Given the research would be independent of the platforms I don't think we'd know if anybody had been caught if they weren't banned.Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:12 amThat's not quite accurate. Our criteria is going to be who gets banned and who doesn't.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:26 pm... , our only criteria are going to be who gets caught and who doesn't ....
Cheating in chess
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Cheating in chess
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
In fact this game is very easy to explain. White didn't realise that c6 was possible so thought that the defence to Nxc7+ was c5. They then premoved dxc5. When faced with c6 they realised that there was nowhere safe to move the knight, so they went to move the queen. However on pressing on c3 the square c5 was already in inputted so the move c3 - c5 was played.Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:12 amThat's not quite accurate. Our criteria is going to be who gets banned and who doesn't.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:26 pm... , our only criteria are going to be who gets caught and who doesn't ....
Have Lichess really not had a look at Freddy and seen what he's up to? I doubt it. Much more likely is that they know (he's been 'caught') and, for whatever reason, they've concluded they're OK with stuff like this from yesterday:-
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Cheating in chess
Qc5 seems to have taken eleven seconds to play
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
Well it would wouldn't it, because I have to realise my opponent hadn't played the move I expected, realise my knight was attacked, realise that there was no safe place to move it, evaluate whether is was worth grabbing a pawn with Nxa7 or getting a pawn back with Qb3, Qd3. It is only when I press on c3 that I'll activate the move c3-c5.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
exactly.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:15 am... I don't think we'd know if anybody had been caught if they weren't banned.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
I do think it would be very interesting to know what the lichess 'take' on Mr. Fred is; I feel it is impossible that there haven't been humans looking at him, given the number of reports that would have come in on this person.
The only possible 'legitimate' explanation I can think of is that it is essentially a lichess test account operating on the live system, used to measure the frequency with which such sandbagging play gets reported. I imagine (if they are at all competent, which I think they are) that they will sometime stick bot accounts, or someone trying to cheat semi-intelligently, into the live system to see how easily they can get picked up and reported.
The only possible 'legitimate' explanation I can think of is that it is essentially a lichess test account operating on the live system, used to measure the frequency with which such sandbagging play gets reported. I imagine (if they are at all competent, which I think they are) that they will sometime stick bot accounts, or someone trying to cheat semi-intelligently, into the live system to see how easily they can get picked up and reported.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:55 amI do think it would be very interesting to know what the lichess 'take' on Mr. Fred is; I feel it is impossible that there haven't been humans looking at him, given the number of reports that would have come in on this person.
One of the things Mr LiChess said on Perpetual Chess was the number of reports about an account was not an issue in terms of it being banned. Like you, though, I'd have to assume that somebody at LiChess would think to have a look if multiple reports were coming in.
But then again Fred went on his 60+ game loss more than six months ago and it seems more likely than not that at least one of the many that won a game against him by ... Qh4mate after an early f3 and g4 would have reported him.
Are you suggesting that Freddie is some kind of LiChess test programme? I find that very hard to believe. That would mean that while they're saying that cheating is really nowhere near as big a deal as the users make out, they're deliberately having their users play a cheat whilst not catching it for over two years.
That would be really mad.
As bizarre as it sounds, the most likely explanation to my eyes is that lichess have looked at Freddy and what he's up to and are OK with it. I don't know why they'd do this but nothing else seems as likely.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
I think Joseph's explanation is possible, but fairly unlikely. I do though note that there are an incredible number of freddy's so maybe this is a name that Lichess use for test accounts.Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:31 amJoseph Conlon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:55 amI do think it would be very interesting to know what the lichess 'take' on Mr. Fred is; I feel it is impossible that there haven't been humans looking at him, given the number of reports that would have come in on this person.
One of the things Mr LiChess said on Perpetual Chess was the number of reports about an account was not an issue in terms of it being banned. Like you, though, I'd have to assume that somebody at LiChess would think to have a look if multiple reports were coming in.
But then again Fred went on his 60+ game loss more than six months ago and it seems more likely than not that at least one of the many that won a game against him by ... Qh4mate after an early f3 and g4 would have reported him.
Are you suggesting that Freddie is some kind of LiChess test programme? I find that very hard to believe. That would mean that while they're saying that cheating is really nowhere near as big a deal as the users make out, they're deliberately having their users play a cheat whilst not catching it for over two years.
That would be really mad.
As bizarre as it sounds, the most likely explanation to my eyes is that lichess have looked at Freddy and what he's up to and are OK with it. I don't know why they'd do this but nothing else seems as likely.
As for Jonathan's comment, I don't think Lichess can be 'OK' with what Freddy is doing because it seems to make other members unhappy, so it would be better if it wasn't there. Therefore, I assume that there is some judgment that it is less bad for Freddy to continue, than have his account closed. I think Joseph provides a possible explanation for this, I also feel as I noted earlier, Freddy's play being explained by a known medical condition is another. I think there are other explanations too.
-
- Posts: 5837
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
"The only possible 'legitimate' explanation I can think of is that it is essentially a lichess test account operating on the live system, used to measure the frequency with which such sandbagging play gets reported."
An interesting idea - a friend who plays a lot of games (not just chess) online said it was possible. However, I have yet to get an angry message from Lichess saying, "Someone cheated against you and you didn't report it!"
An interesting idea - a friend who plays a lot of games (not just chess) online said it was possible. However, I have yet to get an angry message from Lichess saying, "Someone cheated against you and you didn't report it!"
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Cheating in chess
Hi Joseph,
When I was in the Red Hot Pawn cheat tracing club (at one time that place was Red Hot Paranoia.)
We mooted the idea of creating 6 engine accounts. The idea being it would easily find a human computer user.
and should anyone beat one of them then we have proof.
I was licking my lips at the thought of making up 6 different profiles.
'Hi my name is Josh, (I had planned to use Josh or Joshua in all the niks - The War Games Computer.)
But the idea never took off. Round about then someone said this is ridiculous, look at us wasting our time
on ninny's who might be using a computer. So we posted if you think someone cheated, never play them again
and if you get drawn against them in a tournament resign on move one. The cheat team disbanded.
This form of self regulation worked, 'they are cheating' threads all but dried up and the place has been ticking
over very nicely ever since. Sandbaggers so a good player could win an under 1600 tournament were ignored.
(Sandbaggers who got beat by a 1400 where often on the hot threads calling them cheats, 'They must be I am
really a 2000+ player.....OOPS!')
'...used to measure the frequency with which such sandbagging play gets reported.'
Judging by the fuss this one player (Fred the Red) has created here, They probably get swamped with accusations
every time someone makes a genuine error (a sandbagger) or wins a nice game (a cheat.) so they have
no need to measure how often they get reports.
Their task will be weeding out the 100's of chaff from the genuine claims and a sandbagger will be low priority.
Hi Mathew,
You may well be correct. A pre-move error. I agree.
Here in stead of 15.Qc5
15.d5!
So no engine, a plausible pre move error.
When I was in the Red Hot Pawn cheat tracing club (at one time that place was Red Hot Paranoia.)
We mooted the idea of creating 6 engine accounts. The idea being it would easily find a human computer user.
and should anyone beat one of them then we have proof.
I was licking my lips at the thought of making up 6 different profiles.
'Hi my name is Josh, (I had planned to use Josh or Joshua in all the niks - The War Games Computer.)
But the idea never took off. Round about then someone said this is ridiculous, look at us wasting our time
on ninny's who might be using a computer. So we posted if you think someone cheated, never play them again
and if you get drawn against them in a tournament resign on move one. The cheat team disbanded.
This form of self regulation worked, 'they are cheating' threads all but dried up and the place has been ticking
over very nicely ever since. Sandbaggers so a good player could win an under 1600 tournament were ignored.
(Sandbaggers who got beat by a 1400 where often on the hot threads calling them cheats, 'They must be I am
really a 2000+ player.....OOPS!')
'...used to measure the frequency with which such sandbagging play gets reported.'
Judging by the fuss this one player (Fred the Red) has created here, They probably get swamped with accusations
every time someone makes a genuine error (a sandbagger) or wins a nice game (a cheat.) so they have
no need to measure how often they get reports.
Their task will be weeding out the 100's of chaff from the genuine claims and a sandbagger will be low priority.
Hi Mathew,
You may well be correct. A pre-move error. I agree.
Here in stead of 15.Qc5
15.d5!
So no engine, a plausible pre move error.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Cheating in chess
And how do you imagine that is possibly going to happen if there is no discussion about who the cheats may beGeoff Chandler wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:05 am
and if you get drawn against them in a tournament resign on move one
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Cheating in chess
Hi Justin,
Please try to quote me in full:
" So we posted if you think someone cheated, never play them again and if you get drawn against them in a tournament resign on move one."
So if you the player suspected a cheat then there was a solution. Never again.
Players can PM each other trading names and sometimes you see tournaments where one player had a load of 1 move resignations.
I play them, I'll play anybody, my days of worrying about what my opponent is up are long past though I fully understand
the concern other players have because I have been there.
All this was 10 years ago. a large % of the cheats claims were groundless. Though the same names kept popping up.
Some were banned and surprise-surprise were back again within hours, Most of the bans at RHP these days come from
forum content as the occasional idiot appears and makes racial comments. These nut jobs are banned within minutes.
My only worry these days about cheats on RHP is someone inflating their rating and then offering a charge for lessons.
Periodically I post if offered lessons from an RHP member find out who they really are before parting with any money.
So there is the solution, if you think you have just played an online cheat, block them.
Maybe lIchess could produce a list of blocked players - a top ten - then genuine cheats would fell uncomfortable.
They are not being called out by an algorithm, they are being pointed at by their peers.
100 blocks and you are on the list. (just a thought).
Please try to quote me in full:
" So we posted if you think someone cheated, never play them again and if you get drawn against them in a tournament resign on move one."
So if you the player suspected a cheat then there was a solution. Never again.
Players can PM each other trading names and sometimes you see tournaments where one player had a load of 1 move resignations.
I play them, I'll play anybody, my days of worrying about what my opponent is up are long past though I fully understand
the concern other players have because I have been there.
All this was 10 years ago. a large % of the cheats claims were groundless. Though the same names kept popping up.
Some were banned and surprise-surprise were back again within hours, Most of the bans at RHP these days come from
forum content as the occasional idiot appears and makes racial comments. These nut jobs are banned within minutes.
My only worry these days about cheats on RHP is someone inflating their rating and then offering a charge for lessons.
Periodically I post if offered lessons from an RHP member find out who they really are before parting with any money.
So there is the solution, if you think you have just played an online cheat, block them.
Maybe lIchess could produce a list of blocked players - a top ten - then genuine cheats would fell uncomfortable.
They are not being called out by an algorithm, they are being pointed at by their peers.
100 blocks and you are on the list. (just a thought).
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Cheating in chess
On principle I try to keep down your word count
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
It is one explanation for how an account that appears to clearly violates the terms of service can survive without being banned, after being reported many times. Whether its true or not in this case is another matter.Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:31 amAre you suggesting that Freddie is some kind of LiChess test programme? I find that very hard to believe. That would mean that while they're saying that cheating is really nowhere near as big a deal as the users make out, they're deliberately having their users play a cheat whilst not catching it for over two years.
I do, however, believe lichess must have some accounts that they would deliberately violate the terms of service on - if you want to catch all forms of cheating, or improve your methods, it is very useful to have a sample of games and accounts that you know is 100% (im)pure and has no false positives.
Say you want to catch 'intelligent' cheating by strong players who are occasionally resorting to an engine at critical positions. Rather than guessing what it looks like when a GM uses an engine, the best approach to understand it, and think of strategies to catch it, would be to ask Matt, or some other GM, to play games on the live system on a known control account while they are doing precisely this.
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Cheating in chess
Hi Justin,
"On principle I try to keep down your word count."
Now that I can understand.
Today at 14:00 I will be picking up my Aitken books so I'll be off air for a month or two.
Aitken seemed to love Rook endings, I'm pretty sure from the games I've entered some it has rubbed off
a few months ago I won a Rook ending on RHP where I know I gleaned an idea from Aitken,
(this new idea is probably bread and butter to the good guys but I saw the pattern as quick as I can spot a two move trap.)
This old dog is learning new tricks.
(I'm still on the Len Deighton quest...)
"On principle I try to keep down your word count."
Now that I can understand.
Today at 14:00 I will be picking up my Aitken books so I'll be off air for a month or two.
Aitken seemed to love Rook endings, I'm pretty sure from the games I've entered some it has rubbed off
a few months ago I won a Rook ending on RHP where I know I gleaned an idea from Aitken,
(this new idea is probably bread and butter to the good guys but I saw the pattern as quick as I can spot a two move trap.)
This old dog is learning new tricks.
(I'm still on the Len Deighton quest...)