Its all above, and you have not answered it, or not understood it.
So be it :)
So be it :)
@Sarg0n "Of course there’s a lag between cheating and getting caught. So what’s the prob?" I just watched a gingergm video where he played another cheat on chess.com. So he's wasted an hour of his life doing a video of him playing this guy when he could have been playing someone else. He went on a bit of a sweary rant; I guess one consequence of a delay between the game and the detection is that it might dissuade people like him from doing generally pretty good, instructive free content. Immediately after the game as over he pulled up some stats and could see his blitz, tactics etc levels which were all like 1200-1900 but he played like a (strong) gm with a 99.4% accuracy. It made me wonder whether some of the cheat detection could be farmed out to the client. Rather than waiting days, presumably waiting for a report and/or cpu time on the server you could see that a sudden immense improvement was improbable. Of course, if someone cheats all the time this wouldn't catch them but then again if they cheated all the time they'd have an extremely high rating and gingergm (as well as lower rated players) wouldn't be playing them in the first place.
You need some statistical proof, I cannot help.
By the way, yesterday I lost against 2650(!) blitz. 500-600 games, trophies, member since 27th of May, extreme high accuracy values.
Reported and banned immediately. Why has no one reported this guy before i.e. on it‘s way to the top100?
PS: we will face real problems in a couple of years probably when the a.i. cheats in a human way. Undetectable.
By the way, yesterday I lost against 2650(!) blitz. 500-600 games, trophies, member since 27th of May, extreme high accuracy values.
Reported and banned immediately. Why has no one reported this guy before i.e. on it‘s way to the top100?
PS: we will face real problems in a couple of years probably when the a.i. cheats in a human way. Undetectable.
I would love to know for how long the person who lasted longest as a cheater persisted, before they got caught ?
A very long time I would guess.
I have no doubt that all chess sites do what they believe they can to stop cheaters, though I do wish they would be honest about how poor they actually are at it.
However in a competitive market that will never happen will it ?
A very long time I would guess.
I have no doubt that all chess sites do what they believe they can to stop cheaters, though I do wish they would be honest about how poor they actually are at it.
However in a competitive market that will never happen will it ?
Cheat once, you will never get caught.
Cheat with any method, you are dead as a dodo in the long run.
It‘s the best you can have online. Barking at the moon resp. in forums won‘t help.
Love it or leave it.
By the way, thanks lichess. Greets to Irwin!
Cheat with any method, you are dead as a dodo in the long run.
It‘s the best you can have online. Barking at the moon resp. in forums won‘t help.
Love it or leave it.
By the way, thanks lichess. Greets to Irwin!
A binary choice only ?
Love it or leave it lol, I am sorry Mr Sargon but you seem to be of a rather limited thinking style
There are other options, such as try and change it
However when people try to suggest this, all you can come out with is "Welcome to the Dunning Kruger Effect"
Well yes I think I have seen it displayed here, by you more than any of the other contributers !
Love it or leave it lol, I am sorry Mr Sargon but you seem to be of a rather limited thinking style
There are other options, such as try and change it
However when people try to suggest this, all you can come out with is "Welcome to the Dunning Kruger Effect"
Well yes I think I have seen it displayed here, by you more than any of the other contributers !
"Is there any way to stop people from using an engine for a few "critical" moves per games? I think not and I believe many people on Lichess do this. They cheat intelligently. A few moves, just to make the difference, but not enough to arouse suspicion. There is no way to stop this"
This was the orginal question and I am afraid I have to admit that I agree with you.
It is very unlikely that they can stop this, and it is equally unlikley that any chess site will admit this.
For the simple reason that the others will not, and will therefore gain a competitive advantage
This was the orginal question and I am afraid I have to admit that I agree with you.
It is very unlikely that they can stop this, and it is equally unlikley that any chess site will admit this.
For the simple reason that the others will not, and will therefore gain a competitive advantage
Uhm, has anyone really read this? This answers exactly that there's little chance to cheat "intelligently" in the long run.
See posting #5. For example: "Is black suddenly playing like a GM whenever there's one really important move?"
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9s9ml8/how_does_chesscom_and_lichess_deal_with_gms/e8n9uwg/
"... Playing the "second best move every time" suggests that you're thinking of this detection system as an "expert system". This is old school AI, and not very effective. You might think there are two top moves a chess engine would make, and every time a player makes one, they get one "cheating" point. Above some threshold the detector goes off. If detectors worked like this you're right, there'd be a huge number of false positives or false negatives (depending on the threshold).
Instead these systems are based more on probability. Big websites have millions of games to analyse - including games with confirmed GMs to learn from. A fraud detection algorithm can consider unlimited questions like:
If black has a 3 pawn lead but lots of unguarded pieces and down a knight, how likely are they to aggressively recapture instead of defend?
If black has been playing aggressively, how likely are they to play a very difficult to calculate defensive move?
When black has 15 available moves, 10 of which are pretty good, how long will it take for black to play a move?
Black has played 20 straight GM level moves and has a strong material lead. What are the odds that black will now play an amateur blunder? A "look I'm not cheating" move?
Is black suddenly playing like a GM whenever there's one really important move?
Does black suddenly play very well mid game if they are slightly behind? How likely is a human to do that?
Is black playing hard to calculate moves just as fast as easy to calculate recaptures?
Note how in all those cases, whenever I said "mid game" it could have been 10 turns in, 15, 17, whatever, each with different probability calculations. When I said "engine" it could have been any one of twenty engines. When I said 3 pawns and 1 knight, it could have been X pawns and Y knights.
If you analyse millions of games and programmatically construct probabilistic answers to thousands, even millions of questions like this, you can make a "threshold" system that is far more accurate than anything a human could come up with by comparing naively to an engine. Some questions turn out to be poor predictors of cheats. Some turn out to be great predictors - a human does not decide which are the best questions to ask, or with what parameters. I'm basically describing machine learning - which is definitely what the better systems must be doing.
There is still a fundamental problem of false positives (too sensitive) and false negatives (too cautious) by setting a threshold though."
See posting #5. For example: "Is black suddenly playing like a GM whenever there's one really important move?"
www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9s9ml8/how_does_chesscom_and_lichess_deal_with_gms/e8n9uwg/
"... Playing the "second best move every time" suggests that you're thinking of this detection system as an "expert system". This is old school AI, and not very effective. You might think there are two top moves a chess engine would make, and every time a player makes one, they get one "cheating" point. Above some threshold the detector goes off. If detectors worked like this you're right, there'd be a huge number of false positives or false negatives (depending on the threshold).
Instead these systems are based more on probability. Big websites have millions of games to analyse - including games with confirmed GMs to learn from. A fraud detection algorithm can consider unlimited questions like:
If black has a 3 pawn lead but lots of unguarded pieces and down a knight, how likely are they to aggressively recapture instead of defend?
If black has been playing aggressively, how likely are they to play a very difficult to calculate defensive move?
When black has 15 available moves, 10 of which are pretty good, how long will it take for black to play a move?
Black has played 20 straight GM level moves and has a strong material lead. What are the odds that black will now play an amateur blunder? A "look I'm not cheating" move?
Is black suddenly playing like a GM whenever there's one really important move?
Does black suddenly play very well mid game if they are slightly behind? How likely is a human to do that?
Is black playing hard to calculate moves just as fast as easy to calculate recaptures?
Note how in all those cases, whenever I said "mid game" it could have been 10 turns in, 15, 17, whatever, each with different probability calculations. When I said "engine" it could have been any one of twenty engines. When I said 3 pawns and 1 knight, it could have been X pawns and Y knights.
If you analyse millions of games and programmatically construct probabilistic answers to thousands, even millions of questions like this, you can make a "threshold" system that is far more accurate than anything a human could come up with by comparing naively to an engine. Some questions turn out to be poor predictors of cheats. Some turn out to be great predictors - a human does not decide which are the best questions to ask, or with what parameters. I'm basically describing machine learning - which is definitely what the better systems must be doing.
There is still a fundamental problem of false positives (too sensitive) and false negatives (too cautious) by setting a threshold though."
As Bryan Cantrill observes, machines are excellent at aggregating data so patterns may be discovered:
youtu.be/aWbGPMxs0AM
Irwin not only aggregates data, it uses semi-supervised learning:
github.com/clarkerubber/irwin
youtu.be/aWbGPMxs0AM
Irwin not only aggregates data, it uses semi-supervised learning:
github.com/clarkerubber/irwin
If anyone plays against this id please report him
SupremeMonk
He is a computer cheater and you can see a video by IM Eric Rosen where SupremeMonk played a ridiculous queen sacrifice and won
SupremeMonk
He is a computer cheater and you can see a video by IM Eric Rosen where SupremeMonk played a ridiculous queen sacrifice and won
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.