Cheating in chess

[Jonathan Bryant]

Still, I find Lichess' attitude to the subject to be too self-congratulatory to be healthy.

I couldn't agree more. They should either do the job or stop saying that they do it.

A perfectly reasonable response would be

"Look, there's a gazillion twats out there. We're doing all we can but with the best will in the world it's an impossible task to stamp it all out. We'll do as much as we can but the truth is some people will slip through the net and some very blatant cheats will get away with it for longer than we'd like"

What the lichess guy actually said on perpetual chess this week was, words to the effect of,

"Look, we've thought of all the ways anybody might try to get away with cheating occasionally and we'll catch them all"

- which is self evidently not true. And therefore much worse than doing nothing.

[JustinHorton]

FWIW I also feel the wider chess community is underperforming in terms of how it responds to cheating and unethical behaviour

Indeed, but I doubt we're surprised about that

We may pretend to be though

[Kevin Thurlow]

It's interesting too that if you query the efficacy or honesty of "anti-cheating" procedures you get a really aggressive response, which to me is a clear indication of guilt.

[Matthew Turner]

Still, I find Lichess' attitude to the subject to be too self-congratulatory to be healthy.

I couldn't agree more. They should either do the job or stop saying that they do it.

A perfectly reasonable response would be

"Look, there's a gazillion twats out there. We're doing all we can but with the best will in the world it's an impossible task to stamp it all out. We'll do as much as we can but the truth is some people will slip through the net and some very blatant cheats will get away with it for longer than we'd like"

What the lichess guy actually said on perpetual chess this week was, words to the effect of,

"Look, we've thought of all the ways anybody might try to get away with cheating occasionally and we'll catch them all"

- which is self evidently not true. And therefore much worse than doing nothing.

Alternatively, people could listen to the podcast and hear what was actually said.
https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-b ... lichessorg

[Jonathan Bryant]

It's interesting too that if you query the efficacy or honesty of "anti-cheating" procedures you get a really aggressive response, which to me is a clear indication of guilt.

I'm chatting with the lichess fellow on twitter right now. I wouldn't say he was being aggressive. I wouldn't say, either, that we say eye to eye.

[Roger Lancaster]

It's interesting too that if you query the efficacy or honesty of "anti-cheating" procedures you get a really aggressive response, which to me is a clear indication of guilt.

That's because they realise that, when we indicate that we disbelieve their claims, in effect we're saying they're the real cheats.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not at all sure I follow that.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm not at all sure I follow that.

Justin, I suggest the first question you might usefully consider is "Do the people behind the cheating allegations at Lichess and Chess.com honestly believe that their systems are anywhere near as infallible as they tell us?". If not, on a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate their honesty?

[Matthew Turner]

Except nobody from Lichess or Chess.com has ever claimed their algorithms are infallible. So it is rather dishonest to claim they have.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not at all sure I follow that.

Justin, I suggest the first question you might usefully consider is "Do the people behind the cheating allegations at Lichess and Chess.com honestly believe that their systems are anywhere near as infallible as they tell us?". If not, on a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate their honesty?

What would happen if we put the honesty of computer cheats on the same scale?

[Roger Lancaster]

Except nobody from Lichess or Chess.com has ever claimed their algorithms are infallible. So it is rather dishonest to claim they have.

That's not quite what I claimed they said, Matthew.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm not at all sure I follow that.

Justin, I suggest the first question you might usefully consider is "Do the people behind the cheating allegations at Lichess and Chess.com honestly believe that their systems are anywhere near as infallible as they tell us?". If not, on a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate their honesty?

What would happen if we put the honesty of computer cheats on the same scale?

I don't know but you're welcome to answer that at the same time as replying to my question.

[JustinHorton]

What would happen if we put the honesty of computer cheats on the same scale?

I don't know.

I think we do, though, at least relatively

[Matthew Turner]

Except nobody from Lichess or Chess.com has ever claimed their algorithms are infallible. So it is rather dishonest to claim they have.

That's not quite what I claimed they said, Matthew.

Perhaps it would be better if you quoted what they actually say rather than just making it up.

[Matthew Turner]

You could try this for example
https://www.chess.com/article/view/ches ... -detection