1. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 14:451 edit
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    Erm I hate to be the one to point this out, but most people who play OTB at clubs view online chess as a bit of a joke anyway.
    I asked 2 veterans of my club if they'd like to play online & they both looked at each other, laughed & the club chairman (ECF 163) said "the internet's full of cheats".

    Chess here is good for brushing-up on openings, trying ...[text shortened]... ive analysis. If you're 2000+ forget it - half the time you'll probably be playing a CPU.
    With good moderation the internet doesnt need to be full of cheats. I started off and help run an online chess league called the ANCL (all nations chess league) Its been going for about 2-3 years now, we play 90+5 games weekly and we have players much stronger than 2000 (I think the average rating is 1800ish onlin, but the majority of players are also strong OTB players all the way up to GM) Of course we get cheats in the league too and every season the ANCL runs people get banned, but for the most part cheats dont last long because the higher rated games get a lot of real time kibitzers and the fact that playchess admins do work closely with us in detecting and removing cheats from the league. If people are prepared to put time into the cheating problem it can be controlled, you will always get new ones but it never runs rampant. I know that if RHP lost all forms of cheating deterrent then it would also lose a number of its members.....I certainly wouldnt keep subscribing if they went the way of Yahoo.
  2. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    20 Jun '08 14:57
    Originally posted by Bedlam
    With good moderation the internet doesnt need to be full of cheats. I started off and help run an online chess league called the ANCL (all nations chess league) Its been going for about 2-3 years now, we play 90+5 games weekly and we have players much stronger than 2000 (I think the average rating is 1800ish onlin, but the majority of players are also strong ...[text shortened]... a number of its members.....I certainly wouldnt keep subscribing if they went the way of Yahoo.
    Any info/thoughts on what makes players think one player may be using an engine?

    P-
  3. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    20 Jun '08 15:09
    Originally posted by Bedlam
    With good moderation the internet doesnt need to be full of cheats.
    How can you tell what percentage of cheats remain undetected? I guess you can't.
  4. Subscriberjb70
    State of Confusion
    Lancashire
    Joined
    04 May '08
    Moves
    841712
    20 Jun '08 15:12
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Any info/thoughts on what makes players think one player may be using an engine?

    P-
    It is the full package that makes for suspicion.Things don't feel right.Moves you never see in over-the-board games and ends in now I see why that move.Lots of games running at the same time and still not affecting performance.They don't need to use every move.They can use just to get them out of trouble an odd move or two in a game.
    That I think would be hard to prove.
  5. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 15:15
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Any info/thoughts on what makes players think one player may be using an engine?

    P-
    In the ANCL they come to light a number of ways.

    The first tends to be players just banging out engine moves each move while they are playing. When you have say an 1800 playing a game and 4-5 1900+'s watching and they cant find the 1800s plan or their moves are just much too good then its a good indication. Generally one game doesnt mean much but since all games are saved its easy to go back and watch past games. I might like to add that the kibitzers while watching the game often have their engines running so people who do try it are often caught by this. I can remember watching a game recently played by 1600 otb player and a 150 ECF (2000ish) they were playing a panov formation and white (the 1600) was playing a very strange plan not the usual using space and kingside attack etc but went on to keep exchanging pieces (which isnt a good idea if you want to win) then started to push pawns seemly randomly infront of his king....watching it most kibitzers were puzzled by his play but never the less he went on to totally hammer the 2000 silly, the 2000 put up a good defence in the endgame but he was really just outplayed and slowly crushed (60-70 odd moves). A lot of cheats are found out this way, if you knock out engine moves the players watching real time, talking about the game, guessing moves, quickly get a feeling something is wrong.

    Second way is that in the ANCL information is much more open, players know each others real names, FIDE ratings and national ratings etc. Most of the time we know each other from OTB, its not easy to impersonate people. In the past we'd had 1500 otb players mowing down 2000's game after game and that was a good indication as to they were getting help.

    Thirdly playchess the server we play on already has strong anti cheat methods in place, picking up on peoples task switching habits etc. Of course they can always use two computers but it cuts the number down for sure.

    We can submit any game to playchess for checking and also to a helpful IM.
  6. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 15:16
    Originally posted by Varenka
    How can you tell what percentage of cheats remain undetected? I guess you can't.
    Theres always going to be cheats. You can keep the number down or not, id always go for trying to keep it low.
  7. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    20 Jun '08 15:37
    Originally posted by Bedlam
    Theres always going to be cheats. You can keep the number down or not, id always go for trying to keep it low.
    I agree with minimising cheating. I was picking up on your point "for the most part cheats dont last long". Well, we'd hope so but we can never be sure.
  8. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 15:39
    Originally posted by Varenka
    I agree with minimising cheating. I was picking up on your point "for the most part cheats dont last long". Well, we'd hope so but we can never be sure.
    I was refering to the ANCL and not RHP.
  9. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    20 Jun '08 15:42
    Originally posted by Bedlam
    I was refering to the ANCL and not RHP.
    So was I. 🙂
  10. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 15:44
    Originally posted by Varenka
    So was I. 🙂
    We can be sure, they dont play like engines. People make blunders, they play as they should according to their strength.
  11. Joined
    21 Sep '05
    Moves
    27507
    20 Jun '08 15:50
    Originally posted by Bedlam
    We can be sure, they dont play like engines. People make blunders, they play as they should according to their strength.
    And if I start making less blunders, how do you tell if I've genuinely improved or whether I'm allowing myself to use an engine for more blunder checking?

    I don't have to use an engine to erradicate all blunders to be a cheat.

    I don't think you can be sure.
  12. Joined
    21 Apr '06
    Moves
    4211
    20 Jun '08 16:28
    Originally posted by Varenka
    And if I start making less blunders, how do you tell if I've genuinely improved or whether I'm allowing myself to use an engine for more blunder checking?

    I don't have to use an engine to erradicate all blunders to be a cheat.

    I don't think you can be sure.
    If people want to task switch enough to check for blunders then they are going to give themselves away that way. I dont think people could manage to give the idea of geniune play over a number of games if they are cheating. Their win/loss record would be a hint.
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