Cheating in chess

[Roger de Coverly]

All because everyone gets incredibly suspicious whenever someone has a "perfect" game.

There are some large numbers involved. If it's asserted that there's a one in a million chance that a player of a lower standard matches an engine's choice purely by chance, then if a million games are played a day, it's an everyday occurence.

[Wadih Khoury]

All because everyone gets incredibly suspicious whenever someone has a "perfect" game.

There are some large numbers involved. If it's asserted that there's a one in a million chance that a player of a lower standard matches an engine's choice purely by chance, then if a million games are played a day, it's an everyday occurence.

It's more than that. If let's say players go in a French exchange and swap most of the pieces, broadly as long as they don't make a blunder, it will end up with near zero inaccuracies (according to lichess) on both sides.

[Joey Stewart]

I wouldn't worry about being unfairly banned by lichess, or even banned at all, I report players for cheating on a daily basis and not seen a single one of them removed from the site in well over a year now. Pretty sure lichess has simply given up on moderating any of their player behaviour now, apart from any cheating accusations which are always instantly punished without question.

[Roger Lancaster]

All because everyone gets incredibly suspicious whenever someone has a "perfect" game.

There are some large numbers involved. If it's asserted that there's a one in a million chance that a player of a lower standard matches an engine's choice purely by chance, then if a million games are played a day, it's an everyday occurence.

It's more than that. If let's say players go in a French exchange and swap most of the pieces, broadly as long as they don't make a blunder, it will end up with near zero inaccuracies (according to lichess) on both sides.

Even more common, I think, is the scenario where a player makes a blunder in a 'book' position (so both players can be assumed to have played perfectly up to that point) after which either he resigns or there's a straight mate in N moves or something very similar. The winner is then adjudged to have played perfectly - which, of course, he has. That verdict says nothing about whether, in doing so, he cheated.

[Paul McKeown]

I report players for cheating on a daily basis and not seen a single one of them removed from the site in well over a year now.

I would suggest that that says more about the accuracy with which you believe opponents to have cheated than lichess's zeal in banning cheats.

[Geoff Chandler]

If it's asserted that there's a one in a million chance that a player of a lower standard matches an engine's choice purely by chance...

Hi Roger,

The Infinite Chess Playing Monkey Theorem. If the monkey could play one chess move every nanosecond on Lichess for a weekend it could reproduce all the games of Bobby Fischer - then the monkey gets banned.

[Joey Stewart]

I report players for cheating on a daily basis and not seen a single one of them removed from the site in well over a year now.

I would suggest that that says more about the accuracy with which you believe opponents to have cheated than lichess's zeal in banning cheats.

I know a cheat when I see one, on chess.com I actually report less cheats and have far greater success in getting them banned so it is just a lichess thing - if you ever look at leagues or team tournaments there you'll see rampant cheating at the top (mainly Russian) with teams composed of random untitled 2700+ players consistently winning and not being banned for pretty obvious engine use.

[NickFaulks]

so it is just a lichess thing

Or just a chess.com thing. They do seem to like banning people.

[Paul McKeown]

so it is just a lichess thing

Or just a chess.com thing. They do seem to like banning people.

Quite. lichess is not for profit. chess.com is for profit, and perhaps commercial pressures drive it to market itself in inappropriate ways, perhaps including the lash of the whip, even when no sin has been committed.

As Roger points out, with a million games a day, million to one sequences of fantasticly good play and winning streaks against the rating odds are a daily occurence.

And there is now a continuous backround drone from statistical numpties from the world elite down to the Scholar's Mate quarter wits that they only ever lose because their opponents are dishonest. I am sure we can all now name players who have never lost to an honest player.

When Nate Solon wrote that he was relieved to have lost horribly to Kramnik, just so that no one could have accused him of cheating, it struck a chord. I have occasionally felt like that, and I know many other chess players who have privately said the same, usually with testimony along the lines of, "I beat FMs t, u and v, IMs w and x, GM y, then I was playing super GM z and got a great position. I was so happy, when I eventually utterly f**ked up a winning position, just so the witch hunters wouldn't have me burnt at the stake."

As an arbiter, I am very much alive to cheating and from time to time, I do see it. Nevertheless, what days we live in...

[Joey Stewart]

You are right about how it can be worrying of the consequences of getting a good result against titled players now - I got a draw with a grand master the other day and the game almost immediately got checked for an engine match up as it was very close to being a win. I find the same with streamers, when you beat them you will find your game gets instantly sent to analysis by them or their fans because no one could possibly beat the almighty agamator or whoever it happens to be. Fortunately, because I am not cheating, I don't really fear the result of the scrutiny but it does highlight how suspicious people are.

N.B. when I report people it's generally because I get creamed from the opening right up to the move 20-25 mating attack with extremely high engine match up and generally wierd novelty tactics that are unstoppable and inhuman looking, the type that would require actual thought to come up with and would simply not be found in 3 min blitz without assistance.

[Ian Thompson]

There's a report here of alleged cheating at an American junior tournament, for, I think, 10 year-old's.

There's not much to say about the cheating accusation itself - higher rated player loses to lower rated player and accuses them of getting advice during the game without any evidence to prove it. Higher rated player then refuses to accept his trophy at the prize giving and again accuses the winner of cheating.

The notable part of the article is that it says that the father of the loser turned up at the tournament with a metal detector and demanded that the TD use it to scan players. After this demand was refused it says the father used the metal detector to scan opponents himself. If that's true my first thought is why didn't the tournament officials stop him? If the father was in a public area of the venue, such as a corridor outside the playing room, they probably couldn't. They'd have needed the venue staff to do something, such as requiring the father to leave the venue, which would most likely have meant his son would have to leave as well. What should the tournament officials have done if they saw this?

[NickFaulks]

There's a report here of alleged cheating at an American junior tournament, for, I think, 10 year-old's.

Mostly, you just feel sorry for the kid whose father is a total jerk.

[Joey Stewart]

They posted the game itself in that article and it didn't look especially computery to me - pretty standard boring 'nick a pawn and grind out an endgame win' method so nothing suspect about the play itself and I think the accusation was more that he went to the toilet too often and was caught speaking to others (though it didn't say if it was about the position itself).

What would be the standard procedure to deal with the father's antics here? Grumble under your breath but know nothing would be done since we are too polite to want to deal with crazies and risk making a scene (and we have a strong aversion to naming and shaming even those who are guilty beyond all doubt).
What to do in America? I'm going to go out on limb and say sue them for all they are worth.

[Chris Rice]

OK here's a streamed tournament game on Lichess where the experienced player was certain from the start the opponent was a cheat and got him banned during the game.

[Geoff Chandler]

I've looked at some of these steamed games before. Some players have it set so you click on a piece and it shows all the legal moves available, some also have any threats to capture a piece or pawn highlighted.
Obviously you do not get this help in a game. This will be a reason why lower rated OTB players seem to play better online, no daft blunders. I play with everything switched off. (no computer generated hints of any kind.) I might use this feature as I'm getting very clumsy in my dotage but is it not a form of cheating?

The machine is telling you where a piece can move thus giving you an idea you might not of thought off. And telling you something is being threatened, something you may have missed is taking outside help during a game.