|
man all i know is if i were a chess cheater the thing i’d want most of all is to hear what chess.com do to catch cheaters
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Yeah I consider myself appropriately schooled! Seriously, good post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
I get why it is the way it is...while also trying to say the way it is currently, is insane and seems untenable. It's just too scandalous, and everyone has every motivation to accuse/cheat. I'm very glad I am a casual suck player who just bought his first baby USCF set on amazon to play with my buddies at the bar and internet drama enjoyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
wedgie deliverer posted:I feel like the fact that chess.com has a giant database of chess cheaters with confessions they've gotten out of them, while simultaneously refused to share any of the evidence of methods of determining such cheating, to be an insane ticking time bomb. How the gently caress is this thing not at the center of the whole controversy? At least no one will ever confess to chess.com ever again now that they've decided that keeping things private means they can selectively give confessions of certain disfavored players to the media.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
gret posted:At least no one will ever confess to chess.com ever again now that they've decided that keeping things private means they can selectively give confessions of certain disfavored players to the media. Hm, perhaps if players would like to opt out of this confess to get unbanned system they could do so by simply not cheating online.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:man all i know is if i were a chess cheater the thing i’d want most of all is to hear what chess.com do to catch cheaters It's not a great sign for them that their methods for catching cheaters are so flimsy that knowing how they do it invalidates the method.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
A password system so weak that you can bypass it by simply knowing the correct password. They use a computer system that analyzes an input to see if the input is correct. If you have the source code of that system in hand you can always design an input that both wins a chess game and passes any arbitrary check conducted by the computer system. Put more simply, if you have the exact method used, you can always cheat without getting caught. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
uPen posted:It's not a great sign for them that their methods for catching cheaters are so flimsy that knowing how they do it invalidates the method. That's extremely common in many online games, because you can't actually detect cheating, you can only detect behaviors correlated with cheating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Hm, perhaps if players would like to opt out of this confess to get unbanned system they could do so by simply not cheating online. And precisely what is it about their cheating-detection method which makes you so confident that there aren't any false positives? Oh, wait, you don't actually know their method. Because it's a secret. So then... what IS it that makes you so confident?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:And precisely what is it about their cheating-detection method which makes you so confident that there aren't any false positives? Just to be clear, if you were wrongfully identified as a cheater, you would not submit a written confession to chess.com that you cheated. So even in the hypothetical, this isn't adding up to the original claim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
uPen posted:It's not a great sign for them that their methods for catching cheaters are so flimsy that knowing how they do it invalidates the method. This ain’t it chief
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Is there really a big epidemic of falsely accused cheaters out there? Pretty much every story related to chess cheating I've heard of, the accused cheater turned out to indeed be cheating, or at least was discovered to be terrible at chess when unable to cheat
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Just to be clear, if you were wrongfully identified as a cheater, you would not submit a written confession to chess.com that you cheated. So even in the hypothetical, this isn't adding up to the original claim. By this logic, everyone who ever took a plea bargain is guilty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Just to be clear, if you were wrongfully identified as a cheater, you would not submit a written confession to chess.com that you cheated. So even in the hypothetical, this isn't adding up to the original claim. I mean, if I was falsely hit, I’d probably just confess to get unbanned. Probably way faster/easier than getting them to admit they hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
uPen posted:It's not a great sign for them that their methods for catching cheaters are so flimsy that knowing how they do it invalidates the method. Of all the dumb (imo) things posted about this stuff recently, this has got to take the cake. As for false accusations.. Bystanders can be quick to throw out accusations but professional organizations and companies are generally very shy to level accusations of cheating because, well, you can see the furor that happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:man all i know is if i were a chess cheater the thing i’d want most of all is to hear what chess.com do to catch cheaters Here's what LiChess uses. I imagine the other site might not be too different (but maybe it is!). https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/1ef025b9a20b95956204c16ec2096a5e91ecea44/modules/evaluation/src/main/PlayerAssessment.scala
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I'm willing to bet that there isn't anyone in this thread that knows more about chess engines and related topics than Sub Rosa. Cast_No_Shadow posted:Yeah I consider myself appropriately schooled! In fact the reason I know about Let's Check is that correspondence players should never ever use it otherwise your opponent maybe will be able to see exactly what engine you are using and to what depth. If you know that your opponent is always using Komodo version whatever to depth 30, you can literally setup a lab to try to find a way lead the game to a position that Komodo will misevaluate at the depth the opponent is going to. At least you could before NNUE. jesus WEP posted:man all i know is if i were a chess cheater the thing i’d want most of all is to hear what chess.com do to catch cheaters For one thing, web browsers can collect a lot of information and relay it back, including looking for cheat browser extension, or if the window or tab loses focus, like you are tabbing to another window where you have an engine open. Then there is other low hanging fruit like weird time usage where someone doesn't immediately take back after a capture, or if time usage in general is too uniform. Same if the mouse's movement is irregular. It's possible to move using the keyboard but almost no one uses this but some cheat bots use or used that to try to circumvent the mouse tracking. All of that is what catches the unsophisticated cheater. For the sophisticated cheater, I'm actually reminded of USADA's anti-doping. Anti-doping is sports has this thing called a biological passport. They aren't just looking for the banned substances, they are trying to over time get a fingerprint of your baseline because even new undetectable performance enhancers would skew your fingerprint. So for someone like Hans, I'm sure that Hans has played thousands of games without cheating on chess.com. To start with they can compare this unique fingerprint to the massive amount of chess data they have to understand at baseline the way Hans plays both differently and the same as others at his rating, including as that rating increases as he gets better. Managing to cheat in a way that doesn't make it look like you are outside your fingerprint is very hard. You can play way above your normal strength and still be inside your fingerprint, or you could lose and still be outside it. The actual way to do it would be to not transmit moves, but have a way to signal "there is only one good move here" or "your opponent just blundered". In my estimation the suspicion on Hans here started really from his interviews where he looked like someone who just aced a calculus final without showing any work, and when asked to show some work can't remember any formulas. That to me makes it seem he knew this or that move was the move to play, but he didn't have to find the move himself. But just knowing your opponent blundered or there is only one good move is enough of a hint to find it, and if you are forced to find it yourself you still look like you are concentrating at key moments, and then you are able to talk naturally about your mental process finding the winning move afterwards. Also if you can't find the move because it's something only an engine would find, you don't look like someone playing moves only an engine would find. Little hints now and then can have a big impact, and you are much more likely to still look like you are in your fingerprint. wedgie deliverer posted:I feel like the fact that chess.com has a giant database of chess cheaters with confessions they've gotten out of them, while simultaneously refused to share any of the evidence of methods of determining such cheating, to be an insane ticking time bomb. How the gently caress is this thing not at the center of the whole controversy? What an Olympiad in Chennai, huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
CubicalSucrose posted:Here's what LiChess uses. I imagine the other site might not be too different (but maybe it is!). What does "blur rate" mean here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:A password system so weak that you can bypass it by simply knowing the correct password. Just a password is not a secure method of protecting something, that's why 2FA, physical keys, pre shared certs etc. exist totalnewbie posted:Of all the dumb (imo) things posted about this stuff recently, this has got to take the cake. If chess.com is going to be throwing around 'Yes this person cheated and we're going to destroy their career' they should be able to back that up and if their method for doing so is private then you just have to trust them that they know what they're doing. The lichess anti-cheat algorithm is public and as far as I'm aware they don't have more problems with cheating than chess.com does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:In fact the reason I know about Let's Check is that correspondence players should never ever use it otherwise your opponent maybe will be able to see exactly what engine you are using and to what depth. If you know that your opponent is always using Komodo version whatever to depth 30, you can literally setup a lab to try to find a way lead the game to a position that Komodo will misevaluate at the depth the opponent is going to. At least you could before NNUE. Is there a strategy to do this (find a position that opposing engine would misevaluate)? Or is it mostly trying random variations and following the engine lines to manually evaluate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:What does "blur rate" mean here? Blur rate is something like time the window is not in focus, if I'm remembering correctly. Been a while since I actually reviewed the code, but at the end of the day it's mostly the stuff mentioned here. Sub Rosa posted:For one thing, web browsers can collect a lot of information and relay it back, including looking for cheat browser extension, or if the window or tab loses focus, like you are tabbing to another window where you have an engine open. Then there is other low hanging fruit like weird time usage where someone doesn't immediately take back after a capture, or if time usage in general is too uniform. Same if the mouse's movement is irregular. It's possible to move using the keyboard but almost no one uses this but some cheat bots use or used that to try to circumvent the mouse tracking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
Redmark posted:Is there a strategy to do this (find a position that opposing engine would misevaluate)? Or is it mostly trying random variations and following the engine lines to manually evaluate? To do it manually, you put your candidate move into the position, and compare the engine they are using at the depth they are going to with what other engines or even the same engine suggests at more depth. So maybe you choose a slightly suboptimal move if you expect their response will be even more suboptimal. I haven't done this sort of thing in a while, but you can also setup engine tournaments in Arena GUI and then if there are any wins you look at them for where the blunder was in retrospect and play towards that line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Is there really a big epidemic of falsely accused cheaters out there? Pretty much every story related to chess cheating I've heard of, the accused cheater turned out to indeed be cheating, or at least was discovered to be terrible at chess when unable to cheat There are plenty of false positives from these supposedly hand-checked systems, like the person earlier in the thread. Though I still think their methods are probably sound when applied over enough games and a human double checking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
It's impossible to make any system immune to false positives, but plenty? Nah. If anything anyone who plays on lichess or chess.com can tell you there are loads of active cheaters on both sites that are not getting caught by the auto-ban and only getting banned after they are reported. Also clearly titled players receive a lot more scrutiny before action is taken then some rando 800. As a spectator who enjoys watching blitz it sometimes gets frustrating how slow chess.com can be to bust even really obvious cheaters during TT/AK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:By this logic, everyone who ever took a plea bargain is guilty. When it's "confess and get a year, go to trial and get ten" you're definitely going to get some false confessions. When the penalty is "get banned on chess.com" that's probably less likely. On the other hand, a "secret evidence, secret decision" system is fine for a silly game website. But once real money and reputations are on the line there really does need to be a more transparent solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:When it's "confess and get a year, go to trial and get ten" you're definitely going to get some false confessions. When the penalty is "get banned on chess.com" that's probably less likely. Well I mean at least in the legal system you have a judge and/or jury that decides your guilt, and are independent from the prosecutor. Meanwhile in chess.com's system they're the accuser and the judge. There's really no recourse if you believe that you were falsely accused of cheating my them. So it's always better to just admit your guilt, right or wrong, and get your account back in 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
rather than shutting down accounts, i prefer a hellbanning solution where cheaters get perpetually matched with other suspected cheaters  my rationale: these cheaters can always just register a new account right? since it's impossible to get rid of them, its better to just keep them busy and away from everyone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
Chess.com may be a malign actor, a parasite, and the enemy of free chess, but they're still more trustworthy than Niemann or most of the other people accused of cheating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Chess.com also has financial links to Magnus Carlsen now, so they're not a reliable source of information on who is cheating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
nrook posted:Chess.com may be a malign actor, a parasite, and the enemy of free chess, but they're still more trustworthy than Niemann or most of the other people accused of cheating. i still don't trust them op
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Chess.com also has financial links to Magnus Carlsen now, so they're not a reliable source of information on who is cheating. This seems like a second part of this whole affair which is underreported. This isn't necessarily to defend Hans, but to point out that the primary accusers have very obvious conflicts of interest. I have a strong suspicion that if this makes it to the discovery in a lawsuit its gonna really blow the lid off structural issues in chess. For example, I would not be shocked if there if a lawsuit discovered a win-trading scheme among GMs and such, like we've seen in other highly ranking dependent individual sports like sumo. There's simply too much at stake for individuals, no meaningful governing body, which also prevents the formation of a meaningful players organization or union like other professional sports. So incredibly messy. Also implicit in all of this is the fact that Magnus seems to be making a similar that Kasparov and others tried in the past to take the governing authority of chess under their personal control. It's basically taken as an article of faith based on the comments I've seen from other GMs that you have to be on Magnus' good side to have a career now. What kind of other sport operates like this? If a top tennis player has a massive beef with another player and accuses them of cheating, there's no doubt of a third party arbiter being able to resolve the dispute. No such governing body appears to exist in chess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
I just found the coolest lichess feature. The phone app downloads puzzles in batches and always keeps 50 puzzles ready to go at all times. If you're on an airplane or something it'll let you keep doing puzzles and the upload the results for puzzle rating once you come back online. That is so cool!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Finegold says Chess.com has a list of hundreds of GM cheaters, so yeah I suspect that list has some false positives on it, or GMs don't care about chess.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
wedgie deliverer posted:Also implicit in all of this is the fact that Magnus seems to be making a similar that Kasparov and others tried in the past to take the governing authority of chess under their personal control. It's basically taken as an article of faith based on the comments I've seen from other GMs that you have to be on Magnus' good side to have a career now. What kind of other sport operates like this? If a top tennis player has a massive beef with another player and accuses them of cheating, there's no doubt of a third party arbiter being able to resolve the dispute. No such governing body appears to exist in chess. Fine. Chess shouldn't need it since it's a game of the mind. No jury decisions - as a smart man once said, "the chess speaks for itself" Even the concept of cheating in chess must have been viewed as wholly absurd before the time of modern computers
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Finegold says Chess.com has a list of hundreds of GM cheaters, so yeah I suspect that list has some false positives on it, or GMs don't care about chess.com I suspect hundreds of GMs have cheated on chess.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
wedgie deliverer posted:If a top tennis player has a massive beef with another player and accuses them of cheating, there's no doubt of a third party arbiter being able to resolve the dispute. No such governing body appears to exist in chess. FIDE literally is presently conducting parallel investigations of Magnus and Hans. Hans for cheating, Magnus for an improper allegation of cheating. Don't think things aren't still happening in the background. We have chess.com presenting their case next week to look forward to too. Judge the actions of these disparate actors after things shake out imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
chess.com has new variant called duck chess. In duck chess every turn you move a duck on the board and it gets in the way of your opponent. Pieces cannot move through the duck, and the object is to capture the opponent's king. Also in duck chess stalemate is a loss for the player who caused it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsUd20OEoNQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Charles Ingalls posted:Even the concept of cheating in chess must have been viewed as wholly absurd before the time of modern computers Ruy Lopez's book on chess strategy recommends playing with the sun at your back to blind your opponent. If playing at night by a fire, cast a shadow on the board so your opponent can't see his pieces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Ruy Lopez's book on chess strategy recommends playing with the sun at your back to blind your opponent. If playing at night by a fire, cast a shadow on the board so your opponent can't see his pieces. I like it Move all chess tourneys to saloons, with plenty of whiskey poured, and pistols cocked and locked should an extra pawn ever slip out of someone's sleeve
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
kalensc posted:I like it Chess Thread: Move all chess tourneys to saloons
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 05:01
|
|