I think they figured that out years ago. They spy on your computer to make sure you aren't switching to Rybka. Actually looking at your own Rybka is not even necessary if they supply real time computer analysis whilst the game is in progress. Again I'd expect they've got that one partly covered.Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:39 pmIt would be impossible for me using Mathews machine to access my copy of Rybka
which is installed on my computer.
Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
-
- Posts: 10415
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
I hope so, and let's hope it keeps the record tooRichard Bates wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 7:24 pmI know it’s nothing to do with the topic, but was the opening post the longest ever on the EC forum?
It was obviously well though out though, which can't be said for all opening posts
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Martin,Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:42 pmThere were players banned after playing just a handful of rounds in the 4NCL league. As neither lichess nor the 4NCL will publish much of the reasons for the bans, it's open season for speculation. It could have been something as straightforward as a spectator with the same IP address following the game. Given that both lichess and chess.com appear to supply the very obvious security risk of live analysis whilst the game is in progress, that could be an explanation.MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:30 pmGenuine question - which bit? I was under the impression at least one person had got banned based purely on 2(?),4(?) 4ncl online games.
The second bit
Roger,
A player will only be flagged if they play abnormally well. Someone accessing analysis from the same address alone would not trigger a ban in itself
-
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Having been on the same conference call I can confirm that, unless you believe [and, to be clear, I don't] that someone is fabricating the statistical data about 4NCL performances, then Matt is correct. If my memory serves me right, the peak performance was somewhere around 5.6 sigma,Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:14 pmWell, like a number of other forumites, I have just come off a 2 hour conference call, and that is simply not true.MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 7:23 pmI don’t think they can be using 5 sigma right now, else no one in the 4NCL on line would be that near getting banned (on moves alone.).
-
- Posts: 8484
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Can you provide a link?Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:17 pmBecause in the case of Ken Regan’s software it Is publicly available information.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
The offence of playing well whilst not in possession of a high enough rating?Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:54 pmA player will only be flagged if they play abnormally well.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Roger,
The way that the FIDE rating system works is that each one of z equates to 200 points. So if you you have a z score of 4 you are playing at 800 points above your rating (adjustments are made for players with very low rating). There are zero players who have managed this in the 4NCL. There are a significant number of players who are managing this in the online 4NCL. How would you explain that?
The way that the FIDE rating system works is that each one of z equates to 200 points. So if you you have a z score of 4 you are playing at 800 points above your rating (adjustments are made for players with very low rating). There are zero players who have managed this in the 4NCL. There are a significant number of players who are managing this in the online 4NCL. How would you explain that?
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Let's clarify. You are saying that if someone plays well above their nominal rating they are cheating?
That's placing a lot of faith in the reliability of ratings. Which ones are being used? Someone playing on lichess might have FIDE standard, FIDE rapid, FIDE Blitz, ECF standard, ECF rapid, lichess Rapid, lichess Blitz, lichess Bullet. They may all be inconsistent.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Same players same ratings used. One event zero players with z score of 4 (as all the historic and mathematical evidence would predict) the other event a significant number of players with a z score of 4.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:14 pmWell, like a number of other forumites, I have just come off a 2 hour conference call, and that is simply not true.MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 7:23 pmI don’t think they can be using 5 sigma right now, else no one in the 4NCL on line would be that near getting banned (on moves alone.).
If my memory serves me right, the sigmas at that level were recorded by players who have now been banned. No-one still playing has recorded anything above 4 sigma.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:56 pmHaving been on the same conference call I can confirm that, unless you believe [and, to be clear, I don't] that someone is fabricating the statistical data about 4NCL performances, then Matt is correct. If my memory serves me right, the peak performance was somewhere around 5.6 sigma,
As Matt says immediately up the thread, that is itself highly suspicious.
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:47 pmSame players same ratings used. One event zero players with z score of 4 (as all the historic and mathematical evidence would predict) the other event a significant number of players with a z score of 4.
Are you saying that the 4NCL online league was calibrated against the 4NCL over the board league?
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Roger,
The tests in both leagues use exactly the same parameters.
The tests in both leagues use exactly the same parameters.
-
- Posts: 21355
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Are you saying then that the performance of a player in the online league was compared against performance over the board and discrepancies noted? Was this a factor in the lichess decision to ban players?Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 7:57 amThe tests in both leagues use exactly the same parameters.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
I don’t believe that was explicitly said and I’m not sure that it is trueDavid Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 7:47 amIf my memory serves me right, the sigmas at that level were recorded by players who have now been banned. No-one still playing has recorded anything above 4 sigma.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Some thoughts on anti-cheating systems
Roger,
The Ken Regan tests are calibrated (as you put it) over millions of historic games to assure the accuracy. The test carried out on the 4NCL and the online 4NCL use exactly the same parameters. I don’t think I can put it any clearer than that. In the 4NCL there are no players with a z score of 4 (as historic data and maths would predict) In the online 4NCL there are a significant number. It really is your turn to answer a question, how do you explain that?
The Ken Regan tests are calibrated (as you put it) over millions of historic games to assure the accuracy. The test carried out on the 4NCL and the online 4NCL use exactly the same parameters. I don’t think I can put it any clearer than that. In the 4NCL there are no players with a z score of 4 (as historic data and maths would predict) In the online 4NCL there are a significant number. It really is your turn to answer a question, how do you explain that?