Cheating in chess

[Matthew Turner]

Before a GM is banned on chess.com the decision must be signed off by 3 GMs. I would assume that Lichess has a similar procedure in place.

That doesn't give me much comfort. In a medical malpractice case, for instance, the prosecution never has any difficulty in finding expert witnesses to testify for them.

I wasn't intending to give any comfort, just explaining the situation. For what it is worth I think your medical analogy is very apt.

[Matthew Turner]

Really?

Before a GM is banned on chess.com the decision must be signed off by 3 GMs. I would assume that Lichess has a similar procedure in place.

Why should anybody "assume"? Why not say, this is the procedure?

I think you can be very confident that some seriously strongly players have looked through the games

Being "very confident" about something on which we have literally no information? What could possibly go wrong?

If I ran Lichess, I would get some strong players to look through the games before banning a player like Maghsoodloo. If you ran Lichess you would do the same; Intend everyone who has contributed to this thread would do the same. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the jolly clever people at Lichess might do what what any sensible intelligent person would do.

[Mick Norris]

If we do have another solid 12 months of online chess ahead of us still, I wonder if one idea might be to create a series of closed events. Invite players who people feel confident aren’t resorting to engine assistance, and leave the rest to play in other events.

That's effectively what is happening with club championship events I.e. trusting people you know

As soon as you expand the reach of a tournament you have issues

Organising events is hard work, so a big thanks to all who have done so in 2020

[NickFaulks]

Now I'm very impressed by the polynomials and the Aitkin curves not that I've got a clue what they are but what looks to be going on is that games are being put into some sort of "black box" which know one understands except the creator and we simply have to trust the results that come out of it are credible.

My only dispute with this characterisation is that, in my experience, after years of bolting bits onto a program there comes a point when even its creator may lose track of exactly how it works. In one of Ken's papers he speaks of 28,000 lines of C++ code, which professionals in the field tell me is a lot.

[JustinHorton]

If I ran Lichess, I would get some strong players to look through the games before banning a player like Maghsoodloo. If you ran Lichess you would do the same; Intend everyone who has contributed to this thread would do the same. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the jolly clever people at Lichess might do what what any sensible intelligent person would do.

One of these is not like the others

What is "people" going to mean there?

Well I suppose I mean the established larger organisers behind the British Online and 4NCL. Really they must have the best idea of the players who have been in the grey area for a long time. There is effectively a whole raft of players of intermediate strength who have elevated their performances 20-30%+ from what they ever achieved over the board pretty much since the first lockdown in March onwards. Plenty have taken the odd ban here and there, but keep turning up to other events. I suppose in an ideal world it would be nice to have a regular event on the calendar with a crop of players across all sections who aren’t playing that game.

That sounds reasonable enough but how are they going to explain why some players have been invited and other players have not?

[Matthew Turner]

If I ran Lichess, I would get some strong players to look through the games before banning a player like Maghsoodloo. If you ran Lichess you would do the same; Intend everyone who has contributed to this thread would do the same. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the jolly clever people at Lichess would do what what any sensible intelligent person would do.

Is that better?

[JustinHorton]

No, it's worse, because assuming that a person or entity would do something is much much stronger than assuming they might. Would they? Well they might, but they might not. They might not if to do so would cost them money. They might not if they didn't think they needed to. They might not if they normally did but neglected to for some reason on this occasion. They might not for all kinds of reasons.

There's a reason people say "don't assume" and it's because assuming isn't a sound procedure. This much is elementary, surely.

[Roger de Coverly]

My only dispute with this characterisation is that, in my experience, after years of bolting bits onto a program there comes a point when even its creator may lose track of exactly how it works.

A couple of thoughts on this. I believe it still to be the case that the moves recommended by an engine can vary with both the hardware and software set up of the machine it is running on. Also, historically, the designers of engines incorporated a certain amount of randomisation. The idea being that it gave variety to those playing against the engine and also gave some protection if a trap were discovered that would otherwise be repeatable.

If these features are present in the engines used to attempt to detect engine users, isn't that going to mean that the methods may fail a test of being reproducible?

If e-sport chess events are to continue once restrictions on free association of people are lifted, isn't it going to be necessary for big money and high prestige events to be played under conditions of physical supervision?

[NickFaulks]

If e-sport chess events are to continue once restrictions on free association of people are lifted, isn't it going to be necessary for big money and high prestige events to be played under conditions of physical supervision?

I have never been in any any doubt about that.

[Matthew Turner]

If e-sport chess events are to continue once restrictions on free association of people are lifted, isn't it going to be necessary for big money and high prestige events to be played under conditions of physical supervision?

I have never been in any any doubt about that.

So like other E-sports, then? Perhaps Justin will enjoy perusing the rulebook

https://ie-sf.org/governance/regulations

For example

"All of the rules in these Competition Regulations may be changed without prior notice during any events if tournament circumstances change and require such rule changes to be made. All referee decisions are final except where the possibility for a protest is explicitly allowed. The referees may also judge any cases not specifically covered in this rulebook and their authority extends to cover the tournament as a whole in addition to this rulebook. Any changes made shall be in effect from the moment such changes were communicated to the participants."

[JustinHorton]

Your point eludes me

[John McKenna]

The point seems to me to be that the big online platforms operate a captive market - the rules of which are pretty much designed to be appear to be watertight. Who has challenged them in a court of law to date? Who is going to do so in future? The Iranian Chess Federation?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The point seems to me to be that the big online platforms operate a captive market - the rules of which are pretty much designed to be appear to be watertight. Who has challenged them in a court of law to date? Who is going to do so in future? The Iranian Chess Federation?

Nobody much has challenged them yet because there hasn't been much reason to - people generally haven't been running big-money events on the big online platforms; they've reserved that for face-to-face events.

[Ian Thompson]

Nobody much has challenged them yet because there hasn't been much reason to

Whilst I can only speak for myself, I think most players would care if they lost a tournament game to a cheat, particularly if they think they would probably have won without the cheating.

[JustinHorton]

Maghsoodloo says this

Khalifman weighs in

(Translation from Facebook: I can vouch neither for its accuracy nor its content.)



(Apologies for the rather bizarre formatting!)



The example he refers to is this. He does not as far as I can see identify it or supply analysis, and I am afraid I have attempted neither.