I was playing a 15+15 classical game recently with a player rated around the same as me, with a spectator popping in and out. Mousing over this spectator allowed me to see that he was an engine abuser (I did not previously know that cheaters can keep using their accounts). It through me off my game a little, as I was wondering if this abuser was leaking info to their friend in real time. The game played fine and I won, but I imagine if I had lost I would have suspected foul play (I'm only human). Is there any reason these accounts remain open? I don't care too much as there is much content that can be used on lichess that can't be abused, was just wondering if there is a specific reason these accounts aren't just deleted.
These accounts won't be deleted. They are going to be marked or flagged. It's upto the user if they want to close the account or not. Their account is still there so that they can appeal for the ban to lichess. It is also kept so that they can chat woth others.
I got flagged for cheating because I opened my opponent's history while playing. I can't imagine why it would be a feature to view a user's past games if you're not supposed to use that on move 2 to figure out what line to play, but I think the bottom line is that the range for what's considered cheating is very, very broad, and really inaccurate.
I've watched guys play to theory move 13 of a perfect opening and then play the literal worst positional move on the 14th move, so you know they're using an opening book, but that sort of cheating never gets flagged. That's my story of how I beat a 2200 rated player with the Stonewall.
So yeah, closing accounts because of "suspected cheating" is too subjective to be a policy.
I've watched guys play to theory move 13 of a perfect opening and then play the literal worst positional move on the 14th move, so you know they're using an opening book, but that sort of cheating never gets flagged. That's my story of how I beat a 2200 rated player with the Stonewall.
So yeah, closing accounts because of "suspected cheating" is too subjective to be a policy.
@riskoriented
You seriously don't think that using records of your opponent's games to decide what moves to play after the game has already started should be against the rules? Used effectively it would be a huge advantage for the player doing it, and that would be very unfair.
Using any source of information other than the board display and move list, after the game has started is cheating. Doesn't seem unclear to me.
You seriously don't think that using records of your opponent's games to decide what moves to play after the game has already started should be against the rules? Used effectively it would be a huge advantage for the player doing it, and that would be very unfair.
Using any source of information other than the board display and move list, after the game has started is cheating. Doesn't seem unclear to me.
@E-Blanch
I think another reason is that if you close their account they will just open up another one and you have to go through the process of weeding them out all over again. It saves effort and saves people from playing cheaters if you leave the account open but just isolate them from non cheaters. Part of how this works is the shadow ban. They aren't even notified they are flagged, so they can issue challenges and get matched up with other cheaters. All the cheaters can play together in their own little universe. I think it's a great idea.
I think another reason is that if you close their account they will just open up another one and you have to go through the process of weeding them out all over again. It saves effort and saves people from playing cheaters if you leave the account open but just isolate them from non cheaters. Part of how this works is the shadow ban. They aren't even notified they are flagged, so they can issue challenges and get matched up with other cheaters. All the cheaters can play together in their own little universe. I think it's a great idea.
Yes, it is not good to open games whilst you are playing someone, especially if you have played them before.
It might be very tempting, but if you analyse your previous games and try and learn from them, that is fine, but not during the game :)
It might be very tempting, but if you analyse your previous games and try and learn from them, that is fine, but not during the game :)
@President_DonaldDuck It's pretty common to research your opponents and know what lines they like to play. And I say "move 2" instead of "move 1" because lichess, unlike a normal chess game, enforces a 20-second limit on the first move before giving you the fully available timebank.
In my opinion, it should only be cheating to use third-party software or resources. If LiChess doesn't want to make an opponents games available to me, they should make them private or hide them while a game is running, not make them readily accessible from the chess board by clicking the user's name.
It's bad UI design to flag someone for cheating for clicking a link you make available to them on the game board.
In my opinion, it should only be cheating to use third-party software or resources. If LiChess doesn't want to make an opponents games available to me, they should make them private or hide them while a game is running, not make them readily accessible from the chess board by clicking the user's name.
It's bad UI design to flag someone for cheating for clicking a link you make available to them on the game board.
No, you did it on move 9 or you wouldn't have been flagged for cheating on move 9. Stop trying to justify your attempted cheating. Consider yourself lucky that you did it in the one way that doesn't get you permanently banned for doing it once.
@riskoriented Yea, it's common and a great idea to research your opponents but not DURING A GAME lol. I'm laughing to myself right now at the image of a gm trying to do that in a tournament.
I think most people don't need lichess to disable features to tell them that this sort of thing is wrong .
I think most people don't need lichess to disable features to tell them that this sort of thing is wrong .
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.