Which is worse? Cheating or sandbagging a cheater?

@QueenRosieMary said in #18:
> No, I'm saying just because someone does not commit an offence every day doesn't mean they didn't do it

Yes, and they should be punished for it. Should I stop watching Bill Cosby video clips because he was found guilty? Should I stop listening to the Jackson 5 because of the child allegation against Michael? Should I stop laughing at Naked Gun movies because OJ Simpson was found guilty of robbery and kidnapping (Oct. 3, 2008 in case you are wondering)?

> Again, deliberately missing the point

Your point was based off of misunderstanding my point. I never said a person shouldn't be punished, but they shouldn't be genocided off a site. We even allow child molesters to move into neighborhoods which may have children. They are on a list though, and those in the neighborhood can and should take the legal precautions/defenses they deem necessary.

> How have we gone from me saying "Let's ban cheaters and sandbaggers from Lichess" to "Let's genocide underaged drinkers"? Also, why do you want to stop them from going to the bar when they reach legal age? Surely they can drink then? I'm a bit confused xD

I wasn't referring to genociding underage drinkers. I was using underage drinking as an analogy that went past you apparently.

You want to permanently ban people who cheated once. I am saying that is unrealistic. I would make serious tournaments require FIDE or national ratings and information. Then, I would prefer local chess federations to resolve issues before permanently getting banned. Examples would be Karjakin for his comments on the Russia/Ukraine conflict where FIDE banned him from participating in a Candidates tournament. Hans Niemann and to my understanding Timur Gareyev had a lesser punishment which was more nation based.

> You sound like you are trying to justify cheating and sandbagging as ok because online chess rating is an "imaginary Monopoly rating for chess" which somehow makes it all fine.

I am trying to justify reform if seriously wrong. If a bunch of young teenagers cheat without it being an important event, it's not something I would expect any chess site to prevent. Of course, if they could I would be in favor of it, but I think we need to look for more practical ways to minimize cheating. One way would be to actually discuss games with your opponent. I have never had opponents on this server or on competing sites discuss games they played. They always move on to the next opponent.

Another thing would be to form groups so others can assess a player's strength/style. For example, at my level I am strong in the Ruy Lopez. You may still be able to beat me if you are that much stronger, but I know I will play better in that opening than say the Sicilian which I don't spend a lot of time preparing for. Knowing these differences can help to determine consistency.

And in the end, take it off the internet prove it OTB. But I don't think that was your point. I think your point was to severely remove someone from a site which is premature.

@UnderwaterDillDough said in #21:
>
> You want to permanently ban people who cheated once. I am saying that is unrealistic.

The only way to have a chance at removing this vermin from the site is to punish them fast and hard.

Cheating is simply not done. I don't see how it would fit into a category that deserves a warning first.

@Geelse_zot said in #22:
> The only way to have a chance at removing this vermin from the site is to punish them fast and hard.
>
> Cheating is simply not done. I don't see how it would fit into a category that deserves a warning first.

Well, first of all, we are working off the premise the person is 100% guilty. Yet, we can't provide any conclusive evidence. Kramnik has turned this into a circus.

Everyone is arguing with Monday night football assumptions when we don't even have Sunday news recap of the game. Provide the game, provide the moves, PROVE THE GUILT. I don't know where you are from, but there is a presumption of innocence in my country. A person does NOT have to prove their innocence. The onus is on the one making the claim.

The next thing about your reply is the "removing this vermin from the site is to punish them fast and hard" part. If we can't prove the guilt, we character assassinate a person for something they may not have done. Do you really want to do something that stupid and make yourself guilty?

There are measures that can be taken as I have stated in my previous post. You can also just revert everything to people on your list. Keep it contained. You can place more value in wins won in tournaments that aren't "suspicious". Nullify the suspicious games.

The problem lies in people who want to be police, judge, jury, executioner, reporting journalist with selective accounts that support their agenda, and people who post in favor of this. These are the true vermin that plague the internet. These are the people who don't allow others to do for themselves. Somehow we need zombie voters and tell them who to believe.

What if we let the individual decide who they want to play? What if we let the individual determine who they think is cheating and who isn't? Why must we intervene to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed?

@UnderwaterDillDough said in #21
> You want to permanently ban people who cheated once. I am saying that is unrealistic.

Well, I believe there's one thing you should understand.
Since there's a little analogy game going on here, I'll play along by painting a quick picture using real estate/housing for reference.

Imagine "Mr. X" invites you to his place and lays down some house rules - like, keep the kitchen floor clean or you're out. You're cool with that, right? You're a guest, after all. But if you mess up, you can't complain when you're asked to leave.

Same goes for Lichess or any online platform. When you sign up, you agree to play by the rules. If you break 'em (even just once) you can't be shocked if you get banned. It's like knowingly tracking dirt into Mr. X's house. Cheaters are trespassers and should face the consequences.

What's the common denominator between these two scenarios?
To put it simply, rules are in place.
In a sense, they're designed to shape the order in which things should go within their territory/platform, so to speak. Please, hear me when I say "their" platform.

I understand that ill-mannered players can become greedy (to the point of using external assistance to defeat their opponents) at times
— they can cheat on a Monday, be honest on Tuesday, and regret their misdeed on Wednesday, only to become angry on Thursday after losing too many games, before finally saying 'f*ck it' on Friday and cheating again like they did on Monday.

There are those who have supposedly cheated only once and never again. However, this does not change the fact that they knowingly trespassed and should be banned as such.

Also, it's not like they're permanently put at bay after cheating once. I'm uncertain about this but, based on what I've heard from a user here, Lichess has apparently created a place where marked accounts can pair up with other marked accounts and still play free chess. They're also given an opportunity to contact moderators in order to apologize for their actions and possibly gain re-entry into the main pool.

All in all, it surely seems fair and "realistic" enough, as opposed to your opinion.

> I think we need to look for more practical ways to minimize cheating. One way would be to actually discuss games with your opponent. I have never had opponents on this server or on competing sites discuss games they played. They always move on to the next opponent.

...Welcome to the Internet, bud... Not everyone is interested in or has time to discuss about their gameplay after each game... Speaking for myself, I've certainly never felt the need to do that and I don't think it makes me a bad sportsman. As long as one plays fairly, nothing else should be expected from one.

Furthermore, you should keep in mind that not every user can speak or text in our language, and vice versa.

Given a number of factors, I'm afraid your little proposal was poorly thought out.

I understand you're concerned, as you seem to be looking for fitting solutions, but I can tell you that the existing system in place is quite efficient in the digital world. Just put your mind at ease & play chess.
Cheers

@UnderwaterDillDough said in #21:

> For example, at my level I am strong in the Ruy Lopez. You may still be able to beat me if you are that much stronger, but I know I will play better in that opening than say the Sicilian which I don't spend a lot of time preparing for.

This wasn't one of your Ruy Lopez games, was it? Maybe before worrying about openings in too much detail, it would be helpful to focus more on trying not to hang pieces in the opening. This opening exposed both of your rooks and then you didn't even recapture the bishops when you had the opportunity. I'm not sure quite what your thinking was here ? And it was a rapid game so it's not like you didn't have time to see the rooks were hanging.

@Raptor-5 said in #25:
> @UnderwaterDillDough said in #21

> It's like knowingly tracking dirt into Mr. X's house. Cheaters are trespassers and should face the consequences.

It's not an accurate analogy. The infrastructure of a chess site for global use is very different than one house. Look at chess clubs also compared to online chess play. You go to the club and you meet 20 players. You get to know them. If any of them are one trick ponies, you have a modicum of research to stop them winning. Compare that with online play where you not only have millions upon millions of players, but you also have engine bots. There is no way to just figure out the antidote.

I am not trying to make a case for cheating/sandbagging, but I am stating you won't learn by doing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Carlsen didn't do it all on his own either.

Your dirt analogy is a good one because it shows the same shallow viewpoint towards an online course vs. Carlsen winning the championship against Anand. Your analogy misses the true comparison that yes when you train, you "cheat". You actually learn the moves. When you play Anand to win the championship, you don't have the shoes to drag in dirt. You are held at a VIP different status.

YOU DON'T CHEAT, YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPTION, YOU ARE SCRUTINIZED TO THE FULLEST.

Try an analogy which includes those scanner devices chess.com promoted at the Candidates and Sinquefield Cup used. You guys just sound like those basement/bedroom guitar players who want to make it sound like you are in an "awesome" band. Face it, you are NOT legend in your room playing chess all day. You don't need to treat things at the same standard because you have grandiose visions being a pretend GM in your undies.

YOU SUCK AT CHESS. BLAMING OTHERS FOR CHEATING JUST MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER IN THE END.

I suggest if you really don't want cheating for not wanting cheating, go back to the local chess part of my reply here. Work with 20 or some people YOU KNOW, then figure out their strengths and weaknesses. Then, meet 20 others.

The way it is now, it is all anonymously paired up. It's silly and stupid to expect a site to police those games as strongly as important tournament events.

> In a sense, they're designed to shape the order in which things should go within their territory/platform, so to speak. Please, hear me when I say "their" platform.

One, I never stated people shouldn't be punished. Second, when you have a server where people come together to play, you should allow friends to play friends. If enemies accuse your friends of cheating and convince the server to remove your friends without PROOF, then your friends can't come to play here. I think it would be better to limit the accused if need be to just friends playing friends. Weigh the results of the accused less, and we can ALL get along.

However, when you have a mini-dictator saying "He must have been cheating, I will remove him." NO you aren't helping the community. The "My house my rules" mentality just invites cheaters to come back anonymously under another account. How does that help the thing that was supposed to be stopped. If you contain the accused to friends, then they won't be making new anonymous accounts.

> There are those who have supposedly cheated only once and never again. However, this does not change the fact that they knowingly trespassed and should be banned as such.

That is your assumption, you are dictating a stupid rule. I don't see how that helps the cause, nor do I see why people think that way. You bumped into me while standing in line at the market, THEREFORE you must LEAVE!!! You don't get to shop here anymore.

That mentality makes you a mini-dictator.

> ...Welcome to the Internet, bud... Not everyone is interested in or has time to discuss about their gameplay after each game... Speaking for myself, I've certainly never felt the need to do that and I don't think it makes me a bad sportsman. As long as one plays fairly, nothing else should be expected from one.

Yes, welcome to the internet, where you can play incognito. You can play anonymously. Your method of genociding the smallest of crimes doesn't achieve what you you want.

@UnderwaterDillDough said in #24:
> The problem lies in people who want to be police, judge, jury, executioner, reporting journalist with selective accounts that support their agenda, and people who post in favor of this. These are the true vermin that plague the internet. These are the people who don't allow others to do for themselves. Somehow we need zombie voters and tell them who to believe.

Lol wut? What are you even saying here?

@QueenRosieMary said in #26:
> This wasn't one of your Ruy Lopez games, was it?

Not sure what you were trying to prove here. Because I lost one Ruy Lopez, I must not be strong in it? Maybe I was drunk that day. Maybe I was testing something. Maybe I got a phone call. Maybe someone interrupted me and I moved fast without thinking.

Again, this goes to show, I am not treating every game like it is a WCC match. You guys are assuming we must play every game as if our life depended on it.

I'll also give you some insight, I DON'T CARE TO BE A GM.

Sometimes I make moves based on a formula revolving around music theory. It may have NOTHING to do with engine analysis, nothing to do with human thinking, nothing to do with a good vs. bad move.

I just move and see what happens. These rating points are Monopoly points. I can't go to a USCF event and trade them in.

It's fun seeing you guys latch onto this online play like it's a replacement for living life offline.

The variety of postings in this topic, and the title too, leave me struggling to understand what this whole discussion is about.

However, I want to say the following.

(1) Cheating is an absolute no-no and must be severely dealt with by the chess world.

(2) However, removing people from the chess world for life if they have cheated in the past is draconian and wrong.

(3) ... Not least because "miscarriages of justice" can and do occur. There were several high profile ones around 2019-2020 on chessdotcom while I was a member there, also a member of the Cheating Forum there.

I have a great deal of empathy with a lot of what @UnderwaterDillDough is writing.

@QueenRosieMary said in #28:
> Lol wut? What are you even saying here?

I am saying people want to control others from afar and maybe they should spend more time allowing. If you really think someone is cheating, DON'T PLAY THEM!!! Crazy concept.