lichess.org on cheating

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on cheating.

To ensure a healthy competition, we know how important it is to fight all forms of cheating. Every day, lichess moderators and automated algorithms are kicking 50 bad players out. It's really working beautifully, and lichess may very well be the most secure site to play on!

But because some people will always try to find new ways t ...[text shortened]... ell you it's a wonderful piece of code, and I feel very sorry for the engine users out there. 🙂

Is that your writing or are you reporting on the situation? I would love to see some kind of code like that to spot engine users here. I would love to see most of the asssholes on page one disappear. With some obvious exceptions.

For one thing, all you have to do is look at their profile game chart, the cheaters are inevitably a chart with a flat top.

Players who play humans honestly will have a distinct up and down pattern, like mine, for instance, like jagged peaks where you win some great games, then lose to a 1200 player then win a few in a row then lose to someone strong but always a jagged peaky profile.

You see those flattops you can pretty well guess they are engine users.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Is that your writing or are you reporting on the situation? I would love to see some kind of code like that to spot engine users here. I would love to see most of the asssholes on page one disappear. With some obvious exceptions.

For one thing, all you have to do is look at their profile game chart, the cheaters are inevitably a chart with a flat top.
...[text shortened]... jagged peaky profile.

You see those flattops you can pretty well guess they are engine users.

Just reporting :-D

Originally posted by sonhouse
Is that your writing or are you reporting on the situation? I would love to see some kind of code like that to spot engine users here. I would love to see most of the asssholes on page one disappear. With some obvious exceptions.

For one thing, all you have to do is look at their profile game chart, the cheaters are inevitably a chart with a flat top.
...[text shortened]... jagged peaky profile.

You see those flattops you can pretty well guess they are engine users.

I've got an in progress game where I was ahead, but now think that I'm in danger of losing. The reason for this is that I tried to win when, despite a pawn advantage, I probably couldn't. Unfortunately it's in progress so I can't discuss it further. Stronger players don't do that, so they get many more draws. This tends to flatten their graph. This is also why engine players have flat graphs, the engine knows there's not a win and doesn't try for one.

Having said that I took a look at some ratings graphs of strong players (>2,100) I trust not to cheat for various reasons and some players who I've heard accusations about. The strong, genuine, players do have more jaggedy ratings graphs. The engines are much more flat - remember IronMan31 - you could have gone ice skating on his rating graph.

While I think it's grounds for suspicion, I wouldn't base public accusations against any particular player on it. The only real standard is looking at their rate of engine matches.

Originally posted by Rookpawn59
Well, there's a couple ways to go here. First, you can rant and rave and send nasty notes the other player. Feels good but does nothing to solve the problem and does little good.
My approach is a bit more constructive. I try to keep my openings in a narrow tree and do my best to learn the theory, ideas and plans. I use to keep all this on index cards. ...[text shortened]... be he just got insightful! Use it as a training experience and go from there. Best regards, Tim

That's give me the idea that computers are very helpful for chess players. For example without computers a place like RHP or lichess.org are impossible.
-
I think that a chess engine could helpme a lot to improve my chess skills, I found a page with many of them: http://en.chessok.net/download-chess-engines.html
-
I don't plan to use to play my RHP games, but the engines are like a chess lab for a player, for example to prepare openings or solving tactics or just to play when there are not humans available to play a good game.

Originally posted by Schlecter
That's give me the idea that computers are very helpful for chess players. For example without computers a place like RHP or lichess.org are impossible.
-
I think that a chess engine could helpme a lot to improve my chess skills, I found a page with many of them: http://en.chessok.net/download-chess-engines.html
-
I don't plan to use to play my RHP ga ...[text shortened]... ings or solving tactics or just to play when there are not humans available to play a good game.

I hold the contrary view that chess engines make chess players lazy. Even when I have finished a game and I import it into lichess.org for computer analysis, some of the computers suggestions make absolutely no sense to me and no matter how hard i try to understand them, they are alien.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I hold the contrary view that chess engines make chess players lazy. Even when I have finished a game and I import it into lichess.org for computer analysis, some of the computers suggestions make absolutely no sense to me and no matter how hard i try to understand them, they are alien.

because this thread I just download arena 3.5, very nice program, even it's possible to connect with sites to play blitz

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thats interesting. Perhaps they have a reason? Correspondence chess is the art of analysis. I think its virtually impossible to stop correspondence players from consulting books. Its half the fun.

And now since practically every chess author has consulted one or more engines for every book written since 2005 or so, you run the risk of using an author's suggested improvement and being accused as an engine cheat, even though it was someone else using the engine!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
And now since practically every chess author has consulted one or more engines for every book written since 2005 or so, you run the risk of using an author's suggested improvement and being accused as an engine cheat, even though it was someone else using the engine!

Probably even before 2005, maybe even as early as 2000 when engines started to become strong. This I think is the reason I prefer pre computer chess books. Ok they have errors, but so what they are at least human and accessible as a consequence.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I've got an in progress game where I was ahead, but now think that I'm in danger of losing. The reason for this is that I tried to win when, despite a pawn advantage, I probably couldn't. Unfortunately it's in progress so I can't discuss it further. Stronger players don't do that, so they get many more draws. This tends to flatten their graph. This ...[text shortened]... any particular player on it. The only real standard is looking at their rate of engine matches.

Clearly, you can't use just the slope of the rating curve to pronounce someone using engines but it can narrow down the search. For instance, you look at my rating curve, its more like Mount everest, noboby would claim I use engines. With that in mind, since it is very time and resource heavy to prove engine use, you can use that just to narrow down the list.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Clearly, you can't use just the slope of the rating curve to pronounce someone using engines but it can narrow down the search. For instance, you look at my rating curve, its more like Mount everest, noboby would claim I use engines. With that in mind, since it is very time and resource heavy to prove engine use, you can use that just to narrow down the list.

It's funny how people think. I'm not criticizing yours Sonhouse rather I seem to have a similar graph bias. I would quess that any honest player would first look to his own graph when using graphs to judge honesty. I've been assuming honesty in flat graphs however and afraid of mountain chains.

The mountains worry me because the inconsistency could be explained by a players need of or belief that they deserve a higher rating while in a valley. The sharp uphill slope, engine use to get where they think they should be. Then engine use stops and results in a sharp downhill which starts the cycle over again. This supposition is all from, his graph don't look like mine why not huh?! magnified by human nature, it's different than me it must be bad.

Reading your graph interpretations, in the quote and above, let me reexamine mine. I hope mine are at least amusing.

Originally posted by JerryH
It's funny how people think. I'm not criticizing yours Sonhouse rather I seem to have a similar graph bias. I would quess that any honest player would first look to his own graph when using graphs to judge honesty. I've been assuming honesty in flat graphs however and afraid of mountain chains.

The mountains worry me because the inconsistency could be exp ...[text shortened]... nterpretations, in the quote and above, let me reexamine mine. I hope mine are at least amusing.

The cause of high peaks and low valleys is players having a 100+ games going at once and then finishing off all of the wins to inflate their ratings before the inevitable crash back to reality comes when they can no longer prolong their lost games.

Originally posted by JerryH
It's funny how people think. I'm not criticizing yours Sonhouse rather I seem to have a similar graph bias. I would quess that any honest player would first look to his own graph when using graphs to judge honesty. I've been assuming honesty in flat graphs however and afraid of mountain chains.

The mountains worry me because the inconsistency could be exp ...[text shortened]... nterpretations, in the quote and above, let me reexamine mine. I hope mine are at least amusing.

You haven't played enough games yet. Your rating graph isn't flat. Don't worry about players with ratings below about 2100. If they've played more than 50 odd games and their rating is below 2000 chances are they've never used an engine to make a single move. Sometimes people just have a losing streak, get timed out in a bunch of games, for all sorts of reasons there is statistical variation in win/loss rates.

This is a flat rating graph (the guy was banned years ago): @ironman31