Cheating in chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:13 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:37 pm
You could try this for example
https://www.chess.com/article/view/ches ... -detection
As we know, their system made a false accusation against Justin based on his games in "daily" chess.

I believe that in OTB chess, a line in the sand was drawn some years ago that accusations shouldn't be made purely on statistical evidence. In other words there had to be some verifiable physical evidence as well.

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:14 am

Matthew, does the following passage from your example give the remotest hint of fallibility?

"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

"Verified", as I am sure you know, means "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified".

I suggest that "rigorously verified" equates, approximately, to making doubly sure.

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:28 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:14 am
Matthew, does the following passage from your example give the remotest hint of fallibility?

"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

"Verified", as I am sure you know, means "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified".

I suggest that "rigorously verified" equates, approximately, to making doubly sure.
This is how science works you have a hypothesis, then you test it against data. In this case the data very strongly supports the hypothesis. The back testing of data verifies that the anti-cheating process are very accurate at detecting cheating. That is not the same as being infallible.
For instance, if cheats develop new methods of cheating that haven't been anticipated then the system will clearly be fallible. However, it will still be thorough, complex and rigorously verified.

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 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:42 am

Oh for God's sake.

In science everybody has access to the data. That's how hypotheses can be verified or disproved, by the attempts of other people to examine the process and to replicate the results.

If it's private it isn't science.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Nick Burrows » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:49 am

Was Russias space programme science?

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Joseph Conlon » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:53 am

As an aside, I wish there were more examples like Justin where an otherwise private chess player (i.e. who could keep the matter more or less secret) is willing to say publicly that they have been falsely accused and here is the account and why has this occurred? (to me this is actually strong psychological evidence of innocence - very few guilty parties would invite public examination of the account).

In my own experience on lichess (either through my own opponents or as a spectator on junior tournaments), I have seen plenty of cases where someone is banned and I think they should be banned, several cases where I think they should be banned and the platform has not banned them, but not yet a case where someone is banned and I think the ban clearly false. While I believe false positives will occur, if they are as frequent as sometimes alleged, I wish more were willing to make the matter completely public - as I said, I think someone doing this gets their reputation enhanced not reduced.

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 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:26 am

Nick Burrows wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:49 am
Was Russias space programme science?
Or, say, the research of any private company prior to the publication of its results, which is to say it's research, and we don't know what else it is until we can see what it is.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:38 am

"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

Perhaps I can put this to Matthew by way of analogy. Let's suppose he was offered a Covid-19 vaccine which the manufacturers claimed was "rigorously verified" by copious research and data but where the manufacturers withheld this research and data from peer review on the grounds, say, that disclosure might result in another company infringing their patent. Separately, he was aware that a significant number of people had complained of health issues connected with the vaccine. How confident would he feel about accepting that vaccine?

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:49 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:38 am
"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

Perhaps I can put this to Matthew by way of analogy. Let's suppose he was offered a Covid-19 vaccine which the manufacturers claimed was "rigorously verified" by copious research and data but where the manufacturers withheld this research and data from peer review on the grounds, say, that disclosure might result in another company infringing their patent. Separately, he was aware that a significant number of people had complained of health issues connected with the vaccine. How confident would he feel about accepting that vaccine?
Roger,
Of course you are correct that there are elements who are anti-science in all spheres, but I continue to play chess online and I've had my vaccine.
Last edited by Matthew Turner on Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:59 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:49 am
anti-science
Ah. Is this the new term, alongside "anti-vaxxer" and "Covid denier" with which to besmirch anyone who dares to wonder aloud whether we are possibly being fed a pack of lies by politicised and self-interested "scientists"?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

John McKenna

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John McKenna » Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:05 am

Nick Burrows wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:49 am
Was Russias space programme science?
You are on the right track...

Science is not always public- there's miltary science which is secret, for example.

If all such science was just research it would never produce the hardware that rival miltaries cannot match.

The largely hidden world of espionage exists to protect/steal such scientific secrets - military and industrial.

Even in a supposedly "open society" science cannot be entirely open.

Justin Horton's wished-for world is one of idealism - as opposed to realism.

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:15 am

Matthew, I respect your right to disagree but I strongly feel you're wrong. I don't want to bang on about this ad infinitum but perhaps I could give you one real life example of the harm that can be caused.

A 7-year-old was playing, quite innocently, online. His mother, a complete beginner at chess, came along and said words to the effect of "That's interesting, show me how it works". So mother set up a separate account and her son played her half-a-dozen games, all of which [if I recall correctly] she lost, to show her. A few days later, the son was accused of cheating.

An appeal resulted in the normal uninformative template response but Alex Holowczak was kind enough to take up the matter and found that the "cheating" was linked to presumed rating manipulation as the two players in those half-dozen games had the same email account. [Of course, this would have been avoided if the games had been "casual" rather than "rated" but could a 7-year-old have been expected to realise that?].

Fortunately, in this case, the child's identity did not come to light. All the same, it was distressing for a young child to be wrongly accused of cheating. It would have been a good deal worse if the child had then been playing in a match or tournament when their identity would have been obvious to all, very possibly including other children at the same school.
Last edited by Roger Lancaster on Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:18 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:38 am
"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

Perhaps I can put this to Matthew by way of analogy. Let's suppose he was offered a Covid-19 vaccine which the manufacturers claimed was "rigorously verified" by copious research and data but where the manufacturers withheld this research and data from peer review on the grounds, say, that disclosure might result in another company infringing their patent. Separately, he was aware that a significant number of people had complained of health issues connected with the vaccine. How confident would he feel about accepting that vaccine?
Let me take this analogy a bit further. The Maths behind the Regan tests and vaccine trials is essentially the same. So there is roughly a 50% chance that a normal chess player (playing without assistance) will play the computer move. Similarly if a vaccine is completely ineffective for each infection there would be a 50% chance that it occurs in the vaccinated group (as opposed to the control). Note in both cases we have a null hypothesis which is the opposite of what we are trying to detect. This sets a high bar for establishing evidence from the outset.
Drugs companies release the results of their trials but not what goes into their vaccines. It is a shame that we don't (generally) have the result of cheat detection systems in the public domain. However, those banned in ECF or 4NCL competitions receive the results of their Regan tests and are free to release these into the public domain. As far as I know no-one has decided to do this.
I said earlier that pharmaceutical companies don't release what goes into their vaccines, but of course you can find out exactly what the Pfizer vaccine consists of by looking on Github. Similarly you find out a huge amount about cheat detection systems just by taking time to look it up.

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 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:24 am

Just to note that drugs companies do not always release the results of trials involving their drugs, which has led to a number of scandals (e.g. relating to Seroxat).
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

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

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:25 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:18 am
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:38 am
"Chess.com's fair-play system is thorough, complex and rigorously verified by more than eight years of data from millions of games played by our own members online"

Perhaps I can put this to Matthew by way of analogy. Let's suppose he was offered a Covid-19 vaccine which the manufacturers claimed was "rigorously verified" by copious research and data but where the manufacturers withheld this research and data from peer review on the grounds, say, that disclosure might result in another company infringing their patent. Separately, he was aware that a significant number of people had complained of health issues connected with the vaccine. How confident would he feel about accepting that vaccine?
Let me take this analogy a bit further. The Maths behind the Regan tests and vaccine trials is essentially the same. So there is roughly a 50% chance that a normal chess player (playing without assistance) will play the computer move. Similarly if a vaccine is completely ineffective for each infection there would be a 50% chance that it occurs in the vaccinated group (as opposed to the control). Note in both cases we have a null hypothesis which is the opposite of what we are trying to detect. This sets a high bar for establishing evidence from the outset.
Drugs companies release the results of their trials but not what goes into their vaccines. It is a shame that we don't (generally) have the result of cheat detection systems in the public domain. However, those banned in ECF or 4NCL competitions receive the results of their Regan tests and are free to release these into the public domain. As far as I know no-one has decided to do this.
I said earlier that pharmaceutical companies don't release what goes into their vaccines, but of course you can find out exactly what the Pfizer vaccine consists of by looking on Github. Similarly you find out a huge amount about cheat detection systems just by taking time to look it up.
Matthew, I deliberately omitted inclusion of the Regan tests because they're a somewhat different proposition. Ken is relatively transparent over his methods so that becomes an entirely separate conversation which has been covered elsewhere. While I entirely respect Ken's integrity, it is fair to point out that his methods haven't been peer reviewed and - as mentioned elsewhere - are open to criticism in certain respects.