Reporting a user for cheating in correspondence, seen multiple games with >95% Accuracy.

I've literally reported a user who is most likely using an engine that is not on lichess (Using engine from a different site) on correspondence games (2-3 days long per move). There's multiple games this user has had accuracies over 97%. However, it has been a couple weeks and no mod have responded.

That's quite possible for correspondence as you have days to think about your move. But it not a time control that can be policed by mods. Imho xxx

YACP...

This is not how reporting works.

You report, and that's it. Usually no feedback is given. This would take up quite a lot of resources, and often would result in endless discussions. Also, especially concerning cheating, most reports are simply wrong, or not conclusive enough.

All those reports are handled my human moderators, so they do not go unnoticed.

Responding to Simon in #2: Correspondence has its own idiosyncrasies when it comes to cheating detection, largely because consulting openings- and games databases is allowed, but cheating detection is perfectly viable and effective in this form of the game too.

On the limits of engine analysis for cheating detection in chess
Computers & Security
Volume 48, February 2015, Pages 58-73

David J Barnes & Julio Hernandez-Castro

School of Computing, The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, United Kingdom

Received 12 July 2014, Revised 14 September 2014, Accepted 10 October 2014, Available online 22 October 2014.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2014.10.002

Abstract

The integrity of online games has important economic consequences for both the gaming industry and players of all levels, from professionals to amateurs. Where there is a high likelihood of cheating, there is a loss of trust and players will be reluctant to participate — particularly if this is likely to cost them money.

Chess is a game that has been established online for around 25 years and is played over the Internet commercially. In that environment, where players are not physically present “over the board” (OTB), chess is one of the most easily exploitable games by those who wish to cheat, because of the widespread availability of very strong chess-playing programs. Allegations of cheating even in OTB games have increased significantly in recent years, and even led to recent changes in the laws of the game that potentially impinge upon players’ privacy.

In this work, we examine some of the difficulties inherent in identifying the covert use of chess-playing programs purely from an analysis of the moves of a game. Our approach is to deeply examine a large collection of games where there is confidence that cheating has not taken place, and analyse those that could be easily misclassified.

We conclude that there is a serious risk of finding numerous “false positives” and that, in general, it is unsafe to use just the moves of a single game as prima facie evidence of cheating. We also demonstrate that it is impossible to compute definitive values of the figures currently employed to measure similarity to a chess-engine for a particular game, as values inevitably vary at different depths and, even under identical conditions, when multi-threading evaluation is used.

@dn69 It has been known for a long time that it is "unsafe to use just the moves of a single game as prima facie evidence of cheating" and serious cheating detection teams, such as the one which safeguards this site, do not do that.

Those study authors were concentrating on one aspect only of cheating detection (similarity to engine moves), and they were not pointing out deficiencies in the field as it was actually practised 9 years ago but merely sounding a warning note about what not to do.

When playing correspondence there should be no checking any opening explorer or game databases , it's pure and simple ............ Cheating . xxx

@SimonBirch said in #8:

When playing correspondence there should be no checking any opening explorer or game databases , it's pure and simple ............ Cheating . xxx

Well, what is pure and simple for one person, may be totally different for others:

Let's look at the "big players" in this area:

"The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) allows for collaboration between humans and computers, even during the World Correspondence Chess Championship."

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_chess#Computer_assistance)

@derkleineJo said in #9:

Well, what is pure and simple for one person, may be totally different for others:

"The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) allows for collaboration between humans and computers, even during the World Correspondence Chess Championship."

Outrageous!! Lol....... and that's why I don't play that time control anymore xxx