- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

list of cheaters

You tested alleged cheating by cheating yourself?

You tested alleged cheating by cheating yourself?

I don't know if I really like the way cheaters are tested here. I'm aware that there really isn't any other decent method.. but it seems almost like a witch hunt. If a player gets several good games,
even against an engine (which engines are not impossible to beat under small times like 5, 10 or maybe even 20 minutes, even for Fritz or Rybka, but once the engine gets long time to think then...
yeah..) then the player is immediately scrutinized.

For the games they don't do so well in, they are just told "oh well they probably just didn't use the engine then!" and it's virtually completely ignored. Everybody has games they do well in and games
they don't do well in.. we also have games that we are doing really well in for a large portion then it starts to go downhill and we lose. We also maybe play really well for a couple days, then maybe
not so well, etc. all depends on several extraneous factors like preparation, mood, how focused you were prior to the game, available time, lots of things.

I'm not saying anything specific I guess, but playing against someone with say Fritz in a 10 minute game and saying "You played a very good game! Cheater! Explain this!" is just... i dont know does
not seem effective at all especially when it encourages people to play with engines to test for cheaters which is the exact thing you are trying to stop.

I don't know if I really like the way cheaters are tested here. I'm aware that there really isn't any other decent method.. but it seems almost like a witch hunt. If a player gets several good games, even against an engine (which engines are not impossible to beat under small times like 5, 10 or maybe even 20 minutes, even for Fritz or Rybka, but once the engine gets long time to think then... yeah..) then the player is immediately scrutinized. For the games they don't do so well in, they are just told "oh well they probably just didn't use the engine then!" and it's virtually completely ignored. Everybody has games they do well in and games they don't do well in.. we also have games that we are doing really well in for a large portion then it starts to go downhill and we lose. We also maybe play really well for a couple days, then maybe not so well, etc. all depends on several extraneous factors like preparation, mood, how focused you were prior to the game, available time, lots of things. I'm not saying anything specific I guess, but playing against someone with say Fritz in a 10 minute game and saying "You played a very good game! Cheater! Explain this!" is just... i dont know does not seem effective at all especially when it encourages people to play with engines to test for cheaters which is the exact thing you are trying to stop.

Anonymous the vast majority of cheaters are caught using other method(s).

Anonymous the vast majority of cheaters are caught using other method(s).

there are many ways players here are assessed for cheating; each of these factors is taken into account before a decision is made.

As for the ability to beat Fritz 10 or Rybka, even in a short game, I just don't think that's very credible. Rybka is conventionally rated well over 3000. Time constraints are not constraints just
on the engine, but on the player as well; there should be no clear advantage in shorter vs. longer games.

As for using engines to test for cheaters, it is not on the same level as engine cheating itself because the practice is narrowly targeted only to suspects. Additionally, when I employ this method
with my test accounts I make every effort not to take points (preferring to let my time run out once sufficient information is gained).

Nevertheless the process is not perfect. Ideally, there would be no cheaters in the first place, but we have to work with what we've got and do our best to limit the distortion.

Personally I prefer the process be more discreet. I encourage those with suspicions in future to send a private message to thibault, legend, or me, rather than issuing public accusations in the
forums, and we can take it from there.

there are many ways players here are assessed for cheating; each of these factors is taken into account before a decision is made. As for the ability to beat Fritz 10 or Rybka, even in a short game, I just don't think that's very credible. Rybka is conventionally rated well over 3000. Time constraints are not constraints just on the engine, but on the player as well; there should be no clear advantage in shorter vs. longer games. As for using engines to test for cheaters, it is not on the same level as engine cheating itself because the practice is narrowly targeted only to suspects. Additionally, when I employ this method with my test accounts I make every effort not to take points (preferring to let my time run out once sufficient information is gained). Nevertheless the process is not perfect. Ideally, there would be no cheaters in the first place, but we have to work with what we've got and do our best to limit the distortion. Personally I prefer the process be more discreet. I encourage those with suspicions in future to send a private message to thibault, legend, or me, rather than issuing public accusations in the forums, and we can take it from there.

Nagiza must be adjusted

Nagiza must be adjusted

Sorry Nargiza

I know he cheats because i used a programm

Sorry *Nargiza* I know he cheats because i used a programm

Хорошо. Моя проблема состоит в том, что одна такая существующая функция, которая принадлежит определенному
человеку.

Хорошо. Моя проблема состоит в том, что одна такая существующая функция, которая принадлежит определенному человеку.

Chess Titans is not something which can be called a "program"

Chess Titans is not something which can be called a "program"

Ronnie, you are ridiculous

Ronnie, you are ridiculous

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