Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: » The player I'll assume you're talking about did not get kicked out of the event from what I saw during the event and what I heard in the aftermath. They scored 5 wins from 5 and then left the event. Certainly was no "banned" banner on their page at any time that I saw. There was a second player who was removed for breach of fair play rules.
Anyone can point out an IM can play a bad game - however, that IM said that they played miserably and didn't suspect anything really. This is a similar story to a recent Irish OTB board cheating incident where some players didn't suspect anything because they found they played miserably; but others did and they were proved correct.
The chess.com accuracy score is kind of a nonsense, but probably is telling as to the system they use for detection. Arbiters are specifically trained in online event anti-cheating measures- nowadays - I should know having done the test before Christmas. The main anti-cheating measure for online events is the score created by Prof Ken Regan because most of the time you won't be in the physical venue with the player and even cameras can only tell so much. If you're scoring something in the .7 range of performance, you're either playing short draws, having a cracking event and/or are to be monitored. Certainly nothing black and white there. If you score above .8, you are using assistance. If you score a .9 or above, you are stockfish.
I think most of the main arbiters will preach to you that these scores will have to be believed eventually if we are to have any online opens in the future with any degree of confidence; and that these scores should be actioned upon and that terms and conditions should point to these in advance of you playing an event (the 4NCL online does this). These will not catch you for spotting one tactic legally or illegally but, over the course of an event, they will catch you for 3000 standard play. "Using accuracy figures in isolation as a smoking gun is extremely dangerous." I mean, this is kind of true for the chess.com metric but also the entire problem with online chess - there are no better way to catch an online cheat than using Prof Regan's metrics. There is also precisely zero other ways of telling someone is cheating when they are in a room by themselves with no camera. If you don't want to believe the accuracy figures then you are also accepting that cheating will go on without repercussion. if you want everyone on camera, then you'll need arbiters to monitor every 5 or 10 boards; and even still won't catch some cheats during the game given what we learned from that incident over summer.
To the other points calling for OTB bans for online cheating - I agree that this may be a necessary deterrent because anyone banned online can just create a new account and have at it again. However, two points on this - I believe the ones saying it are also the ones who would say that online chess and otb chess are totally different animals from almost every perspective. So it would be like handing down a rugby ban for a foul in a football match because the IRFU have a stake in Lansdowne road. And this would also require a huge amount of ICU/FIDE manhours to monitor, research and hand down these bans. I'd go as far as to say that this would become the biggest project of any chess organisation. Edit: I did mean to mention there somewhere along the line that I'm sure I'm not the only arbiter to keep a mental note of suspicious play from event to event. I also keep a mental note of those who have accounts shut online. Strangely, there has been no crossover as yet between the two lists. But we're talking about small samples.
brilliantboy wrote: » I'm aware his account wasn't closed until later but is it possible the organizers asked him to not play any further games? Or maybe it was a sudden pang of guilt after all.
brilliantboy wrote: » The chess.com accuracy score is certainly evidence, I'm aware of that. It is engine based after all, but it's not a simple exhibit of how often the top engine move was played and I just wanted to clarify that in case some users are confused. I don't know enough about either the chess.com system or the Reagan method to say how similar they are but Danny Rensch does say in the link I posted above that the accuracy score has nothing to do with their actual detection method. I would assume chess.com, the other platforms and anyone applying these advanced detection methods has their **** together and have gotten pretty good at catching them by this stage. The rest of us should probably stay out of it but cheating accusations can cause serious harm and the only issue I have is that borderline cases are possible and in such cases maybe chess.com etc. are more likely to side with a known player (note: I'm not saying this is a borderline case). Personally I would have zero issue agreeing with those terms before playing in any online open as I'm unlikely to play well enough to even become a borderline case Agreeing to play in front of a camera likewise I'm all for. I agree that an otb ban is going a bit too far for what seems like an isolated incident but probably would have gone for an analogy involving the legal system instead as cheating in a chess tournament is closer to crime, although I suppose that depends what football team you watch :pac: It's good to hear that arbiters are keeping a keen eye on what goes on though and it should lead to an increased level of monitoring those players when otb play resumes.
cdeb wrote: » I've two problems with this. First, there's no indication this player is a 1700-1800. Their ICU is sub 1200; their online was sub 1600 at the start of the tournament (and online seems to be quite inflated generally). Where are you getting the extra 200 points from?
cdeb wrote: » In any event, actually a 1700-1800 putting in these results would be outlandish. Again, the game against the WIM who made a hames of things I could allow. But 1800 v 2500 is, in football terms, Brazil v the UAE. Slightly more likely that the UAE might take something off Brazil once than San Marino. But three times in a row? Still no.
sodacat11 wrote: » I am one of the people who would say that online chess, OTB chess, rapid and blitz are all different animals but they are all forms of chess so a chess cheat is a chess cheat in whatever arena he is cheating and since it is impossible to stop players playing online the only sanction can be an over the board one so I reject the football analogy. I don't see what is so harsh or OTT about a ban, if a person doesn't want to get banned then they shouldn't cheat.
cdeb wrote: » None of that really matters though. It's still a hugely suspect performance for a 1200. The general odds of an 1800 beating a 2500, rounded to two decimal places, are nil. Literally nil. I can tell you I've gotten plenty of great positions against FMs in blitz, and believe me there are plenty of ways of messing them up. And I'm not 1200 rated. That game against the WIM wasn't exactly queen against king stuff.
So I still take issue with your comment that people are saying "that a 1700 player catching an IM or a talented junior napping must be cheating" - nobody is saying that. And I still don't know why you're adding bonus points to this person's rating to make your point. I don't see any evidence of "gobsmacking elitism" or "players throwing their toys out of the pram", like you've suggested.
cdeb wrote: » I don't think you've argued that the three games isn't enough though (plus two other games earlier in the tournament, one against a 1900 I think). I've seen a player correctly identified as cheating on the basis of one game (correctly because they admitted it). The issue is it's not one game that's being evaluated - it's 25 or 70 moves or whatever it is. 3 games could be 150-200 moves. That's a lot of data points. Again, a 1 in 1000 shot I can buy. It's when you do it three times in a row, then the odds start stacking against you. The Guardian said he was "under 1700". His online rating was under 1600, and I think that's inflated. Let's be generous and say 1400. I will argue an 1800 with those results would be suspicious, but when you start reducing the rating by 400 points, it does add more to the case unfortunately. 1400s - let's be generous - simply do not win games like that consistently. You can argue that the WIM defeated herself, but a 1400 would find many, many ways to lose that position. It was a very nice game and arguably not like typical 1400 play. (A 1400 would be inclined to cash in and take the rook on b8 for example). The GM game then - a 1400 does not beat a GM over 70 moves or whatever it was. They will make a blunder in the meantime. It's what being 1400 means. There was an investigation - and the site closed the player's account very soon afterwards. Possibly someone reported the games and the site took a day to evaluate them and decide. I don't know of course, but it would certainly fit the known facts. There's no elitism at all in suggesting that a 1400 (if that) beating 2100, 2500 and 2400 in a row and having their account closed by the site very soon afterwards may well have been cheating.
brilliantboy wrote: » We have commenters on this very thread, active in Irish chess, who weren't familiar with the player. I'm not convinced his accusers knew about his true strength. So this 1400 figure I'm not agreeing with in any discussion, about hypothetical players or not :rolleyes:
brilliantboy wrote: » The odds certainly do stack up but that's raw odds uncolored by any uncharacteristic play from the opponents. And one of those games against a 2100 with an enormous K factor. I don't think anyone is about to suggest an 1800, playing White, beating a 2100 is cause for huge concern.
brilliantboy wrote: » Nxb5-c7+ winning a queen is also attractive to a 1400 player no?
brilliantboy wrote: » You can't say somebody is cheating on the basis of a handful of moves. It's absurd.
cdeb wrote: » It's admirable that you want to defend this player so much, but I do think you're being blinded rather too much to the possibility that the account was correctly closed.
