I’ve had reason lately to question some of the ‘cheating’ decision on LiChess and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Recently I was given a win because LiChess said my opponent was cheating. I genuinely do not think they were cheating. Not meaning to be rude but they were not playing very strongly and I think I had the upper hand, unless I was missing something somewhere. Then a few days ago a student of mine was basically banned for ‘cheating’. The games in question I was actually watching and I can assure everyone he was not cheating. He actually lost one of the games due to the computer freezing (victim of the latest Windows 10 update – thanks Microsoft). I really don’t know what algorithm LiChess use but it is far from perfect. I hate to make the suggestion but the moderators, whoever you are, sometimes get things wrong. Both the player and I have asked how long the ‘ban’ is for and LiChess, thus far, have refused to answer. Does anyone know how long the ‘ban’ is for? My suggestion is, that if LiChess suspects someone of cheating then they initially send them a warning. If they’re not cheating then this gives the player the chance to defend themselves. If they are cheating then it would give them a gentle opportunity to mend their ways. If the verdict is that they are continuing to cheat then ban them for a month. Life bans seems rather harsh, especially when the system is flawed. It is starting to become a bit totalitarian in my eyes.
[I'm new here 3 days ago. I will comment on this topic, but I also had a related one that I came here to ask about**. On many sites the Mods like to keep the number of threads down, so I will include my cheating question in this thread as well, until I know more about the approach on this site ]
The suggestion above regarding cheating seems a good one, and worth considering.
How frequent are the computer freeze-ups that you mention?
Yesterday I had a "+2" rook and pawn ending, and finally saw what look like a winning position with 20 seconds (+10 increments) on my clock -- I had missed earlier better moves, Stockfish said. [ crjkmrj59 Vs Ahmadinejad ] Some of the pawn advances I anticipated could be tapped out quickly, so I was going to have a chance to regain plenty of thinking time on the clock, I was anticipating.
Well, I tried to pick up my rook to move it to the "winning" (?) square, but got no response. Then my opponents previous move retracted on my screen. It reappeared in a few moments, but then my clock immediately zipped down to zero so that I lost on time. I really felt cheated by that one, lol.
WibbleWobbler, since you teach, I bet you could look at the final position and know immediately if I really had a winning line. If you have a chance, I'd love to know the truth :). It's crjkmrj59 Vs Ahmadinejad. White has just played e7, and I wanted to play Re1, preventing the pawn queening, then start advancing my own. As I mentioned, my pieces froze. Then e7 retracted on my board. When it tapped down again, I had no chance to play Re1, as my 20 seconds had turned to less than 1, zipped on down, and my flag fell. I've only played 6 rated games so far. If that had happened in one of those, I'd have been screaming :).
**I wanted to ask about the situation with a player I started following 2 days ago, BlazingBanana. Her profile said she was a WFM on Chess.com, and had a UCF rating of 2230. She had only been on the site a few days, and her rating had skyrocked from 1500 to something like 2150. I thought this might be a cool saga to unfold, and she played openings I like, so I started following. Today her profile appears to have been scrubbed. The game are still there, but her rating profile is gone, and there is Warning:
! This player uses computer assistance.
I can see banning that person, considering that she played a total of 22 games, if the understanding is that she(?) cheated in many, most or all of them. She rarely lost. If it was a one time thing, I myself would have probably given a warning, as I think she would have been a benefit to have on the site.
It would be interesting to know what the site administrators can check in terms of cheating. I mostly used to play with AI in the stone age: Old dedicated computers like the Fidelity Mach III and Radio Shack 2250, etc. I used to collect those things on Ebay, but never used someware much. I can't imagine wanting to use AI to cheat, but I guess todays software is so fast that it would be easy to do. But if you have it running on the same computer that you run Lichess on, I guess they have some ways to detect that.
The suggestion above regarding cheating seems a good one, and worth considering.
How frequent are the computer freeze-ups that you mention?
Yesterday I had a "+2" rook and pawn ending, and finally saw what look like a winning position with 20 seconds (+10 increments) on my clock -- I had missed earlier better moves, Stockfish said. [ crjkmrj59 Vs Ahmadinejad ] Some of the pawn advances I anticipated could be tapped out quickly, so I was going to have a chance to regain plenty of thinking time on the clock, I was anticipating.
Well, I tried to pick up my rook to move it to the "winning" (?) square, but got no response. Then my opponents previous move retracted on my screen. It reappeared in a few moments, but then my clock immediately zipped down to zero so that I lost on time. I really felt cheated by that one, lol.
WibbleWobbler, since you teach, I bet you could look at the final position and know immediately if I really had a winning line. If you have a chance, I'd love to know the truth :). It's crjkmrj59 Vs Ahmadinejad. White has just played e7, and I wanted to play Re1, preventing the pawn queening, then start advancing my own. As I mentioned, my pieces froze. Then e7 retracted on my board. When it tapped down again, I had no chance to play Re1, as my 20 seconds had turned to less than 1, zipped on down, and my flag fell. I've only played 6 rated games so far. If that had happened in one of those, I'd have been screaming :).
**I wanted to ask about the situation with a player I started following 2 days ago, BlazingBanana. Her profile said she was a WFM on Chess.com, and had a UCF rating of 2230. She had only been on the site a few days, and her rating had skyrocked from 1500 to something like 2150. I thought this might be a cool saga to unfold, and she played openings I like, so I started following. Today her profile appears to have been scrubbed. The game are still there, but her rating profile is gone, and there is Warning:
! This player uses computer assistance.
I can see banning that person, considering that she played a total of 22 games, if the understanding is that she(?) cheated in many, most or all of them. She rarely lost. If it was a one time thing, I myself would have probably given a warning, as I think she would have been a benefit to have on the site.
It would be interesting to know what the site administrators can check in terms of cheating. I mostly used to play with AI in the stone age: Old dedicated computers like the Fidelity Mach III and Radio Shack 2250, etc. I used to collect those things on Ebay, but never used someware much. I can't imagine wanting to use AI to cheat, but I guess todays software is so fast that it would be easy to do. But if you have it running on the same computer that you run Lichess on, I guess they have some ways to detect that.
Simple
The opponent was flagged for computer assistance.
Did it occur to the OP that the flag was for other games, not necessarily his game?
No. In the mean time, a few points get returned for games that were in progress.
The OP wants to place himself judge and jury, as if he knows how best to sanction abusers/cheaters. I suggest get a life, play chess, and leave the business to the professionals.
The system is not "flawed". Sure, a single mistake out of 1000 cases may be questionable. There is an appeal process available. Every consideration is made before marking.
I ask? What is the thinking behind giving a "warning" to a player who is shown to be absolutely cheating? (As suggested above). Does anyone think these players will suddenly see the light? Become reformed?
OP.. sending a warning for cheating is rubbish. These players will only make attempts to better disguise their habit. Do you really think such people after a warning have a reversal of bad decisions?
Chances are very high that being marked was not a 1 time occurrence. Metrics of every game and move are recorded and analyzed.
The opponent was flagged for computer assistance.
Did it occur to the OP that the flag was for other games, not necessarily his game?
No. In the mean time, a few points get returned for games that were in progress.
The OP wants to place himself judge and jury, as if he knows how best to sanction abusers/cheaters. I suggest get a life, play chess, and leave the business to the professionals.
The system is not "flawed". Sure, a single mistake out of 1000 cases may be questionable. There is an appeal process available. Every consideration is made before marking.
I ask? What is the thinking behind giving a "warning" to a player who is shown to be absolutely cheating? (As suggested above). Does anyone think these players will suddenly see the light? Become reformed?
OP.. sending a warning for cheating is rubbish. These players will only make attempts to better disguise their habit. Do you really think such people after a warning have a reversal of bad decisions?
Chances are very high that being marked was not a 1 time occurrence. Metrics of every game and move are recorded and analyzed.
We do sometimes give second chances, based on circumstance. Your student can email contact@lichess.org.
A ban is sometimes unrelated to the most recent games. Sometimes a user is falsely reported for cheating, but even though the current game is OK, moderators notice older games were suspicious. There's no statute of limitations, especially if it's a recurring pattern.
A ban is sometimes unrelated to the most recent games. Sometimes a user is falsely reported for cheating, but even though the current game is OK, moderators notice older games were suspicious. There's no statute of limitations, especially if it's a recurring pattern.
mdinnerspace - Get a life? Chess is a game and a hobby. At our level it is, or should, be fun. Your attitude is unfortunately rather reflective of the dictatorial attitude of the moderators who seem to think that they are bigger than the site. Ultimately such an attitude will just cause players to simply go elsewhere and LiChess will be no more. That is market forces.
isaacly. He and I have e-mailed contact@lichess.org with no response to our questions. Limitations have to be made clearer and questions answered.
isaacly. He and I have e-mailed contact@lichess.org with no response to our questions. Limitations have to be made clearer and questions answered.
How is it reasoned that players will go elsewhere, except of course those caught cheating? Dictatorial attitude, bigger than the site? Use of such terms shows you're being irrational.
Your student was flagged. You can "assure" us he was not cheating? You are better qualified than the detection team? As the moderator explained and I tried to point out, the flag was not necessarily for games in progress, but could be for past infractions.
Your student was flagged. You can "assure" us he was not cheating? You are better qualified than the detection team? As the moderator explained and I tried to point out, the flag was not necessarily for games in progress, but could be for past infractions.
In this case I'm afraid yes I was better qualified than the detection team. I was there watching. Players will start going elsewhere because playing under such a regime is not pleasant. I for one am suggesting my students play elsewhere,
Lichess has detailed „fingerprints“ of us all from the beginning until now. These are the hard facts. I cannot discuss because I don’t know nothing. But the measures here seem to me best practice.
Go and get yours: m.imgur.com/a/dKlHs
Go and get yours: m.imgur.com/a/dKlHs
why i was tagged as a "computer assisted player" ?
i am doing nothing wrong, cheating or the likes.
please help me resolve this problem, i played through mobile phone and i don't have such a device or tool to cheat, and i do not even want to cheat because i am a fair player unfairly judged by lichess moderators.
i am doing nothing wrong, cheating or the likes.
please help me resolve this problem, i played through mobile phone and i don't have such a device or tool to cheat, and i do not even want to cheat because i am a fair player unfairly judged by lichess moderators.
It is no good to ask the public because we know less than you.
Adress to the administration, they have the relevant data we lack.
Adress to the administration, they have the relevant data we lack.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.