There is 84 million member in chess.com, this site can’t check all the members to see whether they cheat or not. More than 500 member is found cheating per day.
i think there needs to be more team members or better ai/ml components created to handle the usecases.
I was thinking the same too, but I think this will make the site lags more. And what’s more, it might not detect correctly or might even sometimes detect falsely.
84 million members can be subjected to captcha at each log in; that isnt asking much. also 84 million members arent accessing the site at once; even if they were load balancers and elastic engines could be recruited during peak times.
and if each account is subjected to verification of mfa for first log in this could limit amount of fake accounts created.
the site will not lag if more ai/ml components are attached. chess.com is a global service with multiple edge locations through out the regions it is hosted.
in the event an account is detected by the system to be cheating; an email with user confirmation should be sent out warning the player that they have 3 strikes before the account is banned.
it would be statistical anomaly if a user account that isnt cheating is flagged 3xs at 3 different instances which each time a user mfa must be provided to verify authenticity of the account. to me, this ensures that the actual users playing are indeed humans
well that is why you have several security layers combined with algos to reduce the cheaters.
and if each account is subjected to verification of mfa for first log in this could limit amount of fake accounts created.
What if someone else of their family were using the same device?
the site will not lag if more ai/ml components are attached. chess.com is a global service with multiple edge locations through out the regions it is hosted.
It might not detect correctly or might even sometimes detect falsely. Just in case, staff will do better.
in the event an account is detected by the system to be cheating; an email with user confirmation should be sent out warning the player that they have 3 strikes before the account is banned.
Like I said, the system can’t be so sure that he really cheats. Chess.com will never false accuse someone, so just in case they will do things that 100% correct.
Yeah, I had one of my friends who kept cheating (He stopped though), and he said that he was doing that.
In before the... um... u know, that thing that happens.
You’re playing online, there’s only so much within reason that can be done to prevent cheating. Anyone can pull out a phone for example and bypass a screen lock or what not. Additionally, the amount of cheaters per ratio isn’t that high- people generally are more likely to falsely accuse, especially at the lower rating levels, than accept a well played game by their opponent. Ultimately however, you’re here to play chess and have fun, take the lemons are turn them into lemonade, nobody can stop you from enjoying a chess game and improving, regardless of who’s on the other end.
-Jordan
im not sure you read the other part about having a screen lock so that way when a game is played it must be only on that screen; if you want to switch tabs then you must quit the game.
jordan, thank you for being reasonable. i 100% agree with your point.
but that also doesnt take away that more can/should be done.
chess.com, at least from what i have seen has never really released those ratios; ive only seen other anecdotal claims. I would be happy to see empirical data on what you are claiming
if you need to respond to an email that is so urgent during the course of 1 one hour game i would question why you even decided to play that game which in reality would be much longer than one hour potentially. besides, resigning and losing a few elo points inst the end of the world.
are you familiar with cognitive engineering? if so, then youd understand my point.
is there an under-staffing issue to monitor this ongoing problem? perhaps refactor your algos to better understand in order to catch the many either a) fake accounts b) out right cheaters. generally, if i submit a report i hear back about a month later and im told several accounts i play were closed due to cheating. perhaps inserting a captcha and screen lock during games will from security perspective. as far as algos go while it is hard to tell perhaps a perfect book move opening for an x rating should be flagged and put on a watchlist for further evaluation. immediate flagging if multiple reports are made; obviously if report is made by same player for the same instance then only one flag should be noted, but if multiple games are played between the two; one flag per game should be counted towards. just offering help and solutions. i think there needs to be more team members or better ai/ml components created to handle the usecases.