aaru:
You're not the only suspected player. Don't be proud about your misbehavior.

spirit_66: Loss game - it's your argument to the fact that the other person (me) cheating.

aaru: I can't help the dice machine likes me!

aaru:
Analysing a game with GNU and if it shows me that the opponent didn't make any fault, that makes me alerted and suspicious.

spirit_66: Some games don't include any difficult decisions to make and so could easily show up no fault.  But I agree if it happens on more complex games, then it's either suspicious or you're dealing with a very good player.  I would expect most games against nabla to show no fault on his part, but only occasionally for lesser players like myself.

Can you post a link to a game or two you're suspicious of so we can take a closer look. 

I don't think you should be suspicious of aaru - I really don't believe he's the cheating sort (based on my experience, I enjoy playing him) and anyway, he has far too many games on the go, to have time for it!

spirit_66: "Analysing a game with GNU and if it shows me that the opponent didn't make any fault, that makes me alerted and suspicious."
Maybe, but that does not give you the power to name the second person CHEATER!!!!

aaru: At some point, although absolute proof may still be out of reach, it is more reasonable to conclude that cheating has taken place.  On another site, I analyzed several players' matches.  In one case, I found at least 3 lengthy (21-point) matches where the player had 0 moves marked very bad, 0 moves marked bad, and just 1 marked doubtful--at gnubg's default settings.

If I wanted to play against gnubg, I could do that without coming here to BK.

wetware: If I wanted to play against gnubg, I could do that without coming here to BK.

I've heard a number of people say something like this and, of course, I know what it literally means, but what is your point?

playBunny: In such cases, I hate the pretense and the unnecessary effort, pB.  Why should I have to go to the trouble of logging in, managing vacation days, and my remaining time, if my opponent is actually gnubg...which I could play at any time without those added steps?  And to think I may even have exchanged pleasantries with opponents who did little more than relay moves that were chosen by their program--well, I can't say it makes me furious, but I'm clearly not pleased by such actions.

I must say, however, that I haven't seen very much of that here.  I was mistaken when my earlier message said "...coming here to BK".  I ought to have corrected that.  Sure, there are problems here, but I've seen worse elsewhere--and that's what was on my mind when I wrote.

wetware: spirit_66 has said it too: Playing against bots I can do this on my PC with GNU, Jellyfish whatever for free.

The reason I asked you what you meant is that I think that argument rather misses the point. The point is that someone is masquerading bot as a person not that they are providing a bot to play against.

With regard to that latter point, whenever a site provides a bot to play against it is well attended! You may well have GnuBg at home but you cannot play turn-based against it with anything like the ease that you can at a site designed for the purpose. gb001, one of Dailygammon's GnuBg-based bots is very popular and not just with those who don't have GnuBg themselves. ;-)