing nicks helps me a lot to remember who they are, because I cannot mark him. What means that? 

Means that I cannot remember at all and I will increase the list in subjectively manner, so I cannot warrant that I will not play with these players. The new rule it is: The players shown here, will need at least 1500 points of Elo to play with me. You can tell me that they probably only play good with me, but I doubt as well. I will share a couple of examples:

The case of "Houdini", a player who made 3,4 and 5 mistakes as mean, cannot have less than 1450 points of Elo, NEVER. Why? Because I analyzed games of the best players of the world (also in for a better accuracy) and they instead made 3,4 and 5 average mistakes. So, Houdini most likely, is a cheater, but I have not now enough proofs for that. It is like the player called "panda", who won me making only 3 mistakes and a days thereafter he had 1000 points. Maybe had luck? So if in we start with 1200 points of Elo, one very good player who does as a mean 4 mistakes, cannot have only 1450 points of Elo. And the correct proof it is to compare with "real" 1450 Elo players. The common sense here works:

The 1200-1300 Elo players are novice players who play good but do mistakes in the end game. An average of 10 mistakes per game. So, a player of 1450 points of Elo never should do only 4 mistakes as mean, because they should make 7 or 8, and 1500-1600 players instead they surely might commit only 4 mistakes per game (and the difference between higher Elo players would be the wide of each mistake).

I think understandable that one player can swing between 100-150 points of Elo. This should be a rational margin. But these players swing between more than 200! and most important; in the next days they played with me! So they are waiting to downgrade his Elo only to impair other players. I cannot belive that players like Hikikomori are ready to play 3 games with me and make 3 mistakes per game and before that, he lost many games, in which he did more than 7 mistakes. This should not be possible (of course, I changed the opening when I played with him). And the "Skorpionen factor", also applies here. Other day I will talk about the Skorpionen factor or "reinserted cheaters", players who made only 1 mistake playing with me a year ago, and curiosly, they worsen extremely their game through time, till do not commit less than 7 mistakes per game in the following games with me. Why? because they probably made cheats a year ago.

Two usual common excuses: 1-"I play 1 minute games". False assert. I played instead, many and many 1 minute games in some crazy days and NEVER my Elo was ranging in more than 200 points after passing 1500. Most important: NEVER under 1400. Probably I was between 1450-1550 points (and a time ago in which I was worse player than now).2-"I play only with high Elo players". False, false false. If you play with very good players (for example +1750 Elo) your Elo difficultly will drop to 1450, and if you win some games, you will earn too many points.

So a good explanation would be that the player is a victim of one 1200 Elo cheater or a victim of another "Swindler". I found funny when I enter in to watch games and I see how one player is a victim of "1 minute cheater" (autoplay bot, and some tools they have which I will talk other day), and they keep playing with faith. Here one answer is: they are idiots. One player who is victim of a cheater, should be silly because they should know as well as I know, that one 1300 Elo player cannot play so good.  But instead, they rage and keep playing.

Other often possibility may be that they are using the Wzebra only once per game, also they can have some sequences in written sheet or playing with Wzebra in low depth. In all of these cases result impossible to proof so I do not think overly about that. But instead, I can check his past games to find rare behaviors. In the case of Hikikomori, for example, I cannot believe that he lose with some players which I win him easily and I know for sure that they made 8-10 mistakes per game, and Hikikomori making 4 mistakes in my games, he cannot lose with them. But, besides all, this, alone, cannot be enough proof to classify him as a cheater.

viernes, 5 de agosto de 2016

New limit of 1200 points to play with me

I am tired of being abandoned when one low-level Elo player, go away and lets me alone. I lose my time because I am waiting for playing and the block-punishment maybe do not work for some extremely low Elo players, who I don't meet. I thought that may be an unfair behavior do not give them a chance of playing with me but.. for what? for this? (click to enlarge).

You can save the screen to read a good description in spanish. Anyway, many of them of course had more than 1200 points of Elo, and here I not show all screens which I have.. but many of low Elo players resigns and go away after start the game, so will try to minimize this factor. I will wait more, but I prefer play versus one high-Elo player.

Other reasons are that I only raise 1-2 points of Elo after win. And of course, many of them make cheats to try to defeat me. 1200 Elo players may be a cheaters as well, but practically 90% of less than 1200 Elo players resign and go away. Of course, if they think they will win, they NEVER resign! So it is a bad behavior conduct. In my opinion their Elo should fall the double or triple if they resign..

The ratio fall for 1200-1400 Elo players, maybe till only 50% resign when they feel they will lose. And the ratio fall again for higher Elo players. So, If I am not desperate of waiting.. I will raise the limitation level to +1200 Elo also in my 20 minutes game. It is not my problem that many players play in sickness 1 minute games and they are not able to play a good "official-online" game. Likewise, I open the door and let the option that one less 1200 Elo player can play with me upon request by private message. I think that this is the good way for act.

viernes, 22 de julio de 2016

Hubandspoke will need 100

 Hubandspoke running away

The other day I was playing with Hubandspoke. This should be something like "married with speaking"? Huband.. I searched in translator and translated as "husband", and spoke means "speak", but in the past. Anyway, we can see the stats of our friend Michal clicking here. His Elo at the date of this writting is 1284. That it is very unreal according to that he made only 3 mistakes in one complete game.

He played 12 times with me, and he won 5, and I won 7. This should not be larger difference. But, in fact, he won me 5 times of 12. That it is around 40% of the times. And should be lower ratio, according to that my mean Elo is around 1500 points. Other day I will share statistics about my Elo in this two months, in which I used a new statistics and new nicks. And it is the first time I block players. Since the last months, I never blocked anybody but I think that we should be implacable with cheaters, and punish also the bad loser behavior which deprives us of end the game and as a consequence, of playing.

Why I wrote that Hubandspoke will need 100? He will need 100 games to enter in my contact-list. Just 10 games are necessary in my opinion to add some player in my contact list, but sometimes in the past, this implied that some players who knows my decission (because I communicate it), takes profit about that and make cheats or tries to do other things in the computer, a suspect behavior which annoys me a lot, specially in my 5 minutes games, because it is not larger time to wait, and we should respect our opponent's turn. 

So, the rule is: 10 games=contact. So, Hubandspoke would have been the first one. But unfortunately for him, he made cheats one time and in my opinion it is very likely according to his 4,3 and 5 mistakes in three games with me, that he made tricks too many times (recall that a simple movement used with Wzebra support it's itself a cheating conduct). I have not problem about someone making only 3 mistakes per game, but If we analyze +1700 Elo player's games instead, they don't commit less than 3 mistakes! So, why someone with +1300 points of Elo would play in the same way? After a time playing in, I venture to be able to know and judge how should play each player in each Elo category. Because I played a lot of games with a lot of different people. 

Why I do not block Hubandspoke if I think that he is a cheater? Well, I should recognize that I am very permissive lately about this topic. Ban is permanent, so I try to be pretty sure when I block some player, so in case of Hubandspoke, maybe I am sure only at 90% as much. I need more proofs. And extenuating factors also works and in his case, he has personal information in his profile and it seems polite.

Why Hubandspoke will not enter in my contact list? Because he resigned one game. This means, one player who come in my contact list may be expelled if I think that he is a cheater, but also when he surrender. Nevertheless, they have more chance, so I am ready to chat with them before take the decision of block him. The path is: Cheater=Life time Blocked. Bad loser=Temporarily Blocked. Good player who end all 10 games=Contact, therefore; Cheater=warning and expelled from contact list, Bad loser=Warning and expelled from contact list. From here, they will be treated as a regular player. In any case, Hubandspoke argue the typical excuse when one cheater is using the Wzebra; watching youtube or listening music it's an usual argument, some day I should summarize a pack of typical excuses about that.

  A cheater using the Wzebra when he had doubts :-)
And how Hubandspoke can enter again in my contact list? After the temporarily ban, each player has new opportunities, so he should play 10 games more (or even the remaining games) and will enter in my contact list. But if one player surrenders before complete 10 games with me, he should wait till 100 games played before come in my contact list. This should be very unlikely, because this player probably will resign again before complete 100 games, but in this case, he/she will become blocked for a time ranging from 1 month till 1 year.

I suppose that I should explain this issues, and I put this gamer as a good example. Anyway, I complete my article recalling that I am very permissive and probably too many cheaters did not entered in my cheaters list. I am aware also that if I had 10 players classified as a cheaters, probably I will fail and at least 1 of these 10 players, may not be a cheater. But, for this reason I write my explanations and arguments about that. In some instances, we never know at 100% sure about that. But we can have enough certainty. Likewise, all blocked-cheaters can contact with me through my blog to explain his point of view about that, (because they cannot do it from, and till today, no player have been contacted with me about that, so their silence could imply their guilty, because if I can, I always communicate my decisions.

So the month let me a few cheaters more, some bad losers and a big-badlosers-list which I am thinking about when publish them. One list of more than 50 players who resigned at least once (but not twice to become blocked). Probably I will publish next week or some day in one updatable article like I do with blocked players, which I removed from the upper zone of the blog to insert them in one more usual site. The month also shows a tremendous information in World Othello Ranking, which it seems that definitely doesn't work. So, I should have +2000 points of Elo in this ranking, with a big progression, but actually, I have not participated any tournament since 2015...  

viernes, 15 de julio de 2016

Standard Deviation

Lately, I am examining a new statistic concept or issue in which I can trust to better accuracy not only about my analysis, but also about determining the possible cheater conduct of one player. It is not one tool which I realized it works not only to analyze cheaters factors, it is a tool which may help me to better accuracy of my analysis and can also helps me in this way.

Probably in following articles I will write more about this. But for now I can share a range of results about my mistakes in the last month. In the first column we have my Elo, and the second column, which is what matters now, we can see my mistakes in that game. The following columns are the result in the game. First of all, we can see games in which I made 6 mistakes or less and I lost. This means that I play versus very good players.

Second, what I am trying to explain. If we take into account the numbers in the red circle: 8,6,8,9,9,4,7,10,7,7 and 6. This sequence, is the sequence of my mistakes in these games. The most usual, should be take all serie, but if for example we analyze these numbers, we can obtain the standard deviation through the formula we have in Excel. The standard deviation is the variance squared to 0,5.

The result if I am not mistaken, it is 1,69. This should mean that I can deviate from the mean around +-1,69 points. This is not true at all if we can see that I made since 4 till 10 mistakes, but helps us to understand some matters about our precision game. To better adjustment, I should take all series. Right now I am ready to post some conclusion, at first glance, about that.

1-If we need to judge about if one player is a cheater, we should take too many games about him. At most games we have, better conclusion we can draw. In the same way as the mistakes. Because one practically perfect game of him, may indicate luck or even better concentration in that game. Likewise, may indicate a good opening game. Other players may take (pen-written) notes about one opening, (magics about online game in which we cannot see our opponent). But as we cannot analyze a hundred games of our opponent, we should be ready to judge only 3 or 4 games about him, in the same way I did with the tables in which we try to sort our rival according to one or two single games, in a very biased way.

2-According to logics or simply a huge data of games analyzed about my own games played.. I am not ready to analyze hundreds of rival's games. But, in fact, I have been analyzed hundreds of my own games. So I can draw some conclusions about that. This means that the larger is the number of mistakes we make in one single game, the larger would be the standard deviation number we will obtain. For example: One player which make 10 mistakes in mean, can make 6 mistakes in the following game, or even 15 mistakes. But one player which make 5 mistakes in mean, can make 3 mistakes in the following game, or even 7 mistakes. This means: The standard deviation should be larger for novice players, or for players who make more mistakes in one game.


When I made 10 mistakes as a mean, I had an Standard Deviation of +-3,6 points. Right now, my standard deviation it is around +-1,8 points, according to my mean of 7,5 mistakes per game. This means that one player which made a mean of 5 or 4 mistakes, should be one Standard Deviation of +-1 point. And the best player of the world should have an Stantard Deviation lower, according that they made around 2 to 3 mistakes, should be understandable. The best players of the world often made the same number of mistakes, 2 or 3. (Although the difference between the top 100 best players of the world is best explained for the fact that the top 10 best players, lose less points per mistake than the other, holding the same number of mistakes in each case. This could be a good topic about discussion and analysis in the future).

According to Tamenori, the best known player who play in Playok and which ranking is higher, in the World Othello Federation Ranking list, he has 2427 points of Elo, but in he has only 2170 at the time in which I am writing this (july 2016). 257 points less than his official score. Why? Why practically all people in has less Elo score, than the score we can see in official ranking? unfortunately, in exist too many cheaters who impairs his score, and this applies for all players in this room.  Seeley has in 1983 points and his official score it is 2327; 344 of difference. (Probably best fitted to Tamenori, due to better selection of his rivals in, according to his games). A mean of +250 points correction to our own score in should be warranted, in order to be able to judge our score. So, when we analyze according to my table, we should add 250 points to each Elo in each player we analyze with my table. You can ask me why I do not update. In fact, my table try to explain the "real factor", this means, the real mistakes according to one real Elo, not the games. The table is based in games, but was made with intent to work for real games. (I made according to because I have not many games in other site).

So, in my opinion, I do not like to update the full table only because exist cheaters who impairs the score of all people in I think that it s most fair that when we go to table, simply add +250 points to our Elo rival. For example, if our rival has 1450 points of Elo and he made 6 mistakes. We can go to table and add +250 points, this means, he should have 1700 points of Elo, and the table, will allocate him a likelihood of 40% of do 6 mistakes, rather than 20% which would be in case of 1450 points.

Anyway, I posted a mean of mistakes which make players according to their Elo. I added a column in which we can also see the mean of their points lost. Finding the real numbers implies working with a sample of more than thousand games and finding a complementary Wzebra software which for now I think that does not exist. In any case, the numbers should exist.