Chess engines have poisoned online chess

@Artem-Kozirev said in #50:
> Why are you so offended when there is a request of transparency? is it so bad to be transparent? At the moment the necessary transparency is missing and you support that, great contribution to lichess and the community from you! well done (my last sentence is an irony, I havee to clarify in view of your difficulties to understand any writing)

I am not offended, I am just trying to show you that your reasoning is flawed. That "Prove me wrong" is almost like an insult. I repeat for the thrid time: you made some claims, YOU have to prove them, not us. And you should do some training in irony, it was not the best example.

@glbert said in #46:
> there's a lot of nonsense in Artem-Kozirev's post, but i will pick just a couple:
Fight ideas do not fight people by calling them fool because they do no think in the way you want them to think.
>
>
>
> of course cheating will happen. what kind of strawman is this? whoever claimed that there will never be any cheating on lichess? how in hell do you even imagine you would guarantee a chess server where no cheating ever will happen? what kind of guarantees could the tos give that would satisfy you?

You take things out of context I as an individual can certify 100% fair play. Lichess can only guarantee that cheating will happen, the conclusions to what that means are entirely yours not mine. The amount of people cheating against the necessary resources to stop this cheating is something else plus the real information of what is going on so as to be transparent and avoid speculations.
>
>
> there literally is no 3rd party that does those kind of audits. who would that 3rd party even be?
> There is literally 3rd party that does those kind of audits, the fact that you ignore the existance of these services does not mean they do not exist.
>
>
> this is just an inane conspiracy theory. you know that the code on the lichess server is working, because you are using it right now. you can also verify that this code produces certain bugs, just look for them in the github issues for example, and see that they happen on the server.
> you can also verify that the code published on github is working, and you can verify that there are these very same bugs.
>
> so your claim basically is that the lichess devs might keep 2 separate, repositories of working code, that produce those very same bugs at the same time, always. because if it didn't, we would certainly notice that. you know how much work that would be? and for what purpose would they do that?
> The only way to rule that out is by IT audit
> and you want them to get a presumably expensive certification so we can be certain that inane stuff doesn't happen? are you working for tüv, or why would you suggest something that stupid?
Certifications do not have to be expensive, on the contrary they could be free for a charitable organization.
Again do not fight people, when you say I suggest something stupid you mean I am stupid? clarify I treat you with respect and education and I expect the same. Clarify, take back or this will escalate on the basis of minimun etiquette rules of the forum you are clearly breaking.

This is a request of transparency to lichess. Clearly you are against to this request of transparency. Why? What is your contribution here?

@Nkatsamakas said in #42:
> I was mainly talking about rapid games, which I play a lot. Rarely I may get 95% accuracy, and I never in my life achieved 98%. I have been defeated by very strong players, and they did not achieve 98%.

Just today I got a 99% accuracy game in a 3+0 (5 centipawn loss) lichess.org/Fypk8mRt/black#42 .
In matches vs 2300+ usually every other game is a 90%+ accuracy one. If you keep studying hitting 95% will become an everyday thing!

I agree with you though, people exaggerate the cheating numbers: If you say "10% of people cheat" that means 1 in 10 games you face a cheater... *In my experience it's more like 1 in 900 (0.083%).*

@Nkatsamakas said in #51:
> I am not offended, I am just trying to show you that your reasoning is flawed. That "Prove me wrong" is almost like an insult. I repeat for the thrid time: you made some claims, YOU have to prove them, not us. And you should do some training in irony, it was not the best example.
My reasoning is not flawed as you try to put it, in fact it is quite the opposite. Lichess is in a unique position to clarify matters in favor of transparency and to avoid speculations which lichess is contributing to with the current status quo. Lichess must actively take steps towards clarifying matters instead of waiting to be shown the issue which can be seen from the distance cause it is as big as a mountain. 3rd party IT audit and certifications is the way to go and is something lichess refuses with questionable (to say the minimun) arguments. Lichess should take note of these claims of transparency instead of trying to finish the carrier of the bad news. I want to be proved wrong with the fully homologated and trusted information that is still missing from lichess. As I said earlier Ceasar's wife must not only be but also look like.How to raise funds and support a charitable organization that looks like a black box from this perspective? In any case truth prevails regardless opinions. My feeling is there is a massive cheating going on and I would like to be wrong.

@emaN-drawkcaB said in #53:
> Just today I got a 99% accuracy game in a 3+0 (5 centipawn loss) lichess.org/Fypk8mRt/black#42 .
> In matches vs 2300+ usually every other game is a 90%+ accuracy one. If you keep studying hitting 95% will become an everyday thing!
>
> I agree with you though, people exaggerate the cheating numbers: If you say "10% of people cheat" that means 1 in 10 games you face a cheater... *In my experience it's more like 1 in 900 (0.083%).*

You are a stronger player than me! I saw your game - very nice finish!

@emaN-drawkcaB said in #53:
> Just today I got a 99% accuracy game in a 3+0 (5 centipawn loss) lichess.org/Fypk8mRt/black#42 .
> In matches vs 2300+ usually every other game is a 90%+ accuracy one. If you keep studying hitting 95% will become an everyday thing!
>
> I agree with you though, people exaggerate the cheating numbers: If you say "10% of people cheat" that means 1 in 10 games you face a cheater... *In my experience it's more like 1 in 900 (0.083%).*
This is exactly the point, there is no transparency, then any number fits to any perspective and all opinions are valid, from massive cheating to none.

@Artem-Kozirev said in #54:
> My reasoning is not flawed as you try to put it, in fact it is quite the opposite. Lichess is in a unique position to clarify matters in favor of transparency and to avoid speculations which lichess is contributing to with the current status quo. Lichess must actively take steps towards clarifying matters instead of waiting to be shown the issue which can be seen from the distance cause it is as big as a mountain. 3rd party IT audit and certifications is the way to go and is something lichess refuses with questionable (to say the minimun) arguments. Lichess should take note of these claims of transparency instead of trying to finish the carrier of the bad news. I want to be proved wrong with the fully homologated and trusted information that is still missing from lichess. As I said earlier Ceasar's wife must not only be but also look like.How to raise funds and support a charitable organization that looks like a black box from this perspective? In any case truth prevails regardless opinions. My feeling is there is a massive cheating going on and I would like to be wrong.

You realise these words could get you in trouble in court? I repeat: If I accuse you of murder, should you provide the evidence of your innocence? Elephants fly - prove me wrong.

@Nkatsamakas said in #57:
> You realise these words could get you in trouble in court? I repeat: If I accuse you of murder, should you provide the evidence of your innocence? Elephants fly - prove me wrong.
I beg you with all my might and on my knees to take me to Court as you say, lock me in please. What is taking you so long?
Typical attack from lichess to those who do not agree with their wonderland speech.
@moderators where are you? I have to put up with insults from @glbert and now threats from @Nkatsamakas what will it be next? a ban on me? From the reaction I will see how far is the target.

@Artem-Kozirev
There are no official entities that can audit and certify lichess (or any other chess platform, for that matter) cheating reports.

What IT company do you think would be qualified (let alone interested) in doing it?

@Artem-Kozirev said in #58:
> I beg you with all my might and on my knees to take me to Court as you say, lock me in please. What is taking you so long?
> Typical attack from lichess to those who do not agree with their wonderland speech.
> @moderators where are you? I have to put up with insults from @glbert and now threats from @Nkatsamakas what will it be next? a ban on me? From the reaction I will see how far is the target.

Man, it's late, go to sleep, it will do you good!