> My opinion are that cheaters are in some range of 3%-8% of total.
Even that would be overly pessimistic.
Even that would be overly pessimistic.
@JM3000 said in #30:
> 100 cheaters in 130 games. Is hard to believe.
You put it very mildly... It is just impossible.
> 100 cheaters in 130 games. Is hard to believe.
You put it very mildly... It is just impossible.
@JM3000 said in #30:
> @Ecamvelo a dit dans le #27 :
>
>
>
> 100 tricheurs en 130 parties. C'est difficile à croire. Je suis simplement 2100 joueur national d'un pays européen et je gagne un pourcentage raisonnable de parties dans Lichess (et chess.com ) sans tricher. Il est évident que les jeux que je gagne ne sont pas contre les tricheurs car les tricheurs me détruisent. Parmi les parties que j'ai perdues, beaucoup sont du fair-play de la part de mon adversaire et seul un petit pourcentage est de type tricheur ou suspect. Mon opinion est que les tricheurs représentent entre 3 et 8 % du total.
You are elo 2100, i am 1199 irl (no game yet) and 1500 on lichess. On another site i am 1000 elo, i target this website, no lichess. Why this differente ? It's a begin of explain but they propose a classement (division et somethings like that), Lichess no then player want up. You stay in bad level but you make a big volume of game , i wanted play the division for the challenge then last week i checked someones with more 400 games in 1 week but no up or no down his elo (what is the probability for a honnesty player to make as much as game and no amend his elo but be on of first in division).
For answer at your rate : 8% of cheats of total. Yes but it's specific "zone" if not i have never seen under 30% in every game i played.
I call cheater player who use an advantage forbidden. In chess, a player who use his tablet/phone for see the best step while he is playing on the computer is a cheater. Use a macro/program is a cheater (i incluse a lot of thing, that explain also why i write a big percent).
Yesterday i played against an opponent during close 1h30, i loved the game, you see he try to build his plan, how defend (once 15 min for a step) and it was a true pleasure to play like that. Unfortunaly it's too rarely at my low level.
> @Ecamvelo a dit dans le #27 :
>
>
>
> 100 tricheurs en 130 parties. C'est difficile à croire. Je suis simplement 2100 joueur national d'un pays européen et je gagne un pourcentage raisonnable de parties dans Lichess (et chess.com ) sans tricher. Il est évident que les jeux que je gagne ne sont pas contre les tricheurs car les tricheurs me détruisent. Parmi les parties que j'ai perdues, beaucoup sont du fair-play de la part de mon adversaire et seul un petit pourcentage est de type tricheur ou suspect. Mon opinion est que les tricheurs représentent entre 3 et 8 % du total.
You are elo 2100, i am 1199 irl (no game yet) and 1500 on lichess. On another site i am 1000 elo, i target this website, no lichess. Why this differente ? It's a begin of explain but they propose a classement (division et somethings like that), Lichess no then player want up. You stay in bad level but you make a big volume of game , i wanted play the division for the challenge then last week i checked someones with more 400 games in 1 week but no up or no down his elo (what is the probability for a honnesty player to make as much as game and no amend his elo but be on of first in division).
For answer at your rate : 8% of cheats of total. Yes but it's specific "zone" if not i have never seen under 30% in every game i played.
I call cheater player who use an advantage forbidden. In chess, a player who use his tablet/phone for see the best step while he is playing on the computer is a cheater. Use a macro/program is a cheater (i incluse a lot of thing, that explain also why i write a big percent).
Yesterday i played against an opponent during close 1h30, i loved the game, you see he try to build his plan, how defend (once 15 min for a step) and it was a true pleasure to play like that. Unfortunaly it's too rarely at my low level.
99% of your opponents don't use forbidden advantages. If they did, you wouldn't even last 20 moves in all games.
@thibault The percentage of rated & unrated games which involved identified cheaters in comparison to the overall amount of both game types played separately in one of past years, along with total player numbers. That'd be an interesting statistics to see in lichess.org/@/Lichess/blog, really.
(Without disposing precise data, my own estimation would be that approximately 11% of online chess players could be resorting to engine assistance).
(Without disposing precise data, my own estimation would be that approximately 11% of online chess players could be resorting to engine assistance).
@Cedur216 said in #25:
> even FIDE officials endorse the procedures of Lichess and chesscom.
That's not an answer.
I can make planes land. I go out to the airport, and as I see a plane approaching, I raise my arms, sing the national anthem of Botswana, and lo and behold! The plane lands. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I have a 100% success rate.
I can also make cars stop at red lights, but my success rate isn't quite as high.
I don't expect anybody to be impressed by my decades of experience here. Similarly, I don't think anybody should be impressed by anyone claiming expertise in something that they can't both explain and demonstrate.
> even FIDE officials endorse the procedures of Lichess and chesscom.
That's not an answer.
I can make planes land. I go out to the airport, and as I see a plane approaching, I raise my arms, sing the national anthem of Botswana, and lo and behold! The plane lands. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I have a 100% success rate.
I can also make cars stop at red lights, but my success rate isn't quite as high.
I don't expect anybody to be impressed by my decades of experience here. Similarly, I don't think anybody should be impressed by anyone claiming expertise in something that they can't both explain and demonstrate.
@JuxPlixab said in #36:
> Similarly, I don't think anybody should be impressed by anyone claiming expertise in something that they can't both explain and demonstrate.
How do you think they ban accounts? By flipping a coin? Sometimes they get lucky and they ban someone who was actually cheating and sometimes they get even luckier that the person confesses in appeal?
> Similarly, I don't think anybody should be impressed by anyone claiming expertise in something that they can't both explain and demonstrate.
How do you think they ban accounts? By flipping a coin? Sometimes they get lucky and they ban someone who was actually cheating and sometimes they get even luckier that the person confesses in appeal?
@Deadban said in #37:
> How do you think they ban accounts? By flipping a coin? Sometimes they get lucky and they ban someone who was actually cheating and sometimes they get even luckier that the person confesses in appeal?
Well gee, Deadban, I don't know. Have the powers that be here ever said jack squat about what their process is? Obviously when you're dealing with 1300... sorry, 1700 players it's going to be fairly easy to spot with they start playing at a strength 2400. But the cheating we're all interested in is the high livel stuff. So where are the verifications? At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
> How do you think they ban accounts? By flipping a coin? Sometimes they get lucky and they ban someone who was actually cheating and sometimes they get even luckier that the person confesses in appeal?
Well gee, Deadban, I don't know. Have the powers that be here ever said jack squat about what their process is? Obviously when you're dealing with 1300... sorry, 1700 players it's going to be fairly easy to spot with they start playing at a strength 2400. But the cheating we're all interested in is the high livel stuff. So where are the verifications? At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
@JuxPlixab said in #38:
> Well gee, Deadban, I don't know. Have the powers that be here ever said jack squat about what their process is? Obviously when you're dealing with 1300... sorry, 1700 players it's going to be fairly easy to spot with they start playing at a strength 2400. But the cheating we're all interested in is the high livel stuff. So where are the verifications? At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
So what do you want exactly? Are you asking Lichess to reveal how its cheat detection methods work or are you asking to see players' confessions or what else?
There is no third party institution that checks lichess or chesscom moderation actions if that is what you refer to.
> Well gee, Deadban, I don't know. Have the powers that be here ever said jack squat about what their process is? Obviously when you're dealing with 1300... sorry, 1700 players it's going to be fairly easy to spot with they start playing at a strength 2400. But the cheating we're all interested in is the high livel stuff. So where are the verifications? At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
So what do you want exactly? Are you asking Lichess to reveal how its cheat detection methods work or are you asking to see players' confessions or what else?
There is no third party institution that checks lichess or chesscom moderation actions if that is what you refer to.
@JuxPlixab said in #38:
> At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
That is very little. It applies only to titled player who can get their account back by confessing. False confessions exist on far more serious crimes so I guess someone might confess because they feel it easier to get access back that way.
No certainty ever exist on either direction. Just different level of confidence can be achieved.
> At least chess.com pursues, and often obtains some confession, so that's something.
That is very little. It applies only to titled player who can get their account back by confessing. False confessions exist on far more serious crimes so I guess someone might confess because they feel it easier to get access back that way.
No certainty ever exist on either direction. Just different level of confidence can be achieved.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.