Chess.Com getting sued.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"there may be a case for playing online tournaments at longer time controls under rules similar to the ICCF. In other words most forms of external consultation are allowed including published theory, databases and engines."

ICCF does ban assistance from other humans, although it is not clear how they expect to police that...

[Roger Lancaster]

One can partially neutralise this by using an anonymous username

Although even in this instance, why should anybody have to consider the issue of being defamed when first selecting a username?

They shouldn't. My point entirely when I said this was a sad reflection on affairs.

[Adam Raoof]

I think that the fundamental problem is the way people approach this whole issue. Rather than trying to make the current situation work with what we expect from over the board chess, which is not going to happen, you need to start from scratch and ask what you would like from online chess. I would like;

real names for all players
identification via FIDE or ECF or CS code, or similar
verifiable contact details
on-camera
access to an arbiter
valid pairings
the ability to pause the clock

should be a minimum for an online tournament of any serious nature - the technology is really simple and readily available.

On most of these sites you can just register anonymously as many times as you like and enter tournaments whenever you wish - I am trying to create firewalls such as clubs or teams, so that this is not the case. You could also have a payment to join the club.

If someone breaks the code of ethics, I would remove them from the club. No explanation required, no drama, - they can still play chess, just not in the events organised by the club.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'll give a practical example, from my own experience, of why I have little faith in anti-cheating devices based on comparisons with computer recommendations. I'm sure this won't be unique, and in all likelihood others have further examples.

Some years back, in an over-the-board team match, I had several days' notice that I would be playing an English IM. An initial check showed that, with the black pieces, he favoured an opening variation which I also played. One sub-variation, analysed in the [then] latest published work by a leading GM which I double-checked against Rybka, then a pre-eminent chess engine, involved a piece sacrifice on move 13 after which it was essential to find the correct moves. My IM opponent also knew this analysis and the game was drawn by perpetual check on move 27 in fewer than 30 minutes.

If this game had instead been played on the internet, the correlation with computer recommendations would have been close to 100% and the fact that I moved so fast would have been further grounds for suspicion. Only a totally reckless player would have sacrificed on move 13 without either spending some considerable time at the board evaluating the follow-up [another sacrifice] or, alternatively, having outside assistance - which was the case here but, and crucially, before the game began.

I'm no computer expert but, if someone can explain to me in simple terms how Chess.com and others can tell the difference between {a} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she is consulting a computer while playing and {b} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she has consulted a computer before playing then I'd be most interested.

[JustinHorton]

One reason I wrote this piece was to draw attention to very much this kind of problem (albeit not in blitz play).

I'd add that if Chess.com had a meaningful or sincere appeals process, it would be possible to address these problems. As it is, you don't even know what you're being accused of, still less how to answer it.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm no computer expert but, if someone can explain to me in simple terms how Chess.com and others can tell the difference between {a} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she is consulting a computer while playing and {b} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she has consulted a computer before playing then I'd be most interested.

I don't believe they can, other than to attempt to exclude games of "book" theory from the detection analysis. That's unreliable as it depends on the extent and depth of the investigator's "book".

Over the board, it's mostly accepted that you have to detect the cheating mechanism as well. Rausis was caught using the "phone in the loo" approach even if the method of exposure was claimed to be underhand by some. A similar challenge in an Irish tournament resulted in the challenger being sanctioned.

Others like the Bulgarian were suspected but the exact method of engine consultation never pinpointed. Their retirement from tournament chess was however triggered.

[Roger Lancaster]

Turning to Adam's suggestion, I suspect the "on camera" requirement would reduce the number of online players, both honest and otherwise, while the "real name" requirement is a real chicken-and-egg problem. It's something which might help remedy an imperfect system but, unless and until they have faith that the system has already been remedied, many players won't want to risk their reputations by playing under their real names.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm no computer expert but, if someone can explain to me in simple terms how Chess.com and others can tell the difference between {a} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she is consulting a computer while playing and {b} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she has consulted a computer before playing then I'd be most interested.

I don't believe they can, other than to attempt to exclude games of "book" theory from the detection analysis. That's unreliable as it depends on the extent and depth of the investigator's "book".

Over the board, it's mostly accepted that you have to detect the cheating mechanism as well. Rausis was caught using the "phone in the loo" approach even if the method of exposure was claimed to be underhand by some. A similar challenge in an Irish tournament resulted in the challenger being sanctioned.

Others like the Bulgarian were suspected but the exact method of engine consultation never pinpointed. Their retirement from tournament chess was however triggered.

I don't believe they can either because, in addition to the points Roger makes, the investigator's "book" won't - almost by definition - include home-brewed analysis. In the game I mentioned earlier, my computer-assisted preparation covered how best to answer deviations from the "book" moves. In the event, this analysis wasn't needed but - if it had - these moves would likely have registered as "best" and been even more suspect.

[Adam Raoof]

Turning to Adam's suggestion, I suspect the "on camera" requirement would reduce the number of online players, both honest and otherwise, while the "real name" requirement is a real chicken-and-egg problem. It's something which might help remedy an imperfect system but, unless and until they have faith that the system has already been remedied, many players won't want to risk their reputations by playing under their real names.

that's true - but that's also true over the board! I have had players refuse to take part in events when FIDE introduced the one illegal move loses rule, and another who refused to take part in events because I asked him to check his phone in before I would let him play. That's life. Real names are totally necessary - anything else doesn't work, and you can see that in any online tournament taking place right now, whatever the level.

I should add that submitting all games to computer analysis is also a method being used, but that is not perfect as you have pointed out.

I know someone whose account was closed on chess.com for cheating and the reason given was tab switching - I would be worried if anyone could tell if you were switching tabs on your computer in the first place, but even if I give someone permission to analyse collect that information, it is not a sound indicator of cheating. That is one reason I really don't like playing chess online, I am too prone to distraction from ten other things at the same time, whilst simultaneously trying to placate my cat, and not offend my wife by ignoring her.

[Martin Crichton]

Hi Adam,
You have some very good ideas regarding online chess but in terms of replacing otb chess it is years away IMO....I don't use a web camera...the main issue is obviously the cheating.....great idea that people should use their real names

Time limits are the main current issue

I only ever play 5 min chess and sometimes 3min+2 secs....very occasionally 3 min chess , bullet chess is just too fast for me.
I expect there is still some cheating at 5 min chess but very little.....and the faster the time control the less cheating. hence the reason I only ever play 5 min chess.

My user name on chess24 is Crichton (my real name)

and my user name on the new platform that I am mostly using now...lichess.... is MartinCrichton .......(my real name)

easy for anyone to challenge me to some 5 min games now

https://lichess.org/@/MartinCrichton

Regards

Martin

[Richard Bates]

I'll give a practical example, from my own experience, of why I have little faith in anti-cheating devices based on comparisons with computer recommendations. I'm sure this won't be unique, and in all likelihood others have further examples.

Some years back, in an over-the-board team match, I had several days' notice that I would be playing an English IM. An initial check showed that, with the black pieces, he favoured an opening variation which I also played. One sub-variation, analysed in the [then] latest published work by a leading GM which I double-checked against Rybka, then a pre-eminent chess engine, involved a piece sacrifice on move 13 after which it was essential to find the correct moves. My IM opponent also knew this analysis and the game was drawn by perpetual check on move 27 in fewer than 30 minutes.

If this game had instead been played on the internet, the correlation with computer recommendations would have been close to 100% and the fact that I moved so fast would have been further grounds for suspicion. Only a totally reckless player would have sacrificed on move 13 without either spending some considerable time at the board evaluating the follow-up [another sacrifice] or, alternatively, having outside assistance - which was the case here but, and crucially, before the game began.

I'm no computer expert but, if someone can explain to me in simple terms how Chess.com and others can tell the difference between {a} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she is consulting a computer while playing and {b} someone who plays a tactical line because he or she has consulted a computer before playing then I'd be most interested.

It’s not really a direct answer but fundamentally any attempt to detect cheating using circumstantial evidence alone, based on single games is flawed. It can only seriously be attempted based on a pattern evidenced over (at a minimum) several games.

Even relatively weak players will sometimes play nearly faultless games. Even the strongest players will not do so all the time.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Extending Justin's point about theory, I recall a GM analysing a game in BCM or Chess and declaring a move a theoretical novelty. Next issue carried a later from Michael Macdonald-Ross saying that he devoted an entire chapter on the variation in his book published in the early 70s. This was of course before Chessbase, so the young GM didn't know about it...

I'm not sure how chess.com think they will correctly identify people who break their rules, (if indeed they care), but they really need to have a proper appeals procedure.

I once won a CC game which followed a game on Chessbase for more than 50 moves (for some reason, my opponent didn't notice). I kept waiting for the improvement...

I agree with Richard that anyone can play a really good game occasionally.

[Roger Lancaster]

I am too prone to distraction from ten other things at the same time, whilst simultaneously trying to placate my cat, and not offend my wife by ignoring her.

Quite so - by comparison, a chess club is an insulated environment. Whereas I could be playing an online game on-camera, my wife having decided to take a bath. Midway through the game, my 3-year-old falls over and hits his head. While I'm trying to work out how to console a crying toddler, the front door bell rings and I realise it's that important internet delivery. If I go off camera, how does anyone know I'm not doing a Rausis?

[Richard Bates]

The way I see it (outside of casual blitz) online chess has potential in two areas.

1) At a fairly casual level - no prize money involved, playing mainly for enjoyment. Lower standards can be applied because it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of players (given no incentive not to do so) will play fair. I would compare to eg. local leagues, county chess, inter club tournaments etc where cheating is currently possible, but where the likelihood of it happening to any material extent are low enough to not make it worthwhile taking more than cursory measures to prevent it. And meanwhile you can be relaxed about players making the experience more enjoyable by eg. simultaneously watching other games (eg. involving teammates - as is happening routinely in eg. 4ncl)

2) At the very highest level of the professional game where very advanced security level could probably be implemented, paid for out of the enormous savings available from avoiding expense on venues and associated costs in particular.

Other than those two avenues I don’t really see much of a role for online competitive chess (particularly outside of the current situation where the difficulties and problems are played down to some extent because of the lack of alternative)

[NickFaulks]

Well this is interesting

Nothing we hear about chess.com should surprise us, but the note he got from the CA was quite appalling.