excellent work, awesome read :)
As far as the concept of the suspicion threshold and suspicion of cheating resulting in poor play I've come up with an approach that works well for me.
I believe that when dealing with frustration regarding cheating the biggest issue to the person who was cheated against is that they perceive themselves to be the victim and thus feel an injustice was done against them.
However I tend to take a different approach and believe that the real victim is the cheater as they are stunting any future chess development by relying on an engine rather than their own skill. They also start teaching themselves that when they come across problems on the chess board rather than using your own ingenuity, skill and knowledge they instead become reliant on outside sources of knowledge that they won't be able to rely upon if their cheating method is blocked.
I on the other hand while having nominally been a "victim" of cheating and subsequently lost a game will ideally be able to look at the game afterwards and see where I went wrong. Then in future I'll be aware of this flaw in my play and if I rectify it I'll become a better player.
So overall I assume the cheater's chess skills are degrading as they no longer use skills needed to play and rely on cheating as they don't have faith in their own abilities. I on the other hand keep practicing skills needed to play and also get opportunities to fix my flaws. This is worth far more than any temporary win gained on false premises and I firmly believe anyone cheating is destroying their long term chess prospects and that's even before taking into consideration bans etc.
I'll also add that I tend not to worry about whether my opponent is cheating or not as I assume they'll play to their rating whether it's achieved honestly or not. I believe any cheating would be dealt with by relevant anti-cheating mechanisms. As said above I believe cheating mainly harms the cheater so I don't worry about other people's self destructive behaviour.
I believe that when dealing with frustration regarding cheating the biggest issue to the person who was cheated against is that they perceive themselves to be the victim and thus feel an injustice was done against them.
However I tend to take a different approach and believe that the real victim is the cheater as they are stunting any future chess development by relying on an engine rather than their own skill. They also start teaching themselves that when they come across problems on the chess board rather than using your own ingenuity, skill and knowledge they instead become reliant on outside sources of knowledge that they won't be able to rely upon if their cheating method is blocked.
I on the other hand while having nominally been a "victim" of cheating and subsequently lost a game will ideally be able to look at the game afterwards and see where I went wrong. Then in future I'll be aware of this flaw in my play and if I rectify it I'll become a better player.
So overall I assume the cheater's chess skills are degrading as they no longer use skills needed to play and rely on cheating as they don't have faith in their own abilities. I on the other hand keep practicing skills needed to play and also get opportunities to fix my flaws. This is worth far more than any temporary win gained on false premises and I firmly believe anyone cheating is destroying their long term chess prospects and that's even before taking into consideration bans etc.
I'll also add that I tend not to worry about whether my opponent is cheating or not as I assume they'll play to their rating whether it's achieved honestly or not. I believe any cheating would be dealt with by relevant anti-cheating mechanisms. As said above I believe cheating mainly harms the cheater so I don't worry about other people's self destructive behaviour.
Most cheaters are stupid and copy-paste brilliant moves that they don't understand. A couple of these engine-only moves (played in 2 seconds of course) are enough for anti-cheating algorithms and I've seen a guy get busted after only 4 rapid games. While there are some cheaters, and OTB cheating is the most problematic, the efficiency of these algorithms make it unlikely (I would say below 1%) that your last defeat was against Stockfish.
Very well said. This is the best writing I've seen on this subject.
> The next suggestion is somewhat idealistic, but it is to work towards — if possible — some kind of generally agreed upon and recognized ‘due process’ for determining cheating.
This must be possible, since anything less than this ideal is guaranteed to fail. Organizations (Chess.com, USCF, FIDE, etc.) have no intrinsic incentive to disclose anything, so researcher-journalists need to build methods from publicly available data to restore trust frequently eroded by public figures.
> The next suggestion is somewhat idealistic, but it is to work towards — if possible — some kind of generally agreed upon and recognized ‘due process’ for determining cheating.
This must be possible, since anything less than this ideal is guaranteed to fail. Organizations (Chess.com, USCF, FIDE, etc.) have no intrinsic incentive to disclose anything, so researcher-journalists need to build methods from publicly available data to restore trust frequently eroded by public figures.
I played about 27 Titled Tuesdays altogether, scoring in average something between 7.5 and 8 points out of 11 rounds. Three times I scored 9/11, three times 8.5/11, once winning a prize of $200, three other times finishing in top 10. I have never been playing these tournament on cameras (yet), but played many rapid events with two cameras and mostly with a similar level of play. Playing OTB, showing a similar level of play. (With the same ups and downs, including many games played very well with a few seconds left.) Why on the Earth would I cheat in Titled Tuesdays? To earn less than $10 per tournament and risk a big scandal?
If needed, I am ready to make a video on my games from TT, explaining my decisions, just it is necessary to find appropriate time for it.
Grandmaster Kramnik is a great player, but he does not really understand statistics.
I think that it is telling that GM Kramnik believes it to be fine when GM Khismatullin ratings.fide.com/profile/4142578 reaches a blitz rating of 3050 (actually it was sometimes him playing, violating the terms of service), while sort of accuses me when I reach a peak rating 3049. Understandably Dennis Khismatullin is underrated and I might be overrated, but I have achieved quite some successes in OTB blitz, and actually have better results over the board than online.
Grandmaster Kramnik obviously uses dual standards.
I am going to submit an official complaint to FIDE.
P.S.: I actually planned to play a few games in today's blitz arena, but now I am not really in a mood for it.
If needed, I am ready to make a video on my games from TT, explaining my decisions, just it is necessary to find appropriate time for it.
Grandmaster Kramnik is a great player, but he does not really understand statistics.
I think that it is telling that GM Kramnik believes it to be fine when GM Khismatullin ratings.fide.com/profile/4142578 reaches a blitz rating of 3050 (actually it was sometimes him playing, violating the terms of service), while sort of accuses me when I reach a peak rating 3049. Understandably Dennis Khismatullin is underrated and I might be overrated, but I have achieved quite some successes in OTB blitz, and actually have better results over the board than online.
Grandmaster Kramnik obviously uses dual standards.
I am going to submit an official complaint to FIDE.
P.S.: I actually planned to play a few games in today's blitz arena, but now I am not really in a mood for it.
kramnik is absolutely right - there is so much cheating in chess. much more than you can imagine.
leading platforms struggle to battle cheating because their cheat detection is based primarily on statistical analysis which with some randomness can be easily misled and a few IMs or FMs that review games.
there is endless amount of cheaters on all levels. it would be interesting to see some real lichess numbers.
leading platforms struggle to battle cheating because their cheat detection is based primarily on statistical analysis which with some randomness can be easily misled and a few IMs or FMs that review games.
there is endless amount of cheaters on all levels. it would be interesting to see some real lichess numbers.
@RealDavidNavara said in #6:
> I played about 27 Titled Tuesdays altogether, scoring in average something between 7.5 and 8 points out of 11 rounds. Three times I scored 9/11, three times 8.5/11, once winning a prize of $200, three other times finishing in top 10. I have never been playing these tournament on cameras (yet), but played many rapid events with two cameras and mostly with a similar level of play. Playing OTB, showing a similar level of play. (With the same ups and downs, including many games played very well with a few seconds left.) Why on the Earth would I cheat in Titled Tuesdays? To earn less than $10 per tournament and risk a big scandal?
> If needed, I am ready to make a video on my games from TT, explaining my decisions, just it is necessary to find appropriate time for it.
> Grandmaster Kramnik is a great player, but he does not really understand statistics.
> I think that it is telling that GM Kramnik believes it to be fine when GM Khismatullin ratings.fide.com/profile/4142578 reaches a blitz rating of 3050 (actually it was sometimes him playing, violating the terms of service), while sort of accuses me when I reach a peak rating 3049. Understandably Dennis Khismatullin is underrated and I might be overrated, but I have achieved quite some successes in OTB blitz, and actually have better results over the board than online.
> Grandmaster Kramnik obviously uses dual standards.
> I am going to submit an official complaint to FIDE.
> P.S.: I actually planned to play a few games in today's blitz arena, but now I am not really in a mood for it.
I think with the tweet quoted in the blog he does not want to accuse you but instead the <2600 rated players whose rating he made red in the table
> I played about 27 Titled Tuesdays altogether, scoring in average something between 7.5 and 8 points out of 11 rounds. Three times I scored 9/11, three times 8.5/11, once winning a prize of $200, three other times finishing in top 10. I have never been playing these tournament on cameras (yet), but played many rapid events with two cameras and mostly with a similar level of play. Playing OTB, showing a similar level of play. (With the same ups and downs, including many games played very well with a few seconds left.) Why on the Earth would I cheat in Titled Tuesdays? To earn less than $10 per tournament and risk a big scandal?
> If needed, I am ready to make a video on my games from TT, explaining my decisions, just it is necessary to find appropriate time for it.
> Grandmaster Kramnik is a great player, but he does not really understand statistics.
> I think that it is telling that GM Kramnik believes it to be fine when GM Khismatullin ratings.fide.com/profile/4142578 reaches a blitz rating of 3050 (actually it was sometimes him playing, violating the terms of service), while sort of accuses me when I reach a peak rating 3049. Understandably Dennis Khismatullin is underrated and I might be overrated, but I have achieved quite some successes in OTB blitz, and actually have better results over the board than online.
> Grandmaster Kramnik obviously uses dual standards.
> I am going to submit an official complaint to FIDE.
> P.S.: I actually planned to play a few games in today's blitz arena, but now I am not really in a mood for it.
I think with the tweet quoted in the blog he does not want to accuse you but instead the <2600 rated players whose rating he made red in the table
@voxQz said in #7:
> leading platforms struggle to battle cheating because their cheat detection is based primarily on statistical analysis
Oh, is that so? I can think of another "leading platform" which emphasizes the manual effort their team invests. There is a difference between "willingness to go to trial" and "willingness to explain techniques used."
> leading platforms struggle to battle cheating because their cheat detection is based primarily on statistical analysis
Oh, is that so? I can think of another "leading platform" which emphasizes the manual effort their team invests. There is a difference between "willingness to go to trial" and "willingness to explain techniques used."
I am pretty sure both lichess and chess.com cheat detection is based on statistical analysis.
everything else, that is not so obvious like first-line players are being reviewed by FMs or IMs.
the problem is that they not necessarily good reviewers because they are not able to judge real strong moves made by fair strong players like GMs
everything else, that is not so obvious like first-line players are being reviewed by FMs or IMs.
the problem is that they not necessarily good reviewers because they are not able to judge real strong moves made by fair strong players like GMs