4NCL Online

[Richard Bates]

It is open source and is written and supported by volunteers, all the moderation etc is being done by volunteers. So IMO expectations that lichess should be expected to go into great detail about why they ban any one user is unreasonable

Evidently the mechanisms used to decide who to ban are not open source, given that no-one knows how they work.

I believe I've seen a comment that if a flag is set from "rated" to "casual" the witchfinding mechanism is switched off. The 4NCL issued instructions that it be switched on.

Oh, so that's what that random instruction from my captain was for! I haven't actually worked out how to set up a challenge yet, so I think I've had to accept my opponent's challenge in every game so far. I've only played 2 rated games. Needless to say, I don't think my opponents have been setting up the games as casual to avoid the computer scrutiny. Probably either the message hasn't got through, or people just haven't properly worked out how to do it. Or perhaps players do know the reasons, and both players would prefer to play without either being in danger of being falsely accused!

[Richard Bates]

Anyway, on a related note (not knowing how the software works, and not taking the time to find out) my opponent played 1.b4 today and I realised I didn’t know what I played against that. On the other hand, I didn’t know how long I had to think over my first move (the clocks don’t start until both players have made a move). Anyone know the answer? Seems to me a slight flaw in the software - it would be better perhaps if both players had a (prominently placed) button to press that said “START”?

[JustinHorton]

When I play on the app it says 30 seconds, though I don't know if that varies with time limits.

[Richard Bates]

However, if a UK body uses those providers' info, surely that body could also be considered of making a statement that was capable of being defamatory?

All of the matches of Tim Wall's team have been scored as 4-0 to the opposition. Without knowing the timing, that may have been in response to the withdrawal, rather than the lichess accusation against one of the players in his squads.

It could be pointed out (for those who are interested in the league from a competitive viewpoint, rather than just as a way to play some “proper” chess whilst confined to our houses) that this “solution” of awarded blanket 4-0 scores isn’t actually a neutralising solution at all. Given that the league is not structured as a pure all play all and 3 of the “beneficiaries” are in different sections.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Anyway, on a related note (not knowing how the software works, and not taking the time to find out) my opponent played 1.b4 today and I realised I didn’t know what I played against that. On the other hand, I didn’t know how long I had to think over my first move (the clocks don’t start until both players have made a move). Anyone know the answer? Seems to me a slight flaw in the software - it would be better perhaps if both players had a (prominently placed) button to press that said “START”?

I played this against you three times in the 1990s!

When we were young ....

anyway, to challenge, you go to the magnifying glass (search function) and key in the opponent's user name. Then you click on the fencing shields, and it is pretty much all there waiting for you from then onwards.

[Richard Bates]

Anyway, on a related note (not knowing how the software works, and not taking the time to find out) my opponent played 1.b4 today and I realised I didn’t know what I played against that. On the other hand, I didn’t know how long I had to think over my first move (the clocks don’t start until both players have made a move). Anyone know the answer? Seems to me a slight flaw in the software - it would be better perhaps if both players had a (prominently placed) button to press that said “START”?

I played this against you three times in the 1990s!

When we were young ....

And from memory I didn’t have much of a clue what I did against it back then either!

[John McKenna]

when I think my opponent is using an engine the lichess software agrees with with me.

How do you know that?

As so far 100% of the times (approx 7 or 8 times) I have reported someone for suspected cheating lichess has then banned them for engine use.

That sounds suspicious - please say when you get a failed denunciation or when you find someone you suspect gets banned before you report them.

[Jon Tait]

However, what makes this different from any normal league or tournament game? I mean, that possibility is present in every game we play, whether online or not. I can think of several players who have been removed from tournaments and leagues for using assistance, but it doesn't mean that I don't play chess any more.

Except that it takes rather more trouble to check an engine in OTB chess. Personally, I've never had cause to suspect anyone of doing so in league or tournament games. I suppose opponents might wonder about me, seeing as I get up from the board and leave the room quite a lot. But the only computery thing I have is a PC at home (no laptop, no mobile phone, etc), so it would be rather difficult for me to check that

[Roger Lancaster]

"It's a common phenomenon that the dissatisfied shout louder than the satisfied. Just to check that there isn't a silent majority here, may I ask whether there is anyone on this forum who has total confidence in the anti-cheating mechanisms of Chess.com and Lichess? If there is, and they are fearful of getting abuse if they say so publicly, they are welcome to PM me and I'll undertake to give them [4NCL management board members excepted] total anonymity. I'll report back on the number of messages, omitting names, in a day or two".

I posted the above at 3.39 yesterday afternoon. By way of interim report, I've received two PMs. One, from a gentleman who rarely posts on this forum, indicated lack of total confidence in Chess.com or Lichess, mainly due to lack of transparency. The other, from a regular poster here, didn't express a clear view about the two platforms but indicated his total confidence in the integrity of any actions taken as a result of 4NCL's own investigations. [For what it's worth, my question related only to the platforms because I, too, would differentiate between them and 4NCL].

So far, no-one has come forward to express total confidence in the platforms. However, this survey is unscientific in the extreme and, moreover, there's plenty of time for their defenders to show up - and, indeed, I urge them to do so. I'll post again once a little more time has elapsed.

[Roger de Coverly]

[For what it's worth, my question related only to the platforms because I, too, would differentiate between them and 4NCL].

The 4NCL are complicit in setting up a competition where one of England's top 100 players can on the face of it be banned for doing no more than demonstrating why he's in the top 100.

They boast about their anti-cheating measures on the 4NCL site.

As you know, the 4NCL conducts a number of fair play checks on 4NCL Online and Junior 4NCL Online. Anyone who is deemed to be using computer assistance by Lichess or the 4NCL is added to a “barred list”, and not allowed to play in either competition.

etc.

[Joey Stewart]

Just to check that there isn't a silent majority here, may I ask whether there is anyone on this forum who has total confidence in the anti-cheating mechanisms of Chess.com and Lichess?

Lichess i have no confidence whatsoever - I play their mini blitz tournaments a lot and you frequently see players winning 100% of their games while halving their time but none of them ever get banned, plus the obnoxious things that get posted in the chat there and go unpunished just further my suspicion that the admins are either overwhelmed and can't cope or just given up caring. Shame really cause it is the best interface of any chess site I have ever played on.

Chess.com seem to ban cheaters a little more often but they too seem very lax, I'm always reporting people on there and only a small percentage get punished.

[Roger Lancaster]

[For what it's worth, my question related only to the platforms because I, too, would differentiate between them and 4NCL].

The 4NCL are complicit in setting up a competition where one of England's top 100 players can on the face of it be banned for doing no more than demonstrating why he's in the top 100.

They boast about their anti-cheating measures on the 4NCL site.

As you know, the 4NCL conducts a number of fair play checks on 4NCL Online and Junior 4NCL Online. Anyone who is deemed to be using computer assistance by Lichess or the 4NCL is added to a “barred list”, and not allowed to play in either competition.

etc.

As far as I am aware, players can be banned/suspended either [1] as a result of falling foul of the Lichess/Chess.com mechanisms or [2] as a result of independent action by the 4NCL which might for example follow from Ken Regan's findings. Some people including myself would differentiate, others including RDC evidently wouldn't. Each, in my view, is a tenable position. But, to avoid conflating what some would regard as different issues, my question addresses only the first.

[Roger de Coverly]

Some people including myself would differentiate, others including RDC evidently wouldn't. Each, in my view, is a tenable position. But, to avoid conflating what some would regard as different issues, my question addresses only the first.

It's the 4NCL who don't differentiate. They've surrendered control of the issue to lichess.

[Joseph Conlon]

As so far 100% of the times (approx 7 or 8 times) I have reported someone for suspected cheating lichess has then banned them for engine use.

That sounds suspicious - please say when you get a failed denunciation or when you find someone you suspect gets banned before you report them.

Why? Some cheating is really obvious in a way that everything correlates. To illustrate one example: there was a user with a rapid rating around 2400 on lichess, which I think would correspond to roughly 210 - 230 ECF, who was at the same time asking on the forums what was the best response to 1. d4. From context it was clear he had no idea of standard openings, but in games he was playing a variety of response to 1. d4 at IM+ level.

Certainly there are times when a game has seemed a bit suspicious, but not enough to report, and later on I have noticed that the user was banned.

[Joseph Conlon]

I posted the above at 3.39 yesterday afternoon. By way of interim report, I've received two PMs. One, from a gentleman who rarely posts on this forum, indicated lack of total confidence in Chess.com or Lichess, mainly due to lack of transparency. The other, from a regular poster here, didn't express a clear view about the two platforms but indicated his total confidence in the integrity of any actions taken as a result of 4NCL's own investigations. [For what it's worth, my question related only to the platforms because I, too, would differentiate between them and 4NCL].

So far, no-one has come forward to express total confidence in the platforms. However, this survey is unscientific in the extreme and, moreover, there's plenty of time for their defenders to show up - and, indeed, I urge them to do so. I'll post again once a little more time has elapsed.

Given lichess don't express *total* confidence in themselves I don't see why anyone else should; to quote lichess.org

"False positives do happen sometimes, and we're sorry about that.
If your appeal is legitimate, we will lift the ban ASAP.

However if you indeed used engine assistance, even just once, then your account is unfortunately lost.
Do not deny having cheated. If you want to be allowed to create a new account, just admit to what you did, and show that you understood that it was a mistake."

I have confidence in lichess's measures in the same way I have confidence in e.g. the courts and judiciary, and many other institutions: that they are doing the right things for the right reasons, which doesn't mean that they will always be correct.

Whether this is enough for external organisations is for that organisation to decide; personally I would not have thought a player/arbiter should face consequences for OTB chess for e.g. an engine use mark from an online chess site.