Cheating issues

@notzmv Are you saying you won't put a surveillance camera in your room?

(Even though it would help the community, minimize cheating and reduce workload of devs/mods)

This is purely hypothetical, of course. But . . .

What if I play chess naked? o.o

I'm sure some of the mods would love to see that. But would anyone else?

@pawnedge

1. Mods should be confidential about it, just like they should (ideally) be confidential when reading the content of your private messages.

2. There should be an audit log, whereby if a certain moderator repeatedly views the surveillance camera without the user being reported or AI cheat detection criteria being activated, they undergo disciplinary action on a 3 strike system. This should occur regardless of whether the user is naked or not, but we might have only 1 or 2 strikes if the user is naked.

3. Since being naked is likely unrelated to proclivity to cheat, then AI probably won't care if the user is naked or not.

4. However, when users are naked, this might generate more data points for AI learning. For instance, the number of tattoos a user has (which can't be seen when wearing clothes) may correlate with a propensity toward risk taking behaviour and cheating. AI learning can work this all out, so I don't need to theorize. But hypothetically we can imagine a situation where users who have more tattoos are subject to more baseline analysis since it's a more efficient allocation of resources.

5. In the case that lichess publicly publishes surveillance videos of users cheating to deter others, there should be a regulation where they are only published if the user is wearing a minimum quantity of clothes. The issue here is then that cheaters may deliberately remove their clothes in order to pre-emptively avoid public shaming. This is a problem with many solutions. For instance, one solution is to photoshop black boxes over the users private parts while keeping the users face distinct and clear. Since moderators will save time doing less moderation work with the presence of AI, they could feasibly use the extra time to do this.

It's not possible to cheat here since nothing is at stake.

If you attach value to the points next to your name then you are just creating suffering for yourself.

@Gyryth The tens of thousands of cheating reports processed and the couple thousand not-nonsense reports queued up for moderators to action says different. Your experience of playing here would be very different if this was not the case.

You are right that cheating is not rational and ultimately causes suffering to the person doing it, but your point is also shortsighted, because cheating also causes suffering to opponents. Why would a person play if there is no possibility of winning and their opponents rating was completely inaccurate? It wastes time and undermines the integrity of the rating system unless we take action.

This is the whole reason I have suggested both (1) reasons for and (2) practical ways of implementing surveillance cameras in the homes of lichess players.

@Burrower That's like saying "ten thousand people can't be wrong". We know that to be fallacious. If you would never play a GM or a machine because you thought you had no possibility of winning, that's just your preference. If you think playing Magnus Carlsson would be a waste of your time I really have no opinion on that. The only value of a rating is to match you up with an opponent of similar strength (say +/- 250). If a 1500 player uses a 'cheat' to boost their rating to 2000 then they will simply end up playing at 2000 and everyone should be happy again. If they boost it to 3000 then they will end up playing another engine-user. Let them. They do me no harm, nor anyone else either. It's simply not worth fretting about. Let lichess ban them if they want. The only players who annoy me are the ones who genuinely waste my time by quitting or timing out in a lost position, and it's easy to see who they are and to block them.
PS Nice rating btw

camera is an april joke
My suggestion, register with clear name and a copy of passport
the website could still only show nickname

@Burrower

Nonsense.
We need at least electronic ankle bracelets that zap anyone who is even only thinking about cheating. Surely, this would lead to even more people wishing to play on this very great cheat-free site!

And more seriously, you do realize on which site you are trying to sell this authoritarian wet dream, do you? x)

@ProfDrHack I see what you are doing here. You are exaggerating my proposals to the extreme in order to undermine them.

I suggested (1) low cost surveillance cameras (2) users have the option to pay for them in return for permission to play rated games (3) only AI and moderators (when there are reports) can access the cameras (4) only 16 hours of footage is recorded to the cloud, and anything prior auto-wiped (5) moderators would be disciplined if they are caught viewing the cameras of naked users multiple times and (6) public shaming videos are only uploaded if the person is wearing a sufficient quantity of clothes.

I proposed a complete and well thought out solution to the ongoing problem of how to prevent cheating. It reduces workload significantly and gives AI far more data points than simply moves + move time + window switching analysis.

Your suggestion is ridiculous (although you already know this) for several reasons. First, the neuroscience of predicting actions ahead of time is a crude science at best. My solution uses available tech. Second, achieving anything like preemptive thought or intention monitoring would be expensive and almost impossible to implement (think $xxxx kit with EEG wires). My solution is inexpensive and easy to implement. Third, zap punishment opens it up to all kinds of abuse and system faults. Mine prevents this. In conclusion, you have not thought it through, although I am open to valid alternatives.

Further, just because you are a Professor does not make you right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Oh man. I really hope you are just trolling.