lichess.org

Questions regarding possible cheating and perfect games

@Sarg0n Yeah, OK, got it: The mods have tools to investigate suspected cheaters that we don't have. I know that, as I think most people who've been on Lichess for any length of time do. That's precisely why I stated that others who report on suspected cheats and don't hear back "should figure that an investigation with tools you don't have access to found there wasn't an issue and, at this point, you should let it go."

So what's your point?

Are you saying it bothers you that I asked the community for informed opinions on the likelihood of a player turning in a dozen near-perfect games in 3 days? Is that what's bothering you?

@SnackYourPawn Ah, OK. I was puzzled by the acronym. Thanks.

Yes, I'd agree that most cheaters are eventually found out and banned. Many of them are banned because of players like me, who quietly study the games and file the reports with the information we've compiled. Unfortunately, some Lichess players seem to want to denigrate those of us who do this -- "Cheating isn't anything at all a problem like you seem to think it is and by even mentioning it, you are making the situation worse, so take your talk of cheating to Chess.com!" It's juvenile behavior, in my opinion.

Cheating is by no means an epidemic, but to pretend it isn't a problem in 2019, where anyone's phone can run an engine that could beat Kasparov, is idiotic.

Give this guy a break.
He is one of the few who wants to discuss cheating and is actually doing it right: no direct hints to a specific suspect, and he is explicitly asking whether a dozen 0/0/0 games is *sufficient evidence to file a report* - not *proof for claiming that someone definitely cheated*.

I mean, we can talk about that, right.


Personally, I'd report a case like this, too.
It may turn out that everything's clean... but certainly it's not a waste of Lichess' ressources to have closer look at that.


PS: The root of the problem are not engines on phones, though. It's the anonymity of the internet. For all we know, the guy might literally have Kasparov stand behind him and telling him moves, no engine involved (but still cheating of course). Who can tell?

PPS: As someone having a degree in the field, I can say that today's AI is still far from perfect and should not be trusted blindly. Even Irwin is not always right (probably much more often than any human analyst though).

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.

Reconnecting