It is claimed that I use a utility

Can someone link to a post that clearly lays out how Lichess identifies cheaters? What is the criteria that it's based on???

@dincolm please explain clearly which "utility" this is.

You dont get blocked for using ad blockers or css od javascript tweaks. There are eg. many userscripts for lichess ( https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/by-site/lichess.org ) , and even Thibault wrote one ( https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/391349-chess-courtesy ).

For the records, @dincolm first said "I have installed a utility." then he changed his text to "i havent installed a utility"...

installed or not, does not mean used or not, if the op is careful about wording (for our sake or his or hers ability to post in apparent good faith). So the assumption might be that only software detected should be the criterion?

I admire the other posters who seem to be able to tell by looking at one game if that was engine assisted or not, from one pgn.

I think lichess uses some kind of "AI" (funny word, I hope it means machine learning) to detect signatures in the games being played. Maybe that AI is using population based behavior in the same positions, and in sequences of positions (PGN sub-sequences). That is because there are load of databases of not only masters games, but various ELO or other rating cohorts, where human play is a given. while there are other databases with engines. The problem might come when people not knowingly start all playing like the engines.

On the other hand: the timing of decisions depending on position is also now in such databases. So I would be willing to trust an updated cheating detection machine learning approach that does not need actual utility being installed, but can guess with some testable reliability whether games were assisted.

There is also the bogeyman cheater. That which is more clever than the AI, in that he or she plays exactly like a human being, blunders and all, just to fool the detection.... or choses the games and positions for assistance. I don't need to comment on that do I? If it walks like a duck, is it a duck, or a cheater. that's off topic. I like the smell of a cheat related thread in the evening.

If this is a "false positive" I think Lichess will correct the error. If it isn't, then no amount of complaining on the forums will or should change the notice.

Nifty how a cheating program becomes "a utility."

I have no interest in cheating and dislike cheaters. So, thank you LiChess for trying to catch the cheaters and screening them out as best you can.

There are no false positives. The computer does not mark you, the staff marks you after having found conclusive evidence. The computer by itself will not mark someone, only the cheat detection crew has that power.

But I hope that they use all the tools at their disposition based on some method. Yes I agree that when we play with humans, that is their human chess gaming we seek not their transcription ability, or their astuteness in using non-installed utilities.

@sanha128 #11 If anybody posted the methods that lichess uses it would take less than an hour for someone to program a way to get around it. That is why you will never see it posted explicitly how its done. The closest you will get is they look/see patterns in play/moves and history. Once you tell someone a secret its not a secret anymore.

So utility means a computer program of some kind that is attached to or grafted onto another computer program?
And it might or might not be an aid to playing chess.
Correct that the original post did state affirmatively "I have installed a utility." Now it says the negative.

„Irwin is the AI that learns cheating patterns, marks cheaters, and assists moderators in assessing potential cheaters.“

https://github.com/clarkerubber/irwin

There are tens of thousands of new users, of course there will be hundreds of (new) cheaters amongst all.