Cheating in chess

[Martin Benjamin]

The amount of cheating on chess.com is becoming comical. I have been awarded between 4 and 16 points on nine separate occasions in the last fortnight alone because "recent opponents have violated our Fair Play policy", and my rating has descended from 2100 in April to about 1700 now (not that I care, just an indication of the shed load of blitz games I lose on the site to much lower rated opponents). I have lost several games to near beginners because of disconnections and mouse slips, and I have been playing too much when too fatigued, and my play is undoubtedly getting worse with age (I only play blitz online), but there have been games where opponents rated in the 1200 - 1400 range have played the "best" move (according to the chess.com computer) over 95% of the time in blitz games, which seems unlikely to me without computer assistance.

I wonder what satisfaction they gain.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Martin,

Lock down has obviously turned a lot of none OTB players to chess
and phone chess apps are just too tempting not to use by this gamer breed.

There is no satisfaction in it to an OTB player (or there shouldn't be)
but to a newbie it is probably a good laugh.

I can relate to that. What better way to pass a locked in evening when you are bored
out your skull than as a non-player to beat up chess nerds with an I-phone app.

You get banned, big deal, sign up again, have a competition with your
'Command and Conquer' friends who can get banned the most.....sounds like fun.

This new bunch of dolts will disappear when we all get the anti-covid injection and things return to normal.

(though thanks to the injection normal will be we have to stay out of direct sunlight as the side effects have not been
tested in Summer and we will burn up like Christopher Lee did at the end of those Hammer vampire films....probably.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"(though thanks to the injection normal will be we have to stay out of direct sunlight as the side effects have not been
tested in Summer and we will burn up like Christopher Lee did at the end of those Hammer vampire films....probably.)"

Happily, I have seen that listed even as a very rare side-effect of pharmaceuticals. It might be worth monitoring the internet to see how long it is before someone states it as fact.

[John McKenna]

Confirmation by a professional of Martin B's post above -

... The online tournaments I was playing in were sometimes fun, but mostly disappointing, as I encountered quite some cheating. I remember losing a game against a girl who had a 1700-rating in classical chess, but who always followed the first or second suggestion of the engines. The most disgusting aspect of this was and is the fact that there were so many similar cases, and that the online chess portals just seem to be unable to take action against them...

https://en.chessbase.com/post/irina-bul ... e-pandemic

The old 'dolts' and young 'colts' were already online long before they were joined by the locked down over-the-board players with a penchant to cheat.

If/when the vaccine(s) take effect enough to tame the current pandemic and allow face-to-face and hand-to-hand chess to resume the online 'dolts' and 'colts' who come out into the light of day will be the ones in danger of being burnt at the stake.

[Roger de Coverly]

but there have been games where opponents rated in the 1200 - 1400 range have played the "best" move (according to the chess.com computer) over 95% of the time in blitz games, which seems unlikely to me without computer assistance.

The other side of that is that they either don't use an engine very often or aren't very good at using it. If they used it successfully their ratings would be 2400 +. if undetected. But doesn't chess.com ignore external ratings and start everyone off at the same arbitrary figure ?

You do get people who clearly aren't using external assistance. This is a remarkably quick game casual on lichess.

1.e4 Nh6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. Nf3 f5 6. Ne5 Na6 7. Bxh6 gxh6 8. Qh5

[Tim Spanton]

but there have been games where opponents rated in the 1200 - 1400 range have played the "best" move (according to the chess.com computer) over 95% of the time in blitz games, which seems unlikely to me without computer assistance.

The other side of that is that they either don't use an engine very often or aren't very good at using it. If they used it successfully their ratings would be 2400 +. if undetected. But doesn't chess.com ignore external ratings and start everyone off at the same arbitrary figure ?

You do get people who clearly aren't using external assistance. This is a remarkably quick game casual on lichess.

1.e4 Nh6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qd8 5. Nf3 f5 6. Ne5 Na6 7. Bxh6 gxh6 8. Qh5

Arguably, the remarkable thing is that Black lasted eight moves (or, rather, seven moves).

[Matt Bridgeman]

Possibly the only decent idea of Trump's presidency - The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act.

Obviously not directly chess related, but it uniquely appears to criminalize cheating in sport for the first time, beyond the direct supply of illegal drugs, (and I suppose match fixing). Potential for criminal prosecutions of coaches, agents and officials involved in doping. Upto 10 years in prison and/or up to 1 million dollar fine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/55199736

[JustinHorton]

Now this is an odd one.

I aborted a game against this user earlier today because I wasn't entirely confident they were on the level, and on checking up on them just now I wasn't surprised to see their account is marked "this player uses chess conputer assistance" (on the app) and "this account violated the Lichess Terms of Service" (on the website).

But when I looked at the account, they seem to have won four games, lost two and have been on the middle of another when they were interrupted. Well, I say interrupted, that
game seems to be continuing and the opponent's account has precusely the same markings. So what's going on?

(Also, our player's record says six Rapid wins and two losses, and one Blitz win. But as I say, I can detect the scores of only six completed games.)

[JustinHorton]

[Matthew Turner]

Justin,
I think the idea that you could just ban a player for cheating, but it is a more effective deterrent to mark their account and then just continually pair them against other cheaters.

[JustinHorton]

Sure, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of a premature marking?

[Roger de Coverly]

Sure, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of a premature marking?

Aren't lichess a bit notorious for being quick off the mark? The mathematics of coincidence does require a reasonable amount of independent evidence.

Strong players select good moves. Engines select good moves. It doesn't infer that there is collusion with limited evidence.

A ban that can caused an early team withdrawal in the first 4NCL online competition seemed based on very few games.

[Thomas Rendle]

Sure, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of a premature marking?

Aren't lichess a bit notorious for being quick off the mark? The mathematics of coincidence does require a reasonable amount of independent evidence.

Strong players select good moves. Engines select good moves. It doesn't infer that there is collusion with limited evidence.

A ban that can caused an early team withdrawal in the first 4NCL online competition seemed based on very few games.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways of getting banned very quickly. For example using an engine and switching between the engine tab/window and the game. Also if you automate it so you play the engine top move every 1.0 seconds you'll be banned after only a game of two. I suspect there are other ways it can happen too.

Isn't it time we give Lichess at least some credit they know what they're doing? Yes there will be false positives but we have seen they can be successfully appealed.

I'm aware of at least one case of online cheating (in tournament play) where the primary evidence is not just the moves played in the game.

[JustinHorton]

Isn't it time we give Lichess at least some credit they know what they're doing?

What does this actually mean though?

[Thomas Rendle]

It means they're doing their best to balance anti-cheating with not accusing everyone who plays good chess. Titled players create news accounts all the time that don't get flagged up for cheating. You don't get an account marked for just making good moves.

This doesn't mean there can't be a conversation about false positives, why they occur and can what steps be taken to avoid or minimalise them.

I see no reason or evidence to think they are banning/marking accounts just because they play one or two good games.