English Chess Forum

What do you think constitutes reasonable evidence that someone is using a computer, particularly in an internet game where you can't see immediately if your opponent is acting suspiciously? Just wondering, after I was Black in the following game:

1.d4 Nf6 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e3 c5 5.c3 c4 6.Be2 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.Nbd2 h6 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.fxe5 Nd7 11.Nf3 O-O 12.Qe1 f5 13.Qg3 Kh8 14.Bd1 b5 15.Bc2 a5 16.a3 Bb7 17.Bd2 g5 18.Qh3 Kg7 19.Qh5 g4 20.Ne1 Bg5 21.h3 gxh3 22.gxh3 Rg8 23.Nf3 Kf8 24.Kh2 Bc6 25.Rg1 Nb6 26.Nxg5 hxg5 27.Qh6+ Kf7 28.Bd1 Be8 29.Bh5+ Ke7 30.Qf6+ Kd7 31.Qh6 Bxh5 32.Qxh5 Qe7 33.Rg2 Rh8 34.Qe2 Rag8 35.Rag1 g4 36.Rh1 Rxh3+ 37.Kg1 Rgh8 38.Rxh3 Rxh3 39.Rh2 Qh4 40.Be1 Rxh2 41.Qxh2 Qxh2+ 42.Kxh2 Ke7 43.Kg3 Kf7 44.Kf4 Nd7 45.Kg5 Nb8 46.Kh6 Nc6 47.Kg5 Ne7 48.Kf4 Nc8 49.Kg5 Nb6 50.Kf4 Na4 51.Bd2 Nxb2 52.Bc1 Nd3+ 0-1 (time, although obviously White is lost anyway)

and my opponent immediately accused me of doing so, and after I denied it he asked "Are you sure?". I can't honestly see anything about the game that would suggest it was being played by a computer, so I presume he was just a bad loser.

Michael Jones wrote:What do you think constitutes reasonable evidence that someone is using a computer, particularly in an internet game where you can't see immediately if your opponent is acting suspiciously? Just wondering, after I was Black in the following game:

1.d4 Nf6 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e3 c5 5.c3 c4 6.Be2 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.Nbd2 h6 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.fxe5 Nd7 11.Nf3 O-O 12.Qe1 f5 13.Qg3 Kh8 14.Bd1 b5 15.Bc2 a5 16.a3 Bb7 17.Bd2 g5 18.Qh3 Kg7 19.Qh5 g4 20.Ne1 Bg5 21.h3 gxh3 22.gxh3 Rg8 23.Nf3 Kf8 24.Kh2 Bc6 25.Rg1 Nb6 26.Nxg5 hxg5 27.Qh6+ Kf7 28.Bd1 Be8 29.Bh5+ Ke7 30.Qf6+ Kd7 31.Qh6 Bxh5 32.Qxh5 Qe7 33.Rg2 Rh8 34.Qe2 Rag8 35.Rag1 g4 36.Rh1 Rxh3+ 37.Kg1 Rgh8 38.Rxh3 Rxh3 39.Rh2 Qh4 40.Be1 Rxh2 41.Qxh2 Qxh2+ 42.Kxh2 Ke7 43.Kg3 Kf7 44.Kf4 Nd7 45.Kg5 Nb8 46.Kh6 Nc6 47.Kg5 Ne7 48.Kf4 Nc8 49.Kg5 Nb6 50.Kf4 Na4 51.Bd2 Nxb2 52.Bc1 Nd3+ 0-1 (time, although obviously White is lost anyway)

and my opponent immediately accused me of doing so, and after I denied it he asked "Are you sure?". I can't honestly see anything about the game that would suggest it was being played by a computer, so I presume he was just a bad loser.

Take is as a compliment!

Whites' second move is interesting!

No, that doesn't look like a computer game to me. I only skimmed through it, but there appeared to be a number of human errors.

He was probably just sore because you were in a lot of trouble, but he made a complete pigs ear of the attack (though your defensive play was far from flawless either).

I have a perfect strike rate on ICC in computer spotting. I only very rarely report people to Speedtrap, but in every case where I have done so, subsequent investigation leads the ICC staff to conclude that the person in question is getting assistance (and I know this because, although the results of their investigations are never announced, the individuals in question either never log on again, have their ratings reset, and/or appear with a computer label or apology in their notes subsequently).

Yes, I thought I played it far too badly for there to be any suspicion of computer use - I was lucky to reach the endgame still alive, and then there was my bright idea of moving my knight six times in a row to get it back to where it had started from. I hadn't seen White's second move before, but I'm used to people playing all sorts of weird openings in online blitz games which they'd probably never go near with a bargepole in a serious game - one extreme example being 1. b4 b5 2. Nf3 c6 3. e3 f6 4. Bb2 g5 5. Nxg5 Bg7 6. Qh5+ when Black let his time run out rather than be mated or bother resigning. He was higher rated than me, so presumably he didn't play that badly all the time.

Michael Jones wrote:What do you think constitutes reasonable evidence that someone is using a computer....

Funny you should ask that as I've been pondering asking the same question myself.

To extend the question further. If a county captain has been banned from an internet chess site for cheating, is this something that otb players should know about?

Would you (i.e. not just the OP but the readers of this thread) want to know?

Michael Jones wrote:What do you think constitutes reasonable evidence that someone is using a computer

Many internet sites seem to believe that it's sufficient that the moves in the game match the top 3 as selected by computer engines.

I think their beliefs need to be modified in that it only tells you about computer use if you have prior knowledge that the player being investigated is not (usually) very strong.

If a computer engine matches a GM's moves, it usually just tells you that the computer engine is of GM strength.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:To extend the question further. If a county captain has been banned from an internet chess site for cheating, is this something that otb players should know about?

Would you (i.e. not just the OP but the readers of this thread) want to know?

Yes

I think so, yes. If I knew he'd cheated in one form of the game I'd automatically think it more likely that he would in another; not necessarily by the same means - since ruses such as a radio receiver disguised as a hearing aid have already been tried and are likely to arouse suspicion immediately, making it harder to use a computer to cheat in OTB play - but, for instance, by fiddling the board order.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:To extend the question further. If a county captain has been banned from an internet chess site for cheating, is this something that otb players should know about?

Would you (i.e. not just the OP but the readers of this thread) want to know?

Just tread carefully, you don't want to get yourself sued.

I "outed" one internet cheat from the redhotpawn.com site. He was #2 on the site for several years, even winning games against players who were later banned for using an engine in their games! When I found out who he was I sent a message to a friend of mine (graded around 200) who happened to be a member of the same club, and after checking the games he said he would have a quiet word with the player in question. The cheat stopped playing after that, but he was banned anyway a few months later, presumably after the owners of the site had checked his game for engine match-up themselves.

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:Just tread carefully, you don't want to get yourself sued.

Indeed not. To that end I should make clear at this stage that I don't know whether anybody - county captain or otherwise - has cheated on the internet or not. I don't think you can ever know that beyond any doubt. Whether you can know that beyond 'reasonable' doubt I suppose depends on what your definition of 'reasonable'.

That said, I do know a few things that are not a question of interpretation but facts. I'll run through them tomorrow when it's a little less late and I've got more chance of expressing myself clearly.

In any event, my real interest in this whole question is not whether one person has or has not cheated in internet chess by using an engine or some other illegal means - it's whether it matters even if they did. I'm really not sure that it does.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:In any event, my real interest in this whole question is not whether one person has or has not cheated in internet chess by using an engine or some other illegal means - it's whether it matters even if they did. I'm really not sure that it does.

My view would be that the psychology that leads to cheating online might not necessarily lead to cheating in "real life" (i.e. in person and in a team event). The two are quite different, and it is well-known that people act differently online to how they would face-to-face with the same people.