Don't players realize that it's easy to catch cheaters here. I mean, no mistakes, no errors, no blunders.
People generally don't know they can analyze their games.
@BlackBuzzard #1
Zero mistakes in a chess game does not automatically equal cheating. That is a wrong assumption.
I'm just an old aged ("Too weak, too slow") 2000+ player and it happens that I sometimes play several flawless games per week.
Please use the report buttons to report suspect cheaters. Thank you.
There's even people who believe that GMs cannot play flawless either. Here's a few flawless (According to Lichess Stockfish that is) GM games to share :
Zero mistakes in a chess game does not automatically equal cheating. That is a wrong assumption.
I'm just an old aged ("Too weak, too slow") 2000+ player and it happens that I sometimes play several flawless games per week.
Please use the report buttons to report suspect cheaters. Thank you.
There's even people who believe that GMs cannot play flawless either. Here's a few flawless (According to Lichess Stockfish that is) GM games to share :
I once played a 0 ACPL atomic game.
And a 10 ACPL OTB game.
Do I cheat ?
And a 10 ACPL OTB game.
Do I cheat ?
I shared many flawless games, online and offline.
I just would like to point out that one produces a „fingerprint“ after playing some games. And the meta data is by far richer than a mere ACPL.
Nice example: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/starting-the-day-with-acpl-9-000-and-a-nice-mate-with-two-knights#1
I just would like to point out that one produces a „fingerprint“ after playing some games. And the meta data is by far richer than a mere ACPL.
Nice example: lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/starting-the-day-with-acpl-9-000-and-a-nice-mate-with-two-knights#1
Well, of course GMs can play flawless games *today*. To conclusively prove that they can do so without computers, you'd need to give examples of games from before computers, or at least before computers got strong.
Errors and blunders (even in high numbers) are often made by 100% cheaters to avoid being detected.
Lichess is doing far better than any one at this area. But they are still bad.
Last month they flagged 4 out of 6 I reported. One of those not banned is a certain cheater of this kind. Who actively oppose to being banned by making mistakes.
Lichess is doing far better than any one at this area. But they are still bad.
Last month they flagged 4 out of 6 I reported. One of those not banned is a certain cheater of this kind. Who actively oppose to being banned by making mistakes.
@Vempele #6
Here's a few :
0-0-0
0-1-0, 8 acpl, 65 moves (!)
1-0-0, 6 acpl 52 moves (!)
The point, towards the OP, I was trying to make is that some chess players in forums and tourneys chats are very quick to assume that 0/0/0 inacc/mistakes/blunders = cheating.
It is not that easy though. It e.g. depends on the length of the game, and the amount of opening theory and opening tricks, and the mistakes that the opponent made, and how much of those mistakes were easily exploited by simple and logical moves, and so on and so forth.
e.g. any Fools Mate game can be 0/0/0, very short but 0/0/0.
Here's a few :
0-0-0
0-1-0, 8 acpl, 65 moves (!)
1-0-0, 6 acpl 52 moves (!)
The point, towards the OP, I was trying to make is that some chess players in forums and tourneys chats are very quick to assume that 0/0/0 inacc/mistakes/blunders = cheating.
It is not that easy though. It e.g. depends on the length of the game, and the amount of opening theory and opening tricks, and the mistakes that the opponent made, and how much of those mistakes were easily exploited by simple and logical moves, and so on and so forth.
e.g. any Fools Mate game can be 0/0/0, very short but 0/0/0.
Yes.. agreed with Sarg0n and achja, metrics are far more telling than ACPL. I just played and won a game 1/0/0 6. The game was only mid 20 moves and followed book for 14 moves. A slight error by my opponent and I found the best moves. Not so difficult. The 1 inaccuracy was SF saying the gambit was inaccurate.
Point is, too many just observe the comp analysis, and if low numbers, they assume cheater.
Point is, too many just observe the comp analysis, and if low numbers, they assume cheater.
Indeed I have lots of games with 0-2 minor errors in my thread. If you play a lot then there are numerous of them. Even blitz games and not necessarily boring ones.
Btw, this was an offline team game in 2017, my opponent and I (Black) had both 0/0/0 ACPL 6.
lichess.org/Tp99Cltb/
Evidence enough?
Btw, this was an offline team game in 2017, my opponent and I (Black) had both 0/0/0 ACPL 6.
lichess.org/Tp99Cltb/
Evidence enough?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.