Cheating in chess

[Robin Nandi]

I mentioned this before but on lichess, if you lose to somebody who is later disqualified, you only get back a proportion of the points you lost to them, so this gambit may not succeed in all arenas

Does anyone care about lichess rating points anyway? If so, why?

I do. Because I'm trying to improve my chess and it is the measure I use to objectively tell whether or not I am improving. I could do the same with my FIDE rating, but I haven't played any FIDE rated games in months. I mean I don't obsess over it, but I care as much about my lichess rating as I do about my FIDE rating.

I don't see evidence of my opponents cheating in lichess games (but then maybe I wouldn't be able to detect it). I only once had rating points returned because one of my opponents was detected as cheating. Perhaps the anonymity removes some of the motivation for cheating.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps the anonymity removes some of the motivation for cheating.

If you are using their automated pairing system, you will get opponents within range of your own rating. At levels below those of titled players, anyone seeking external assistance and still having a "low" rating isn't very good at it. If they were and they hadn't been detected, their rating would disappear off into GM territory. That's making the assumption that "lots" of games had been played using the rating system, not always the case for the new official events.

There's proven and unproven stories about players cheating in local league chess, so team chess may be a common factor. It's easier to hide out performance in team matches than Swiss tournaments for individuals, where out performance stands out, not least because it's part of the chess-results software to display it.

[John Upham]

Perhaps the anonymity removes some of the motivation for cheating.

There's proven and unproven stories about players cheating in local league chess, so team chess may be a common factor. It's easier to hide out performance in team matches than Swiss tournaments for individuals, where out performance stands out, not least because it's part of the chess-results software to display it.

May we hear of the proven ones Roger?

Any from the Berkshire League?

[J T Melsom]

Any cases in Bucks?

[Roger de Coverly]

May we hear of the proven ones Roger?

Some London or Middlesex League players would know a name having participated in a game collection exercise. I do not know the name, but Adam Raoof has noted on this forum that the player was eventually caught in possession and use of a phone. I don't recall whether or not it was at one of his Congresses.

I am not aware of any causes for concern in either the Bucks or Berks Leagues or the Chiltern county competition.

[J T Melsom]

So only a single case that you know of. I don't think chess administrators should be complacent about the extent of cheating, but your original post suggested something far more widespread than is supported by the evidence. I'd rather not indulge in some sort of project fear.

[John Upham]

May we hear of the proven ones Roger?

a game collection exercise.

Forgive me for being thick but what do you mean by this and in what way is it considered to be cheating ?

[David Sedgwick]

May we hear of the proven ones Roger?

a game collection exercise.

Forgive me for being thick but what do you mean by this and in what way is it considered to be cheating ?

A "game collection exercise" is where the opponents of a player under suspicion in a local league are asked to supply the game scores, which would not normally be available otherwise.

When all or most have been collected and turned into PGNs, they can be submitted for ananlysis on the FIDE Game Screening Tool (or nowadays on pgnspy).

[Roger de Coverly]

So only a single case that you know of.

Also the unproven one.

[Roger de Coverly]

When all or most have been collected and turned into PGNs, they can be submitted for ananlysis on the FIDE Game Screening Tool (or nowadays on pgnspy).

If I understand what happened, doubts were raised, perhaps because of demeanour at the board or not at the board coupled with exceptional results. The Regan/pgnspy approach would have been used to establish whether there was cause for doubt

[J T Melsom]

But a single case in each category? Hardly evidence thus far of a serious problem, given the number of games played each year. I think a sense of perspective is important as although problems would seem to be widespread on-line I don't think fear of opponents cheating should deter people from participating over the board.

[Roger de Coverly]

But a single case in each category? Hardly evidence thus far of a serious problem, given the number of games played each year.

I don't disagree, but the idea that because there isn't any prize money in league play, that no-one would bother appears false. The long standing ban on use of mobile phones during play helps by removing temptation.

[David Clayton]

Official events still probably have the best chances for an honest competition. I have high hopes for the next 4NCL Online Congress! You have to get your long plays from somewhere.

Plus closed events offer the best chances for an honest competition as well, especially those events that will screen pgn files part way through the tournament.

I also think local league and clubs events offer good chances for an honest competition.

[NickFaulks]

I don't disagree, but the idea that because there isn't any prize money in league play, that no-one would bother appears false.

I queried why one of these players, shortly afterwards caught red-handed, had bothered to cheat in a league game against me. It was pointed out that cheating at chess, like any other skill, requires practice.

[Nick Grey]

ECF to take disciplinary action rep ENG and own competitions.