Proctor • page 1/5 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

What d‘ya think? Over there they seem to use it.

„To make sure players are playing fair, Proctor captures:

The computer's screen
The programs running
Video camera feeds
Audio inputs and outputs“

https://www.chess.com/proctor

What d‘ya think? Over there they seem to use it. „To make sure players are playing fair, Proctor captures: The computer's screen The programs running Video camera feeds Audio inputs and outputs“ https://www.chess.com/proctor

AsDaGo

#2

If it's not free software, then just like any non-free software, it violates the user's freedom and should be avoided. But if it is free, then obviously that would defeat the purpose since the user could modify it to say that all is good when they're actually cheating. There needs to be some way to prevent cheating, but this is definitely not it.

Having a camera showing the player and their screen seems reasonable, but of course the user could have a screen off camera that they use to cheat. However, "Proctor" offers no advantage in this respect, and at least a camera might be able to show their eyes constantly moving off screen. You would also risk false positives though, since someone's eyes might wander when they're thinking about the position even if they're not cheating. There's really no easy solution.

If it's not free software, then just like any non-free software, it violates the user's freedom and should be avoided. But if it is free, then obviously that would defeat the purpose since the user could modify it to say that all is good when they're actually cheating. There needs to be some way to prevent cheating, but this is definitely not it. Having a camera showing the player and their screen seems reasonable, but of course the user could have a screen off camera that they use to cheat. However, "Proctor" offers no advantage in this respect, and at least a camera might be able to show their eyes constantly moving off screen. You would also risk false positives though, since someone's eyes might wander when they're thinking about the position even if they're not cheating. There's really no easy solution.

CM Sarg0n

#3

Actually it’s used when students are examined. It should therefore be quite „professional“.

mkubecek

#4

(copying my reaction from another forum) I wouldn't hold my breath. Most people were already taught not to care about security and privacy and accept whatever spyware is thrown at them. And worse, once majority accepts this nonsense (many even praising chess-com for "doing something with the problem"), the minority who rejects will be automatically perceived as conspicuous. ("They surely have something to hide!") :-(

It was nicely illustrated in the chess-com discussion under the first announcement: many comments applauding ("It helps with cheating, it's a Good Thing(TM)."), one or two raising concerns about privacy, quickly shouted down by others.

My take is that I'm glad I don't have to care as (1) I don't play on chess-com and (2) I'm nowhere near being eligible for the events where they require it. Because no, there is no way I would install something like this on my system even if I could. (I'm running Linux and I'm also using my computer for home office; our company's security team certainly wouldn't be OK with stuff like this.) It would be nice if non-negligible fraction of affected players objected and refused to install it but I would be extremely surprised if that were the case.

BtW. am I the only one whose first thought seeing the name was the character from Police Academy series? :-)

(copying my reaction from another forum) I wouldn't hold my breath. Most people were already taught not to care about security and privacy and accept whatever spyware is thrown at them. And worse, once majority accepts this nonsense (many even praising chess-com for "doing something with the problem"), the minority who rejects will be automatically perceived as conspicuous. ("They surely have something to hide!") :-( It was nicely illustrated in the chess-com discussion under the first announcement: many comments applauding ("It helps with cheating, it's a Good Thing(TM)."), one or two raising concerns about privacy, quickly shouted down by others. My take is that I'm glad I don't have to care as (1) I don't play on chess-com and (2) I'm nowhere near being eligible for the events where they require it. Because no, there is no way I would install something like this on my system even if I could. (I'm running Linux and I'm also using my computer for home office; our company's security team certainly wouldn't be OK with stuff like this.) It would be nice if non-negligible fraction of affected players objected and refused to install it but I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. BtW. am I the only one whose first thought seeing the name was the character from Police Academy series? :-)

mkubecek

#5

@AsDaGo said in #2:

There's really no easy solution.
As with many other complex and difficult problems, there are many easy solutions. They just either don't work or do more harm than good, often both. And this a striking example.

@AsDaGo said in #2: > There's really no easy solution. As with many other complex and difficult problems, there are many easy solutions. They just either don't work or do more harm than good, often both. And this a striking example.

h2b2

edited

#6

you need windows or mac. I don't have either of those. fascists. guess I'm going to suspend my road to gm series.

a lot of multiplayer games on windows install anti cheat software. some are basically rootkits and I thought I remember reading ms are going to put a stop to it. I think steam don't want rootkits on their platform, either.

with www.chess.com/proctor , you're giving a company that runs ads that tracks their customers across the web and collects and sells their data a lot of access to your pc. what could go wrong?

you need windows or mac. I don't have either of those. fascists. guess I'm going to suspend my road to gm series. a lot of multiplayer games on windows install anti cheat software. some are basically rootkits and I thought I remember reading ms are going to put a stop to it. I think steam don't want rootkits on their platform, either. with www.chess.com/proctor , you're giving a company that runs ads that tracks their customers across the web and collects and sells their data a lot of access to your pc. what could go wrong?

GM ILikeBlitz

#7

As far as I know, chess.com doesn't use Proctor yet, but plans to make it obligatory.
At a very recent event, players had to be ready to connect to Zoom with 2 cameras as before, Proctor wasn't used there at all.

As far as I know, chess.com doesn't use Proctor yet, but plans to make it obligatory. At a very recent event, players had to be ready to connect to Zoom with 2 cameras as before, Proctor wasn't used there at all.

GM ILikeBlitz

#8

The main advantage of Proctor should be that all the participants of big prize tourneys would be on cameras, whereas nowadays it is only a small percentage of participants in Titled Tuesdays and many similar events. There's a hope that it could reduce both cheating and accusations, which would be great. I'll form my opinion on it only after there's some experience with Proctor.

@AsDaGo said in #2:

If it's not free software, then just like any non-free software, it violates the user's freedom and should be avoided. But if it is free, then obviously that would defeat the purpose since the user could modify it to say that all is good when they're actually cheating. There needs to be some way to prevent cheating, but this is definitely not it.

Having a camera showing the player and their screen seems reasonable, but of course the user could have a screen off camera that they use to cheat. However, "Proctor" offers no advantage in this respect, and at least a camera might be able to show their eyes constantly moving off screen. You would also risk false positives though, since someone's eyes might wander when they're thinking about the position even if they're not cheating. There's really no easy solution.

The main advantage of Proctor should be that all the participants of big prize tourneys would be on cameras, whereas nowadays it is only a small percentage of participants in Titled Tuesdays and many similar events. There's a hope that it could reduce both cheating and accusations, which would be great. I'll form my opinion on it only after there's some experience with Proctor. @AsDaGo said in #2: > If it's not free software, then just like any non-free software, it violates the user's freedom and should be avoided. But if it is free, then obviously that would defeat the purpose since the user could modify it to say that all is good when they're actually cheating. There needs to be some way to prevent cheating, but this is definitely not it. > > Having a camera showing the player and their screen seems reasonable, but of course the user could have a screen off camera that they use to cheat. However, "Proctor" offers no advantage in this respect, and at least a camera might be able to show their eyes constantly moving off screen. You would also risk false positives though, since someone's eyes might wander when they're thinking about the position even if they're not cheating. There's really no easy solution.

Druismat

#9

If only there was an easy solution. To me, cheating in chess is like throwing soup on a van Gogh. It is an attack on purity. But privacy is a big issue; I do understand that. Nevertheless, AI can bring some enlightenment in the future, and I really hope it will. I would give up all my privacy if it secured that I was playing against a fair player. And I feel that some sort of spyware will go hand in hand with the online chess of the future...

mkubecek

edited

#10

@Druismat said in #9:

And I feel that some sort of spyware will go hand in hand with the online chess of the future...
I strongly hope it won't. And I believe that we have to stand up against it before people like those at chess-com succeed to make it mainstream and before they manage to create the atmosphere where everyone who opposes it is seen as a suspect and likely cheater.

I understand that it's difficult to explain to people who are not familiar with computer security and have little understanding how an operating system works but believe me that for those who do, the very idea of installing some blackbox software from dubious source and giving it full control over your system is horrible and absurd. It's worse than a surveillance camera in your bathroom, it's more like giving them full access to your house and bianco checque to do anything they wish inside it. And yet, when you look at the discussion, you don't see people horrified or disgusted, you see almost everyone cheering and praising chess-com for the idea. What the hell is wrong with this world?

I would give up all my privacy if it secured that I was playing against a fair player.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. My position is exactly the opposite: if the only way to play chess online were with some rootkit spyware in my system, I would rather give up online chess, no regrets.

@Druismat said in #9: > And I feel that some sort of spyware will go hand in hand with the online chess of the future... I strongly hope it won't. And I believe that we have to stand up against it before people like those at chess-com succeed to make it mainstream and before they manage to create the atmosphere where everyone who opposes it is seen as a suspect and likely cheater. I understand that it's difficult to explain to people who are not familiar with computer security and have little understanding how an operating system works but believe me that for those who do, the very idea of installing some blackbox software from dubious source and giving it full control over your system is horrible and absurd. It's worse than a surveillance camera in your bathroom, it's more like giving them full access to your house and bianco checque to do anything they wish inside it. And yet, when you look at the discussion, you don't see people horrified or disgusted, you see almost everyone cheering and praising chess-com for the idea. What the hell is wrong with this world? > I would give up all my privacy if it secured that I was playing against a fair player. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. My position is exactly the opposite: if the only way to play chess online were with some rootkit spyware in my system, I would rather give up online chess, no regrets.