- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Use of chess engine

#11

@Woland52 said in #9:

What doesn't convince me is when a player, mid-game, when he's clearly at a disadvantage, suddenly becomes strong and doesn't make any more mistakes. I don't think that's normal. I think someone has found a way to cheat by evading the controls. Try playing some classic games (20 + 10) and you'll see. I check for errors at the end of the game and it's not difficult to see if something is wrong.I would like to point out that for me it is not a problem. I just wanted to see if other players had the same impression as me. Greetings to all.
This morning I looked through several of your games (all losses), and I found exactly one where the opponent played a pretty solid game wire to wire. I've done that, and that game wasn't all that long. It was even for a while, you made a fairly serious mistake and things went downhill. The opponent did still make errors almost giving the game up, but you out-mistaked him into a resignation that I honestly would have said was a little premature. So that's not all that hard to believe even that one was 100% legit. Every other game I looked at had huge swings just like I expect to see in any human game at these levels.

Even fast control games of top players often have the eval bar bouncing up and down wildly. And in a long-ish game as many of your classical games are, I should expect you to both play pretty darn solid. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, most not quite as many as me, but I see those mistakes in every game I looked at. And that was about 10.

I saw you had some losses to players considerably higher rated as well as some wins against the same. Same goes for your wins, you have them often against lower rated players and less often against higher rated ones. Nothing to see here either. But I didn't see ANYthing like the stuff I saw over on the other site. Not even close. Over there I documented a person going 2 years in a time control without so much as one inaccuracy. When I left, that account was still open and HAD BEEN REPORTED months earlier.

Another observation is that I think you really need to blunder-check more often (just like the rest of us should). For instance I saw you with a choice of recapture with 14 minutes on the clock, recapture in <10 seconds with the wrong piece, hanging a free rook on the very next move. And, to make matters worse, the opponent didn't see that not taking the rook immediately results in an even bigger advantage. So to be fair to them, +8 wasn't even capitalizing on your mistake entirely. Things like that are not often recoverable. In that game you had been winning solidly and made errors, but so had your opponent. As I recall there were 4 completely wild swings in eval (like +/-6 or more, 4x). That's 2 humans playing chess.

I'm not trying to tell you what to think, but I really don't see the games as suspicious. I did not look at the one opponent's other games to see how often they play fairly solid, wire to wire. If that happens often, ok, maybe. But for the most part I'd say you are holding your rating in spite of dropping free stuff on a pretty regular basis. And I'm talking about 1 ply mistakes. Not deep tactical shots. I recall an opening where you had a free pawn on Bxg2 but chose Be4 attacking the opponent's queen, and dropping a pawn in the process. This was -2.5 turned into +2.5... This was shocking to me, as the B was supported by a pawn, but attacked by a N and Q, thus you loose a pawn instead of gaining one. Not a deep tactical exchange, NxB, fxN, Qxe, thanks for the free central pawn. I'm just going from memory here, and this isn't meant in any bad way, we all make mistakes. But I certainly wouldn't look at your recent classical games as an example of anything suspicious. YMMV

@Woland52 said in #9: > What doesn't convince me is when a player, mid-game, when he's clearly at a disadvantage, suddenly becomes strong and doesn't make any more mistakes. I don't think that's normal. I think someone has found a way to cheat by evading the controls. Try playing some classic games (20 + 10) and you'll see. I check for errors at the end of the game and it's not difficult to see if something is wrong.I would like to point out that for me it is not a problem. I just wanted to see if other players had the same impression as me. Greetings to all. This morning I looked through several of your games (all losses), and I found exactly one where the opponent played a pretty solid game wire to wire. I've done that, and that game wasn't all that long. It was even for a while, you made a fairly serious mistake and things went downhill. The opponent did still make errors almost giving the game up, but you out-mistaked him into a resignation that I honestly would have said was a little premature. So that's not all that hard to believe even that one was 100% legit. Every other game I looked at had huge swings just like I expect to see in any human game at these levels. Even fast control games of top players often have the eval bar bouncing up and down wildly. And in a long-ish game as many of your classical games are, I should expect you to both play pretty darn solid. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, most not quite as many as me, but I see those mistakes in every game I looked at. And that was about 10. I saw you had some losses to players considerably higher rated as well as some wins against the same. Same goes for your wins, you have them often against lower rated players and less often against higher rated ones. Nothing to see here either. But I didn't see ANYthing like the stuff I saw over on the other site. Not even close. Over there I documented a person going 2 years in a time control without so much as one inaccuracy. When I left, that account was still open and HAD BEEN REPORTED months earlier. Another observation is that I think you really need to blunder-check more often (just like the rest of us should). For instance I saw you with a choice of recapture with 14 minutes on the clock, recapture in <10 seconds with the wrong piece, hanging a free rook on the very next move. And, to make matters worse, the opponent didn't see that not taking the rook immediately results in an even bigger advantage. So to be fair to them, +8 wasn't even capitalizing on your mistake entirely. Things like that are not often recoverable. In that game you had been winning solidly and made errors, but so had your opponent. As I recall there were 4 completely wild swings in eval (like +/-6 or more, 4x). That's 2 humans playing chess. I'm not trying to tell you what to think, but I really don't see the games as suspicious. I did not look at the one opponent's other games to see how often they play fairly solid, wire to wire. If that happens often, ok, maybe. But for the most part I'd say you are holding your rating in spite of dropping free stuff on a pretty regular basis. And I'm talking about 1 ply mistakes. Not deep tactical shots. I recall an opening where you had a free pawn on Bxg2 but chose Be4 attacking the opponent's queen, and dropping a pawn in the process. This was -2.5 turned into +2.5... This was shocking to me, as the B was supported by a pawn, but attacked by a N and Q, thus you loose a pawn instead of gaining one. Not a deep tactical exchange, NxB, fxN, Qxe, thanks for the free central pawn. I'm just going from memory here, and this isn't meant in any bad way, we all make mistakes. But I certainly wouldn't look at your recent classical games as an example of anything suspicious. YMMV
#12

@Woland52 said in #9:

What doesn't convince me is when a player, mid-game, when he's clearly at a disadvantage, suddenly becomes strong and doesn't make any more mistakes.
I had quite a few games where I started playing much better after blundering. Just like I usually play better chess when I'm playing against a stronger opponent than when I think I'm supposed to win, accepting that the game is likely lost often makes me feel more relaxed and able to fully focus on doing my best.

This is a nice example:

https://lichess.org/study/EgVXpSK6/K7WlCYyC
(it was an OTB game)

Try playing some classic games (20 + 10) and you'll see.
Majority of my games is 30+30 and slower. I don't see what you expect me to see.

I check for errors at the end of the game and it's not difficult to see if something is wrong.
Cheating detection is complicated and checking accuracy/ACPL and/or the number of blunders/mistakes/inaccuracies shown by automated analysis is not a reliable way to recognize engine assistance.

I just wanted to see if other players had the same impression as me.
I played 176 classical games on lichess. I'm aware of four of my opponents who were later marked for ToS violation (which does not necessarily mean cheating). Even knowing that, I still can't say if they did cheat in their games against me. For all of those four games, my honest answer to a question why I lost them would be that I made mistakes that I should not have made and that were in my power not to make.

Sure there were games where I felt like "Why can't he/she make a single mistake?" Most of the time the post-game analysis showed that they did but I failed to recognize the mistakes and take advantage of them.

@Woland52 said in #9: > What doesn't convince me is when a player, mid-game, when he's clearly at a disadvantage, suddenly becomes strong and doesn't make any more mistakes. I had quite a few games where I started playing much better after blundering. Just like I usually play better chess when I'm playing against a stronger opponent than when I think I'm supposed to win, accepting that the game is likely lost often makes me feel more relaxed and able to fully focus on doing my best. This is a nice example: https://lichess.org/study/EgVXpSK6/K7WlCYyC (it was an OTB game) > Try playing some classic games (20 + 10) and you'll see. Majority of my games is 30+30 and slower. I don't see what you expect me to see. > I check for errors at the end of the game and it's not difficult to see if something is wrong. Cheating detection is complicated and checking accuracy/ACPL and/or the number of blunders/mistakes/inaccuracies shown by automated analysis is not a reliable way to recognize engine assistance. > I just wanted to see if other players had the same impression as me. I played 176 classical games on lichess. I'm aware of four of my opponents who were later marked for ToS violation (which does not necessarily mean cheating). Even knowing that, I still can't say if they did cheat in their games against me. For all of those four games, my honest answer to a question why I lost them would be that I made mistakes that I should not have made and that were in my power not to make. Sure there were games where I felt like "Why can't he/she make a single mistake?" Most of the time the post-game analysis showed that they did but I failed to recognize the mistakes and take advantage of them.
#14

The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters. So many reasons why it is all in our heads, we are making it up, it is only because we lost, or we don't know how to play. Despite, chess.com's monthly report "We closed 119k players this month including 25 titled players" (July); but of course that is chess.com, obviously here on lichess we are all saints. Where do you think those 119k players are going?

The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters. So many reasons why it is all in our heads, we are making it up, it is only because we lost, or we don't know how to play. Despite, chess.com's monthly report "We closed 119k players this month including 25 titled players" (July); but of course that is chess.com, obviously here on lichess we are all saints. Where do you think those 119k players are going?
#16

Be afraid! Be very afraid!
There are many accounts here who turn on an engine called The Brain. It's pretty good, especially at beating suspicious humans.

Be afraid! Be very afraid! There are many accounts here who turn on an engine called The Brain. It's pretty good, especially at beating suspicious humans.
#17

@defeatmoaning said in #14:

The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters.
On the other hand, it's kind of sad to see how many people accuse anyone who does not share the "cheaters everywhere" mindset of "defending the cheaters".

@defeatmoaning said in #14: > The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters. On the other hand, it's kind of sad to see how many people accuse anyone who does not share the "cheaters everywhere" mindset of "defending the cheaters".
#18

@defeatmoaning said in #14:

The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters. So many reasons why it is all in our heads, we are making it up, it is only because we lost, or we don't know how to play. Despite, chess.com's monthly report "We closed 119k players this month including 25 titled players" (July); but of course that is chess.com, obviously here on lichess we are all saints. Where do you think those 119k players are going?

Those 119K players didn't go anywhere. They open new accounts over there, or simply use another one they already have open. And we're not talking about over there, we're talking about here.

I'm not defending anything. And I'll be the first one to say I think cheating on chesscom is rampant. I've seen and played lots of games over there. I can clearly see the difference between what I saw there vs what I see here. There, I'd hardly ever see a game that didn't lend itself to supporting the suspicion, at least when combined with other games of the same person. The best of them were questionable. When chessbase deep analysis shows me the opponent has a 0.00 cpl, on a 35 move game in a rare gambit, and this is done often, ok, I don't need to see more.

Here, It's WAY more often than not that games look like humans playing humans. The staff here are NOT so afraid to ban someone that they allow obvious cheating to go on. Is there still some, sure. But when longstanding accounts play other longstanding accounts, and the games "look" legit, I say they're legit.

I just looked at a few more. I see one where up until move 50, neither player had an advantage greater than 1.5, and at move 50 it was 0.5. That means BOTH players are capable of playing 50 moves with virtually no errors. Take note of that fact please. Now, if the opponent is higher rated than the OP, and I am to assume the OP is legit (and I say he is), then I say it's very likely the opponent is strong enough they didn't need to cheat. That game also had ups and downs near the end.
Another game went from +3.2 to -3.1 to +4.4 to -4 and then the OP lost.
Yet another, Op is even or better 17 moves, then -3.1, then drawn, then -3.3, then drawn, then +6.9, then drawn, then -5.4 and resigns.
Next one, opponent is +8.5 and blunders it away to -1, Op gives it back shortly after and gets mated while +4 material and 13:47 on the clock. Mate sequence plays itself. Not many could miss it.

What am I to believe?

That's just ones I pulled up. Now, is it possible these people were not legit? Hey, I'm not going to say that's impossible. I'm just saying it's improbable. And full disclosure, I only opened his losses. But it's fun looking through games.

@defeatmoaning said in #14: > The best part about these kind of threads is the amount of people defending the cheaters. So many reasons why it is all in our heads, we are making it up, it is only because we lost, or we don't know how to play. Despite, chess.com's monthly report "We closed 119k players this month including 25 titled players" (July); but of course that is chess.com, obviously here on lichess we are all saints. Where do you think those 119k players are going? Those 119K players didn't go anywhere. They open new accounts over there, or simply use another one they already have open. And we're not talking about over there, we're talking about here. I'm not defending anything. And I'll be the first one to say I think cheating on chesscom is rampant. I've seen and played lots of games over there. I can clearly see the difference between what I saw there vs what I see here. There, I'd hardly ever see a game that didn't lend itself to supporting the suspicion, at least when combined with other games of the same person. The best of them were questionable. When chessbase deep analysis shows me the opponent has a 0.00 cpl, on a 35 move game in a rare gambit, and this is done often, ok, I don't need to see more. Here, It's WAY more often than not that games look like humans playing humans. The staff here are NOT so afraid to ban someone that they allow obvious cheating to go on. Is there still some, sure. But when longstanding accounts play other longstanding accounts, and the games "look" legit, I say they're legit. I just looked at a few more. I see one where up until move 50, neither player had an advantage greater than 1.5, and at move 50 it was 0.5. That means BOTH players are capable of playing 50 moves with virtually no errors. Take note of that fact please. Now, if the opponent is higher rated than the OP, and I am to assume the OP is legit (and I say he is), then I say it's very likely the opponent is strong enough they didn't need to cheat. That game also had ups and downs near the end. Another game went from +3.2 to -3.1 to +4.4 to -4 and then the OP lost. Yet another, Op is even or better 17 moves, then -3.1, then drawn, then -3.3, then drawn, then +6.9, then drawn, then -5.4 and resigns. Next one, opponent is +8.5 and blunders it away to -1, Op gives it back shortly after and gets mated while +4 material and 13:47 on the clock. Mate sequence plays itself. Not many could miss it. What am I to believe? That's just ones I pulled up. Now, is it possible these people were not legit? Hey, I'm not going to say that's impossible. I'm just saying it's improbable. And full disclosure, I only opened his losses. But it's fun looking through games.
#19

@mkubecek said in #17:

On the other hand, it's kind of sad to see how many people accuse anyone who does not share the "cheaters everywhere" mindset of "defending the cheaters".
Here we go. It is all in your mind.

@mkubecek said in #17: > On the other hand, it's kind of sad to see how many people accuse anyone who does not share the "cheaters everywhere" mindset of "defending the cheaters". Here we go. It is all in your mind.
#20

@defeatmoaning said in #19:

Here we go. It is all in your mind.
OK, I'll ask directly: where exactly do you think I "defended the cheaters"? I really don't understand what part of my comment(s) makes you think I'm "defending the cheaters".

@defeatmoaning said in #19: > Here we go. It is all in your mind. OK, I'll ask directly: where exactly do you think I "defended the cheaters"? I really don't understand what part of my comment(s) makes you think I'm "defending the cheaters".

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