Cheaters Beware - You Will Be Caught

Erik and all of Chess.com you are unfortunately entering a long debated, and difficult aspect of on line chess...The Cheater. Computer cheating made big news the last two years and a big debate with USCF heads met at the Marshall Chess Club not too long ago to discuss computer cheating. However, I digress...

 

On line cheating will not go away anytime soon as there is no current technology to avoid it.  Your first step is to stop the easy way of cheating and that means, and not many here are going to like this, making any on line variant you offer a pay only option. Any free site, such as Pogo, or Yahoo, is loaded with people who don't care about the game. Their only objective is to gain points, and at a more psychologically level that is over looked, to upset other people. Yes, there are many people who get a thrill over this, but that is another topic entirely.

 

By charging $30, $40, or even $60/yr for 24/7 access to your server is not much. This will remove the vast majority of culprits as they have no interest in paying to cheat. It sort of goes against their principle, doesn't it?!

 

As for using computers, sorry there is no immediate answer. The pay to play will bring in far more serious players than those who have no interest in self improvement, but it will not rid them entirely.  Most who are willing to pay a fee are interested in self improvement, which is why this method is preferred. As for those determined to use a computer while playing, you just can't stop it. I also wish I had an answer.

 

Right now after all the bruha stirred up recently with computer cheating, for both OTB and on line chess, it appears that the chess community at large has it's hands tied. I understand that Playchess, and ICC use some form of algorithm to detect cheating and if possible you may want to contact them to see what methods they use. 

 

I wish you luck with what you find as you have a good site here, and I like what you are doing.  

thanks Creg! we actually have what we HOPE is a brilliant form of cheat detection in the works :) but you are right - some people will do bad things no matter what. i just think we have found a method of calling them out!

NathamCrewott wrote:

I have the same question as phoenixrjp.  What are the rules regarding using a computer during email chess?  It seems like it would have to be illegal, but at the same time impossible to stop.  Does anyone know how (or if) it is regulated during competitive correspondence chess tournaments?

---

 

Every organization has it's own rules most turn based sights disallow it while a few turn a blind eye and pretend the problem doesn't exist and simply don't care!

 

USCF (USA): "Rule 3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players. You cannot use a computer or computer program (chessplaying algorithms) to evaluation a game, but you may use computers for record keeping and databases."

 

CCLA (USA): "2) Conduct: a) During a game, a player may consult written or published works on chess, but in the selection of moves may not receive help from any other player, chess-playing computer or any mechanical device designed to play, study or discuss the game of chess."

 

APCT (USA): "It is expected that each player will play his own game. While books or magazines may be consulted, no help or analysis from another player may be employed. Computers may be used for clerical assistance or for reference, but may NOT be used to generate actual moves in a game in progress."

 

CCCA (Canada): "25. A player may: (a) consult chess works or literature freely. He or she may also use a computer to keep the score of a game and to work with a database of stored games and positions. (b) A player is not allowed to consult with other players, whether members of the association or not, with reference to any current or future possible lines of play in a game which is in progress. Any player known to have obtained aid from another player in analysing current or future positions in an ongoing game shall immediately forfeit the game involved to his or her opponent. Showing a game in progress to another player is most likely going to elicit comments even when not wanted. This practice is to be avoided."

 

CCLA (Australia): "Players may not use a chess-playing computer (or computer program with a chess-playing function) to assist them in their play."

 

IECC (International): "8.1 Players are free to consult chess publications or literature in printed or electronic form. Any other form of consultation, including the use of computer chess programmes that analyse a position and suggest moves or play chess games, is prohibited."

 

IECG (International): (no mention of using computers).

 

SCCA (Scotland): "24. (a) Assistance or advice concerning the play must not be sought, nor accepted, from any other person or computer program, but books, databases or works of reference may be consulted."

ICCF (International): The main international cc organization International Correspondence Chess Federation is silent on this issue, but consultation with rules experts confirms that it is legal to use computers in any form to assist in making moves. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

our intention for Turn-based Chess on this site was to keep it free from ANY outside help, unless agree upon by the two players at the outset that it would be different.

The general consensus has always seem to have been that turn-based chess is a hybrid of standard (OTB) chess and correspondence chess whereas it follows the correspondence chess format, but the standard chess rules. While correspondence chess not only allows, but encourages, consultation with books and research into databases (but not computer assistance), turn-based chess allows none of that and should be played as if you were facing your opponent.

 

It might even be beneficial to have distinct playing areas where people could play under different set of rules (with separate ratings, of course) since both forms have their merits and adherents (maybe even a separate area for people who want to use their computer programs).

 

People who cheat have their own reasons, I imagine. But in the thousands of games I've played over the years, there have only been a handful in which I was totally convinced my opponent had cheated and another handful in which I felt the possibility existed, so I'm really not so sure it's as big a problem as we're often led to believe (and, it seems, certain sites attract this sort of misbehavior more than others)  .  Of course, I only play blitz which may make cheating more difficult, but even in the couple of hundred turn-based games I've played, I've never had the feeling that many of the moves were overtly computerish in nature).

 

I do feel that if one puts too much emphasis on this aspect and starts looking for ghosts around every corner, the paranoia will harm you more than any individual potential-cheater.  If someone were to encounter a player he suspects is cheating, he should quietly report his suspicion to the administration who can keep an eye out and possibly use that information in making determinations. If such a person is eventually banned for cheating, all his games and results should be stricken and all the ratings should be readjusted accordingly.

 

ok, I'll shut up now.

Hey, what about the possibility of illegal drug use with some of the players here?   I think some are taking steroids or some banned substance.  What about some of these guys (and girls) who are here all day and all night.  They must be taking drugs to be here for 48 hours straight.  FIDE has banned illegal drug use and you must submit to a drug test for FIDE events such as the Chess Olympiad.  I think some are taking performance enhancing drugs such as Natrol or modafinil to increase their brain power and Elo rating here.  How can we stop these drug-induced cheaters tainting our game and enforce a no-drug chess-playing site?  Here is what the FIDE rules say:

Chapter 18 - Doping and Drug Use

  What is the point in cheating! These people are sad and should be punished good on you erik!

I just want to point out that I understand that we currently have turn-based chess, similar to correspondence chess, not live chess. If we are here to improve, I wouldn't recommend people to start playing blitz games, I would rather encourage them to play this turn-based chess.  Based on the fact that we do want to learn I assume that:

1. Computer programs to calculate moves and variations shouldn't be allowed.
2. Computer databases to keep track of your current games help people to stay organized if you play several games at the same time, but your chess level wouldn't be affected. No magical moves will come to your mind just because you are using a database for your games.
3. Opening books could be used. If your opponent is playing an opening that you don't know, why not to check some theory? In this way you will learn the opening too!
4. Asking other players for advice during a game shouldn't be allowed. Your opponent is playing against you, not against your team! 

Who the hell cheats at chess, most people who play are intelligent, you would have to be a bit sad to cheat.

By charging $30, $40, or even $60/yr for 24/7 access to your server is not much. This will remove the vast majority of culprits as they have no interest in paying to cheat. It sort of goes against their principle, doesn't it?!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I myself play just for fun if their was a charge to play, i would stick to playing against the computer and not play people. As i don't take it that seriously. I don't know how this cheating works but if they quit or disconnect can't they just lose points. this would make it pointless. 

our current policy is as batgirl states: no use of books or computers.

SANGUINIU - opening books can NOT be used. why? because when does the opening end? and you should be learning AFTER your game, not during.  

erik wrote:

our current policy is as batgirl states: no use of books or computers.

SANGUINIU - opening books can NOT be used. why? because when does the opening end? and you should be learning AFTER your game, not during.

---

Which is one reason why I prefer Gameknot, which permits the use of books and databases but not computers or endgame tablebases (i.e., Nalimov).  Most chess players are inherently lazy and prefer playing to studying; why NOT permit books as a means of helping to learn openings?  Most games are out-of-book or out-of-chessbase in less than 15 moves anyway.

i guess we could put it to a vote?

Many ask why anyone would cheat at chess. It's not what they are cheating at, it's the fact they want to cheat at all. For a better explanation of cheating and why people do it, regardless of vocation, check out: http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/what-makes-people-cheat?page=1

 

People cheat becuase they can. The feeling of success propels this desire, and if one can reach the top with little effort than the prevailing logic is why not I? The article breaks this out in greater detail. 

It doesn't bother me.  I wish my opponents would use a book or something.  The openings have been horrible.  It seems that good opening play is proportional to the person's rating.  The higher rated players are playing good, theoretical, latest stuff.  The lower rated players are out of book fast with lousy position, falls for a trap, or loss of a piece.  Then its a contest on how long they can play before getting checkmated.  I don't need an opening book and I am not getting into any endgame play with any of the lower rated players, but I do wish their openings were better.  Perhaps we could later have thematic tournaments where everyone must play the same opening - either a gambit or some of the latest variations.

i think they should be seperated... raw play vs. book play

i know my openings are terrible. but that's why i have started to study them. copying out of a book won't much help my study. although, i guess everyone learns in different ways.

erik wrote:

our current policy is as batgirl states: no use of books or computers.

SANGUINIU - opening books can NOT be used. why? because when does the opening end? and you should be learning AFTER your game, not during.  

---

 Maybe my comment could be interpreted in many ways. I was not talking about picking your 10000000 pages opening book and start following a theoretical line until 25th move. I was thinking on looking for the name of the opening and get some basic concepts, like what is the aim of the opening. Then play yourself.

I have the feeling that I have a lot to learn, and maybe I look at chess.com as a pedagogical way of playing chess. Anyway, I'm not worried because today I have played my first chess.com game and I went out of book on 3rd or 4th move I think

May I say that the intended rules (no outside help of any form) aren't exactly clear or, may I say, realistic. I'm currently playing 26 games at once, most are in the middlegame with a few ends and a few more openings. Assuming I keep playing about as much as I am now (which is unlikely, but for many people a real possibility) exactly when am I allowed to look at a book on chess openings or middlegame theory? I'm playing a Maroczy bind in one of the games, what happens if I play through a game in a book and that situation comes up. Is that cheating?

Obviously, using computers is unfair (unless agreed otherwise beforehand) but even looking up openings in ECO can only get you so far.You are going to get out of book quickly enough and if you don't have a clue why you played a particular move you are going to lose out in the middlegame.

well, when live chess opens there will definitely be no outside help allowed there. but, based on user feedback and the rules in normal correspondence chess, i am willing to allow references to books and game collections for Turn-based Chess on chess.com. we are going to write up a FAQs for online play soon and will post it in the menu.

any questions? 

Some limited help in correspondence chess, but no outside sources for live chess. Seems very reasonable.