"This Player Uses Computer Assistance" Should be Displayed More Noticable

I just finished a game against a player who, when you hover over his name, has "This player Uses Computer Assistance" displayed.

The computer analysis suggests he was in fact using computer assistance. I never would have played him had I known. I feel cheated. I was cheated. The banner needs to be more noticeable.

@Relentless_Prince I agree, but the problem is that cheaters can constantly make new accounts and there're tons of accounts out there. Putting more shame on them won't make stop what they've already started.

Does Lichess have IP address banning? I know that isn't a cure all, but it would have to help.

Jeez, these people are so toxic to the community.

Toxic indeed.

I don't think lichess has IP address banning. If lichess had it then cheaters would practically be non-existent.

You will never be matched up with somebody who has been marked for computer assistance from a regular seek.

The player in question was marked DURING your game and the game was converted to unrated to protect your rating points.

How does a 800 rated player win against a high rated engine?
This would mean the player knows how to cheat, or is very under rated.

When we play that player (in a tournament) they are also able to maintain their low rating and not blunder. Amazing...

What a tournament needs is to know if the player that joins has won chess engines and at what level. This would place players in categories according to the chess engines they won. If they cheated, then they will only be able to play in open tournaments where there is no rating limit. Even chess training ratings could be used as a category control to limit players from joining ≤ 1700 rated tournaments.

Players could then enjoy a better balanced rated tournament in the category of ≤ 1700 ratings.

Filtering to join a tournament seams to me to be a useful solution.
It would be like have only master rated players that could join the tournament, but in this cause it would be removing the expert, masters or players that have too much experience for their rating.

Thank you for the explanation.

#5 #6 I understand that non-cheaters will never be matched with a marked-for-assistance opponent. And that is important and valuable!

#5 I remain very confused on logic of the rating refund program or a need to "protect" rating points. Yes, it's popular if/when people qualify to "get points back", but consider the alternative (and this holds true regardless of win, draw, or loss):

* The cheater's rating/RD/volatility are accurate (based upon their strength/weakness, frequency/infrequency of play, and consistency/inconsistency of play). This has nothing to do with whether the cheater "earned" a rating; it's just math.

* Therefore the opponent's rating/RD/volatility adjustment is accurate, just like other opponents' rating/RD/volatility adjustments were accurate.

And regardless, recalculations which are less thorough than what USCF/FIDE do ("All games by the offender in the tournament shall not be rated." - www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Anti%20Cheating%20Guidelines.pdf ) will be inaccurate; the only mathematically accurate way to apply a "rating refund" would be to rewind the clock and recalculate all ratings (of the opponents, and of opponents' future opponents, and opponents' opponents' future opponents, etc.) with the cheater's games removed, and that recalculation could take a long time --

-- and even once that's done, it wouldn't accurately model "online players pick their opponents based upon rating to maximize their chances of gaining points or minimize their chances of losing points, and their willingness to agree to a draw (or to trade pieces, etc.; sometimes their entire playing style) depends upon players' relative ratings".

@Toscani
"How does a 800 rated player win against a high rated engine?
This would mean the player knows how to cheat, or is very under rated."

I think most players have the knowledge of how to cheat, you just turn on stockfish. Players are allowed to use computer assistance when playing against the lichess computer, and in fact, I have done this plenty of times myself and have found it to be an effective training exercise. However, I have never used computer assistance against a human player and never plan to do so, and frankly, I don't see how the two are related. Forgive me, but the logic to your argument seems rather flawed.

@Toadofsky
"The cheater's rating/RD/volatility are accurate (based upon their strength/weakness, frequency/infrequency of play, and consistency/inconsistency of play). This has nothing to do with whether the cheater "earned" a rating; it's just math."

eeeehhhh not exactly, if someone never cheated before and they have an "earned" rating of 1200, and then one day they decided to use stockfish against their opponent, then I think you could make the argument that their rating was inaccurate for that one game. I think you could make the argument that their rating was off by about 2000 points. Yes, the rating system does account for inconsistency, but inconsistency and cheating are not the same thing.

@michaelcupp , but not just for you.

Using assistance encourages cheating habits.

It's a chain reaction, a small bit of assistance to get out of a faulty move.
Next thing you know you're fighting to get out of a bigger bind.

A chess coach knows when a player is using assistance, because they have played with hundreds if not thousands of students rated at a rating of 800 and that one stands out like a sort thumb. If the student used assistance to solve tactical training puzzles then sooner or later it will become a bigger problem. The brain gets use to cheating and it becomes the norm. All of a sudden that person that said they would never do it, does it during a game and then the ethics of cheating is all changed.

Don't cheat on an exam and a chess puzzle is like an exam. Don't try to cross that ethical line. Once you cross that ethical line you will find it harder to see how an action can become relate to another action or reaction. It's like saying do not kill. Fighting is in that ethical chain of action. So is telling a white lie or insulting others. It's all in the same ethical chain of actions. One leads to another as it gets out of hand.

It's like driving over the speeding limit or not fully stopping at a stop sign. At what speed is it going to be a stop or the limit. It can become like a drinking habit. Using chess assistance falls in the same pattern. Stop while you can, and obey the rules of chess, even in puzzles.

Rules are there for every one to follow or else why should anyone apply these rules.

The game of chess is played with zero tolerance for incorrect play.

I think people in general tend to adapt to different situations like driving a bit over the limit.
I hope to avoid the crave of being temped to cheat, even though I now know others are doing it. I don't want to start that chess engine drinking habit.