lichess.org

Why do players cheat?

just watch gingergm's videos where he plays longer times controls on cheat. com and you know everything you need to know about this site.

@SpeedCobra

I watched a YouTube video of gingergm playing a guy who beat him. Gingergm played very well but the other guy won. He analyzed his game and the site gave the guys play a 99.4% accuracy. (Its a feature when you analyze a game). So the gingergm reported him and his account is now banned. (I'm being brief but there was more evidence than the one game). I love this site and the other. They ban cheaters all of the time. If they have more cheaters then maybe is because more people go there. My guess is that the domain name is itself a magnet for newcomers.

There is room for both sites. This site is extremely great though and I love it. But I do also happen to love the other as well. It is harder to pay for that site since this one is so awesome.

I'm a big fan of rapid chess and would like to see top GMs stream more of it on their Twitch channels.

I asked MVL in order what he prefers between classic, rapid and blitz and he put rapid in last place. I think he put classic first.
I asked Nepionatchi (however it's spelt) who said he didn't stream rapid because he'd come up against players who cheat a lot.
But I really wanted to know why they don't arrange matches against each other more in rapid and stream it, because that I would find more interesting.

GingerGM is a very popular streamer though (albeit he isn't as strong as MVL or Nepo).

To the person who talked about ICC:

The titled players get free memberships (IM and GM I think), and most of them are still there. Nakamura doesn't seem to play anymore though when he was Smallville on there and 3000+ in the one-minute auto-select pool it was a sight to behold.

I like the ICC interface and don't see a reason to change it. LiChess is my second favorite place to play, but I still play mostly in the ICC one-minute pool, in part because it's difficult to cheat at one-minute (without being too obvious about it), and because the one-minute pool on ICC is a "shark tank" with very deflated ratings. A 1500 can (and will) rip your guts out if you don't bring your A-game. Many GMs hold sub-2000 ratings in that pool.

When I played bullet here (it seems to be an auto-select as well though it's a mixed-rating system which isn't as good as the "pure" one-minute rating on ICC), even 1900s were hanging pieces to me. I lost my first game because I didn't understand the interface, then wound up 17-2-1 after twenty games with a 1995 rating, which says I'm in the top 8 percent or so. I'd say the ICC one-minute pool is at least 300 points stronger for the same rating if not more. I also think the one-minute pool is the only reason to play on ICC.

Didn't like chess.com at all. The interface is clumsy, and unless you're playing your friends I don't like the talent pool over there. The forum is also pretty lame and allows too many personal attacks etc. Chess in general has too many egos who can't stand being disagreed with, which is why I'm trying to export chess to coffeehouses that can double as chess clubs and use internet servers to match opponents. For now, though, it's either online or OTB and the latter is too expensive. LiChess is by far the best free server.

As for catching cheaters, ICC does a pretty good job of it, mostly checking for task-switching and probably running games against the engines. I train with engines and memorize the evaluations in the opening a dozen or more moves in so my games are going to mimic what the machines do at least until the early middlegame.

I did report the cheater and they closed out the account. Here is the funny thing they play 2 perfect games then I send them a email telling them I reported them for cheating so in their next game they win but make 4 mistakes instead of playing it perfect like they did the first 2 games. Well anyway they must of agreed with that they cheated because they closed out the account. Chess really is a game of mistakes so many times these cheaters give themselves away by never making a mistake which is something only top GM might do in some of their games. In other words everyone makes mistakes and I guess this helps them catch cheaters.

@Andrew51290 I've been asking myself the same question, not only for chess but in general. I have come to some conclusions so far and I would love to share them with you.

1. People who cheat to improve their stats: Those players try hiding the fact that they're cheating by not playing the moves that the engine suggests at that very move, if of course it's not winning and overall trying to be as little blatant as they can.

2. People who cheat in order to ruin the fun for others: Those are usually the ones who have access to multiple accounts (especially in sites like Lichess, where creating new accounts and stuff is free) and they continue cheating from there each time one of them gets suspended. They are usually the type of people that would promote cheating and toxicity to other players, overall trying to cause a chaos.

3. People who cheat because they have lost to cheaters: People tend to cheat when they have been cheated, but that of course doesn't quite justify their actions. Still, people tend to think that it is okay to cheat if they're playing against cheaters, but they can't be sure that 100% of the opponents they face are cheaters, which leads in them cheating against regular players, repeating the cycle and making the problem worse.

I want to state that this is all my opinion, not an official statement or anything like that. With that in mind, I'd love to hear from the rest of you your own opinion on this topic!

The only way I would ever think of cheating would be to use it as a learning tool though I actually would never cheat on my account because it would screw up my rating. For example lets say I want to improve my openings well its easy cheat in the openings in fact you don't even need a computer you can have a book on popular openings and use that. So I see cheating online as a way to learn and try to improve your game but it is unfair to the person that you are playing because you basically distort your rating when you cheat. Now if you were honest about cheating and the other player had your correct rating then I don't think it would really matter if you cheated because at least the player would be playing against the correct rating. Its when you play against a 1500 rated player but they play at 2500 level because they cheat that is how you get hurt.

@rmilin if you want to study openings by using books, databases --- anything but an engine --- play correspondence chess. that allows the use of all written material - including notes. great learning tool - well, i think it is. i use Corre. Ch to learn openings....

as to why people cheat......... i don't care why they cheat. i just wish they wouldn't. but i've NEVER knowingly experienced cheating myself, and i play rapid or classic chess, where i assume cheating would happen. i don't see how one could cheat at bullet due to the time......

i experience people getting angry and letting time run out, after they've mucked up their game and are about to get beat. that's what i can't stand, and can't understand. it just happened to me yesterday. i reported the person....

@ElAlcaldeDelPueblo in regards to people using all or most of their time in Corr. Ch... i usually play about four games simultaneously, with the time period i like (two days). and when i have time to make my move, i'll do so in a day or so. i can spend an hour (or more) on one move. to me, that's the great thing about CC. i'm surprised when people seem to make their moves --- wow, instantly, like they're blitzing. i don't get it.... but i prefer classical chess, by far. you might consider shortening your time window on CC, and playing some multiple of games that suits you. for me, i avoid super long time frames (like 7 days!!??)... i don't want to die before the game is completed..... that would be check and mate.............lol.

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

Reconnecting