lichess.org
Donate

The game was terminated due to cheat detected

@Cedur216 said in #8:
> it's *NOT* another position from another game. It was the same position, with the engine activated

When I think of 27.Rad1 alone, the moves specified by the engine were read very poorly. :-)
cheat-detected-abort doesn't mean that engine moves were played beforehand. It only means that Lichess' in-built engine was consulted.
@Cedur216 said in #8:
> @Dragon_Emperor_9774 it's *NOT* another position from another game. It was the same position, with the engine activated
I possess no knowledge of such a detail, but I may assume it is true since you so confidently state it. Please note that my comment has to purpose to mislead anyone, I simply shared my assumption on this matter.
Nevertheless, in my particular case it was at the opening stage as far as I recall (it was a long time ago) so I can hardly confirm it from my personal experience. Also, I can't say that if the aforementioned players' account isn't closed, then he probably didn't cheat either, because I don't possess any superior knowledge of the Lichess detection system, so I'll just leave this one to you or the experts, I'm outie. Cheers again!
@Dragon_Emperor_9774 for the record, there *can* be situations of using analysis without bad intent, therefore there's no ban at first time and the loss of game serves as sufficient punishment. Serial happenings of this gets you banned though.

Also it happens by far the most often during the opening as players look for the next moves when they're out of book
@Cedur216 said in #14:
> @Dragon_Emperor_9774 for the record, there *can* be situations of using analysis without bad intent, therefore there's no ban at first time and the loss of game serves as sufficient punishment. Serial happenings of this gets you banned though.
Yeah I looked into this case and its a pretty specific endgame so I guess it was intentional. But like, if its on move 2-3 of the main opening that you always play, its obviously an accident.
@Dragon_Emperor_9774 said in #15:
> if its on move 2-3 of the main opening that you always play, its obviously an accident.

if it were on move 2-3 of the main opening that you always play, it would obviously be an accident. it's going to be difficult though to find even one game where it actually happened on move 2-3.
@glbert said in #16:
> if it were on move 2-3 of the main opening that you always play, it would obviously be an accident. it's going to be difficult though to find even one game where it actually happened on move 2-3.
Pretty sure that it has happened to me, although I couldnt find it even after trying many different filters to try to find it. Well, doesn't rly matter either way since it never affected anything.
@Dragon_Emperor_9774 said in #17:
> Pretty sure that it has happened to me

no, it did not happen to you. it couldn't have happened to you, because the code has a minimum number of moves when it checks for it, and that minimum number is larger than 3 moves.

> Well, doesn't rly matter either way since it never affected anything.

it does matter.
@glbert said in #18:
> no, it did not happen to you. it couldn't have happened to you, because the code has a minimum number of moves when it checks for it, and that minimum number is larger than 3 moves.
I don't know why you would happen to know how the code of lichess looked like 1 or 2 years ago, but I don't remember what exactly happened. It was an obvious accident, and i dont remember getting any sort of warning about it either. As such its importance is so miniscule that I have almost forgotten about the incident, and only faintly remembered it after seeing this thread.
However, in grace of your persistence, I tried searching for it out of curiosity. I searched through all games that I lost but I couldnt find the one that im talking about, I used as many filters to describe it as accurately as possible considering the hazyness of my memories of it, and couldn't locate it, so I guess that's that.
If you insist on proving me wrong, feel free to find it yourself, I honestly can't be bothered, and advanced search isn't helpful enough for this case.
> it does matter.
I don't see why it would matter. Could you elaborate?
@Dragon_Emperor_9774 said in #19:
> I don't know why you would happen to know how the code of lichess looked like 1 or 2 years ago

because (1) i know where the relevant code resides, (2) it hasn't changed at all in 2 years and (3) the move number thing hasn't changed since 2019.

> I don't see why it would matter. Could you elaborate?

because you are claiming that there are obvious and easy to fix false positives in lichess cheat detected cases, which is (1) false and (2) contributes to the general paranoia about cheat detection, which i hate.

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