@TheJeromeGambit said in #26:
> If you get 98% that does not mean you cheat. If you get it in 5 or more games in a row, you probably are. I know people who get 98% from book wins (moves that they prepared)
I was mainly talking about rapid games, which I play a lot. Rarely I may get 95% accuracy, and I never in my life achieved 98%. I have been defeated by very strong players, and they did not achieve 98%. By itself, 98% is not incriminating, of course. Before I report someone, I also check his/her other games, and his overall rating. In fact, I have only reported two cases so far. I believe the cheaters are not that many. The idea that "everyone cheats" is an urban myth (after all, it is not true: I do not cheat).
> If you get 98% that does not mean you cheat. If you get it in 5 or more games in a row, you probably are. I know people who get 98% from book wins (moves that they prepared)
I was mainly talking about rapid games, which I play a lot. Rarely I may get 95% accuracy, and I never in my life achieved 98%. I have been defeated by very strong players, and they did not achieve 98%. By itself, 98% is not incriminating, of course. Before I report someone, I also check his/her other games, and his overall rating. In fact, I have only reported two cases so far. I believe the cheaters are not that many. The idea that "everyone cheats" is an urban myth (after all, it is not true: I do not cheat).
@Lagitos1955 said in #4:
> Just sad people need that, cant understand why beginners, dont learn but cheat. Maybe they are not disciplined enough to learn And they dont get better but to see a tool like this makes me angry, it should be banned, as keyboard is! The good thing is cheaters are so bad at chess they will not post much here because they cant solve the M1 puzzle
You realize that to solve that puzzle they can use the very same engine they cheat with.
> Just sad people need that, cant understand why beginners, dont learn but cheat. Maybe they are not disciplined enough to learn And they dont get better but to see a tool like this makes me angry, it should be banned, as keyboard is! The good thing is cheaters are so bad at chess they will not post much here because they cant solve the M1 puzzle
You realize that to solve that puzzle they can use the very same engine they cheat with.
@Artem-Kozirev said in #33:
> I can give you the evidence tha backs up your feeling that a lot of cheating is going on.
>
> 1) There is not enough computational power to check all games (neither in realtime nor in the background). Prove me wrong
> 2) Reported games are very few compared to the mass of people cheating.Prove me wrong
> 3) The anti-cheating algorithms are not certified to fulfill any minimum like 99,9 % reliability and very low rate of false positives. In fact the anti-cheating algorithm are inefficient ( trash ) still the help of a board of specialist and deep analysis is necessary. Prove me wrong
> 4) One game or few games for a user are not enough to be conclusive. Prove me wrong
> 5) By its own Terms of Service, Lichess or chessdotcom do not guarantee anything and the service is provided "as is". In other words the only thing which is guaranteed is that cheating WILL happen. Prove me wrong
> 6) No 3rd party audit has been run on lichess to find out what the real figures are, so how much cheating is going on in terms of numbers is not really known, since lichess does not accept audits whatever number they say may be directly rejected as it lacks of a real background. It is like students self checking their tests and self assigning their scores. Prove me wrong
> 7) Even this is an open source development, the programs, the code which is really running ( the runtime ) may be different from what is published ( nobody certifies this, no audit ) and just the code without the data means it is a black box in the end.Without certifications and approval by authorized institutions like TUV in Germany for instance lichess wraps a dark cloud to the credibility of their statements in this direction. Prove me wrong.
>
> Said this, I feel the same like you, that massive cheating is going on. Please someone, anyone prove me wrong with real evidence and no fake numbers or asumptions. A good start would be to answer my questions above (the real thing).
In fact, it is not us who have to prove you wrong, but the other way around: if you state some sentences, and claim they are true, YOU are the one who has the obligations to prove them. It is proper scientific etiquette.
To put it another way: I say you kidnapped Madeleine McCann! Prove me wrong, or go to jail!!
> I can give you the evidence tha backs up your feeling that a lot of cheating is going on.
>
> 1) There is not enough computational power to check all games (neither in realtime nor in the background). Prove me wrong
> 2) Reported games are very few compared to the mass of people cheating.Prove me wrong
> 3) The anti-cheating algorithms are not certified to fulfill any minimum like 99,9 % reliability and very low rate of false positives. In fact the anti-cheating algorithm are inefficient ( trash ) still the help of a board of specialist and deep analysis is necessary. Prove me wrong
> 4) One game or few games for a user are not enough to be conclusive. Prove me wrong
> 5) By its own Terms of Service, Lichess or chessdotcom do not guarantee anything and the service is provided "as is". In other words the only thing which is guaranteed is that cheating WILL happen. Prove me wrong
> 6) No 3rd party audit has been run on lichess to find out what the real figures are, so how much cheating is going on in terms of numbers is not really known, since lichess does not accept audits whatever number they say may be directly rejected as it lacks of a real background. It is like students self checking their tests and self assigning their scores. Prove me wrong
> 7) Even this is an open source development, the programs, the code which is really running ( the runtime ) may be different from what is published ( nobody certifies this, no audit ) and just the code without the data means it is a black box in the end.Without certifications and approval by authorized institutions like TUV in Germany for instance lichess wraps a dark cloud to the credibility of their statements in this direction. Prove me wrong.
>
> Said this, I feel the same like you, that massive cheating is going on. Please someone, anyone prove me wrong with real evidence and no fake numbers or asumptions. A good start would be to answer my questions above (the real thing).
In fact, it is not us who have to prove you wrong, but the other way around: if you state some sentences, and claim they are true, YOU are the one who has the obligations to prove them. It is proper scientific etiquette.
To put it another way: I say you kidnapped Madeleine McCann! Prove me wrong, or go to jail!!
@Nkatsamakas said in #42:
> I was mainly talking about rapid games, which I play a lot. Rarely I may get 95% accuracy, and I never in my life achieved 98%. I have been defeated by very strong players, and they did not achieve 98%. By itself, 98% is not incriminating, of course. Before I report someone, I also check his/her other games, and his overall rating. In fact, I have only reported two cases so far. I believe the cheaters are not that many. The idea that "everyone cheats" is an urban myth (after all, it is not true: I do not cheat).
"Everyone cheats" is not a urban myth it is simply false at least in online chess. Feeling that massive cheating is happening is also not a urban myth, it feels quite real. Lichess should clarify these matters otherwise anyone is entitled to feel in a different way. Lichess has the real figures, Lichess must have these figures certified by 3rd party and publish. Of course publishing numbers wihtout certification that they are truthful only contributes to speculation. As I said before without certifications it is comparable to students giving themselves the score of their examinations ...
> I was mainly talking about rapid games, which I play a lot. Rarely I may get 95% accuracy, and I never in my life achieved 98%. I have been defeated by very strong players, and they did not achieve 98%. By itself, 98% is not incriminating, of course. Before I report someone, I also check his/her other games, and his overall rating. In fact, I have only reported two cases so far. I believe the cheaters are not that many. The idea that "everyone cheats" is an urban myth (after all, it is not true: I do not cheat).
"Everyone cheats" is not a urban myth it is simply false at least in online chess. Feeling that massive cheating is happening is also not a urban myth, it feels quite real. Lichess should clarify these matters otherwise anyone is entitled to feel in a different way. Lichess has the real figures, Lichess must have these figures certified by 3rd party and publish. Of course publishing numbers wihtout certification that they are truthful only contributes to speculation. As I said before without certifications it is comparable to students giving themselves the score of their examinations ...
there's a lot of nonsense in Artem-Kozirev's post, but i will pick just a couple:
> 5) By its own Terms of Service, Lichess or chessdotcom do not guarantee anything and the service is provided "as is". In other words the only thing which is guaranteed is that cheating WILL happen. Prove me wrong
of course cheating will happen. what kind of strawman is this? whoever claimed that there will never be any cheating on lichess? how in hell do you even imagine you would guarantee a chess server where no cheating ever will happen? what kind of guarantees could the tos give that would satisfy you?
> 6) No 3rd party audit has been run on lichess to find out what the real figures are
there literally is no 3rd party that does those kind of audits. who would that 3rd party even be?
> 7) Even this is an open source development, the programs, the code which is really running ( the runtime ) may be different from what is published ( nobody certifies this, no audit ) and just the code without the data means it is a black box in the end.Without certifications and approval by authorized institutions like TUV in Germany for instance lichess wraps a dark cloud to the credibility of their statements in this direction. Prove me wrong.
this is just an inane conspiracy theory. you know that the code on the lichess server is working, because you are using it right now. you can also verify that this code produces certain bugs, just look for them in the github issues for example, and see that they happen on the server.
you can also verify that the code published on github is working, and you can verify that there are these very same bugs.
so your claim basically is that the lichess devs might keep 2 separate, repositories of working code, that produce those very same bugs at the same time, always. because if it didn't, we would certainly notice that. you know how much work that would be? and for what purpose would they do that?
and you want them to get a presumably expensive certification so we can be certain that inane stuff doesn't happen? are you working for tüv, or why would you suggest something that stupid?
> 5) By its own Terms of Service, Lichess or chessdotcom do not guarantee anything and the service is provided "as is". In other words the only thing which is guaranteed is that cheating WILL happen. Prove me wrong
of course cheating will happen. what kind of strawman is this? whoever claimed that there will never be any cheating on lichess? how in hell do you even imagine you would guarantee a chess server where no cheating ever will happen? what kind of guarantees could the tos give that would satisfy you?
> 6) No 3rd party audit has been run on lichess to find out what the real figures are
there literally is no 3rd party that does those kind of audits. who would that 3rd party even be?
> 7) Even this is an open source development, the programs, the code which is really running ( the runtime ) may be different from what is published ( nobody certifies this, no audit ) and just the code without the data means it is a black box in the end.Without certifications and approval by authorized institutions like TUV in Germany for instance lichess wraps a dark cloud to the credibility of their statements in this direction. Prove me wrong.
this is just an inane conspiracy theory. you know that the code on the lichess server is working, because you are using it right now. you can also verify that this code produces certain bugs, just look for them in the github issues for example, and see that they happen on the server.
you can also verify that the code published on github is working, and you can verify that there are these very same bugs.
so your claim basically is that the lichess devs might keep 2 separate, repositories of working code, that produce those very same bugs at the same time, always. because if it didn't, we would certainly notice that. you know how much work that would be? and for what purpose would they do that?
and you want them to get a presumably expensive certification so we can be certain that inane stuff doesn't happen? are you working for tüv, or why would you suggest something that stupid?
<Comment deleted by user>
@Nkatsamakas said in #44:
> In fact, it is not us who have to prove you wrong, but the other way around: if you state some sentences, and claim they are true, YOU are the one who has the obligations to prove them. It is proper scientific etiquette.
>
> To put it another way: I say you kidnapped Madeleine McCann! Prove me wrong, or go to jail!!
The burden of the proof is by Lichess because they have the real figures of e.g. the percentage of cheating. Thse figures have to be certified to be true by 3rd party companies which do IT audit and are impartial, objective and professional. Lichess refuses IT audits and certifications why? Information published without being certified to be truthful of course can be (and must be on principle) questioned.
The Terms of Service by Lichess is such that they do not guarantee the service to fit a particular purpose and is supplied "as is" this is 100% evidence that cheating WILL happen from lichess TOS. How much is the cheating happening only lichess is in posession of the numbers but they refuse any certification or IT audit so it is not up to me to prove that if the information is being hidden and concealed. Your example of Madeleine McCann does not fit here this is not criminal law.
This is a request of transparency, but if feels that requests of transparency offend.
> In fact, it is not us who have to prove you wrong, but the other way around: if you state some sentences, and claim they are true, YOU are the one who has the obligations to prove them. It is proper scientific etiquette.
>
> To put it another way: I say you kidnapped Madeleine McCann! Prove me wrong, or go to jail!!
The burden of the proof is by Lichess because they have the real figures of e.g. the percentage of cheating. Thse figures have to be certified to be true by 3rd party companies which do IT audit and are impartial, objective and professional. Lichess refuses IT audits and certifications why? Information published without being certified to be truthful of course can be (and must be on principle) questioned.
The Terms of Service by Lichess is such that they do not guarantee the service to fit a particular purpose and is supplied "as is" this is 100% evidence that cheating WILL happen from lichess TOS. How much is the cheating happening only lichess is in posession of the numbers but they refuse any certification or IT audit so it is not up to me to prove that if the information is being hidden and concealed. Your example of Madeleine McCann does not fit here this is not criminal law.
This is a request of transparency, but if feels that requests of transparency offend.
@Artem-Kozirev said in #48:
> The burden of the proof is by Lichess because they have the real figures of e.g. the percentage of cheating. Thse figures have to be certified to be true by 3rd party companies which do IT audit and are impartial, objective and professional. Lichess refuses IT audits and certifications why? Information published without being certified to be truthful of course can be (and must be on principle) questioned.
> The Terms of Service by Lichess is such that they do not guarantee the service to fit a particular purpose and is supplied "as is" this is 100% evidence that cheating WILL happen from lichess TOS. How much is the cheating happening only lichess is in posession of the numbers but they refuse any certification or IT audit so it is not up to me to prove that if the information is being hidden and concealed. Your example of Madeleine McCann does not fit here this is not criminal law.
> This is a request of transparency, but if feels that requests of transparency offend.
You can't be serious! Lichess knows the percentage of cheating? If I cheat in a game, win, and the opponent does not realise he was beaten not by me but by an engine, how will Lichess know that I cheated?
Again: when you make claims, you are the one who has the responsibility to support them.
And the case of Madeleine McCann fits just nice: you accuse Lichess on some issues, which could be of legal interest.
> The burden of the proof is by Lichess because they have the real figures of e.g. the percentage of cheating. Thse figures have to be certified to be true by 3rd party companies which do IT audit and are impartial, objective and professional. Lichess refuses IT audits and certifications why? Information published without being certified to be truthful of course can be (and must be on principle) questioned.
> The Terms of Service by Lichess is such that they do not guarantee the service to fit a particular purpose and is supplied "as is" this is 100% evidence that cheating WILL happen from lichess TOS. How much is the cheating happening only lichess is in posession of the numbers but they refuse any certification or IT audit so it is not up to me to prove that if the information is being hidden and concealed. Your example of Madeleine McCann does not fit here this is not criminal law.
> This is a request of transparency, but if feels that requests of transparency offend.
You can't be serious! Lichess knows the percentage of cheating? If I cheat in a game, win, and the opponent does not realise he was beaten not by me but by an engine, how will Lichess know that I cheated?
Again: when you make claims, you are the one who has the responsibility to support them.
And the case of Madeleine McCann fits just nice: you accuse Lichess on some issues, which could be of legal interest.
@Nkatsamakas said in #49:
> You can't be serious! Lichess knows the percentage of cheating? If I cheat in a game, win, and the opponent does not realise he was beaten not by me but by an engine, how will Lichess know that I cheated?
>
> Again: when you pake claims, you are the one who has the responsibility to support them.
>
> And the case of Madeleine McCann fits just nice: you accuse Lichess on some issues, which could be of legal interest.
Why are you so offended when there is a request of transparency? is it so bad to be transparent? At the moment the necessary transparency is missing and you support that, great contribution to lichess and the community from you! well done (my last sentence is an irony, I havee to clarify in view of your difficulties to understand any writing)
> You can't be serious! Lichess knows the percentage of cheating? If I cheat in a game, win, and the opponent does not realise he was beaten not by me but by an engine, how will Lichess know that I cheated?
>
> Again: when you pake claims, you are the one who has the responsibility to support them.
>
> And the case of Madeleine McCann fits just nice: you accuse Lichess on some issues, which could be of legal interest.
Why are you so offended when there is a request of transparency? is it so bad to be transparent? At the moment the necessary transparency is missing and you support that, great contribution to lichess and the community from you! well done (my last sentence is an irony, I havee to clarify in view of your difficulties to understand any writing)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.