Ok, following on from a discussion that took place yesterday (there is a thread but i can't be bothered to find it..) i'd like to make a suggestion to speed up the Moderation process for the Game moderators.
Firstly. i will point out that this process does not apply to every potential cheat. I just want that to be clear before i go on. Ok...
Player A's (PA) results go as follows..
PA V's 1200 - 0-1 57 moves
PA V's 1300 - 0-1 21 moves
PA V's 1100 - 0-1 24 moves
PA V's 1250 - 1-0 69 moves
PA V's 1003 - 0-1 42 moves
These games would represent the performance of a player who is graded somewhere between 1000 and 1300. Then, all of a sudden their performance becomes a LOT better...
PA V's 1300 1-0 26 moves
PA V's 1390 1-0 26 moves
PA V's 1490 1-0 29 moves
PA V's 1560 1-0 23 moves
PA V's 1690 1-0 31 moves
PA V's 1900 1-0 38 moves
PA V's 2200 1-0 59 moves
etc.....
In a circumstance like this, it seems clear to me that something is amiss. I read Gatecrasher explain how, for a player to be banned, there needs to be a unanimous decision among the Mod team that the player in question is definitely cheating. Well, if one member of the mod team has good evidence that someone IS cheating, why isn't that player suspended pending the decision of the remaining Mods?
I mean, with our player A above, surely it would be simple to analyse their first 5 games, establish their match up %, and then analyse their last 5 games to see if that displays the same % match up. If player A went from a 25% match up, to a 75% match up in a matter of a month or so, surely that would be evidence enough to suspend their account pending further investigation? Once a case like this has been established, it would make good sense for the remaining Mods to;
1)Look at the current evidence and either agree or disagree
2)Suspend the account pending investigation
3)Split the work load into manageable bits for each mod to do individually.
4)After say a weeks thinking time, come back for a vote on whether Player should be banned.
Obviously i probably don't understand the Moderation process fully, and co-ordinating this might not be as easy as i've stated, but should you suspend Player A, send them a message saying something like...
'We are looking into your games to investigate possible engine use. Your games have been suspended pending investigation. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause, if you are unhappy with this we can offer you a refund on your subscription here and now but if you wish to await the out come of the moderation process and are found innocent, we will award you a years free subscription as an apology....'
Or some such whatever, i GARUNTEE you'll save yourself a heap of work cos lets face it, as soon as you confront a cheat, they'll be looking for an easy way out. As i understand it, banned players have their sub returned to them anyway, don't they? Perhaps this would speed things along a bit....? 🙂
Originally posted by marinakatombI am not sure how the game mods works but I think the suspension (prior to outright booting off the site) idea is a good one, as it can get the cheats earlier. Although overall I do agree with your post I can certainly see how someone can start off badly here then pick up dramatically. When I started here I had not played chess for years (apart from a few games on yahoo), so I was very rusty AND did not know what correspondence chess was i.e. I approached it was otb chess, I did not use the 'analyse board' function I merely looked at the possition and moved (within a few minutes) and I did not know opening databases existed. Fortunately I was playing guys at work (who introduced me to the site) and they couldn't really play that well, so I won my early games, only then I realized how to play here, and also lost my rustiness. If I had been playing seasoned players at the start (but below my current standard) my rating would have fallen to about 1000 then bounced (prpbably after about 15-20 games, even I would look at that graph and think cheater.
Ok, following on from a discussion that took place yesterday (there is a thread but i can't be bothered to find it..) i'd like to make a suggestion to speed up the Moderation process for the Game moderators.
Firstly. i will point out that this process does not apply to every potential cheat. I just want that to be clear before i go on. Ok...
Playe ...[text shortened]... m anyway, don't they? Perhaps this would speed things along a bit....? 🙂
Fair comments, however...
The rapid improvement of a player is certainly an element of evidence. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient evidence. Every player has a degree of natural analytical ability. A player with a strong analytical ability, but who is relatively new to chess, can improve rapidly. We are entitled to be sceptical. It is not, however, evidence beyond reasonable doubt of engine use. On its own, it is only evidence of rapid improvement - no crime in that. To be found guilty of engine use there has to be evidence of engine use.
Systematic use of an engine is easy to detect. My argument in the other thread related directly to sytematic use. An objective statistical standard could be applied in such cases, without the need for susbjective evaluation by each game moderator. IMO, there are many "proven" engine users still playing here by virtue of the need for concensus. Eventually they will bite the dust, just not rapidly enough for my liking.
Partial use of an engine is a much more complicated issue. Fortunately, partial use of an engine is detectable, especially when employed by weaker players making moves they do not fully understand. Engines often suggest moves that a strong human player would not consider. So evidence is there, but it has to be weighed alongside any other evidence that exists, ie rapid improvement. This, though, is a time consuming process, and one which requires subjective evaluation. Wherever subjectivity arises, you do require peer review and consensus to reach fair decisions.
Game moderators do not correspond with suspects. They make no decisions or policies regarding subscriptions or refunds. Once the moderators have made a finding, any further action is at the discretion of the site admins. As far as I'm aware they treat each case on its own merits. In some cases they do correspond with the suspect, in other cases they don't. And not all suspects are subscribers...
I'm not in favour of suspending a player, pending a final decision. I'm more interested in arriving at final decisions more quickly.
What if a players is "suspended" and then "unsuspended". What does that tell you? A cheat? A maybe cheat? Cleared of cheating? A continuous, never-ending cloud of suspicion?
And what are the implications of suspending a player? What happens to their games?
I think the answer to improving the efficiency of game moderation lies squarely with the site admins. They have the discretion to use whatever evidence is collected in any manner they see fit. While there is an official policy of zero tolerence, I feel the unofficial preference is for effectiveness rather than efficiency. I doubt that there is any dissatisfaction at the top with the present pace of game moderation.
If the membership were to become dissatisfied, however, I'm sure the site admins would feel a greater urgency to review and improve the process.
The game mod concept exists only because the RHP membership asked for it. Where it goes in the future will depend a great deal on public feedback.
Originally posted by GatecrasherVery well expressed, I see your point, thinking about it, if I was suspended I would be torn between fighting to prove my innocence and just leaving the site out of protest, as you say there would be a stigma for someone has has been previously suspended, so leaving the site would be innevitable and obvioulsy that's not a good thing if non cheaters start leaving.
Fair comments, however...
The rapid improvement of a player is certainly an element of evidence. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient evidence. Every player has a degree of natural analytical ability. A player with a strong analytical ability, but who is relatively new to chess, can improve rapidly. We are entitled to be sceptical. It is not, however, ...[text shortened]... sked for it. Where it goes in the future will depend a great deal on public feedback.
Originally posted by GatecrasherI only suggested that a player should be suspended in the circumstance that i gave (as that is a VERY common circumstance!)
Fair comments, however...
The rapid improvement of a player is certainly an element of evidence. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient evidence. Every player has a degree of natural analytical ability. A player with a strong analytical ability, but who is relatively new to chess, can improve rapidly. We are entitled to be sceptical. It is not, however, ...[text shortened]... sked for it. Where it goes in the future will depend a great deal on public feedback.
Like i said originally, for a player to go from a 25% match up to any given engine, to a 70+% matchup, THAT is impossible. You have been playing for years and have no doubt come into contact with hundreds of talented chess players in your time. How many of them went from losing to 1200 players to beating 2000 rated players in a couple of months?
It is this kind of cheating that should be stamped out first! If someone arrives at the site and uses an engine from day one, they are going to be harder to detect, i accept that. But when you have a case where a player improves SO rapidly, after stagnating on a low rating for months or even years i believe the mods/admin have a duty to act!
(Like this, some people will know who this belongs to but i'd just like to post it as an example, naming no names...
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/marinakatomb/example.jpg)
I don't know if you've ever played at www.playchess.com, but i think you'd do well to set up a free account and hang there for a couple of days. EVERY DAY, someone is banned. Often two or three in a day! The site has built in engine detection (as it is run by chessbase, that is hardly surprising) but you don't see any massive debates about whether this person or that could have been a real player. Hell, anyone who achieves 100 wins with no losses SHOULD be investigated. That level of consistency is highly unlikely, even for very strong players. My chess club has a Correspondence International Master playing for the first team (on board 3!), who won the British correspondence chess championships 1977 and even HE losses 3 or 4 games a season for crying out loud!
I understand what you say about analytical people improving fast but lets get some perspective here. For a new player (new to the game that is) starting at 1200, their grade will go down, not up. I don't care how smart you are, there are SO many things you need to learn, through experience, that it takes TIME and EFFORT to get better. It is possible that they might hit 1300 after 3 or 4 months, maybe even 1400 (but that is really pushing it, it took me a year, playing 40 hours a week and two chess books to reach 1500 and even then it was only fleeting). Absolutely no way on earth they will hit 2000, NONE AT ALL. Not even Kasparov improved that fast. When someone display this kind of improvement, their account should be frozen pending investigation because the damage they cause duaring the current moderation time (not just clipping a few peoples ratings but winning tournaments, improving a Clans performance, hell, ending someones 2 year run on a siege board) is unacceptable! End of rant 😛 (You're all doing a great job, this critisism is mean't to be constuctive).
Originally posted by stevetoddIt doesn't have to be that way. For someone to be suspended, it would basically mean that one or more mods have already come to a decision that that p[layer is cheating. You wouldn't jusyt look at someones graph, think 'hmm that looks odd, i'm going to suspend their account', it would have to be backed up with some evidence, but when it is BLATANTLY obvious something is amiss, damage limitation should be applied. THAT is what i am suggesting.
Very well expressed, I see your point, thinking about it, if I was suspended I would be torn between fighting to prove my innocence and just leaving the site out of protest, as you say there would be a stigma for someone has has been previously suspended, so leaving the site would be innevitable and obvioulsy that's not a good thing if non cheaters start leaving.
Hey, I recognise that graph. So what should happen in such a case? The improvement is highly suspicious, it suggests engine use. But engine use was not proved. Is the improvement itself conclusive proof of cheating?
There have been similar cases where evidence of engine use was indeed found, and the players subsequently banned.
We can't always be certain why a graph rises rapidly. For example , what happens if a very active player who moves impulsively, taking only a few seconds over each move, suddenly cuts down their number of games and takes several minutes over each move? Their rating will amost certainly undergo a rapid rise. Is that a bannable offence?
In your argument, you mention someone going from a 25% engine match to a 75% engine match. But you don't define what you mean by a "match". Is that on the engine's first choice? First and second choice? First, second and third choice? Or some kind of points threshold? And how many games is in your sample? Is the nature of the games, tactical/positional, taken into account? And what is your control data set?
If a person really has improved (and is not cheating) then there is a very strong likelihood that match-up comparisons will also have increased. Not necessarily to levels that "prove" engine use, but more accurate play will certainly result in higher match-ups. To say a match-up is "high", you have to have to say what you are comparing it against.
If a player is found to have match-ups in excess of our control set and also shows rapidly improved play, we would almost certainly find against them.
A rapid rise may be the effect of cheating, but we have to "prove" that the cause of the rise is indeed engine use before we can take action. If the suspect really is using an engine, then there is a very strong likelihood that such evidence will be found.
Originally posted by marinakatombI think you're over simplifying.
I only suggested that a player should be suspended in the circumstance that i gave (as that is a VERY common circumstance!)
Like i said originally, for a player to go from a 25% match up to any given engine, to a 70+% matchup, THAT is impossible. You have been playing for years and have no doubt come into contact with hundreds of talented chess playe ...[text shortened]... d of rant 😛 (You're all doing a great job, this critisism is mean't to be constuctive).
Suspending a player's account is equivalent to banning them in my eyes.
And I know a player on here that went from zero to just under 1700 in under a year and less than 130 games. Some people are naturally adept at the game, others need to work at it.
D
Originally posted by marinakatombI know that graph, ba$tard! Makes me feel right about stealing your avatar. 😏
I only suggested that a player should be suspended in the circumstance that i gave (as that is a VERY common circumstance!)
Like i said originally, for a player to go from a 25% match up to any given engine, to a 70+% matchup, THAT is impossible. You have been playing for years and have no doubt come into contact with hundreds of talented chess playe d of rant 😛 (You're all doing a great job, this critisism is mean't to be constuctive).
Edit:
BTW, I find that graph you posted very similar with this one:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9032/graph7te.jpg
Originally posted by RagnorakYou can't start from zero. 😛 Anyway, when I started playing here, I had already played (mostly in Chessmaster) for a few months, so it took me a little over a year to get from total beginner to a rating not very far under 1700. But I could have put a lot more effort in it, I could have read chess books or taken lessons etc., and I am certainly not a chess genius, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that someone else made it in a shorter time (it rather surprises me that there are not more of those). And I am sure a really talented player could get to a much higher rating in the same time. So if someone makes a lot of progress in a short time, I don't necessarily find that suspicious. However, I believe that even very talented players will make mistakes all along the way, they don't lose their first few games and then go on just winning all the time. So if someone who starts with a low rating stops losing games altogether, I find that suspicious. But maybe that's possible for some players, too, and it's just hard for me to believe because it doesn't work that way for me. People have a very different potential. So I am glad the game moderators don't take a graph as a proof for cheating.
And I know a player on here that went from zero to just under 1700 in under a year and less than 130 games.