- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

#11

I agree wiith all your points. However, "statistically", not ethically, this is what most solutions boil down to.

You can use a combination of tools in tandem, including reporting, computer analysis and so on, but then you will skew their functionality to suit your personal and social beliefs. And Hans wiil always would be a cheater.

I agree wiith all your points. However, "statistically", not ethically, this is what most solutions boil down to. You can use a combination of tools in tandem, including reporting, computer analysis and so on, but then you will skew their functionality to suit your personal and social beliefs. And Hans wiil always would be a cheater.
#12

@exMOHAX said in #2:

Where can I see this game or the discussion related to it? Yeah where can you

@exMOHAX said in #2: > Where can I see this game or the discussion related to it? Yeah where can you
#13

This thread is pathetic preety sad when you intentiolly break down or belittle other players for the sake of content which this clearly is I reported this blog I hope it gets removed it sad that epople have to break others down to raise themselves up.

This thread is pathetic preety sad when you intentiolly break down or belittle other players for the sake of content which this clearly is I reported this blog I hope it gets removed it sad that epople have to break others down to raise themselves up.
#14

@Xelor41023 said in #13:

This thread is pathetic preety sad when you intentiolly break down or belittle other players for the sake of content which this clearly is I reported this blog I hope it gets removed it sad that epople have to break others down to raise themselves up.

The player in question repeatedly lied and admitted to cheating. I didn't even name the player in the blog post, and whether or not they cheated isn't even the focus -- the question is, if a beginner were to cheat, how could they do it?

@Xelor41023 said in #13: > This thread is pathetic preety sad when you intentiolly break down or belittle other players for the sake of content which this clearly is I reported this blog I hope it gets removed it sad that epople have to break others down to raise themselves up. The player in question repeatedly lied and admitted to cheating. I didn't even name the player in the blog post, and whether or not they cheated isn't even the focus -- the question is, if a beginner were to cheat, how could they do it?
#15

The funniest thing is when people try to call someone a cheater because of one brilliant move... I cannot count the times I played such a brilliant move completely by accident, and basically wanting to resign directly afterwards. :-)

I think a reasonable way to limit cheating would include

  • stop permanently talking about it (giving the impression everyone else does it)
  • stop educating people how to do it

Being told day in and day out that so many people cheat, and so many of the top 100 were banned, and at the same time hearing how to "smart cheat", what extensions to use, etc., lowers the entry bar significantly, and prompts people to try it out.

And a society based on greed and personal profit where ethics and values have pretty much eroded into nothingness is not exactly helpful in that regard either.

The funniest thing is when people try to call someone a cheater because of one brilliant move... I cannot count the times I played such a brilliant move completely by accident, and basically wanting to resign directly afterwards. :-) I think a reasonable way to limit cheating would include - stop permanently talking about it (giving the impression everyone else does it) - stop educating people how to do it Being told day in and day out that so many people cheat, and so many of the top 100 were banned, and at the same time hearing how to "smart cheat", what extensions to use, etc., lowers the entry bar significantly, and prompts people to try it out. And a society based on greed and personal profit where ethics and values have pretty much eroded into nothingness is not exactly helpful in that regard either.
#16

About half-way through reading this blog post, I realized I have no idea what it is about. Yes, cheating but who, where, how and in what game or form? Rather confusingly written in my opinion. Sorry, but well I didn't understand much at all about this.

About half-way through reading this blog post, I realized I have no idea what it is about. Yes, cheating but who, where, how and in what game or form? Rather confusingly written in my opinion. Sorry, but well I didn't understand much at all about this.
#17

In my quest to avoid making this post a GothamChess ad etc. I removed most of the context. If you're curious about the actual cheating, lying, etc. it's reported all over r/chess, YouTube, and other social sites.

In my quest to avoid making this post a GothamChess ad etc. I removed most of the context. If you're curious about the actual cheating, lying, etc. it's reported all over r/chess, YouTube, and other social sites.
#18

My typical guidelines for reporting players is: Multiple and preferably consistent 95% or at least <20 acpl once again preferably under 10 for a really strong case, but also make sure those games were against strong players or at least ignore games where most of it was the opponents just blundering pieces of course the stronger the player determining the easier it is for that player to tell the difference. Consistent time usage is almost always a giveaway there is no reason a human would spend exactly 8 second every move especially since some moves are much harder to find than others and some positions require more thought than others. Also, and this is easier to find at lower elo's, an abrupt change in game quality in a short region of time. Be reasonable with this last one a 200 elo change over a week can happen but a 1000+ change in skill level over a day or two is not really going to happen such as the recent case mentioned in the article. I would suppose these are somewhat weak criteria as there are some players that have been banned that I never found satisfactory rationale when looking through games, but I think its rather good at avoiding false positives at least. I think no reasonable player would report someone over 1 or 2 "sus" moves absurd concepts can be found especially in longer games but I would say that it is usually a good place to start and tag on as extra reason to ban but many more instances with high consistency would be needed to be better convinced.

I think the measures should vary. I think spyware is a bit excessive, but I do think the higher the stakes the more stricter the measures. I think a typical anti-cheat analysis of past games with whatever statistical stuff they use is good enough for regular games. You might play someone who missed getting banned for a while but the worse thing that can happen is an annoying waste of time (not like chess is always the best use of time anyways) and maybe you can get a few interesting concepts from the game analysis. You will probably get the elo back eventually anyways. As far as tournaments with cash or other motivating incentive maybe cameras like in Titled Tuesday or such are warranted not sure how to disincentivize it inherently though.

I'm not a big fan of the upvoting or down voting a player because a lot of people might use that as a petty get back after a hard loss or even political bias rather than an anti-cheat measure. Plus many opponents in my opinion aren't great judgers of fair play especially after a somewhat draining or emotional loss. For example regardless if you think it was legit or not the whole Magnus pulling out of the St. Louis tournament in my opinion what a bit of an over reaction to an upsetting loss. I also had another player ask me to report an opponent because of a perfect game that opponent won against him. After looking at the game and some others by the alleged "cheater" was not so convinced and decided not to report. I think the 500 point upset probably prompted the player to report and validated by the 95 accuracy made it easier psychologically.

My typical guidelines for reporting players is: Multiple and preferably consistent 95% or at least <20 acpl once again preferably under 10 for a really strong case, but also make sure those games were against strong players or at least ignore games where most of it was the opponents just blundering pieces of course the stronger the player determining the easier it is for that player to tell the difference. Consistent time usage is almost always a giveaway there is no reason a human would spend exactly 8 second every move especially since some moves are much harder to find than others and some positions require more thought than others. Also, and this is easier to find at lower elo's, an abrupt change in game quality in a short region of time. Be reasonable with this last one a 200 elo change over a week can happen but a 1000+ change in skill level over a day or two is not really going to happen such as the recent case mentioned in the article. I would suppose these are somewhat weak criteria as there are some players that have been banned that I never found satisfactory rationale when looking through games, but I think its rather good at avoiding false positives at least. I think no reasonable player would report someone over 1 or 2 "sus" moves absurd concepts can be found especially in longer games but I would say that it is usually a good place to start and tag on as extra reason to ban but many more instances with high consistency would be needed to be better convinced. I think the measures should vary. I think spyware is a bit excessive, but I do think the higher the stakes the more stricter the measures. I think a typical anti-cheat analysis of past games with whatever statistical stuff they use is good enough for regular games. You might play someone who missed getting banned for a while but the worse thing that can happen is an annoying waste of time (not like chess is always the best use of time anyways) and maybe you can get a few interesting concepts from the game analysis. You will probably get the elo back eventually anyways. As far as tournaments with cash or other motivating incentive maybe cameras like in Titled Tuesday or such are warranted not sure how to disincentivize it inherently though. I'm not a big fan of the upvoting or down voting a player because a lot of people might use that as a petty get back after a hard loss or even political bias rather than an anti-cheat measure. Plus many opponents in my opinion aren't great judgers of fair play especially after a somewhat draining or emotional loss. For example regardless if you think it was legit or not the whole Magnus pulling out of the St. Louis tournament in my opinion what a bit of an over reaction to an upsetting loss. I also had another player ask me to report an opponent because of a perfect game that opponent won against him. After looking at the game and some others by the alleged "cheater" was not so convinced and decided not to report. I think the 500 point upset probably prompted the player to report and validated by the 95 accuracy made it easier psychologically.
#19

I must agree with KMW82.
This post is entirely confusing.
This post is just horrible, and I can't imagine how this can remain posted. There is no context, history, background, etc. It's like an "inside joke."
Please -- follow some minimal standards of effective writing.
:(
Sure -- cheating occurs; it's bad; and fortunately it can usually be ferreted out by statistics.

I must agree with KMW82. This post is entirely confusing. This post is just horrible, and I can't imagine how this can remain posted. There is no context, history, background, etc. It's like an "inside joke." Please -- follow some minimal standards of effective writing. :( Sure -- cheating occurs; it's bad; and fortunately it can usually be ferreted out by statistics.
#20

Fine, I'll repeat and summarize the context I provided in #3 (there's no point in sharing the game moves which have a near-100% match rate with Stockfish):

During PogChamps, the lowest-rated player copied moves from a Lichess analysis board running Stockfish on a second monitor, defeating the highest-rated player in the event, after having cheated in other games. Cornered by their viewers, they lied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4j7-Y2fPLY

Is this context not obvious, or are we trying to get me to write about how Chess.com is a safe haven for cheaters?

Fine, I'll repeat and summarize the context I provided in #3 (there's no point in sharing the game moves which have a near-100% match rate with Stockfish): During PogChamps, the lowest-rated player copied moves from a Lichess analysis board running Stockfish on a second monitor, defeating the highest-rated player in the event, after having cheated in other games. Cornered by their viewers, they lied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4j7-Y2fPLY Is this context not obvious, or are we trying to get me to write about how Chess.com is a safe haven for cheaters?