Lichess Anti-Cheating Feature

@oldrose88 said in #9:

no problem

@AsDaGo said in #10:

You know, what is the point of doing "sudo su"? Why not "sudo sh" (or "sudo $SHELL")?

Or better yet, just using sudo as needed.

?????????

@andmath said in #7:

How does lichess detect cheating ?
Right, this a good question!

@oldrose88 said in #1:

The transparency and efficiency with which Lichess handles potential violations serve as a testament to the platform's unwavering commitment to fair play.

I have a direct question. To what extent is Lichess transparent when it comes to dealing with violations? Take cheating, for example. Here Lichess simply says that a member has cheated. Lichess does not provide any evidence. Not even suspicious games that indicate cheating. You can appeal, but if the appeal is rejected and the person really didn't cheat, he loses. There are also false positive cases. And these are over 2%. Lichess also prohibits any discussion about this.
And another thing. The person concerned does not even see that he is banned when he is logged in.
To cut a long story short: transparency looks different to me! The same with efficiency.

@odoaker2015 said in #14:

I have a direct question. To what extent is Lichess transparent when it comes to dealing with violations? Take cheating, for example. Here Lichess simply says that a member has cheated. Lichess does not provide any evidence. Not even suspicious games that indicate cheating. You can appeal, but if the appeal is rejected and the person really didn't cheat, he loses. There are also false positive cases. And these are over 2%. Lichess also prohibits any discussion about this.
And another thing. The person concerned does not even see that he is banned when he is logged in.
To cut a long story short: transparency looks different to me! The same with efficiency.

https://lichess.org/terms-of-service

Fair Play and Community Guidelines

Both registered and anonymous users of our website and services agree to behave with good conduct. You agree that if, at our sole discretion, we determine your account is not behaving with good conduct, you may have your access or use of our website and/or services partially or fully suspended or terminated. You further agree that if, at our sole discretion, we determine your content to have breached these Terms you may have your content partially or fully removed, hidden, deleted or otherwise made inaccessible, either to yourself and/or others.

In all circumstances, you agree that we have the right to partially or fully suspend or terminate your access to our website and services (such as banning or closing your account), for any reason without warning, and without having to substantiate, clarify or otherwise provide evidence of your breach of these Terms. You agree that this may include your account being publicly labelled as having violated our Terms if, at our sole discretion, we reasonably believe you to have done so.

Further and additional information may be found in a relevant documentation page. https://lichess.org/page/documentation

Please note that you have replied to a ChatGPT generated post, and that I have already objected to the transparency part in #5.

@odoaker2015 said in #14:

I have a direct question. To what extent is Lichess transparent when it comes to dealing with violations? Take cheating, for example. Here Lichess simply says that a member has cheated.

Not really. The only information given to the public is that the account has been marked for having violated the ToS which can have multiple reasons. The account holder gets a bit more information when they visit the appeal page, cheating is referred to as "external assistance in games" there for instance.

Lichess does not provide any evidence. Not even suspicious games that indicate cheating.

That is a sad necessity to prevent this site from being ruined by smart cheaters who could use this information to improve their algorithms.

There are also false positive cases.

Of course. There have to be false positives with any statistical anti-cheating measures.

And these are over 2%.

I find this the most interesting part of your post, otherwise I would not have bothered to write this reply. Can you please provide the source for this number? 2% false positives seem very high to me, I would expect the anti-cheating team to aim for a much lower quote.

And another thing. The person concerned does not even see that he is banned when he is logged in.

This is certainly intransparent, but it keeps the number of cheaters who simply reopen another account down. You can discuss this policy, but I do not think it will be changed anytime soon.

@zwenna said in #16:

I find this the most interesting part of your post, otherwise I would not have bothered to write this reply. Can you please provide the source for this number? 2% false positives seem very high to me, I would expect the anti-cheating team to aim for a much lower quote.

Studies cited by the Innocence Project estimate that between 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

the german version:

Wie oft es in Deutschland tatsächlich zu Fehlurteilen aufgrund falscher Beschuldigungen kommt, wird nicht erforscht. Im Gegenteil – für Gerichte, Staatsanwaltschaften und sogar für die Wissenschaft sind Fehlleistungen der Strafjustiz kein Thema. Insgesamt bloß etwa 90 Wiederaufnahmen bei über 800.000 [Anm.: = nur etwa jeder 8.900. Fall] rechtskräftig erledigten Strafsachen zählt das Bundesjustizministerium pro Jahr. Die Zahl derer, die in unserem Land unschuldig verurteilt werden, dürfte allerdings erheblich höher liegen. Wie hoch, lässt sich daran ablesen, dass Zivilgerichte nach einem Schuldspruch im sich anschließenden Schadensersatzprozess in 30 bis 40 Prozent der Fälle zu einem anderen Urteil kommen als das zuvor damit befasste Strafgericht.

makes it sound doubtful that the numbers will be much better in germany.

of course, we expect much higher standards from an online chess site, than from juridical systems that actually put people in prison or, in the case of the us, even murder them.

so i find that 2% or more estimate highly unsatisfactory, i'm gonna go play on chesscom.

@Toadofsky said in #15:

lichess.org/terms-of-service

The question is whether the ToS is legally okay.
I'm just waiting for someone who was wrongly banned for cheating to take legal action against it if they have the time, desire and money. If you want to play on Lichess, you are almost forced to accept the ToS. Of course you could say that no one is forced to play Lichess, but Lichess is so attractive and good that people simply accept the ToS. The rest of your answer is unnecessary.

@odoaker2015 said in #18:

The question is whether the ToS is legally okay.

I guess that depends if you think France is a legal jurisdiction.

https://lichess.org/terms-of-service

Disputes and Jurisdiction

In the event of any dispute, in the first instance you will seek to settle this with us informally via the lichess.org/appeal process. In the event of the appeal process being exhausted, you may further write to us via our contact page. https://lichess.org/contact

Alternately, you can contact us in writing at:

Lichess.org
350 Chemin du Pré Neuf
38350 La Mure
Grenoble
France

If we're unable to informally come to a solution, you agree we will go through arbitration at a place of our choosing. In any event, you'll need to give us written notice otherwise we won't be able to help you.

These Terms represent an agreement between you and us. If any provision of these Terms are held to be invalid or unenforceable, you agree that provision will be limited to the minimum enforcement possible, and the remaining terms held with full effect.

As a French registered charitable organisation, our website and services are provided from our registered address in France. We cannot guarantee and make no representation that our website and services are appropriate or available in other countries or jurisdictions. You agree to be bound by French law in following these Terms, and agree to be responsible for following any local laws or regulations with which you must be compliant beyond these Terms.

@zwenna said in #16:

Not really. The only information given to the public is that the account has been marked for having violated the ToS which can have multiple reasons. The account holder gets a bit more information when they visit the appeal page, cheating is referred to as "external assistance in games" there for instance.

I'm talking about a case of an account holder who was banned for cheating.
And yes, I know what cheating is. Yet Lichess simply claims the account holder is cheating without ever providing any evidence!@zwenna said in #16:

That is a sad necessity to prevent this site from being ruined by smart cheaters who could use this information to improve their algorithms.

Really? I bet you, hardly any user knows how to bypass the anti-cheating system. I wouldn't know. To me that's just a cheap excuse, nothing more.

@zwenna said in #16:

I find this the most interesting part of your post, otherwise I would not have bothered to write this reply. Can you please provide the source for this number? 2% false positives seem very high to me, I would expect the anti-cheating team to aim for a much lower quote.

Please read this: https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/analysis-of-lichess-cheating-detection-with-machine-learning-ml-a-mis-use-of-ml--doesnt-work?page=1
The thread creator goes into more detail about the weak points of cheat detection.

This is certainly intransparent, but it keeps the number of cheaters who simply reopen another account down. You can discuss this policy, but I do not think it will be changed anytime soon.

You say this approach keeps the number of reopened Accounts low. May I ask how? And of course this is intransparent.