Cheating in chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
John Hodgson
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John Hodgson » Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:58 pm

This may have been asked before, but this is a long thread.

According to chess.com, "the rate of false positives detected by our algorithm is intentional."

Does anyone know what this rate is, and what we think this rate should be?

"In response to valid appeals, we overturn approximately 0.03% of closures." I wonder if the 0.03% is decided by evidence, or whether the number of successful appeals is pre-determined by the algorithm, i.e. chess.com starts with 0.03 and accepts and rejects appeals to meet this number, based on its false positive assumptions.

Do we know what percentage of appeals are successful? It might also be interesting to know the average ratings of the appellants to see if it varies from the overall population.

(in passing, I think there is more cheating in longer time control games that is not picked up by the platforms - occasional use of books and moving the pieces on a separate chess set. I think I could, if I so wanted, improve my results modestly by occasional use of these methods and not be detected)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:02 am

Hi John,

Sites like Red Hot Pawn, which is basically a correspondence site, you get days/weeks to make move
and can have quite a few games on the go at the same time allows the use of opening books and
taking interesting positions to a board (as I have done a few times for the really interesting positions)
they also supply a non engine supported analysis board, which I rarely use as it so clumsy.

Computer use is not allowed but it does happen, not as much as it use to because the site
seems to have stopped banning players. (they just came back again - if you suspect a cheat then block them)

Over at The British Correspondence Chess Association;

https://www.bccachess.org/about/correspondence-chess-2/

They allow the use of books and computers!

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:34 pm

John Hodgson wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:58 pm

According to chess.com, "the rate of false positives detected by our algorithm is intentional."

Does anyone know what this rate is, and what we think this rate should be?
Seems a rather meaningless sentence - I'm guessing that it means that, if their statistical model is accurate, then they assess someone as being a cheat when there's a [100 minus x]% probability of cheating which, in turn, is expected to yield x% false positives. If so, I don't think there's going to be a consensus as to what x should be - some will agree with the maxim, "Better for ten guilty men to be set free rather than one innocent man to be punished" [or believe that 10 should be replaced by a larger number] whereas others won't.

Simon Rogers
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:30 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Simon Rogers » Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:28 pm

John Hodgson wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:58 pm
This is a long thread.
Not the longest though.
1. Media comments on Chess is the longest with over 4300 posts.
2. The English Language with over 3300 posts in the Not Chess Category.
3. Cheating in Chess.
4. (Chess) Life Returning to Normal.
I'm not sure which Topic is in 5th place. :lol:

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:10 am

If anybody was wondering if Freddy is still plagued by mouse slips ... he is. No doubt 2 Bc4 was the intended move.




Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:37 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:10 am
If anybody was wondering if Freddy is still plagued by mouse slips ... he is. No doubt 2 Bc4 was the intended move.



Jonathan,
I cannot explain that game.

I had wondered if this might be an interesting way of thinking about this case. Let's imagine a scenario, you are the head person at Lichess, responsible for producing their fair play algorithm. Fifty people report a player for cheating, but this is not picked up by your system. Human observation of the games offers no credible explanation for the player's play. If you were acting in a purely altruistic way, what would you do?

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:44 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:37 am
If you were acting in a purely altruistic way, what would you do?
The lichess Terms of Service say you're not allowed to do anything that they "would consider against the spirit of playing fairly in our community". They could reasonably say that deliberately playing badly, even if the motive wasn't to deflate the player's rating, broke that rule. They could then close his account.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:02 am

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:44 am
Matthew Turner wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:37 am
If you were acting in a purely altruistic way, what would you do?
The lichess Terms of Service say you're not allowed to do anything that they "would consider against the spirit of playing fairly in our community". They could reasonably say that deliberately playing badly, even if the motive wasn't to deflate the player's rating, broke that rule. They could then close his account.
Ian, what you say is undoubtedly correct, but if you were in that position would you do it?

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:43 am

1. Media comments on Chess is the longest with over 4300 posts.
2. The English Language with over 3300 posts in the Not Chess Category.
3. Cheating in Chess.

Out of curiosity I wondered who had posted the most.

memberlist.php?mode=&sk=d&sd=d#memberlist

Roger with 19,349 is 10,000+ more than 2nd,Alex Holowczak (9085) I'm way down the list at 2479 (now 2480) I'll have to catch up.

Re: Feddy1963, 2.Ba6 could have been a mouse slip (or what ever we are calling it these days) and then faced
with the dilemma of having been warned about quick resignations (assumed) he (I've dropped the 'they' )
has to put some more moves on the board and just wants the game over with.

A low level sandbagger, if indeed that is the case, is hardly worth bothering about. I suspect the frequent
posts regarding freddy1963 are just attempts to boost posts numbers trying to catch Roger.

Hi Mathew,

' No doubt 2 Bc4 was the intended move.'

Not so. He could have been going for 'Trap 122' in my book 'Blitz Traps for Optimistic Chess Players'.




Players who have bought the book have pointed out that 6...e6 7.Qxa8 Qc7 puts White in severe trouble
I'll mention that in 'Some More Blitz Traps for Optimistic Chess Players'. I'm considering retitling the book 'Traps for Sandbaggers.'

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:57 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:43 am
Players who have bought the book have pointed out that 6...e6 7.Qxa8 Qc7 puts White in severe trouble
and demanded their money back.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:58 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:43 am
A low level sandbagger, if indeed that is the case, is hardly worth bothering about
And yet you do.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:11 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:02 am
Ian, what you say is undoubtedly correct, but if you were in that position would you do it?
Yes, if it continued after a warning.

I'd also ask him why he was doing it. If there was some plausible, but flawed, reason then I'd tell him what an acceptable alternative would be, although I can't think of what that reason might be when it happens so often.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:18 am

Hi Justin.

It's not me that keeps brining him onto the forum and posting his games.
I'm actually doing my best, in my own sweet way, to say there are more important
matters regarding the title of the thread than this poor misunderstood lad.
(I also feel uncomfortable every time I see his name. '1963' is my pin number.)

Hi Nick,

'No Refunds' is the first thing stated on the back of the book blurb.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:18 am

On twitter this morning Christof Sielecki reports an 'anti-Freddy' - somebody winning dozens of games in a row by scholars mate. These games spread over days ... and then 5 more after he tweeted this >>

https://twitter.com/ChessExplained/stat ... 5471594499

About the experience he says,

"Yeah, I got 5 points by winning against the cheater. This propelled me on my Blitz all-time high, which spoils this feat quite a bit."



As with Freddy I'm all for Lichess ignoring stuff like this if that's what they wish to do. I just don't think it's compatible with statements like 'well of course cheating is nowhere near as big a problem as people make out'

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:19 am

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:11 am
Matthew Turner wrote:
Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:02 am
Ian, what you say is undoubtedly correct, but if you were in that position would you do it?
Yes, if it continued after a warning.

I'd also ask him why he was doing it. If there was some plausible, but flawed, reason then I'd tell him what an acceptable alternative would be, although I can't think of what that reason might be when it happens so often.
Ian,
I may well take this approach too. That would make it quite an unusual case because there is an interaction with the player before the ban was put in place.
What if the player's explanation was that he suffered from schizophrenia?