Bot to (semi) automatically cheat online in blitz

@sheckley666 said in #4:

For good reasons, browsers do not allow websites too much influence on what is running elsewhere on the computer.

What's crazy is that any of the major online chess providers could make their own app to try to give more control over monitoring processes and such, but if it is based on a browser for the main UI it will still have exploitable memory overflows and apps can be injected even if it isn't browser-based.

The whole state of software platforms is so insecure because it allows so much freedom, and for the most part has always been this way because its beginnings were based on squeezing out as much performance as possible - not local app security.

I'm glad they are on browsers, making online chess independant from the operating system. And the browsers are secure because they protect me and my property against spyware. Any app coded by a small enterprise that wants to know what else I have running is an open gate for all the evil mafias and secret services in the world.

@HCB1983 said in #5:

That is really all we need to know if we're not privy to the methods of cheat detection
Feel free to find out more! Distrust is a good thing, but creating unfounded accusations is worse than simply not knowing anything.
Come on man. You, Cedur, all these folks who jump instantly to show the correct path of thinking.
No, the experts on chess cheating show the correct path of thinking, that is why they are experts. Cedur (for example) simply understands and applies what you could think of as "rational" thinking when it comes to chess cheating, to dispel some common misunderstandings.
Modern inquisitors on a very small sect.
King James orchestrated a witch hunt as his bride was interrupted by 3 storms before her trip from Denmark to Scotland. The fact that Lord Admiral Bothwell had raised the storms was obvious to King James, so fortunately some people corroborated the implication under torture, confirming that witches under the command of Lord Admiral Bothwell had tasked the devil to raise the storms. The point is that inquisitions are bad because the evidence is dependent on the accusation, instead of the accusation dependent on the evidence. So bring the evidence, not the accusation!
What about caruana and kramnik. former wc and top player(no, they are not mathematicians you would say).
The fact that they are not mathematicians or that they potentially don't understand the maths increases their risk of misunderstanding risk and their chances of "inventing" cheaters as well as not understanding the analysis, which would happen to be in maths. But that is not what people contest about their assertions, people are not asking of their reputation in maths, people are asking for the evidence of what they claim.
People are free when they think. Many people think with the best of reasoning that online chess is broken,
Again, do you have any evidence that online chess is broken? That it would be broken should be at least illustratable? At the moment, your claim is indistinguishable from that other guy who lost a game, and spoke with some bloke on reddit, and they both agreed that it is possible that the opponent may have cheated because they could imagine of a way of it being done even though they had no knowledge of the methods used or the detection they were up against. If they knew what could be done to uncover cheating, they would have to upgrade their method, but they didn't understand that yet.
selective cheating for critical positions cannot be controlled in any way.
It can, and in fact, it is. Not just in one way, in many ways. The problem here, really, is that you don't understand the methods for detecting cheaters. Even if you simply avoided obvious chess mistakes more than you usually do, the maths will make you stick out like a sore thumb!
Instead of accepting the truth some dogmatic people like you kill the messangers and want to make us to close our eyes to evidence.
Right, what is the evidence? Alluding to evidence is not evidence. So give us the evidence!
...We have to be as narrow minded as to believe a random guy on internet knows better about what is cheating rather than Fabi, Kramnik, and our own experience in the game.
If the random guy is saying what the world's foremost experts on the matter of chess cheating are saying, then maybe you should. Or at least, you should attempt to discount the arguments or have better ones. Professional chess players, as well as chess players in general, are not necessarily experts on chess cheating. They have an inherent bias and and also may not understand the "appearance of cheating" very well. You shouldn't aim to ignore people who understand more than you, you should try to learn about the topic so you can understand more than them and be more credible in your assertions. You always have to expect some people to take issue if you jump to conclusions or have a lack of understanding on the topic, but it's the internet, so they are allowed to have their say!
Of course, if you insult a cheater you get banned instantly!
If you falsely accuse someone, you deserve to be banned. As you don't have the means to confirm that someone has cheated, that constitutes falsely accusing someone. If you had the means to confirm that someone cheated, then you can potentially help mitigate the likelihood of actual cheating. If you managed to use it and find a real cheater, then let Lichess know, they also don't like cheaters and would probably love your new idea!
Libre or free is above all, free of dogma. Accept that and stop censoring, this is not a church and you are nor a preacher.
Cedur has no means to censor anyone other than the same means everyone has, which is to report what they consider abuse.

@HCB1983 said in #24:

censorship is a bad thing.
People who call contradiction censorship want to censor themselves.

@Nomoreusernames said in #23:

[...]
Cedur has no means to censor anyone other than the same means everyone has, which is to report what they consider abuse.

Just for the record, HCB1983 was actually responding to me in that post to which you are responding, not Cedur. I very much doubt that Cedur wants to be confused with me and my peculiar behaviour here, though I would actually be flattered to be confused with Cedur who is someone who has demonstrated good understanding of cheating detection on this site (including in an excellent blog postings) and is someone I have learned from.

Excellent posting there by the way, @Nomoreusernames :-)

My take, maybe controversial, is that there are two kinds of cheater:

• The obvious one, who play regularly way above their level, the nature of chess is such that in every one of their games they give clues (because they can't possibly understand all the ramifications of the moves they're playing).
  Clues that can eventually be picked up by a software and that will be detected by big chess sites through report and automatic analyses.

• The not so-obvious one, in order to not get caught they only play move they really understand and cheat relatively rarely.
  It is actually an effort for them and maybe they're good at it.
  Since they're so cautious they might not get caught but they also can't play at a level much higher than their real-level so they're barely an issue imo. They maybe can squeeze 200 points with some effort but it's like either they keep playing at this level and their rating change accordingly (which mean people they play against won't even notice) or they get greedy and pass to the first category.

In both cases there is not really any issue for chess as a whole imo, it starts to become problematic when money or fame is involved, otherwise for 99.9% of players it doesn't matter.

And usually when money is involved like in titled tuesday the scrutiny is also increased, they have to have a camera, disclose their identities and the downfall is even higher. Especially post-Niemann era.

@HCB1983 said in #24:

Another reality: If you believe you are better suited than a WC to talk about chess cheating you are in pipe dream. Also, take a moment to compare your chess skills with that of caruana and kramnik.

Projecting competence and authority in one domain to another is a common fallacy. And of course it works even better if the domains are somewhat related.

It's the same mechanism used in advertisements, politics, all sorts of propaganda.

@HCB1983 said in #29:

Or separating into two domains a single one is the fallacy? Both Kramnik and Caruana and all GMs prepare extensively with engines. Of course they are not programmers. But a big part of their trade is mixing their intuition and memory with th computing power of an engine.

Proyecting authority or competence into another domain would be your own examples: chess and politics, chess and propaganda, chess and adds.

Except that Kramnik doesn't even seem to care about the moves but argues with mathematics and statistics. Something that I think is fair to assume he is not educated in. And while being a good player surely is helpful it is by absolutely no means sufficient for cheat detection, and gives you only a slight edge. This is mostly observable in the opposite way: when lower rated players accuse others of cheating because of their great moves that would never cross their mind, while in reality for many others they were obvious.

At this point, I think he is so much disconnected with current chess (and the current generation approaches online blitz chess vastly different than he played classical twenty years ago), that he has no choice but to rely on statistics, that basically every platform says is not suitable to detect cheaters. And he has shown on multiple occasions that he is technically not skilled to compete at 3+0 at highest level, but has given all kinds of random accusations, and when confronted with all the flaws in his arguments he simply spits out more nonsense.

And of course, he never accuses anyone of anything. Just points out "interesting" things. I mean - really?

I give more a bit more credit to Caruana. At least he is competitive and is much more knowledgable in current tech. And I think he rightfully extremely careful to not drop a shitload of accusations on random people.

It is extremely sad how Kramnik's cheating propaganda hurts honest players (although nowadays it becomes rather a badge of honor to be attacked by him), and in effect popularizes cheating by stating how widespread and easy it is. He has achieved the exact opposite of his proclaimed intentions of saving the game.