IMDeviate wrote:
dpruess wrote:
that is already in place dunce, we've been confirming titled players accounts for years now. they just have to contact us.
Who's he calling a dunce?
That would be me.
Major Proposed Change: Ratings Cap Above 2400 for Unverified Players
Sort:
Question: How many games, on average, are played by the non-paying 2400+ players per month?
I don't know whether your cheat-detection is automated or manual, but I assume it is at least partially automated. Why not randomly analyze a small amount of these 2400+ games? 45 games analyzed per day would allow you to analyze one game every month from each of the 1300 players rated 2400+. This assumes that all 1300 of the 2400+ are non-paying members, which of course isn't true.
Randomness should crack just about anybody's cheating system.
May 18, 2011
0
#84
heinzie wrote:
"If 5 dollars will make ALL of the ratings at chess.com 100% accurate"
this policy only makes the shown ratings more unreliable
I believe that is the point. The ratings are not currently 100% accurate/reliable because of cheating.
The only way the ratings can be absolutely correct is IF cheating can be stopped, or almost completely stopped. If it is posssible to do so, then I believe that the strong players would welcome the change in policy.
I'm done, since I'm not at all affected by the policy. Just my 2 cents, nothing more.
How about making them do a few tactics problems?
Just out of interest, what would happen to the guys who are hovering around 2200 otb, or who did not want to pay fide for their lowest title? Would we still be capped?
Erik wrote: "now they can't just quickly move up and then get their giggles by taking down legitimate strong players and titled players. they won't have access to those members."
I think that this is one of the best points raised so far. The key to stopping the chess cheaters is to first identify the underlying motivation for cheating, and then cut off that motivation.
As Erik said, I think that one of the strongest motivations to artificially raise ratings with the help of engines is to be able to play and defeat legitimate titled players and master level non-titled players, i.e., the exclusive, VIP level of chess.com that few 'legitimate' players ever make it to. It is like a normal schmo in the bleachers of a football game wishing he could hob nob with the rich folks up in the VIP boxes.
But cutting off the cheaters' access to the higher levels, you strike at the heart of their motivation and strongly discourage them.
Also, I would think that such a ratings cap would actually encourage MORE legitimate titled players and master level non-titled players to come here, because they know that the rating cap scares off cheaters and makes things 'safer' for them, i.e., they would have better chances of playing real people instead of a whole bunch of engine users.
I couldn't figure out why you're making such a big deal about a 0.04% segment of your members. Then it occurred to me:
You don't have a system that can automatically detect cheaters over a 2000-rating, do you? You're completely dependent on a master looking over the game.
I tend to not like these kinds of artificial ideas. They are ambitious but it's often unwise to radically mess with the natural flow of things, as it can damage fundamental parts of a system that are already present and healthy.
Let me point out something some people may be overlooking, just as one example: If a cheater sees that he has hit a brick wall, perhaps some of them may have fun out of screwing up our rating system by continuing to cheat anyway. Anyone who plays them will then have a game that misrepresents their rating. Maybe this could add up.
It just seems like it's pushing for too much. Do we really have any idea that this will eradicate a cheater's incentive? How do we know their incentive? Maybe they just like to piss people off, and if their rating never increases, they will do just that, the more people they play. Do we really have a clue what we are getting into? Have we really thought everything through here?
Meanwhile, you're literally telling any good CC player that to get past 2400... you have to pay money?
Hell, I got to 2300 here and I'm nowhere near a master. I think it's quite possible to get to 2400 if this kind of turn-based chess is your bag for one thing, or another thing: you are indeed good enough to be a master but did not bother to get an official title (it's perhaps not the most convenient thing in the world). It doesn't seem ethical to me to force people to pay money just for a representative rating for well-performing players. As ReasonableDoubt said (who by the way has said what I was trying to say much more explicitly), there are people who put in tons of energy and thought into their games like Gonnosuke, yet they never got a title; but you charge them? Ok, them having a rating higher than 2400 would be an incentive to upgrade, indeed, but possibly one of their only incentives. I think this is slapping them in the face and judging that you have to be a titled player (not just be good enough to have one) to do well in CC.
I'd rather we just take the natural approach and put up with cheaters; honestly I don't find it to be a problem of much significance -- it doesn't really affect me. I have had two experiences so far with just two people who were found to be cheating -- that's pretty minor. The problems coming out of this superfluous new idea I think are potentially much more dangerous. I think we need to understand that we can't try every means necessary to solve certain, ultimately, inevitable problems, because if we radically do so, we could easily end up creating much bigger problems.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
I think of people like Gonnosuke, who are not titled and not cheating,
although defeating Rybka many times.
DeepGreene wrote:
For what it's worth, the motive for posting first in the Cheating Forum was to elicit feedback first from a group who obviously thinks a lot about this problem (as the solution is still something of a work in progress).
Anyway, like some of the restrictions around the Chatrooms in Live, this sort of initiative is clearly something we see as more necessary than desirable. And to the extent that it discourages high-level cheaters & improves our credibility with truly excellent titled chess players and coaches, it's good for everyone.
Measure the benefit of seriously discouraging aggressive repeat-offenders against the offense taken by this group:
Honest, awesome chess players (>2400), who... Have no chess title, and who... Don't think a Gold Membership at Chess.com is worth the money, and who... Don't mind playing a significant # of their games vs cheaters...and things clarify pretty quick.
There have been quite a lot of PREMIUM cheaters too.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
In my opinion this is flat-out awful. A lot of correspondence chess is based on effort and energy, closing the gap between titled players and dedicated players. What I mean by this is that a strong expert who (I assume!) really knows theory well and uses all of their resources to the maximum extent can beat a grandmaster who just rattles off moves at correspondence. I think of people like Gonnosuke, who are not titled and not cheating, but are extremely strong and for some reason haven't put that fully into play over the board. What this rule change does is basically say:
1. There are very few legitimate non-titled players over 2400 on this site. It's true that the number is small, but I think anyone over 2200 on the site (a much larger number!) is affected directly by the ceiling as the blob around 2400 will throw everything off regarding their competition. For people like Fezzik (mid 2300s) or Estragon (Mid 2300s), it's ridiculous to tell them that they are "not allowed" to break 2400 and give them significantly harder (potentially cheating) competition that is lower rated than it should be.
2. There are going to be people upset by every rule change, but as long as the people upset aren't the premium members (although the premium members around 2400 will probably be very upset when they see the strength of capped 2400s in comparison to them) it doesn't really matter. In all honesty, we don't believe that enough people are directly affected by this to cause too much outrage, so it's okay.
3. People must pay for their ratings, or show that they are very strong in over the board play. I do not believe that chess.com recognizes ICCF GM as a title, so there could be legitimate GM's that for some reason don't play well over the board that are going to be stuck at the so-called "engine blob" of 2400.
4. This update will eliminate cheating at high levels. This is arguably the most ridiculous part of the proposition as it simply will not work. What the cap will do is push all of the cheaters to lower ratings, making them pick on an actually much larger percentage of the chess.com population! Also, there's no guarantee that the highest levels will be completely clear, as there have been incidents in the past (FM Atlantischess, WGM Yelena Dembo anyone) that show that titled players can cheat, too.
To summarize, I think that this is an awful attempt at solving a problem that can't ever fully be solved. It's just a way of saying that people have to pay for their ratings, engines can run rampant as long as they're not attacking our titled players, and to all the strong experts on the site who are over 2400, too bad.
As has already been mentioned, your examples are addressing something like 0.05% of the chess.com population, regardless of whether you 'personally know' a couple of high rated players or not. The tiny ammount of non-paying players currently at/over 2400 also guarantees that there won't be a significant effect on the overall ratings pool (the staff already calculated and took those things into account).
I also don't think that this will cause a 'flood' of cheaters to start harrassing the lower rated players either...you have to also factor in that a large chunk of those current cheaters will move onto other sites where there aren't similar barriers (just like how criminals are stupid, chess cheaters are lazy and will take the path of least risk/resistance).
lol, there's a very small percentage of cheaters too...
Anyway, my values are like this: I'd rather have some bad people roaming around than have good people executed for their crimes. This would of course be my problem with the death penalty: if you are wrong, then you just destroyed a perfectly innocent life... who is thought to be a horrible person!
Both groups are small; I'd rather stay true to the honest ones.
Elubas wrote:
lol, there's a very small percentage of cheaters too...
Therefore we're talking about a small percentage of a small percentage.
I'm not sure at all which group is bigger, and I doubt you are either. I personally think there are more honest players; that non-titled 2400 players are not the most exceptional thing (as I said, I even made it to the 2300s). However, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge. I apologize if you are more informed and indeed are in a sufficient position.
thekibitzer wrote:
Just out of interest, what would happen to the guys who are hovering around 2200 otb, or who did not want to pay fide for their lowest title? Would we still be capped?
How much do those titles cost, anyway? I hear a lot of griping about it.
Elubas wrote:
I'm not sure at all which group is bigger, and I doubt you are either. I personally think there are more honest players; that non-titled 2400 players are not the most exceptional thing (as I said, I even made it to the 2300s). However, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge. I apologize if you are more informed and indeed are in a sufficient position.
Probably not better informed. But unless you're saying that every player over 2400 cheats, then the resulting subset of 2400+ cheaters will be smaller than the total number of 2400+ players.
Fleishkoph wrote:
This is so silly!
If chess.com implements this idea, players (honest or otherwise) now have an incentive to sandbag and throw a few games as they approach the 2400 cheater line.
Isn't sandbagging also cheating, according to site TOS?
How do you find a sandbagger? Everybody below 2400. That'll work. Everybody 2399 and under must be sandbaggers. So then we can have a sandbagger tax too.
Using that twisted logic, soon everyone will be banned or leave chess.com. Server hits down. Ad revenue plummets. Auf Wiedersehen, chess.com.
A footnote - no sane person believes that every player above glicko 2400 is a cheater. Chess.com had to set the number somewhere. I think this is dumb idea no doubt hatched by some paranoid delusional, but if I were going to pick a number out of the ether it would be much higher.
Oh honestly...I could make a post on this site saying that snow is white, and inevitably someone will jump in and try to argue against it...
The only twisted logic is your own. The < 1% of the chess.com population this will effect is nowhere near "everybody"--in fact, it is barely a handful compared to the total number of registered players. And the staffer has repeated said (just read his posts) that they don't have the will or resources to start investigating more people, so those free players under 2400 will be fine. This is just a cheating discouragement move, and likely an effective one at that.
Easy solution. Start a new feature called something like "Super Chess Engine Game Analyser Super Learning Tool" in which lower rated players examine 2400+ games. Charge a premium. Claim they are learning great new chess moves, strategy and all that, but actually they are doing the work of searching out cheaters unwittingly. Win win.
UVF02368 wrote:
Easy solution. Start a new feature called something like "Super Chess Engine Game Analyser Super Learning Tool" in which lower rated players examine 2400+ games. Charge a premium. Claim they are learning great new chess moves, strategy and all that, but actually they are doing the work of searching out cheaters unwittingly. Win win.
Problem 1: that practice would be deceptive on the part of chess.com (which I assume they are trying to avoid on principle).
Problem 2: any and all "test them with quizzes and puzzles" suggestion fail instantly. If the cheaters are using engines to boost their ratings in real chess games, then what stops them from using the exact same engine to analyse these 'test' positions?
I think that a more reasonable filter would be to allow more veteran accounts to exceed 2400 regardless of premium/title status. It makes the idea seem less greedy.
This makes a lot of sense, but apparently Pruess thought of some devious way to get around that.