Require that members have been registered for 30 days and have played 100 rated games

It's incredible to me that all of you and the administrators of this site are ignoring the glaring problem here: the incredible low threshold to entry that this site has.

This makes it too easy for sociopaths to disrupt the other's members enjoyment of playing chess. Their sole purpose is to disrupt, irritate and annoy. Typical anti-social behaviour.

A prolific streamer like @Kingscrusher-YouTube faces at least one such cheater per day.

I appeal to @thibault (I suppose this is his correct handle) to take my suggestion, a common sense suggestion, to reduce the number of such obvious cheaters.

cool

@Toadofsky

I don't know if it recalculates or not, but the players knowing that they are facing a cheater changes their approach to the tournament, from losing concentration to abandoning the tournament.

In the case that I mentioned, the cheater @alby20 played the whole tournament at which point recalculating the standings would be pointless.

It's like when we find out that someone athlete is disqualified from a previous Olympics when several years have passed and nobody no longer cares.

We have to do something to stop them from appearing. Punish them after the fact is pointless, they throwaway accounts and are already on a new one when the previous is closed.

You're so concerned about a problem that can NOT be fixed. Cheaters will find a way to cheat and placing such restrictions will turn away honest players.

It's online chess. It has no effect on real chess.

If you encounter a cheater, report him, resign/abort game, and move on. There's no point in getting emotional about it.

Get over it.

I agree with the concept.

+1 for it!!

@delasked I'd have to be quite lucky to play 10 games in one day.

#13 "Punish them after the fact is pointless, they throwaway accounts and are already on a new one when the previous is closed."

@delasked I'm not sure why you think Lichess developers are incompetent. Let me show you something:
github.com/ornicar/lila/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=disposable+email&type=Commits

and another thing... it's not a simple problem:
youtube.com/watch?v=iHP5AdRlRNY

(my own opinion is that a xenophobic policy would push all the cheaters into the lobby, and kill that ecosystem)

"recalculating the standings would be pointless"

Well, which is it? First you claim that he ruined players' winning streaks, then you claim that un-ruining those streaks is pointless.

I don't disagree that it's highly disruptive when a cheater "wins" a tournament before being ejected & banned, but that doesn't automatically mean all feedback on the subject is constructive. I don't understand why Lichess moderators haven't chimed in (as I think they have before) about their cost-benefit analysis regarding your suggestion (which many other players have weighed in on both sides).

#1 I do agree with the principle that it has seemed too easy for "newcomers" to play in any tournament recently and argued for this in the past myself. For some reason though there are trolls and troll supporters who seem to like the current "any newcomer can enter anything even high profile tournaments model" which is not used by any real world organisation whatsoever. Usually credibility is created by track record e.g. in Banking etc. On this site however, any newcomer can enter anything it seems after just a few games. Aside from this angle, may I also add a slightly separate concern about "spreading the risk of playing newcomers" :

I would like to point out that the pairing algorithm doesn't seem to currently "spread the risk" of "welcoming newcomers". As an example, i played in the daily hyber bullet I think two days back where one such newcomers smashed the field and even beat IM Opperwozen 4 times or something. I was checking my pairings and it seemed some other players never even played this "newcomer" once and yet i for some reason had played the newcomer 4 times. Now some of the higher rated came late to the tournament which partly explains this but I do wonder about this aspect:

On the pairing algorithm - is it possible to "spread the risk" more of playing newcomers to the site - i.e. with playing times total of say less than 5 days ?! I don't think its psychologically fair for certain players to potentially be massacred multiple times by naughty newcomers, and yet other players never played them even once sometimes. I think the pain of being massacred by naughty newcomers should be spread around a little more.

Cheers, K

Re: spreading risk, there are performance concerns that doing so could challenge the server:
github.com/ornicar/lila/issues/2155#issuecomment-266885733