@Alex_slow I am not sure you understand what 'proof' is. If you take countably infinitely many players, and have them all play arbitrarily many games taking completely random valid moves each turn, you will obtain arbitrarily many games that contain precisely the moves that stockfish 9 recommends. Your claim that it is 100% clear is nonsense.
@Rapid167 what make us think he cheated is not only the quality of the moves, but the time used per moves, the exceptional performance only for that tournament (and few just before), which he never did again…
It's a common misconception that anti-cheat programs such as Irwin ONLY look for "moves that stockfish 9 recommends" (sometimes the belief even is that a cheater is safe as long as they always only play the second best move).
This is of course far from the truth.
The crux is that players are NOT making completely random moves in arbitrary many games. The moves follow patterns. And modern AI-like programs like Irwin et al. are now able to *learn* these patterns, and thus know exactly what they have to expect from a player. It's not as easy to fool them as their predecessors from the beginning of computer chess.
This is of course far from the truth.
The crux is that players are NOT making completely random moves in arbitrary many games. The moves follow patterns. And modern AI-like programs like Irwin et al. are now able to *learn* these patterns, and thus know exactly what they have to expect from a player. It's not as easy to fool them as their predecessors from the beginning of computer chess.
I had really many games which were 100% impeccable, online and offline. I have had never experienced any inconvenience with any account on any server since October 2001. I started to play on playchess (schach.de) which was founded in September that year.
If a cheater is caught out I rest my case.
If a cheater is caught out I rest my case.
@ProfDrHack That's not the point. My comment was that it was indeed *by definition* speculation, and he *cannot* be 100% certain from the analysis he has done. I may as well have said that literally any game will arise in the scenario I constructed, the choice to point out that 'suspicious games' will appear was just to address his underlying claim that he played 'too well'.
There never is 100% certainty unless Lichess literally sends a supervisor to each and every player's home (and even then, there's corruption...).
In this case, there is adequate evidence though. Call it 90% certainty if you want.
In this case, there is adequate evidence though. Call it 90% certainty if you want.
@Rapid167 sorry, but apparently you are not familiar with the topic. (Pseudo)-scientific discussions are nice, but for those who did see real cheating patterns the case is clear.
www.chessable.com/opening-book/im-john-bartholomews-scandinavian/79 Try this. It helps since you can play right with it and see different variations.
The AI sees patterns where humans don’t. So what’s all the fuzz about? The verdict is spoken. We lack the relevant data, the patterns, the move-times and so on.
Claiming, praying, whining in forums is no good.
Claiming, praying, whining in forums is no good.
Regardless who is right, we're way off-topic. Congratulations to all on hijacking the thread.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.