16 Nov '12 06:01>
With the demise of the game mods and the constant on going grumblings of the community as a result, i thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about possible alternative ways of dealing with this issue.
From what i can gather/remember, the game mods were disbanded, in part, because members of the moderation team were themselves accused of cheating. While i can't be certain of this (as i wasn't party to the decision), it seems clear that any reintroduction of this system would most likely fall foul of the same or similar problems. While some members of this site are commonly held to be engine users, some are considered genuine, but proving this beyond doubt is problematic and i fear that questions will inevitably always be raised against moderators. This constitutes our first problem.
1. How do we recruit and vet our moderation team?
I also have questions about the previously used system of investigation. In short the system of investigation as i understand it (get ready for it to be wrong..) is that a players games are analysed for match ups with 1st 2nd 3rd choice engine moves (opening moves excluded). A percentage match for each move is found for the game. This is then repeated over many games until an average is found and a player exceeding a certain percentage match up over 20-30 games is considered dishonest.
Now, while i completely accept that a player matching up in this way should be considered highly suspicious, i do feel that it is somewhat unproven (categorically speaking). Has any genuine scientific research been done that shows this method is sound at finding engine cheats? What number of games is considered a reliable sample?
I don't want to pour scorn on this system, i'm just trying to encourage debate on the subject. Is this the best we can do? So..
2. Do we have a reliable method of detecting cheats?
Also, what sort of response do the community expect the site to take with regards to engine users? Someone pointed out to me the other day that chess.com have a forum dedicated to discussion of cheating. When players are removed they are listed in a hall of shame.
RHP started with a similar list of banned players, but it was removed (as i understand) because admin got concerned about this in some way.
But are these the only options open to us? Should we automatically ban engine users? Does that really change anything? As i understand it, banned players were reimbursed their subscription when they were banned (please correct me if i'm wrong here). It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is nothing stopping these players resubscribing and starting the whole process all over again.
Perhaps it would be simpler to have a facility that allows people to declare themselves an engine user. This would bar them from playing people who have declared the do not wish to play an engine assited opponent. Tournaments are engine free (of course) but other areas of the site could be relaxed to accomodate people who choose to accept engine using opponents, or wish to use one. Consequently, when people are found to be using an engine 'illegally' their account is then switched to the engine settings permanently.
Why do this?
Firstly, instead of forcing an engine users hand by banning them, you make it their choice to leave or stay. If they set up another account, they have to resubscribe (which is money for the site) while the site doesn't have to feel all guilty about booting them). Also, has anyone ever considered that perhaps some engine users would perhaps do it genuinely if given the option? Until it is tried we'll never really know..
3. Would making engine use permissible (with certain restriction), give the site a better chance of keeping a pool of genuine players?
Also, it strikes me that in the process of analysing people to establish if they are cheating, the game mods must have analysed many players who they found not to be cheating. When i genuine player loses to an engine, their 'match up' stats could also be used as a stamp of authenticity. If a player has 20 -30 games analysed and their stats look reasonable to the moderation team, why not give them some sort of verification to that effect that lets their opponents know they are a genuine human opponent? When a new player arrives at the site and looks at the player tables for the first time and sees that all of the top 20 (say) have a ribbon showing they have been cleared by the moderation team, it send a clear signal that game moderation is used on the site and that cheats are actively sought out. Personally i think most players would find receiving such a clearance as quite an honour and it would be something to aspire to. Rewarding fare play should, in my opinion, be acknowledged and held up as something to aspire to.
Anyway, i probably shouldn't go on and on indefinitely. What are peoples thoughts/suggestions?
From what i can gather/remember, the game mods were disbanded, in part, because members of the moderation team were themselves accused of cheating. While i can't be certain of this (as i wasn't party to the decision), it seems clear that any reintroduction of this system would most likely fall foul of the same or similar problems. While some members of this site are commonly held to be engine users, some are considered genuine, but proving this beyond doubt is problematic and i fear that questions will inevitably always be raised against moderators. This constitutes our first problem.
1. How do we recruit and vet our moderation team?
I also have questions about the previously used system of investigation. In short the system of investigation as i understand it (get ready for it to be wrong..) is that a players games are analysed for match ups with 1st 2nd 3rd choice engine moves (opening moves excluded). A percentage match for each move is found for the game. This is then repeated over many games until an average is found and a player exceeding a certain percentage match up over 20-30 games is considered dishonest.
Now, while i completely accept that a player matching up in this way should be considered highly suspicious, i do feel that it is somewhat unproven (categorically speaking). Has any genuine scientific research been done that shows this method is sound at finding engine cheats? What number of games is considered a reliable sample?
I don't want to pour scorn on this system, i'm just trying to encourage debate on the subject. Is this the best we can do? So..
2. Do we have a reliable method of detecting cheats?
Also, what sort of response do the community expect the site to take with regards to engine users? Someone pointed out to me the other day that chess.com have a forum dedicated to discussion of cheating. When players are removed they are listed in a hall of shame.
RHP started with a similar list of banned players, but it was removed (as i understand) because admin got concerned about this in some way.
But are these the only options open to us? Should we automatically ban engine users? Does that really change anything? As i understand it, banned players were reimbursed their subscription when they were banned (please correct me if i'm wrong here). It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is nothing stopping these players resubscribing and starting the whole process all over again.
Perhaps it would be simpler to have a facility that allows people to declare themselves an engine user. This would bar them from playing people who have declared the do not wish to play an engine assited opponent. Tournaments are engine free (of course) but other areas of the site could be relaxed to accomodate people who choose to accept engine using opponents, or wish to use one. Consequently, when people are found to be using an engine 'illegally' their account is then switched to the engine settings permanently.
Why do this?
Firstly, instead of forcing an engine users hand by banning them, you make it their choice to leave or stay. If they set up another account, they have to resubscribe (which is money for the site) while the site doesn't have to feel all guilty about booting them). Also, has anyone ever considered that perhaps some engine users would perhaps do it genuinely if given the option? Until it is tried we'll never really know..
3. Would making engine use permissible (with certain restriction), give the site a better chance of keeping a pool of genuine players?
Also, it strikes me that in the process of analysing people to establish if they are cheating, the game mods must have analysed many players who they found not to be cheating. When i genuine player loses to an engine, their 'match up' stats could also be used as a stamp of authenticity. If a player has 20 -30 games analysed and their stats look reasonable to the moderation team, why not give them some sort of verification to that effect that lets their opponents know they are a genuine human opponent? When a new player arrives at the site and looks at the player tables for the first time and sees that all of the top 20 (say) have a ribbon showing they have been cleared by the moderation team, it send a clear signal that game moderation is used on the site and that cheats are actively sought out. Personally i think most players would find receiving such a clearance as quite an honour and it would be something to aspire to. Rewarding fare play should, in my opinion, be acknowledged and held up as something to aspire to.
Anyway, i probably shouldn't go on and on indefinitely. What are peoples thoughts/suggestions?