Cheating in chess

[Gerard Killoran]

Nakamura is not a KIA player and assumes that f4 is a natural move in the position, however in the Tang game TP plays the manoeuvre Qd1-d2-f4. It's the sort of thing you remember, especially if it leads to a win. So Qd2 would have been one of the first moves he would have considered.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nakamura is not a KIA player and assumes that f4 is a natural move in the position, however in the Tang game TP plays the manoeuvre Qd1-d2-f4. It's the sort of thing you remember, especially if it leads to a win. So Qd2 would have been one of the first moves he would have considered.

I've looked at this sort of thing myself. Once you get the pawn to h6, you try to win by Qg7 mate but you need the dark square Bishops traded off. But how to do it? Attacking the f pawn with Qf4 and Rf3 looks an interesting way of proceeding.

In similar positions, Fischer preferred to stop the Black a pawn reaching a3 by playing it himself.

[Gerard Killoran]

Petrosian has analysed his games with Baadur Jobava here...

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/761278124

I've watched the segment covering the Dominguez game and it is clear that TP has a deep understanding of the KIA - it's very instructive. Nakamura thought that only Carlsen could spot a move like Qd2, but TP demonstrates how it came out of his understanding of the system and the needs of the position.

[Neil Graham]

I am not particularly interested in what grandmasters think of each other.

I am, however, interested in domestic chess on-line matters. As I understand it there were substantial problems with the Delancey UKCC junior tournament where juniors were disqualified, yet admissions were few and far between. There were also allegations and withdrawals as well with the 4NCL On-Line

There was an article written in May at the half way point in Season One of the 4NCL On-Line but unfortunately there has been no follow up article since then other than the one written by Alex H for "Chess". As we are now half-way through Season 2 I' d welcome some update please.

[Nick Grey]

Do Lichess explain allegations and results of cheating. I am interested in domestic chess on-line as hoping to set up a league.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do Lichess explain allegations and results of cheating.

From observation of the 4NCL League and Congresses, the answer seems to be that they don't.

[JustinHorton]

Talking of Lichess, I was under the impression they'd stopped ssying directly when they barred players that they thought they were cheating, but not so, apparently

[Ian Thompson]

Talking of Lichess, I was under the impression they'd stopped ssying directly when they barred players that they thought they were cheating, but not so, apparently

I don't see that screen, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. If you look at his profile you see the "This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service" message.

What caught my eye was that your screenshot says he's only played 5 games. Is that really enough to detect computer assistance reliably enough to ban someone when you've no idea how strong a player they are? Maybe it is. The lichess analysis says he made a total of 1 inaccuracy, 0 mistakes and 0 blunders across the 5 games. Every game had an average centipawn loss of 11.

[MartinCarpenter]

Talking of Lichess, I was under the impression they'd stopped ssying directly when they barred players that they thought they were cheating, but not so, apparently

I don't see that screen, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. If you look at his profile you see the "This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service" message.

What caught my eye was that your screenshot says he's only played 5 games. Is that really enough to detect computer assistance reliably enough to ban someone when you've no idea how strong a player they are? Maybe it is. The lichess analysis says he made a total of 1 inaccuracy, 0 mistakes and 0 blunders across the 5 games. Every game had an average centipawn loss of 11.

I didn't think they did ever ban people that fast, due to SuperGM's frequently setting up new accounts and so on.

Suggests that it might have triggered for some other - potentially quite good - reason.

[JustinHorton]

Talking of Lichess, I was under the impression they'd stopped ssying directly when they barred players that they thought they were cheating, but not so, apparently

I don't see that screen, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

I got there because I aborted a game against them last night, after they accepted my challenge and I looked at their record and thought it looked potentially whiffy. Clicking on that aborted game in my own game record, on the app, then clicking on their handle, then doing so again on the box that comes up, I get the page I've screenshot.

I often abort when challenges are accepted by question marks (i.e. accounts with very few rated games) that I've not played before, especially when they have a relatively high rating. I'm sure they'll be innocent more often than not, but I prefer to give them a miss. This particular one had played only three games and had won them all, so I preferred to abort and went back to look at them a bit later, saw they still had a perfect record, ran computer analyses on their games and noticed they'd been barred when I was still working through the games.

Even so I'd agree it's a small number of games on which to make a definitive judgement, and I had not lodged any complaint.

[Roger de Coverly]

Even so I'd agree it's a small number of games on which to make a definitive judgement

Players taking part in 4NCL competitions hosted by lichess, both team and individual, also seem to have been banned by lichess on a small number of games. If push came to legal action, if they are basing bans on engine matching, the odds that the engine matching is chance remain sufficient to cast doubt when based on a small number of games.

[Paul Bloom]

On the matter of the 4NCL my team who are in DIV 6 played their 4th round match last night we are not doing great but out graded most matchs and half way in table so well done to the lads . but feel really sorry for the BD1 last night was white so issued the challenge of a 45 min plus 15 secs game to his opponent who accepted the challenge and they continued to play a 40 move almost 2 hour match which he managed to win giving our team a 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 victory only to be told the game was void as he had forgotten to click rated and the game was played in casual mode .
He not only lost the win but both teams were deducted an extra half point leaving the scores at 1 each . My point is this is not stated any where in the 4NCL online rules and my understanding is that it is because anti cheating software cannot be run during an unrated game . but as the game can be viewed afterwards and run through a PGN and checked . Does anyone think this is a bit harsh on the players we just play this event for fun no prizes involved . just for the record I have run the game through and the winner made 3 inaccuracies 3 mistakes and 2 Blunders and his opponent 5 inaccuracies 4 mistakes and 3 blunders so doesn't look like anyone cheated here . your thoughts please given the fact that no where in the 4NCL rules is thu=is covered to say the game must rated or will be voided

[Roger de Coverly]

no where in the 4NCL rules is thu=is covered to say the game must rated or will be voided

I think it's common knowledge that this rule exists. I don't even play in the 4NCL online and I'm aware of it.

My opinion is that it's a rule for the sake of it. It would be better for anti-cheating monitoring to be done by only one authority rather than have both the unspecified lichess monitoring and the Regan method being employed. If a game is being rated by the ECF online system what is the need for a lichess rating as well?

[Ian Thompson]

My point is this is not stated any where in the 4NCL online rules and my understanding is that it is because anti cheating software cannot be run during an unrated game .

It is stated in the 4NCL's Guide to Using Lichess:

Making the challenge a “Rated” game is an important part of the challenge process; a game played in “Casual” will turn off the Lichess Anti-Cheating measures. Players should issue challenges that are “Rated”, and we would like players who receive challenges as Casual to decline them, and if necessary send a message to your opponent explaining why the challenge was declined and asking to re-issue it as rated.

As both players are equally at fault for playing a casual game, and the only people who could suffer from the lack of Lichess anti-cheating checks are the players themselves, it does seem needlessly harsh to default both of them.

[JustinHorton]

a game played in “Casual” will turn off the Lichess Anti-Cheating measures

Oh that's interesting