Stephen Moss

[Geoff Chandler]

So, I wondered - if people's view is now that online cheating should result in bans from OTB chess,

Hi Justin, I've only used that bit of your posts to suggest one of those polls things here to see what the feeling is.
Personally online chess v OTB chess is like comparing a five-a-side kick about to International Football and the two should never be mixed up. (Do OTB cheats get banned from online sites?) Of course organisers have a free choice on who they allow into their OTB tournaments. If some do not want an online cheat in their tournament(s) then so be it. They have every right to refuse an entry. (would they, should they or could they is the question.)

[JustinHorton]

Yeah but don't forget there are other issues too (e.g. reliability and accessibility of evidence for online cheating, anonymity, privacy and data protection issues etc) so it's not just a case of whether we take one medium more seriously than another. But you could always invite opinions on an in-principle basis.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

That has always been one concern, whose sites banning list do the ECF or FIDE follow. Regarding privacy some sites may adopt a non-disclosure policy, others naming names (some sites don't care if you use an engine or not. Use their list!)

[David Sedgwick]

To answer one prominent question raised on this thread: the games in question were indeed all random games – nothing of any consequence was at stake. I would never cheat if I was playing in a team competition or OTB. They were online rated games, but (a) who really cares about their online rating?, and (b) playing an opening well did not assist me in winning the games. I don't recall any games where I got a truly decisive advantage out of the opening. Many of the games I went on to lose, and my online ratings remain insipid.

I just wanted to test out openings, especially King's Gambit, which I'd started playing with zero understanding and wanted to get a feel for. I found it helpful to play complex and very messy opening positions with machine assistance and then see how a human opponent would respond. Once we were out of the opening, I would give up the engine and just play.

It's a couple of years since I looked into the details, but Lichess has a Casual setting in which the games are not rated and are not subject to the usual computer analysis. There have been a few instances when players in the Online 4NCL have used this setting by mistake and their games have been declared void as a result.

You appear to have eschewed this option and chosen to play rated games where computer assistance is not allowed.

I am at a loss to understand why a hitherto respected journalist should have chosen to damage his good name and reputation in this way.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am at a loss to understand why a hitherto respected journalist should have chosen to damage his good name and reputation in this way.

The ethical way of using Blitz games for training on lichess is to play the game as normal and then run the Computer analysis features to see what the resident Stockfish reckons. Then have another go against a new opponent. Mind you Stockfish would probably flag 2. f4 as a mistake after 1. e4 e5

[Roger Lancaster]

To answer one prominent question raised on this thread: the games in question were indeed all random games – nothing of any consequence was at stake. I would never cheat if I was playing in a team competition or OTB. They were online rated games, but (a) who really cares about their online rating?, and (b) playing an opening well did not assist me in winning the games. I don't recall any games where I got a truly decisive advantage out of the opening. Many of the games I went on to lose, and my online ratings remain insipid.

I just wanted to test out openings, especially King's Gambit, which I'd started playing with zero understanding and wanted to get a feel for. I found it helpful to play complex and very messy opening positions with machine assistance and then see how a human opponent would respond. Once we were out of the opening, I would give up the engine and just play.

It's a couple of years since I looked into the details, but Lichess has a Casual setting in which the games are not rated and are not subject to the usual computer analysis. There have been a few instances when players in the Online 4NCL have used this setting by mistake and their games have been declared void as a result.

You appear to have eschewed this option and chosen to play rated games where computer assistance is not allowed.

I am at a loss to understand why a hitherto respected journalist should have chosen to damage his good name and reputation in this way.

Assuming Stephen was playing on Lichess, I think he would have avoided some criticism if he had chosen the 'casual' feature (I can't recall whether Chess.com et al have a similar feature) but, in any case, it sounds as though the ratings in question were Lichess and not the more serious ECF ratings. In any case, a typical definition of 'cheating' is 'acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage' and I wouIdn't say - because the expressed object was opening research rather than optimising winning chances - that Stephen's case falls squarely within that definition

[JustinHorton]

It's a couple of years since I looked into the details, but Lichess has a Casual setting in which the games are not rated and are not subject to the usual computer analysis.

Computer use in casual games is not permitted as far as I am aware.

[Paul Cooksey]

https://lichess.org/page/fair-play is very clear.

Lichess could close Stephen's account. Seems a proportionate penalty.

[NickFaulks]

So, I wondered - if people's view is now that online cheating should result in bans from OTB chess,

The huge point here is whether future online cheating should result in an OTB ban, which to me is an interesting discussion point with arguments both ways, or historical offences should do so, which I would find utterly unacceptable.

I would have no argument with a FIDE decree that anyone found to have cheated in an official online FIDE event, as from tomorrow, would be banned from all future FIDE rated chess. Players could then decide individually whether they wished to put themselves at the mercy of FIDE's own anti-cheating mechanisms.

[NickFaulks]

Lichess could close Stephen's account.

But then he would confess, which he has already done, and be given a new one. What would have been achieved?

[Paul Cooksey]

Lichess could close Stephen's account.

But then he would confess, which he has already done, and be given a new one. What would have been achieved?

That is chess.com's process

[NickFaulks]

That is chess.com's process

Ah, sorry. So with lichess you're out and you stay out?

[Paul Cooksey]

If you are honest, yes. I'll admit this is a significant loophole

[David Sedgwick]

It's a couple of years since I looked into the details, but Lichess has a Casual setting in which the games are not rated and are not subject to the usual computer analysis.

Computer use in casual games is not permitted as far as I am aware.

In individual challenges on Lichess, no. But you can set up a "Casual" tournament in which the games are not scrutinised.

(Edit: It seems that Lichess no longer permit this. You can still play the Lichess AI, adopt Roger de C's suggestion above, or use Tornelo as below.)

Alternatively, you can set up a tournament on Tornelo and agree that you won't act on any Fair Play information received.

In summary, there is more than one way in which Stephen Moss could have achieved his stated objective without breaking the rules as he did. His justification is risible.

[JustinHorton]

or historical offences should do so, which I would find utterly unacceptable.

I think I agree with this, personally, but obviously it does not appear to be a universal view.