#4, I hear that a lot, why do you think that?
People don't have to cheat every game, or even every move. If an engine is essentially used as a hint button (and to be honest, I think you're far more likely to find that than people who outright follow it all the time), I'd think that's pretty imperceptible to all elements of a detection system. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but it's frustrating when people suddenly get a whole lot better over the course of a game.
I don't just think that, I go through dozens of these cases everyday and have a good statistic of what actually happens. Cheaters won't affect your rating by any mean, and you are not likely to find any of them below a rating of 2000.
I'm not sure how you can judge what's imperceptible to the elements of a system without knowing the system itself.
There is no point in thinking lichess has more cheaters than any other website, I rather think lichess is very active in spotting them.
That said, those detected cheaters
1) Have a big red badge which is highly recognizable
2) Somehow complain about being caught and result in being a very vocal part of the community, which may lead people to think they are more than what they actually are. You just had a clue of what I mean in the last topic.
People either cheat to find some non-sense glory in being high rated on a website (that's how their life goes sadly) or, for the major part, want to improve in the game or just to have fun. This in-between status where they play and just randomly get hints doesn't happen, and it would STILL be detected if it happened.
That's an awfully defensive response and you didn't really address my question or any part of the paragraph that followed it other than to say it just doesn't happen. How can you be sure? Your system is clearly not flawless as it is when the cheating is obvious or not. No idea how you can so conclusively say it WOULD be detected if it's just a few moves.
Carry on.
I have nothing to defend, I was pointing out how things work. There are very few things that users need to know about how we hunt cheaters, the fact that we do it efficiently is pretty obvious.
You're not going to get informations that are supposed to be kept confidential for a reason. You're welcome to think that your rating depends on the amount of cheaters you have found so far, good news people think wrong things all the time and they get away with it.
What are you even talking about. None of that is what I said. Are you just stringing together stock sentences whenever this topic comes up? You may as well have just been responding to a random post.
I'm sure the system is flawless. God forbid anyone think otherwise, am I right?
Agree with you Ekblad. Anyone should be highly suspicious of a cheat detection system that they are confident of. It's the old problem of "You don't know what you don't know". Just because you aren't catching the cheaters doesn't mean they aren't cheating.
What make you so sure the system is flawless ? Are you a cheater yourself ?
Good evening.
In fact, statics has helped a lot in detecting cheaters, but, my question is:
If Bobby Fischer plays on Lichess. Will he be detected as cheater for its accurancy playing?
#18: I don't think Bobby Fisher is very active these days........
And perhaps - if his move times and centipawn loss are too consistent.
You can do a computer analysis of Bobby's games and find a few mistakes. Although he'd play a number of flawless as well. The thing is, though, sometimes a move that the computer will call a mistake, and maybe it technically is, can sometimes cause a human opponent to make an even greater mistake allowing you to win the game. So even though Bobby's move might be marked as a mistake by the computer, it was still a great move that was an expression of his underlying chess knowledge. Something much deeper than what the computer sees. But in an interview shortly before his death, Bobby said he never would play online.
P.S. This captcha marks a forced mate in two as wrong, but a checkmate in one as right. Here's an example of a lack of computer understanding. Sometimes we want to make our opponent suffer and force him to sac a queen before being mated rather than give him the mate in one.
