lichess is infested with cheaters, at this point it's just unplayable

I agree I am playing some kind of device bot or engine aid about 20% of the time. If Stockfish level 3 has a near certain power rating and they are very much above fit but rated of lichess much fewer questions arise especially if they are super fast and play that kind of game of Stockfish et plays. You can block so at least they will be weeded out. If you play a super fast opp and start a chat and no answer block it.

Cedur216

#22

what gibberish. SF 3 is very weak and randomly drops pieces so I don't know why you mention it in the first place. 99%+ of players are real humans and you have no idea what "Stockfish play" actually means in reality

AsDaGo

#23

@heallan said in #19:

Oh, I see the confusion.

Gradientthinking plays RD1(from the position of rd8), and then white plays RD1.

Both moves can be referred to as RD1.

Umm... no. If you're using descriptive notation, you could call both moves R-Q1 (I think that's how you use descriptive notation), but there is no notation where Rd1 is the same as Rd8. Rd1 is Rd1 and Rd8 is Rd8 regardless of the colors.

@heallan said in #19: > Oh, I see the confusion. > > Gradientthinking plays RD1(from the position of rd8), and then white plays RD1. > > Both moves can be referred to as RD1. Umm... no. If you're using descriptive notation, you could call both moves R-Q1 (I think that's how you use descriptive notation), but there is no notation where Rd1 is the same as Rd8. Rd1 is Rd1 and Rd8 is Rd8 regardless of the colors.

Cedur216

edited

#24

@Lars-trygve said in #14:

The reason for why I nowadays only play unrated is because of all the cheating ongoing in rated games in my experience.
Many will obviously argue here that «the truth is that cheating here is very rare.....» I think that neiter they, nor I, know the truth. They have no proof for their statement that cheating is rare (many can cheat smart and undetectable), nor have I ,like many other forumposters her, proof for a statement that in our opinion there is very many cheaters here (Maybe 10-30% above 1600).
What I have is a gut feeling that there are very many that cheat in online chess in smart ways. But that is only my feeling. Maybe I am wrong.
But I respect that people have different takes on this and that the emotions is hard and big regard to this topic.

Peace and love to all. Have fun

if you care to know, chesscom admins revealed that they only banned 0.14% of all accounts for cheating. Which still makes like 500 accounts in a day. At Lichess it's probably 100-200 according to hearsay. Which also fits with the total player ratio between the two sites. And you can't say that they're both completely lacking in cheat detection.

Cheaters are rare, but smart cheaters that go undetected off Lichess' advanced cheat detection are even rarer. Most cheaters are quite silly

@Lars-trygve said in #14: > The reason for why I nowadays only play unrated is because of all the cheating ongoing in rated games in my experience. > Many will obviously argue here that «the truth is that cheating here is very rare.....» I think that neiter they, nor I, know the truth. They have no proof for their statement that cheating is rare (many can cheat smart and undetectable), nor have I ,like many other forumposters her, proof for a statement that in our opinion there is very many cheaters here (Maybe 10-30% above 1600). > What I have is a gut feeling that there are very many that cheat in online chess in smart ways. But that is only my feeling. Maybe I am wrong. > But I respect that people have different takes on this and that the emotions is hard and big regard to this topic. > > Peace and love to all. Have fun if you care to know, chesscom admins revealed that they only banned 0.14% of all accounts for cheating. Which still makes like 500 accounts in a day. At Lichess it's probably 100-200 according to hearsay. Which also fits with the total player ratio between the two sites. And you can't say that they're both completely lacking in cheat detection. Cheaters are rare, but smart cheaters that go undetected off Lichess' advanced cheat detection are even rarer. Most cheaters are quite silly

healLan

#25

@AsDaGo said in #23:

Umm... no. If you're using descriptive notation, you could call both moves R-Q1 (I think that's how you use descriptive notation), but there is no notation where Rd1 is the same as Rd8. Rd1 is Rd1 and Rd8 is Rd8 regardless of the colors.

In both instances the rooks of either side moved to square D1; hence, rook (r) -> D1: RD1.

@AsDaGo said in #23: > Umm... no. If you're using descriptive notation, you could call both moves R-Q1 (I think that's how you use descriptive notation), but there is no notation where Rd1 is the same as Rd8. Rd1 is Rd1 and Rd8 is Rd8 regardless of the colors. In both instances the rooks of either side moved to square D1; hence, rook (r) -> D1: RD1.

AsDaGo

#26

@heallan said in #25:

In both instances the rooks of either side moved to square D1; hence, rook (r) -> D1: RD1.

Oh wait, are you talking about 27. Rxd1? I thought you were talking about when White played 25. Rxd8.

@heallan said in #25: > In both instances the rooks of either side moved to square D1; hence, rook (r) -> D1: RD1. Oh wait, are you talking about 27. Rxd1? I thought you were talking about when White played 25. Rxd8.

healLan

#27

@AsDaGo said in #26:

Oh wait, are you talking about 27. Rxd1? I thought you were talking about when White played 25. Rxd8.

In chess, a move by white that involves capture of a piece on square D1 is notated: Rxd1.

When black captures on the same square, the notation is, as follows: ... RxD1.

Thus, clarity and precision of communication can be achieved in notating the movements, captures and machinations of chess piece deployment, exchange and organisation.

@AsDaGo said in #26: > Oh wait, are you talking about 27. Rxd1? I thought you were talking about when White played 25. Rxd8. In chess, a move by white that involves capture of a piece on square D1 is notated: Rxd1. When black captures on the same square, the notation is, as follows: ... RxD1. Thus, clarity and precision of communication can be achieved in notating the movements, captures and machinations of chess piece deployment, exchange and organisation.

Cedur216

#28

Black played Rd1, blundered the rook, probably due to a mouseslip when Rd2 was intended. Hilarious example still. No need to discuss it further.

ohcomeon_1 edited

#29

Sigh. Has been discussed to death (here and other places).

Yes, there are cheaters. They are, however, a minority. The vast majority of chess players play the game fairly. If you want to blame your losses on an imaginary influx of cheaters, go ahead, but don't expect support from the rest of us.

Sigh. Has been discussed to death (here and other places). Yes, there are cheaters. They are, however, a minority. The vast majority of chess players play the game fairly. If you want to blame your losses on an imaginary influx of cheaters, go ahead, but don't expect support from the rest of us.

SOJB

#30

@ohcomeon_1 said in #29:

Sigh. Has been discussed to death (here and other places).

Yes, there are cheaters. They are, however, a minority. The vast majority of chess players play the game fairly.
How do you know that? No one knows, that's why it's a moo point, no one knows.

@ohcomeon_1 said in #29: > Sigh. Has been discussed to death (here and other places). > > Yes, there are cheaters. They are, however, a minority. The vast majority of chess players play the game fairly. How do you know that? No one knows, that's why it's a moo point, no one knows.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.