4NCL Online

[Adam Raoof]

There is no comparison between what he does, and what lichess does, not least because we don't know what lichess does.

The 4NCL has got itself into a position where it has to accept lichess bans, That's really what the row is about.

I totally agree. Hitching your wagon to lichess or chessdot is, in hindsight, a mistake.

[Adam Raoof]

We know that in the vast majority of cases the player will be guilty (we can tell that by the variance between online and OTB events) but that shouldn't stop us approaching the evidence with skepticism to give the accused the best possible defence.

I dont believe it is in any circumstances a comparison between over the board chess and online chess. It is solely based on a comparison with engine moves. This is why Ken's software is applicable in Hampstead and the London League, where it has caught cheats.

Unfortunately you can only catch them retrospectively.
Fortunately because it is retrospective, it is much more reliable.

[Richard Bates]

I applaud the loyalty for teams who have raised protests where one of their players has been accused of cheating.

I have more sympathy for players like Keith Arkell and Danny Gormally, who have been cheated against, where it is accepted to be proven, and where there has been no punishment.

I wasn’t aware that any of Danny’s opponents had been accused of cheating. Apparently one of my teams other opponents was, although our player played so badly it’s difficult to tell

Maybe you’re referring to the British blitz?

[Richard Bates]

We know that in the vast majority of cases the player will be guilty (we can tell that by the variance between online and OTB events) but that shouldn't stop us approaching the evidence with skepticism to give the accused the best possible defence.

I dont believe it is in any circumstances a comparison between over the board chess and online chess. It is solely based on a comparison with engine moves. This is why Ken's software is applicable in Hampstead and the London League, where it has caught cheats.

Unfortunately you can only catch them retrospectively.
Fortunately because it is retrospective, it is much more reliable.

They use it in the London League?

Who provides the games?

[Matthew Turner]

We know that in the vast majority of cases the player will be guilty (we can tell that by the variance between online and OTB events) but that shouldn't stop us approaching the evidence with skepticism to give the accused the best possible defence.

I dont believe it is in any circumstances a comparison between over the board chess and online chess. It is solely based on a comparison with engine moves. This is why Ken's software is applicable in Hampstead and the London League, where it has caught cheats.

Unfortunately you can only catch them retrospectively.
Fortunately because it is retrospective, it is much more reliable.

Adam,
I think you slightly misunderstood my point here. If there are 40 players in the online 4NCL with a z score of 4 and zero in the the OTB 4NCL then we know that the majority of those 40 are cheating. I was comparing distributions between tournaments not the moves of players in different events. Apologies for not making myself clear.

[Adam Raoof]

Thanks Matthew, I understand and agree.

Richard, we suspected one player was cheating in tournaments, and we wanted to see if his excellent performance in the league was equally suspect, so we asked all his opponents to let us have their games. We submitted all of the games to Ken. It may have been the Middlesex league... I think my point, badly made, is that where you have enough data then it is easy to detect outliers, even within a players own games - some would argue that it is possible even within a game.

This seems like dangerous territory, and yet this is what players are doing with the analysis feature on sites when they accuse others of cheating.

Ken's method, combining databases and engines and big data and human moderation seems the ideal combination for a tool that does the job. Add to that other measures such as cameras, audio and you have the possibility of an event where people do not automatically assume that everyone is cheating. This is what we need.

[JustinHorton]

Justin,
Once we get a sophisticated cheat then a human cannot detect it, that is why we need computer systems. What a human can do is provide evidence that a player hasn't in fact cheated, so before a player is banned by Lichess a human signs it off. Before a player is banned in titled Tuesday (chess.com) then I believe three titled players sign it off.
Where we have a 'sophisticated cheat' then we have to review the statistical evidence very carefully. We know that in the vast majority of cases the player will be guilty (we can tell that by the variance between online and OTB events) but that shouldn't stop us approaching the evidence with skepticism to give the accused the best possible defence.

This doesn'ty seem to be any kind of answer to my quesrtion at all. We're being told that anybody disqualified for cheating will have been playing better than anybody did in 4NCL OTB. But we're being told we can't always see this. If we can't see it, it's not evidence, is it?

[JustinHorton]

This a phrase, which apparently comes from this chap: "Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

This absolutely applies here as it applies elswhere. You can't have cargo-cult justice, where you not only can't see the evidence but you can't even see the basis on which the judgment is made, yet nevertheless we believe it anyway because somebody else somewhere says it's good. That's a nonsense.

[Matthew Turner]

Justin,
We can observe it from the statistical evidence. I cannot always observe it from the moves of the games, maybe you or someone else can and that would be great. Please, take a look at some games and decide for yourself.

[JustinHorton]

Justin,
We can observe it from the statistical evidence.

We can see the statistical evidence, then?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think my point, badly made, is that where you have enough data then it is easy to detect outliers, even within a players own games - some would argue that it is possible even within a game.

In the OTB example, did someone eventually figure out how the external consultation was taking place?

[JustinHorton]

Justin,
We can observe it from the statistical evidence.

We can see the statistical evidence, then?

Can you or anybody else refer me to some examples?

[Matthew Turner]

Justin,
We can observe it from the statistical evidence.

We can see the statistical evidence, then?

An accused player can request the statistical evidence from the Regan test (from the 4NCL) and they are free to post this wherever they like.

[Mick Norris]

OK Matthew, I've no clue what players we are talking about, but I think what you are saying is that we can search for and find their games, and draw our own conclusions?

But, what we can't do is see the statistical evidence, unless the players asks for this, and chooses to put it in the public domain?

[Roger de Coverly]

But, what we can't do is see the statistical evidence, unless the players asks for this, and chooses to put it in the public domain?

I had the impression that all the disputed bans were those imposed by lichess. Has the 4NCL taken any action on its own initiative using the Regan software?