Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 25 Aug '11 20:11
    I wonder what Russ thinks of that business model have they banned even 130 since RHP started?
  2. 25 Aug '11 20:24
    With this high number of users banned I just wonder if detecting a cheater is beyond reasonable doubt.

    How do you prove that someone has cheated? Agreement with a chess engine? Then it is just a matter of threshold. What is a high percentage of agreement?

    Most 2000+ ELO people will have a high agreement with an engine. So, how low ELO must you have to qualify for a non-cheater? Another threshold there.

    Then are we talking about people who cheat constantly? Or someone who happened to play a few good games (abnormal spikes if you like)? Same way as a good player can play the odd bad game. How many such good games constitute valid outliers and how many indicate a possible cheater? Yet another numerical threshold.

    So to me this process seems a bit uncertain. Did all these banned players even had a chance to present their defence? Does it even matter at that stage?

    I say live and let live. If someone wants to play with an engine its their loss. But banning them? What does that do? Protect the honest players and the integrity of the site? Hardly.
  3. Standard member SasuserX
    SAS Lunatic
    25 Aug '11 21:27
    Originally posted by vzografos

    Most 2000+ ELO people will have a high agreement with an engine. So, how low ELO must you have to qualify for a non-cheater? Another threshold there.
    Even 2000+ rated will tend to adopt plans much different from an engine...they will beat you with human ideas, positional ideas etc. In highly tactical situations, they may match an engine if they are playing accurately. But in quiet positions they will play much differently.

    Also, endgames would be a very telling area of the game, there is little chance of playing certain types of endgames like an engine (even when playing well as a human).

    I agree, probably harder to detect the 'occasional' engine user vs one who uses it for every move.

    It is amazing to me there are 1300 players with nothing better to do than regurgitate computer generated moves into a server!
  4. 25 Aug '11 21:35
    Well simply put I guess they are trying to match a user's past games with a model of what they think is a cheater. Not sure how robust this is but I have doubts about this large number of people?
    Sounds like a tsunami just took everyone with it.
    Even if one allows for some small statistical error in their evaluation, we are talking about a lot of honest people that were thrown out.

    And why now all of a sudden?
  5. 25 Aug '11 22:14
    Which brings me to another somewhat related topic.

    Should the chess sites have such tight grip on user behaviour? And I am not talking anti-social behaviour in forums, but unethical behaviour during games.

    Or, if you like to generalise, very strict regulations on how one uses their service. For example, gameknot (which has undoubtedly very good service) has (I thought) rather strict guidelines and very little leeway for free users. The slight (accidental or not) slip up and you are banned (or you can pay if you like which absolves your "sins"😉.

    Just let people play, and if you think somehow paying customers will be driven away by cheaters (because the bottom line is a business model) just flag possible cheater's profiles so people will avoid playing with them.

    But I think a ban is wrong, because you end up removing honest or even paying players as well and after all may not be good business practice.
  6. 25 Aug '11 22:32
    What are the total number of users or subscribers to chess.com
  7. Standard member SasuserX
    SAS Lunatic
    25 Aug '11 23:09
    Originally posted by vzografos

    Should the chess sites have such tight grip on user behaviour? And I am not talking anti-social behaviour in forums, but unethical behaviour during games.
    Chessworld.net basically has an honor system, and honestly they don't seem to have any problem at all with cheating. I have been playing there as well for a few years now and I have never run into somebody I suspected of engine use. Honor is important and people seem to value their word as a player. Of course, ratings are also not quite as much of a focus, so maybe that makes a difference, and could give people more incentive to cheat.

    Basically the philosophy seems to be if somebody uses an engine, so be it. Their rating will simply reflect it. The highest I have played there is in the 2400 range, and it seems to me they are quite human (but quite good). Highest rateds are around 3000+ and for all I know maybe they are the engines.

    So maybe, to address your question, it is more a matter of taste. I appreciate RHP trying to police the engine users, although it would be nice if it were not necessary. Some sites seem to need this more than others.
  8. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    25 Aug '11 23:21
    Originally posted by NorrisB
    I wonder what Russ thinks of that business model have they banned even 130 since RHP started?
    1300 in two months sounds very high. Where did you get that number?
  9. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    26 Aug '11 00:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vzografos
    How do you prove that someone has cheated? Agreement with a chess engine? Then it is just a matter of threshold. What is a high percentage of agreement?


    higher than fischer, capablanca or any other master has ever had.


    Most 2000+ ELO people will have a high agreement with an engine.


    no they won't. over a larger number of games, none of them will unless they use engine help.

    I say live and let live.


    yes, lets keep throwing months and years of hard work into the drain. lets cut our thumbs off while we're at it. - I'd like to use very strong language here, but lets just say you're very very wrong. reading clueless comments like that, disrespecting the amount of hours people put in their games, makes me feel incredibly frustrated.
  10. 26 Aug '11 00:31
    It could have been a gang setting up muliple accounts to play
    each other and boost one players grade.

    I don't go there, checked the games against the names.
    Are they playing each other?
  11. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    26 Aug '11 00:48
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    It could have been a gang setting up muliple accounts to play
    each other and boost one players grade.

    I don't go there, checked the games against the names.
    Are they playing each other?
    due to the recent bannings on chess.com, I'm contemplating starting to play there again. I really hated how they spammed my email account even after numerous contacts, but at least they're banning cheaters.
  12. 26 Aug '11 01:29
    Originally posted by NorrisB
    I wonder what Russ thinks of that business model have they banned even 130 since RHP started?
    Probably doesn't give a monkeys as its not his site.
  13. 26 Aug '11 07:18
    Originally posted by wormwood
    higher than fischer, capablanca or any other master has ever had.


    Yeah it not that easy it seems. People with normal ratings have been banned to.
    I checked some accounts out.



    no they won't. over a larger number of games, none of them will unless they use engine help.


    How large is a larger number of games?



    yes, lets keep throwing months and years of hard work into the drain. lets cut our thumbs off while we're at it. -

    Well that depends on how seriously you take your rating. Hard work could also be getting better at chess. Which can also happen when you play against an egnine. It is just that your online persona ELO rating won't reflect that. Big deal.





    I'd like to use very strong language here, but lets just say you're very very wrong. reading clueless comments like that, disrespecting the amount of hours people put in their games, makes me feel incredibly frustrated.

    Errr....thanks?
  14. 26 Aug '11 07:22
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    It could have been a gang setting up muliple accounts to play
    each other and boost one players grade.


    Why?

    Perhaps people pay too much attention to ELO ratings.

    We should start a thread about that to discuss what this number reflects from a statistical viewpoint, and what it means in real life.
  15. 26 Aug '11 07:48
    Just to put the figure of 1300 (or 650 or 700...) into proper context, not all will have been banned for engine use. Looking at the list it is obvious that some are multiples and will have been banned for that reason alone.

    What surprises me is that several of those banned have been on the site for a long time and were seemingly well regarded. Has the detection system been that bad over the past umpteen years or have they ceased to err on the side of caution?