cheating paranoia • page 4/6 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

What false accusations are you talking about? How can he decide whether the accusations are false or not if he is no expert player?
So you are trying to say that low-rated players should not be allowed in forums and are dumb?
Just because someone is not an expert at the game or has a title, this does not mean their voice shall not be heard and that they have no purpose in attempting to have their voice heard. Please, rethink your statement, @ColossusChess

@ColossusChess said in #6: > What false accusations are you talking about? How can he decide whether the accusations are false or not if he is no expert player? So you are trying to say that low-rated players should not be allowed in forums and are dumb? Just because someone is not an expert at the game or has a title, this does not mean their voice shall not be heard and that they have no purpose in attempting to have their voice heard. Please, rethink your statement, @ColossusChess

CSKA_Moscou

edited

#33

@TacticalPanzer said in #25:

You have played over 70k games, mostly OTB? Take a break, go see the birds and stuff. The way this kind of topics develop are always the same.

I guess my message was pretty clear, that's 70,000 games on Lichess. I agree that most threads about cheat (not this thread, ofc) develop the same way : someone loses a game and without even doing their own little research before submitting a report and even instead of reporting, they find it better to make a thread about it and accusing someone of cheating, while public shaming is forbidden.

Everyone claims to be an expert, proofs are not proof, and everyone is brave on the keyboards. Fabi Caruana has more experience than you?

He probably played a little less on Lichess than me. And I obviously played a lot less OTB than him, we're equal on that point.

If you carry an opening book besides your computer, that goes detected? If you look at a computer for a single position that goes detected? Of course not.

Of course yes. Cheat detection systems use engine and chess databases and are perfectly capable of spotting if a player is copying the opening moves suggested by an engine or a book. If someone plays the best moves suggested by Stockfish or another engine, it make the thing very easy for a detection system using similar tools.

How often it happens is a different issue. Fabi playing a speedrun met a lot of cheaters. You can see him talking about that at reddit : "Fabiano Caruana calls out delusional Redditors who demand 100% proof for cheaters"

Speedrun is already a very weird practice that should be banned on all chess sites. Creating a temporary account to try to make its rating as high as possible just to attract an audience and show a hypothetical "pedagogy" is already a problem in the world of online chess. So it's not surprising that cheaters are encountered while doing such a risky practice.

Which is a better opinion, yours or fabi? Or So, or Kramnik? I will go with Fabi. The important thing is this: one way or the other let the people express their informed opinions without censorship. That is a way to go. Well beyond chess is the way to go. Nothing further to add, and of course I will not reply any other comment, since in a forum as well as in twitter the one who wins is the one with most time to spend, not the one who is right. By the way, why dont you go to a different site and try interpolating engine moves now and then and opening helps notes next to you and see how detected you get? That would be a step towards proving something. You can inform us later of the results. Greetings in advance to every opinionated heavy poster!

Well, it's as if someone were to say: to prove whether traffic police are effective, let's not respect speed limits or the highway code, let's see if the traffic police react.

It would be a big step backward that would prove nothing and endanger road users. It's the same in chess

@TacticalPanzer said in #25: > You have played over 70k games, mostly OTB? Take a break, go see the birds and stuff. The way this kind of topics develop are always the same. I guess my message was pretty clear, that's 70,000 games on Lichess. I agree that most threads about cheat (not this thread, ofc) develop the same way : someone loses a game and without even doing their own little research before submitting a report and even instead of reporting, they find it better to make a thread about it and accusing someone of cheating, while public shaming is forbidden. > Everyone claims to be an expert, proofs are not proof, and everyone is brave on the keyboards. Fabi Caruana has more experience than you? He probably played a little less on Lichess than me. And I obviously played a lot less OTB than him, we're equal on that point. > If you carry an opening book besides your computer, that goes detected? If you look at a computer for a single position that goes detected? Of course not. Of course yes. Cheat detection systems use engine and chess databases and are perfectly capable of spotting if a player is copying the opening moves suggested by an engine or a book. If someone plays the best moves suggested by Stockfish or another engine, it make the thing very easy for a detection system using similar tools. > How often it happens is a different issue. Fabi playing a speedrun met a lot of cheaters. You can see him talking about that at reddit : "Fabiano Caruana calls out delusional Redditors who demand 100% proof for cheaters" Speedrun is already a very weird practice that should be banned on all chess sites. Creating a temporary account to try to make its rating as high as possible just to attract an audience and show a hypothetical "pedagogy" is already a problem in the world of online chess. So it's not surprising that cheaters are encountered while doing such a risky practice. > Which is a better opinion, yours or fabi? Or So, or Kramnik? I will go with Fabi. The important thing is this: one way or the other let the people express their informed opinions without censorship. That is a way to go. Well beyond chess is the way to go. Nothing further to add, and of course I will not reply any other comment, since in a forum as well as in twitter the one who wins is the one with most time to spend, not the one who is right. By the way, why dont you go to a different site and try interpolating engine moves now and then and opening helps notes next to you and see how detected you get? That would be a step towards proving something. You can inform us later of the results. Greetings in advance to every opinionated heavy poster! Well, it's as if someone were to say: to prove whether traffic police are effective, let's not respect speed limits or the highway code, let's see if the traffic police react. It would be a big step backward that would prove nothing and endanger road users. It's the same in chess

#34

kvakalalos

#35

@kvakalalos in that case you can just resign the game, when you have to leave
I can also leave the game, what's the difference?
BTW Nice nick :-)

> @kvakalalos in that case you can just resign the game, when you have to leave I can also leave the game, what's the difference? BTW Nice nick :-)

lemonyllama edited

#36

With all the recent drama surrounding chess cheating, I started wondering just how common cheating really is in online chess. While it's hard to get exact numbers, estimates from major platforms and studies suggest that around 5-10% of active players cheat at some point. However, habitual or consistent cheating is likely closer to 1-2%. Why are cheating estimates tricky? Platform data privacy, varied definitions, and detection efficiency. Sites like Chess.com and Lichess don't fully disclose their detection stats. Moreover some players may use an engine only occasionally rather than habitually. While anti-cheat systems have improved, subtle cheating still exists. Cheating rates also appear to vary based on player rating and motivations. Beginner to intermediate (800-1600) is likely the most common range for cheating, often driven by frustration or fast progression desires. This can take the form of sporadic engine use or move lookups. I estimate 5 - 10% of players at this level fall into this category. The further up the ladder you go however cheating rates appear to fall as motivations change.

Club to Advanced (1600-2200)
Methods: More subtle, situational engine assistance.
Estimated Prevalence: 3-5%

Expert to Master (2200+):
Rare, as cheating here risks reputation and more severe consequences.
Methods: Sophisticated tactics like feeding moves to a weaker engine.
Estimated Prevalence: 1-3%.

Super GM Level (2600+):
Extremely rare due to high stakes and career risks.
Estimated Prevalence: Far less than 1%.

Why do some ratings cheat more? Lower-rated players often cheat out of frustration or to speed up improvement, while higher-rated players may cheat for prestige or tournament success. The higher the rating, the more calculated and subtle cheating tends to be since most skilled players recognize engine-like moves more easily. My question is this. How should platforms balance cheating detection with player privacy?

Edit: moved this to its own topic found here. https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/cheating-is-a-proletarian-problem-why-lower-rated-chess-players-are-more-likely-to-cheat

With all the recent drama surrounding chess cheating, I started wondering just how common cheating really is in online chess. While it's hard to get exact numbers, estimates from major platforms and studies suggest that around 5-10% of active players cheat at some point. However, habitual or consistent cheating is likely closer to 1-2%. Why are cheating estimates tricky? Platform data privacy, varied definitions, and detection efficiency. Sites like Chess.com and Lichess don't fully disclose their detection stats. Moreover some players may use an engine only occasionally rather than habitually. While anti-cheat systems have improved, subtle cheating still exists. Cheating rates also appear to vary based on player rating and motivations. Beginner to intermediate (800-1600) is likely the most common range for cheating, often driven by frustration or fast progression desires. This can take the form of sporadic engine use or move lookups. I estimate 5 - 10% of players at this level fall into this category. The further up the ladder you go however cheating rates appear to fall as motivations change. Club to Advanced (1600-2200) Methods: More subtle, situational engine assistance. Estimated Prevalence: 3-5% Expert to Master (2200+): Rare, as cheating here risks reputation and more severe consequences. Methods: Sophisticated tactics like feeding moves to a weaker engine. Estimated Prevalence: 1-3%. Super GM Level (2600+): Extremely rare due to high stakes and career risks. Estimated Prevalence: Far less than 1%. Why do some ratings cheat more? Lower-rated players often cheat out of frustration or to speed up improvement, while higher-rated players may cheat for prestige or tournament success. The higher the rating, the more calculated and subtle cheating tends to be since most skilled players recognize engine-like moves more easily. My question is this. How should platforms balance cheating detection with player privacy? Edit: moved this to its own topic found here. https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/cheating-is-a-proletarian-problem-why-lower-rated-chess-players-are-more-likely-to-cheat

MolDiva

edited

#37

If anyone ever accuse me, I would be flattered and laugh not offended. If anyone ever falsely sanctioned me I would be very angry. But only at the incompetent assessment. The sun would come up the next morning. I would rather think admins might make themselves more free to make a possible mistake and be quicker with the ax. It is frustrating when anyone who has ever moved a chess piece, officiated anything, passed first day of statistics/probability class or is even paying attention, would know silicon is being used by X player, yet managers say they are not sure yet and the player is enabled to continue the facade. (10 perfect moves, 1 dubious move, 5 perfect move, 1 dubious...) Very frustrating. It is not a judge in a court room having to decide to give a death penalty or not. It is a server for chess games. If they sanction 99 guilty people and do make 1 mistake, the innocent victims world will not end and they probably just open new account. I worry about the chess police not doing enough, but do have confidence they will in time finally get the bad guys. Except in League play, I do not worry about it much at all. I never mind playing strong opposition.

mkubecek

#38

@MolDiva said in #37:

If they sanction 99 guilty people and do make 1 mistake, the innocent victims world will not end and they probably just open new account.
Personally I suspect that an actual cheater is more likely to just open a new account and go on than someone who was banned unjustly.

@MolDiva said in #37: > If they sanction 99 guilty people and do make 1 mistake, the innocent victims world will not end and they probably just open new account. Personally I suspect that an actual cheater is more likely to just open a new account and go on than someone who was banned unjustly.

MolDiva

edited

#39

I think equally likely. They both would. Every one else seems to. If it happened to me, my world would not end. My rating gets nice reset. My game logs are already on personal files anyway. I would appreciate that perhap they tried too hard. I do understand other innocents may not be like me. A problem may be that to either an innocent or to a guilty player, the account is seen as too precious. If ones world revolves around it they must have no life. A libre does not have as much vested as the pig server would in not wanting to shoot the choir. Being a website, this is not really a community like my home city is. A violator is not really thrown in jail like a bank robber is. I think too many players and the admins too see it as though it is. Part of an internet addiction. And is why then they are bashful about having enough evidence to use the ax on these creeps.

Of course a very easy and immature comeback vs my opinion might be Ok Galina so if you had your way we would all get banned back and forth and no continuity of anyone's account That of course is not what I say. I plead only just a little quicker. If true too much paranoia exists, and cause a thread this long, solution is make people less paranoid. They get less paranoid when they see action. See more visible assurance. It is why town squares were ever used for hangings. Deterrence.

I think equally likely. They both would. Every one else seems to. If it happened to me, my world would not end. My rating gets nice reset. My game logs are already on personal files anyway. I would appreciate that perhap they tried too hard. I do understand other innocents may not be like me. A problem may be that to either an innocent or to a guilty player, the account is seen as too precious. If ones world revolves around it they must have no life. A libre does not have as much vested as the pig server would in not wanting to shoot the choir. Being a website, this is not really a community like my home city is. A violator is not really thrown in jail like a bank robber is. I think too many players and the admins too see it as though it is. Part of an internet addiction. And is why then they are bashful about having enough evidence to use the ax on these creeps. Of course a very easy and immature comeback vs my opinion might be *Ok Galina so if you had your way we would all get banned back and forth and no continuity of anyone's account* That of course is not what I say. I plead only just a little quicker. If true too much paranoia exists, and cause a thread this long, solution is make people less paranoid. They get less paranoid when they see action. See more visible assurance. It is why town squares were ever used for hangings. Deterrence.

pet59

#40

quote :If they sanction 99 guilty people and do make 1 mistake, the innocent victims world will not end and they probably just open new account.

And it is the end of the world if and whenever you should have a game with someone who cheats(equals playing against a stronger player)?

So definitely hubris is more important than justice. We better get out of here.....

quote :If they sanction 99 guilty people and do make 1 mistake, the innocent victims world will not end and they probably just open new account. And it is the end of the world if and whenever you should have a game with someone who cheats(equals playing against a stronger player)? So definitely hubris is more important than justice. We better get out of here.....