I agree with LeMusique. Even games where Magnus made no mistake and not even an inaccuracy still have less than 50% computer moves simply because the move you chose depends on your style. I would expect that one gets banned when one has like 90% computer moves or so which shouldn't happen to Magnus.
If Magnus Carlsen plays a couple of games on lichess, would the cheat detection in the site trigger?
What if Magnus is secretly a cyborg so all his moves are actually computer moves and that's why he's the world champion?
Not surprisingly, a conspiracy theorist has sprung to life amidst a casual conversation.
No chance. There's a lot more to cheat detection than just seeing how well a player plays. Matching the engine's moves is only part of the process.
What's the rest of the process? I've always been mildly interested in this process, but assumed that it was mostly a matter of playing
perfect" games.
LeMusique has pointed out that they also check for so-called "engine" moves, regardless of the # of inaccuracies. I didn't know this, but what else is there to cheat-detection?
perfect" games.
LeMusique has pointed out that they also check for so-called "engine" moves, regardless of the # of inaccuracies. I didn't know this, but what else is there to cheat-detection?
I'm not an expert on this stuff but I'll try to answer anyway. Task-switching (i.e. what happens when you press alt-tab) is a key factor. If a user is leaving his browser after every move then he's probably manually using an engine. Also, if a player takes the exact same amount of time for each move then he's probably using an automated program. I'm sure other technical factors play into catching cheaters, but all the chess sites like to keep their methods a secret.
"but all the chess sites like to keep their methods a secret." Lichess is open source.
1. Alt tabbing - as well as ctrl tab / switching windows
2. move time
3. accuracy of moves
I can say for sure if you have terrible moves blunder every move or make 10 blunders in 12 moves that you will not be picked up or that your appeal will be treated properly.
2. move time
3. accuracy of moves
I can say for sure if you have terrible moves blunder every move or make 10 blunders in 12 moves that you will not be picked up or that your appeal will be treated properly.
There are a number of strategies but these are the main ones I believe:
Accuracy of moves, engine emulation and depth.
Window switching every or nearly every move,
A 1400 standard rated player with hundreds of low level games suddenly beating a NM and above. The trigger for this criteria needs to be very carefully adjusted.
A player rated very low on blitz, bullet and training rating over 2000 on standard.
A player who is losing badly in the opening suddenly come good with perfect moves coupled with window switching.
A player who is known OTB at a 1700 plays at 2300 on line. While these in isolation may not indicate cheating, taken together, the weight of evidence could be overwhelming. Using a principle of balance of probability, the risk of falsely accusing a player of cheating is probably very low. The risk also needs to be balanced against benefit. What is the risk if no detection strategy is used? What is the risk if a small proportion of players are wrongly accused? With no detection strategy, Lichess and every other site would be a shambles, interest in openly available online chess would wane. The only way of accessing online chess would be by paid membership with strict conditions and very tight anti-cheating controls.
Accuracy of moves, engine emulation and depth.
Window switching every or nearly every move,
A 1400 standard rated player with hundreds of low level games suddenly beating a NM and above. The trigger for this criteria needs to be very carefully adjusted.
A player rated very low on blitz, bullet and training rating over 2000 on standard.
A player who is losing badly in the opening suddenly come good with perfect moves coupled with window switching.
A player who is known OTB at a 1700 plays at 2300 on line. While these in isolation may not indicate cheating, taken together, the weight of evidence could be overwhelming. Using a principle of balance of probability, the risk of falsely accusing a player of cheating is probably very low. The risk also needs to be balanced against benefit. What is the risk if no detection strategy is used? What is the risk if a small proportion of players are wrongly accused? With no detection strategy, Lichess and every other site would be a shambles, interest in openly available online chess would wane. The only way of accessing online chess would be by paid membership with strict conditions and very tight anti-cheating controls.
Just curious - what means does the site use to detect window/tab switching? Apparently, there are several ways to do this in Javascript, but some browser/OS combinations seem to be able to bypass it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.