lichess.org
Donate

Farewell

#51
@jugglingotaku said in #48:
> I wonder if Lichess is able to detect if you have another analysis tab open in the browser or if it can detect if you have a cheating browser plugin installed.

Sure. They can detect lots of things and they collect lots of data while you are playing. They used github.com/clarkerubber/irwin before and github.com/lichess-org/kaladin now, but some part of their cheat detection system is not public of course. So their tools are rather sophisticated, but at the end of the day always humans (mods) decide, meaning there is always a tiny chance to make a bad decision.
#52
pepelou is a very strong player (from my chess level perspective at least), an FIDE expert (+2000 FIDE), and an especially good blitz and variant player, so it's easy for those players like that to beat titled players, especially with the ridiculous FIDE title inflation going on. Him and JoannaTries are also 2 of my favorite streamers, donors, positive members of the community, and cool people to boot. I simply do not believe he would cheat.

At the very least, lichess should provide hard evidence of his misdeeds to justify such a drastic decision!!!!
#53
too long to read all this
but
Lichess should treat everyone SAME...
Gms, streamers, players, noobs & even moderators themselves..
Rules are rules..
Anyway i myself was muted for six months !!! ..
Didn't complain at all ..
#54
@MohammedElasha said in #53:
> too long to read all this
> but
> Lichess should treat everyone SAME...
> Gms, streamers, players, noobs & even moderators themselves..
> Rules are rules..
> Anyway i myself was muted for six months !!! ..
> Didn't complain at all ..

If you read you'd see; No one is asking for special treatment.

Just pointing out an error and issues with the system. Streamer, Player, TIP-TOP-Patron.. it doesn't matter, accounts should not be unjustly closed and when they are (inevitably with the amount of human error allowed here) there needs to be an appropriate appeal process - it doesn't seem there is one though.
#55
@MohammedElasha said in #53:
> too long to read all this
> but
> Lichess should treat everyone SAME...
> Gms, streamers, players, noobs & even moderators themselves..
> Rules are rules..
> Anyway i myself was muted for six months !!! ..
> Didn't complain at all ..

The most likely evidence that Pepe *didn't* cheat is how hard they're fighting to get the ban reversed.

I think this conversation is bigger than just one person and I'll repeat the salient points for the community.

The larger conversation at hand here is, sure, it's good to crackdown on cheating but what's it worth if to play your best just means you're going to get accused?

A good example is from, and I'm repeating myself again, @CheckRaiseMate recent blog post detailing the story of winning against Hikaru Nakamura in a tournament leading to a call from chessdotcom's fairplay team (in the middle of the tournament(!) essentially distracting him to the point that the chance of them continuing to play well virtually vanished.

lichess.org/@/CheckRaiseMate/blog/beating-hikaru/DmcA0xHs

What's the point of striving to excel, to level up, and *if* you max out and play your absolute best games ever, in your whole life, it just causes things to crash down around you? This current system means that for most expert players there's actually a ceiling where if you play fairly above that you become at great risk of being accused of cheating.
#56
@jugglingotaku said in #48:
> I wonder if Lichess is able to detect if you have another analysis tab open in the browser or if it can detect if you have a cheating browser plugin installed. I think that would be better evidence than simply correlation.

They do have stuff like this, but one thing @anonmod hasn't said that's worth saying is that they don't want to reveal all their tools because to do so gives the cheaters datapoints to plan new cheating strategies.

That's the pickle everyone is in, even if they want to release the data for Pepe they run the risk of allowing genuine cheaters the opportunity to discover exploits.

If there's even a chance they're wrong it'd be better to just reinstate him with a warning rather than release the data. Either way, they need to do something to shore up trust in the community because,

and I'm still repeating myself from the previous post, what are all the fairplay tools worth if an expert player playing their best *ever* just means they are going to get accused and banned? Putting a ceiling on the sport doesn't help the next generation. It solves one problem just to create new ones.
#57
How do you know he was accused of cheating? Do you have inside information or are you just guessing all of this?
#58
@berserkingdingdong said in #57:
> How do you know he was accused of cheating? Do you have inside information or are you just guessing all of this?

They received a reply quoted as follows:

@JoannaTries said in #16:
> They closed his account "for using an engine" but he did not.
>
> They won't fix it. It's bizarre and very sad.

There's also a player in the last tournament he played saying "ByeBye Pepellou" prior to this whole fracas lifting off, the implication being that the comment was gloating after filing a cheating report.
#59
some comments from a science/maths guy:

- one game is (almost) never enough evidence that someone cheated. you can have fun analyzing any one game, but either way the decision will be made on a series of games. otherwise lichess needs to ban another 100,000 users immediately
(at least if based on move quality, if of course they always took 2.12 seconds per move or something then 1 game might be enough)

- "correlation is not causation": I hear that all the time. generally yes, but this seems out of context or misleading here, sorry.
Assume A, B correlated, then main options for causality:
- A --> B,
- B --> A,
- C,A correlated and C --> B (or vice-versa with A,B swapped, C potentially unknown confounding factor)

example: A: high amount coffee consumers, B: lung cancer patients, C: cigarette smokers

our example:
A: cheating, B: playing inhuman good games

there is no C and only one logical direction of what can lead to what
(unless maybe some "become a GM with these 3 simple tricks" online video I missed)

so a very high correlation between human moves and best moves or little average centipawn loss or similar move quality statistics, if done on sufficiently many moves/games, already implies the person cheated,
causality is not an issue then whatsoever.
the only discussion is how high the correlation, or how reliable the statistics should be, to be certain enough they didn't play that well by pure chance.

and of course the higher you demand that certainty the fewer cheaters you will catch

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