- I'm not sure what's meant by "a lead of 4-pawns or a lead of 9-pawns"
- Nor am i sure what "training data" is
- Where it says "using a method published in academic papers with Guy Haworth in 2011" I wouldn't mind seeing their titles and other details, in case anybody wants to look at them.
since my experience is very much the opposite. Still, people have different experiences, mine therefore being no more valid than his, but I wouldn't mind having seen some scepticism in the piece, which is very much no problem, nothing to see here where flawed judgements and so on are concerned. You would think reading this paper that all the relevant experience was on one side.A common thing I have heard over the past few months is that websites rush into flawed judgements with regard to issuing bans. My experience is the opposite. The burden of proof required by a website to automatically flag someone is high
But if you're going to write
then don't! Don't comment!I can’t comment on how any platform’s systems work, because I have not seen them
Also:
How are you aware of this? Do they say so? Where do they say so?so far as I am aware, chess websites actually work to “comfortable satisfaction”
Incidentally, this:
isn't true, is it?You can never be 100% certain, if a court applied this test then it would never convict anyone if the defendant didn’t admit it