4NCL Online

[JustinHorton]

Also you guys have not talked about the other solution which is to reduce the stigma of being banned from online sites.

Maybe, and the thought had occurred to me, but how in practice would you do that?

[Alex McFarlane]

Unfortunately I was unable to join tonight's webinar about on-line chess.

There are two points I would have liked to have had clarified which I think are relevant to this thread and recent posts on it.

The stigma attached could be reduced if sites actually said that there was an error factor in their banning procedures instead of claiming that they are infallible.

The appeal process is virtually impossible. How do you appeal a suspension when you do not know exactly why you were suspended. I'm not saying that their security measures should be exposed but even something like "We detected suspicious activity during games ..." or "The quality of chess played in games ... triggered suspicions." At least then the accused (convicted) might have some idea of what they were contesting. At the very least, it would focus the discussion.

[John Swain]

Unfortunately I was unable to join tonight's webinar about on-line chess.

There are two points I would have liked to have had clarified which I think are relevant to this thread and recent posts on it.

The stigma attached could be reduced if sites actually said that there was an error factor in their banning procedures instead of claiming that they are infallible.

The appeal process is virtually impossible. How do you appeal a suspension when you do not know exactly why you were suspended. I'm not saying that their security measures should be exposed but even something like "We detected suspicious activity during games ..." or "The quality of chess played in games ... triggered suspicions." At least then the accused (convicted) might have some idea of what they were contesting. At the very least, it would focus the discussion.

Wise words!

A suggestion. If the platform's anti-cheating software raises suspicions, this should be merely Step 1 of the process (rather than the end of it, with the potentially innocent player responsible for launching their own appeal). Step 2 should be for the organisation using the platform to perform its own test with its own anti-cheating software (probably different from the platform's). The organisation, rather than the platform, should then shoulder responsibility for banning the player and also overseeing Step 3: any subsequent appeal.

[John McKenna]

"I wonder if we can have something similar to expert witnesses- where the secret detection methods aren't revealed, but evidence can still be used"

Er, no. Expert witnesses can expect a good grilling from a slippery barrister on minute detail of analysis.

What Li Wu really should have said is -

I wonder if we can have something similar to agents of the secret security services - where their secret detection methods aren't revealed, but selective evidence they clandestinely gather can still be used.

(No offence Li, you are good with the nuts & bolts technicalities but gloss over the legalities.

[NickFaulks]

Unfortunately I was unable to join tonight's webinar about on-line chess.

I'm sure your two hours were better spent.

[Matthew Turner]

I agree with Nick

[Joseph Conlon]

A suggestion. If the platform's anti-cheating software raises suspicions, this should be merely Step 1 of the process (rather than the end of it, with the potentially innocent player responsible for launching their own appeal). Step 2 should be for the organisation using the platform to perform its own test with its own anti-cheating software (probably different from the platform's). The organisation, rather than the platform, should then shoulder responsibility for banning the player and also overseeing Step 3: any subsequent appeal.

One disadvantage here is that this is rather slow, and other users of the platform will be pleased that someone who is clearly cheating banned sooner rather later.

As an example within the last few weeks where I (as a spectating parent) witnessed lichess's anti-cheating measures work very well in essentially real time. It was an online UK junior team event involving several junior teams. Within this period, one player started using an engine, one of his opponents suspected him, reported him to lichess, he was banned and got the computer flag, the results of the individual games were reversed (affecting the tournament standings), and the player concerned had admitted to the cheating within the tournament chat. To me this is anti-cheating working well, where blatant engine use (and this case was obvious) is picked up extremely quickly allowing results to be modified before the end of a tournament.

The speed of this process suggested some level of automation (or very efficient mods!): that following a report of alleged engine use, if the computer analysis of the games is sufficiently (5 sigma? 10 sigma?) away from 'typical', then the ban is automatically triggered (although this is speculation).

[John McKenna]

I do not think that the above is a particularly good example.

Again, as in a previous example you gave, the process begins with a (probably unnamed) player making an accusation and the rest just follows...

Too many details are not supplied in the narrative of your example, above. A proper timeline of events would be helpful for a start. Were any other players accused, suspected by yourself (or anyone else) or by the platform's s/w? (Sorry, I withdraw the question you probably do not wish to divulge any of that kind of detailed info.)

It's like catching a juvenile shoplifter and getting a quick confession, in-store, then saying this is the way to fight crime. The mature cat burglars and other hardened habitual criminals will just laugh, and the innocents caught up in such a simplistic system will just have to cry foul.

You wrote that John S's procedure would be too slow but it seems to me the ones you describe above and elsewhere are too fast.

[Pete Heaven]

"It's like catching a juvenile shoplifter and getting a quick confession, in-store, then saying this is the way to fight crime. The mature cat burglars and other hardened habitual criminals will just laugh, and the innocents caught up in such a simplistic system will just have to cry foul."

I'm trying to avoid too much involvement in these threads as they are going to rumble on for a long time across various discussions. However, John's comment above is so clearly on the mark, I thought it worth mentioning that, with my zero per cent success when reporting engine users in the online 4NCL, the shoplifting analogy seems, to me, to be where the 4NCL finds itself at the moment.

[NickFaulks]

with my zero per cent success when reporting engine users in the online 4NCL

What does that mean? Did they not reply?

[Pete Heaven]

They replied on one case, Nick, with words to the effect that it fell well short of the level required. I had supplied a pgn with some analysis on this person and mentioned 3 other names. This was about 3 weeks ago and the number of games available for each at that time was very low. However, all these names remain on my list of suspicious players, all remain unbeaten except against other people who were already on this list of dodgy players which now numbers about 20. Not that I'm looking as I know I don't have time these days to analyse games properly for more than the occasional person. However, I've done enough analysis on 3 people that I had guessed before the event started might do well online, to know how difficult a job the 4NCL has in seeing the wood for the trees. These 3 people have +16 =5 -0 through Round 8. I should do the lottery.

[Ian Thompson]

However, all these names remain on my list of suspicious players, all remain unbeaten except against other people who were already on this list of dodgy players which now numbers about 20.

It would be interesting to know whether your list of dodgy players includes the regular 4NCL Online player who was banned from chess.com last week, or whether any of them have played on and been banned by sites other than lichess.

[Pete Heaven]

I don't know the answer to that, Ian, as I don't know who he/she is but if it's a 4NCL Div 1 player, the answer's no. Only one of my 20 has been banned from lichess to date, as far as I'm aware, which may underscore the lack of due diligence I've done or emphasise the difficulty in catching players in long-play games...or, probably, both.

[MartinCarpenter]

It's like catching a juvenile shoplifter and getting a quick confession, in-store, then saying this is the way to fight crime. The mature cat burglars and other hardened habitual criminals will just laugh, and the innocents caught up in such a simplistic system will just have to cry foul.

This really depends on what you're trying to do with the anti cheating.

If you have lots of people casually cheating on your server, and you want/need to actively deter it then you need the ability to catch cheats like this quickly. In doing that you will inevitably incur quite a high false positive rate.

That would be an utterly fine decision to take, but the services really should admit it to it.

Also, if we're trying to catch hardened, thoughtful cheats when they've got absolute control over their playing environment? Good luck! Incredibly hard. The move statistics will eventually nail them if they simply copy engine moves, some more subtle things would need huge samples.

The form of cheating that I'd actually expect to have been most prevalent in the 4NCL online would have been people looking up opening stuff.

[Roger de Coverly]

The form of cheating that I'd actually expect to have been most prevalent in the 4NCL online would have been people looking up opening stuff.

If they do it the old fashioned way using a book, a computer cannot tell the difference between that and simple memory. You would need video surveillance by either or both the arbiter or opponent.