Cheating in chess

[JustinHorton]

Perhaps only an actual Court case will progress the matter but unless a substantial amount of money is involved I can't see that happening any time soon so these cases will rumble on and on I guess.

Let me repeat my prediction that if and when somebody credibly threatens to take a site to law, the site will give way before the case reaches a court and we will be no further forward.

[Alan Walton]

Perhaps only an actual Court case will progress the matter but unless a substantial amount of money is involved I can't see that happening any time soon so these cases will rumble on and on I guess.

Let me repeat my prediction that if and when somebody credibly threatens to take a site to law, the site will give way before the case reaches a court and we will be no further forward.

You are most probably correct; but if the rules of participation allow for these actions to occur, then there will be limited room to take said case to court

Most people don't read the small print when decided to use these sites, and why it might seem heavy handed it maybe the only way to discourage at present

But a lot of comments on this thread, nobody comes up with any ideas for improvements, just keep on complaining

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm curious to know who might not think it was OK to do this?

chess.com for example, when banning ejhchess, didn't appear to have considered the possibility that if his play matched an engine from moves 6 to 15 in "daily" chess, that this was because the lines came from books on his bookshelf. More generally, all those servers who claim to screen for book moves, but don't have a database containing all known games and all known published analysis.

[Joseph Conlon]

"This decision looks wrong on the available evidence, so let us assume there is better evidence not available to us" is not an approach I would like to recommend.

Is this the case here though - is anyone here in a position to say that it looks wrong (or right)?

Put another way: who on this forum feels qualified to sense the difference between a 2700 without an engine and a 2700 with an engine? Maybe occasional poster Nigel Short but certainly not me. Personally I feel I have a sense of what is suspicious and what is not for players of similar rating to myself or lower; for players much stronger than myself I can't really tell a difference between them and an engine.

[JustinHorton]

Perhaps only an actual Court case will progress the matter but unless a substantial amount of money is involved I can't see that happening any time soon so these cases will rumble on and on I guess.

Let me repeat my prediction that if and when somebody credibly threatens to take a site to law, the site will give way before the case reaches a court and we will be no further forward.

You are most probably correct; but if the rules of participation allow for these actions to occur, then there will be limited room to take said case to court

I doubt this: you can't make an agreement depriving yourself of your right to have recourse to the law.

But a lot of comments on this thread, nobody comes up with any ideas for improvements, just keep on complaining

What if anything does this actually mean?

[JustinHorton]

"This decision looks wrong on the available evidence, so let us assume there is better evidence not available to us" is not an approach I would like to recommend.

Is this the case here though - is anyone here in a position to say that it looks wrong (or right)?

Put another way: who on this forum feels qualified to sense the difference between a 2700 without an engine and a 2700 with an engine?

To sense it, no. But to interrogate the claim, to go through the games with a computer and/or to discuss the result of somebody else's work - that might be a different matter.

Talking of which, what did people think of the Kramnik spat?

[Alan Walton]

Let me repeat my prediction that if and when somebody credibly threatens to take a site to law, the site will give way before the case reaches a court and we will be no further forward.

You are most probably correct; but if the rules of participation allow for these actions to occur, then there will be limited room to take said case to court

I doubt this: you can't make an agreement depriving yourself of your right to have recourse to the law.

But a lot of comments on this thread, nobody comes up with any ideas for improvements, just keep on complaining

What if anything does this actually mean?

It means people love complaining without coming up with anything proactive in solving the problem; there are 126 pages here and I suspect 90% of the posts are identical

Why not start thinking what needs to actually be done about online cheating; then perhaps you have a way forward

[JustinHorton]

It means people love complaining

Or it could mean that there are all kinds of serious practical and legal issues here rather than that people "love complaning".

[JustinHorton]

Maghsoodloo says this

[Matthew Turner]

... its hard to imagine a site banning someone of that strength without there being a lot of human eyes on the decision.

Really?

Before a GM is banned on chess.com the decision must be signed off by 3 GMs. I would assume that Lichess has a similar procedure in place. I think you can be very confident that some seriously strongly players have looked through the games before a player of Maghsoodloo's stature was banned.

I haven't played through the games myself and I have no view on Maghsoodloo's case.

[JustinHorton]

... its hard to imagine a site banning someone of that strength without there being a lot of human eyes on the decision.

Really?

Before a GM is banned on chess.com the decision must be signed off by 3 GMs. I would assume that Lichess has a similar procedure in place.

Why should anybody "assume"? Why not say, this is the procedure?

I think you can be very confident that some seriously strongly players have looked through the games

Being "very confident" about something on which we have literally no information? What could possibly go wrong?

[NickFaulks]

Before a GM is banned on chess.com the decision must be signed off by 3 GMs. I would assume that Lichess has a similar procedure in place.

That doesn't give me much comfort. In a medical malpractice case, for instance, the prosecution never has any difficulty in finding expert witnesses to testify for them.

[Matt Bridgeman]

If we do have another solid 12 months of online chess ahead of us still, I wonder if one idea might be to create a series of closed events. Invite players who people feel confident aren’t resorting to engine assistance, and leave the rest to play in other events.

[JustinHorton]

What is "people" going to mean there?

[Matt Bridgeman]

What is "people" going to mean there?

Well I suppose I mean the established larger organisers behind the British Online and 4NCL. Really they must have the best idea of the players who have been in the grey area for a long time. There is effectively a whole raft of players of intermediate strength who have elevated their performances 20-30%+ from what they ever achieved over the board pretty much since the first lockdown in March onwards. Plenty have taken the odd ban here and there, but keep turning up to other events. I suppose in an ideal world it would be nice to have a regular event on the calendar with a crop of players across all sections who aren’t playing that game.