It would be fairly simple for anybody to use a computer program to beat human opponents, especially on turn-based games. I have had a look to see if this point has already been made in the forums, perhaps I didn`t look hard enough or perhaps it is generally assumed that there is not much we can do about it.

Still, it seems like a fairly serious threat to the integrity of many games, especially towards the end of tournament play. Can something be done? 

Mancamber, there have been a million threads posted about this. First, there are very few cheaters here. Second, if you suspect one there's a Report Abuse button you can use--the chess.com staff will then use proprietary methods to see if they are cheating or not. :)

See the thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/computer-players-are-a-pest

Thanks likesforests,

I read the thread, a very interesting read. I thought shrink defended his point very well.

I am not sure you can reliably state "there are very few cheaters here". Maybe it would be safe to assume there are probably very few people cheating, at any one time, on chess.com because playing straight is generally considered more fun.

Yet it is probably also safe to assume that there is a much larger number of opportunistic (as opposed to compulsive) cheaters than you are admitting. I say this on the grounds that it is extremely easy to cheat, we generally don`t know our opponent personally (and probably never will) and that people often get a bit silly when being compared to other people (even if it is a seemingly harmless chess.com rating).

If somebody only cheats once or twice (to win a tournament say) can Erik and the team really detect it?

I am just asking because I am currently doing pretty badly in a tournament and wanted to see if there was a quick fix to my solution without risking getting kicked off the site

Mancamber> I am not sure you can reliably state "there are very few cheaters here".

I can, because in the year or so I've been a member of chess.com I've analyzed hundreds of games and seen most of what's reported on the forums. I could caveat my statement by saying, it's true for players under the 2100 level--only because I don't analyze enough games above that level to form an opinion with great confidence.

Mancamber> Yet it is probably also safe to assume that there is a much larger number of opportunistic (as opposed to compulsive) cheaters than you are admitting. I say this on the grounds that it is extremely easy to cheat, we generally don`t know our opponent personally (and probably never will) and that people often get a bit silly when being compared to other people (even if it is a seemingly harmless chess.com rating).

I've also played hundreds of games online elsewhere and less than 0.5% (1/200) of my games even fell into "analyze it more closely for possible cheating" pile. But if you're suspicious about a game, simply report it and the chess.com staff will check it out.

I think a counter-balancing factor to the ease of cheating, is that it's an empty pursuit. The cheater has accomplished... nothing, and there's no money and little recognition to be gained from it. For example, cheater_1 finds it more exciting to pretend to be a long-term cheater (some of his old-timer stories were proven false) than to actually cheat in games. I mostly play rated games only against established players which provides extra safety against cheating and poor sportsmanship. Tournaments also require participants to have a few games under their belt.

Mancamber> If somebody only cheats once or twice (to win a tournament say) can Erik and the team really detect it?

Absolutely! If someone cheats in even one game, and Erik & Co. check it, it's highly probable that player will be detected and punished. But I think we should not discuss detection methods since that would make them easier to circumvent.

Mancamber> I am currently doing pretty badly in a tournament and wanted to see if there was a quick fix to my solution

Study chess books?

I think forrest, You entirely underestimate the sophistication of some of the clever cheaters.

-- It would, I think, be rather easy for me to parade myself as a master. My knowledge is probably strong enough so that I can convincingly deviate from the computer suggestions without blundering.

 

 

Blackadder> "clever cheaters."

If they were clever, they would cheat at an event where something of value was at stake instead of at for-fun's-sake correspondence tournaments.

Aww, so sad i was expecting something compleatly different from the post name.

likesforests wrote:

Blackadder> "clever cheaters."

If they were clever, they would cheat at an event where something of value was at stake instead of at for-fun's-sake correspondence tournaments.

---

That is of course to presume that cheating here is of 'no value'...

 

"Aww, so sad i was expecting something compleatly different from the post name."

 

Yeah, Azoth, me too.  I thought it was about me.

An important portion of the rather large thread you (likesforests) directed me towards includes proposed methods for identifying opponents that use computer programs. Even with an inherent assumption that they use A.I. to make their moves constantly and for every single game, there was still no agreement as to which factors to take into account.

Imagine the difficulty of detecting a so called "clever cheater". How can you have such confidence in your detection abilities considering the vast multitude of computer programs available and the fact they don`t need to be used for every move in a game.

Furthermore you cannot test your detection method in a real sence because you would have to actually know (and not just postulate) when people are or are not cheating. Even if you have run tests based on known games (i.e. ones you or a research group personally played) then it is highly unlikely you have covered the huge variety of actions we might give the name "cheating". On top of which, such a research group, is in significant danger of making a tool that accurately predicts there data set but does not accurately reflect the more complex and stochastic nature of "real life".

As a result I still do not see how you can reliably state "there are very few cheaters here"

I still hold the that the benefit / (risk x cost) ratio will be large enough to encourage some players to cheat at some point.

It is alright if there are some people cheating sometimes because, at the end of the day, it really doesn`t matter. By starting this forum I just wanted to see where people stood on it. 

I can see there appears to be a divide which will not be reconciled anytime soon.  

 

 

 

If you wish to believe cheating is undetectable and involved in more than 1/200 games under the 2100 level, then believe that. I have some games to play, and I do not want to help cheaters by posting practical detection methods. :)

Fair play

A truly terrible film.