Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhen someone is using an engine they match engine moves OVER AND OVER. There are VERY strong players who's moves DO NOT match engine moves. So, users are welcome to load any game they finished into a game, or any game they are not playing in and 'run it' through an engine to see how often it is matching the suggestions of any given engine.
Sorry for butting in like this and I may demonstrate my complete ignorance here but I think I am definitely seriously missing something here:
How on earth can you credibly discover whether or not somebody is cheating?
-I mean, for example, if I had a chess computer (which I don’t) and I wanted to cheat (which I don’t -for me it would take all t ...[text shortened]... f course, there never is), how on earth could anyone know that I am cheating let alone prove it?
Some people are good at cheating and can avoid detection for a time, but eventually they may slip up. I can't explain in great detail what that means, but there is certainly ways to find out if a user is using an engine for their moves over and over.
There are several popular engines, and some not so popular but easy to spot with some time and tinkering. Even users switching engines can be detected, since their move may be strong one second with a suggestion from one engine, and the next engine doesn't continue with the previous logic in the last move.
So, without giving too much info to make cheating easy for those who want to cheat, understand there most certainly is a way to detect cheating... sometimes right away, other times over time.
P-
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt's too bad that RHP wont adopt the "ratings floor" formulas used by some other chess federations and sites perhaps. Your rating shouldn't be able to venture under 1650, 1700 or so.
How would you suggest i get my rating back? I generally apologies to opponents for the rating dip but what can i do? I have been away on holiday for two months...
It's not your fault, though some users do it on purpose.
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibitinteresting
When someone is using an engine they match engine moves OVER AND OVER. There are VERY strong players who's moves DO NOT match engine moves. So, users are welcome to load any game they finished into a game, or any game they are not playing in and 'run it' through an engine to see how often it is matching the suggestions of any given engine.
Some people ...[text shortened]... ertainly is a way to detect cheating... sometimes right away, other times over time.
P-
-so there are certain combinations of moves that an engine may do that wouldn’t be so credible for a human player to do and this is how you can sometimes distinguish moves decided by a computer from that of a human.
Still, lets say you suspect that I am using a computer using this method of detection -is there any way to then “prove” it? -or would you have to just make do with saying
“I think you are probably cheating but I cannot prove it” ?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbeyond reasonable doubt...
interesting
-so there are certain combinations of moves that an engine may do that wouldn’t be so credible for a human player to do and this is how you can sometimes distinguish moves decided by a computer from that of a human.
Still, lets say you suspect that I am using a computer using this method of detection -is there any way to then “prove” ...[text shortened]... to just make do with saying
“I think you are probably cheating but I cannot prove it” ?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonChess engines evaluate millions of positions in minutes, humans do not. If I had a list of your games showing you matching over and over, I would send it in to the admins to let them decide if it's 'enough'.
interesting
-so there are certain combinations of moves that an engine may do that wouldn’t be so credible for a human player to do and this is how you can sometimes distinguish moves decided by a computer from that of a human.
Still, lets say you suspect that I am using a computer using this method of detection -is there any way to then “prove” ...[text shortened]... to just make do with saying
“I think you are probably cheating but I cannot prove it” ?
Saying "I think you may be cheating" isn't allowed here are RHP, true or false. It is up to the admins to decide based on evidence they gather. Damning evidence has been the end of many chess cheating accounts here at RHP.
P-
2 edits
Originally posted by Phlabibit…...Damning evidence has been the end of many chess cheating accounts here at RHP. . ...…
Chess engines evaluate millions of positions in minutes, humans do not. If I had a list of your games showing you matching over and over, I would send it in to the admins to let them decide if it's 'enough'.
Saying "I think you may be cheating" isn't allowed here are RHP, true or false. It is up to the admins to decide based on evidence they gather. Damning evidence has been the end of many chess cheating accounts here at RHP.
P-
I am pleasantly surprised that it is so often possible to show that somebody is cheating “beyond reasonable doubt” (as Marinkatomb said). I am honestly surprised that it can be done at all
-I would have thought that it would be extremely difficult but I stand corrected 🙂
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI wouldn't say it's easy, you can't base it on just one game. The time it takes is evaluating enough games to remove all doubt in the eyes of the admins, and that's many game checks in most cases.
[b]…...Damning evidence has been the end of many chess cheating accounts here at RHP. . ...…
I am pleasantly surprised that it is so often possible to show that somebody is cheating “beyond reasonable doubt” (as Marinkatomb said). I am honestly surprised that it can be done at all
-I would have thought that it would be extremely difficult but I stand corrected 🙂[/b]
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitAt least Marinkatomb isn't joining banded tournaments while his rating is low. And if a clan leader doesn't care to do a little checking before accepting a challenge that's their problem. Ironically enough, Marinkatomb is in the middle of a clan challenge now with a player who has never been afraid to join in the banded tournaments after massive ratings drops. Game 5608584 😏
It's too bad that RHP wont adopt the "ratings floor" formulas used by some other chess federations and sites perhaps. Your rating shouldn't be able to venture under 1650, 1700 or so.
It's not your fault, though some users do it on purpose.
P-
Originally posted by dweezilMe being a 1400 (near 1500) player I would NEVER want a tourney trophy saying I beat up on a bunch of 1200 or lower players. Anyone with a rating way above a banded trophy they have should be ashamed.
At least Marinkatomb isn't joining banded tournaments while his rating is low. And if a clan leader doesn't care to do a little checking before accepting a challenge that's their problem. Ironically enough, Marinkatomb is in the middle of a clan challenge now with a player who has never been afraid to join in the banded tournaments after massive ratings drops. Game 5608584 😏
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitYes i agree. I wouldn't enter anything below a 1750 minimum i don't think.
Me being a 1400 (near 1500) player I would NEVER want a tourney trophy saying I beat up on a bunch of 1200 or lower players. Anyone with a rating way above a banded trophy they have should be ashamed.
P-
An idea for that precious graph that we all like tracking - when someone you've played is banned for being a cheat. Could the colour of the bar on that chart turn black or red?
Just a different colour to indicate that the game you won or lost was played against a user whoe was subsequently banned.
Originally posted by chopchopYou might want to make a new thread for that idea. I like it but i don't know how feasible it is...
An idea for that precious graph that we all like tracking - when someone you've played is banned for being a cheat. Could the colour of the bar on that chart turn black or red?
Just a different colour to indicate that the game you won or lost was played against a user whoe was subsequently banned.