1. Tionesta
    Joined
    12 Dec '06
    Moves
    23752
    06 Jul '07 01:10
    The chances of my being banned for cheating are remote as my game history will obviate that, but recently I mated my opponent in a beautiful mate I was unaware of. I thought I was making a spite check and it turned out to be a mate. I wish I could remember the game to post it. Needless to say, it was beyond my capabilities to set up. That mate could possibly be suspect coming from a player of my abilities. Just a thought in passing. Oh yeah; I think the mods are doing the best they can and I'm grateful for their efforts.
  2. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    06 Jul '07 01:51
    Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666
    The chances of my being banned for cheating are remote as my game history will obviate that, but recently I mated my opponent in a beautiful mate I was unaware of. I thought I was making a spite check and it turned out to be a mate. I wish I could remember the game to post it. Needless to say, it was beyond my capabilities to set up. That mate could po ...[text shortened]... sing. Oh yeah; I think the mods are doing the best they can and I'm grateful for their efforts.
    We all have good games every now and then, doesn't mean you are cheating.
  3. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    06 Jul '07 02:02
    To stop the speculation about banned players we should just remove the banned list so no-one see who has/hasn't been banned.

    Rather than placing the Player banned from site on the profile, access is just restricted and all that will show up on profile is player last moved X days etc ago.

    The games should then just be left to auto timeout so it just appears that the player has left the site. Points should be awarded as normal for the win.

    Speculation may arise about why player XYZ has left, but as people come and go all the time I can't see this being a major issue.

    The only problem you then have is that any clans that the banned player was a member of will now have an inactive player in their ranks. Admins could set the banned players clan setting to not available for challenges and eventually the clan captain will boot the person for not being available for, and/or losing, a heap of games.
  4. Standard membercadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    Joined
    25 Sep '05
    Moves
    55289
    06 Jul '07 02:352 edits
    I really don't see what the big kerfuffle is here, when someone gets banned from this site it is because they have failed a test which shows their moves to be matching an engine. As far as I understand it engines play differently than strong human players. Now if we can analyse the games of GM's and they match an engines moves 70 to 80% of the time and someone on this site matches up at a higher percentile over a high number of games it's pretty certain that they are cheating.
  5. Joined
    21 Sep '06
    Moves
    24552
    06 Jul '07 03:54
    Originally posted by cadwah
    Now if we can analyse the games of GM's and they match an engines moves 70 to 80% of the time and someone on this site matches up at a higher percentile over a high number of games it's pretty certain that they are cheating.
    As I recall GMs typically match post-opening-book engine moves 45-65% of the time, depending strongly on the type of position (Tactical vs. Positional, etc.). Assuming that's the range, a match percentage of 80% for one game (let's say) would strongly indicate cheating. Alternatively, an engine-match percentage of 68% over 100 games may be equally damning.

    The key point is statiticians can give a precise measure of the percentage chance that a player is receiving engine assistance. I suspect players are recommended for banning only if the percentage is 99.999% or higher - something in this neighborhood. Past a certain point, it becomes silly to claim that the match percentage could be due to chance.
  6. Standard memberDragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    searching for truth
    Joined
    06 Jun '06
    Moves
    30390
    06 Jul '07 08:11
    Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666
    The chances of my being banned for cheating are remote as my game history will obviate that, but recently I mated my opponent in a beautiful mate I was unaware of. I thought I was making a spite check and it turned out to be a mate. I wish I could remember the game to post it. Needless to say, it was beyond my capabilities to set up. That mate could po ...[text shortened]... sing. Oh yeah; I think the mods are doing the best they can and I'm grateful for their efforts.
    Cheats don't have ratings of 1400-1500.

    A 1 off brilliant engine move would in isolation prove nothing. Even a dozen such moves over a thousand games would prove nothing but a dozen in 1 game, now thats different but if you could do that your rating wouldn't be 1450..
  7. Standard memberDragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    searching for truth
    Joined
    06 Jun '06
    Moves
    30390
    06 Jul '07 08:20
    Originally posted by adramforall
    To stop the speculation about banned players we should just remove the banned list so no-one see who has/hasn't been banned.

    Rather than placing the [b]Player banned from site
    on the profile, access is just restricted and all that will show up on profile is player last moved X days etc ago.

    The games should then just be left to auto timeout ...[text shortened]... lan captain will boot the person for not being available for, and/or losing, a heap of games.[/b]
    Disagree, I think the best way to deter cheats is to name and shame.

    The more players that are caught the less likely the (hopefully) majority will be tempted to cheat also.

    No matter how certain the mods are they are human so it is possible that from time to time they could make a mistake but when you look through the games of banned players there are always a few that show up as typical engine.

    You need to bear in mind that evidence probably comes from the type of move not merely that you are choosing good moves that match an engine. For example matching an engine for a long (virtually forced) series of moves where every move was (at least) .50 better than the next best move would not, in my opinion, constitute proof of anything, whereas a single obscure move (that is the start of a long complex dangerous tactical sequence and is) only .10 better than the next best (very ordinary and safe) move is in itself fairly conclusive as are pointless delaying moves (with no attempt or possibility of generating counterplay) in a totally lost position.
  8. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91800
    06 Jul '07 08:31
    Originally posted by saffa73
    An utterly useless idea? At least it would minimise the risk of encountering cheats who frequent sites where it's easy to just get a handle and play!!!
    Seriously, it would never work.

    I for one wouldn't be here if I had to give some non-profit organization my personal details, wait for them to 'qualify' me and then go and join some online chess site. Many security and privacy issues.
    Your idea comes from a good place, but in the current 'instant gratification' Internet environment this is also not economically viable.

    Also, something like a governing body that new sites need to be affiliated to, kills the whole open worldwide community ideals that the Internet now propagates.

    I wouldn't use the phrase "utterly useless", but it's definitely not viable.
  9. Joined
    07 Nov '04
    Moves
    18861
    06 Jul '07 08:34
    Originally posted by DawgHaus
    As I recall GMs typically match post-opening-book engine moves 45-65% of the time, depending strongly on the type of position (Tactical vs. Positional, etc.). Assuming that's the range, a match percentage of 80% for one game (let's say) would strongly indicate cheating. Alternatively, an engine-match percentage of 68% over 100 games may be equally damning ...[text shortened]... t a certain point, it becomes silly to claim that the match percentage could be due to chance.
    I don't think that an 80% match-up in any one particular game would necessarily indicate anything. There are quite often games which have clear and quite long forcing lines that strong players (particluarly in correspondence chess) and computers will find. Indeed in such games it could even be the loser, who may have to make a depressing series of practically forced moves, who ends up with the higher match-up!
    I think statistics over a large number of games are more significant (except in cases where a 1600 player suddenly starts to play like Mikhail Tal on steroids!). I am sure the range you give will be about right, though it may be a bit higher for correspondence players who, for obvious reasons, are normally more prepared to go into long tactical lines.
  10. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    06 Jul '07 08:37
    Originally posted by DawgHaus
    As I recall GMs typically match post-opening-book engine moves 45-65% of the time, depending strongly on the type of position (Tactical vs. Positional, etc.). Assuming that's the range, a match percentage of 80% for one game (let's say) would strongly indicate cheating. Alternatively, an engine-match percentage of 68% over 100 games may be equally damning ...[text shortened]... t a certain point, it becomes silly to claim that the match percentage could be due to chance.
    Leaving aside how statistics works and whether it is an exact science or not, I strongly suspect that the deciding factor is not a high match up with an engine. There are several reasons for that but the primary one must be that engines simply don't make moves that match each other! There are differences in software and hardware to take account, differences which are effectively unknown to any detection system. To my mind detection should depend on a low match up in certain positions.

    In some positions the move is actually or effectively forced so a high match up should be expected.

    There are positions, often highly tactical in nature, where calculation will reveal the best move or moves and we should not be surprised if strong players (the Soviet system of chess training relied heavily on calculation of concrete variations) and engines find the same moves.

    Then there are positions where nothing is obviously forcing or winning or necessary, where a good human player will choose from a small range of moves that are reasonable but will not often make superficially good moves that subsequently turn out to be bad. In short, they have a kind of positional intuition based on experience. Weaker players and engines do not possess this intuition and so make moves that a strong player would never make. In these positions there is a good chance that strong players will match each other often but weaker players and engines will often fail to find a sensible move in the critical position.

    This must reduce the load of the game mods considerably since they only need to look at certain types of position and can ignore the rest. It would also produce the "stand out like a sore thumb" criteria for banning. You would in effect have an apparently strong player (according to rating, wins or whatever) playing like a patzer in those positions where there are one or two obviously reasonable moves. They would be banned for a low match up in those positions rather than a high match up. This would also explain why it takes so long to catch the cheats, they have to have built up a sufficiently large number of games with the required positions in them before the statistical method can even begin to be applied.
  11. Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    06 Jul '07 12:47
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Leaving aside how statistics works and whether it is an exact science or not, I strongly suspect that the deciding factor is not a high match up with an engine. There are several reasons for that but the primary one must be that engines simply don't make moves that match each other! There are differences in software and hardware to take account, differences w ...[text shortened]... th the required positions in them before the statistical method can even begin to be applied.
    I understand your concerns, but none it matters when all masters pass the current test. that's a sort of blanket certification for the threshold of engine detection being conservative enough. and because of that, it doesn't matter how the detection works.
  12. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    06 Jul '07 13:17
    Originally posted by wormwood
    I understand your concerns, but none it matters when [b]all masters pass the current test. that's a sort of blanket certification for the threshold of engine detection being conservative enough. and because of that, it doesn't matter how the detection works.[/b]
    Not my concerns. I am not concerned about the rigour or mechanics of the thing at all. It happens, those that do it say it is fit for purpose and it satisfies the need to be seen to be upholding the rules.
  13. Standard memberwormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    We're All Gonna Go!
    Joined
    10 Sep '05
    Moves
    10228
    06 Jul '07 13:33
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Not my concerns. I am not concerned about the rigour or mechanics of the thing at all. It happens, those that do it say it is fit for purpose and it satisfies the need to be seen to be upholding the rules.
    okay, I misunderstood you then.
  14. Standard memberleisurelysloth
    Man of Steel
    rushing to and fro
    Joined
    13 Aug '05
    Moves
    5930
    11 Jul '07 00:15
    Originally posted by cludi
    Excactly what is considered cheating and what is not?
    Opening books and online/offline databases and references to already played games between humans are allowed.
    Getting 3rd party help from chess software, other players, endgame tablebases while the game is in progress is not allowed.
    Terms of service is to be found at http://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php , section 3(b)
    I recently played a game against a stronger player in which I followed a book line to a point at which the author said that I had "a decisive attack" but did not say how to carry out the attack--I guess it was supposed to be obvious, but I managed to mess it up and lose. 😳

    Presumably I could purchase a copy of Fritz, plug in this game, and it could tell me how to win from this position. If I were to write this down in the margins of my opening book, I would then have an opening book with more than just references to "games between humans". So would this be considered cheating if the position came up again and I followed my margin notes to obtain the win? Also, how do I know that the opening book author did not use Fritz in his/her analysis?
  15. Joined
    18 Aug '06
    Moves
    43663
    11 Jul '07 00:44
    Originally posted by leisurelysloth
    I recently played a game against a stronger player in which I followed a book line to a point at which the author said that I had "a decisive attack" but did not say how to carry out the attack--I guess it was supposed to be obvious, but I managed to mess it up and lose. 😳

    Presumably I could purchase a copy of Fritz, plug in this game, and it co ...[text shortened]... in? Also, how do I know that the opening book author did not use Fritz in his/her analysis?
    No, it would not be cheating.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree