Forums

Is chess.com cleaning house?

Sort:
J_Piper
J_Piper
Aug 3, 2011
0
#21
LisaV wrote:

Just looked at the list.

Jesus, is anybody rated over 2000 left?   lol

 

Lisa, would you be kind enough to show the list link? Thanks.

TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Aug 3, 2011
0
#22
Fleishkoph wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Fleishkoph wrote:
lgeyer wrote:
socket2me wrote:

Do we know what tools chess.com uses to determine how a person has cheated?  It seems pretty subjective, however I am glad that the cheaters are being caught.

They don't disclose exactly what kind of methods they use, but it seems that they (mainly) use some statistical tools, and only kick people if they have an extremely high confidence that they are cheating. For all (not really, but some...) the dirty details join "Cheating Forum" and browse the endless threads in their forum. It won't be much fun, though...

Yes, they use some statistics and methodolgy designed by a guy who not a chess player, not a computer expert and not a statistician. 

How a non-chess player can possibly know what he is looking at, or how any chess player not a GM or IM is qualified to interpret such results is beyond me. But supposedly an IM reviews the "candidates" briefly (ie rubber stamps it) before players get banned.

If you've been following any of the discussion in the cheating forum it's been clearly explained (ad nauseum) how cheating detection can and does work, and can be effectively implemented by anyone regardless of chess skill.

Yes, I've been following those discussions and that's precisely how I know it's not effective, accurate, or used in a fair and consistent manner. 

Any monkey can write software or do data entry but if they don't know what they're looking at do you really trust the result? I don't. 

Likely a good portion of  those caught were actual cheats. But not 100%. Not mathmatically possible. 

Just another in a long line of detection methodology deniers.

So what's your stake exactly?

phils_gambit
phils_gambit
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#23

Of my 10 current online chess opponents, 5 accounts were closed today! At first, I thought it was a bug. I'll be curious to see how my tournaments and team matches are affected, once the dust settles.

Mr_ha
Mr_ha
Aug 3, 2011
0
#24

Thats so awesome there on top of the cheaters. Nip them in the butt before it gets too serious and the number of cheaters get overwhelming.

TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Aug 3, 2011
0
#25

We've been there for quite a while now.  This is a very big step in the right direction.  Continue to clean how, mix in some ongoing vigilance and chess.com can be the cleanest site going.

UVF02368
UVF02368
Aug 3, 2011
0
#26
 

 

Oh hey just occurred to me - unless chess.com suddenly  increased their staffing of titled players there's no way one IM (old method) could have reviewed that many cases over the last few hours. Suggests to me they have switched to a software-only process. Fascinating. 

They've been working on this for weeks, not just the past few hours.

edit: well, actually I'm sure it's the culmination of years of work, but this particular mass banning was announced weeks ago.

TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Aug 3, 2011
0
#27
Fleishkoph wrote:

Truth, Justice and the American Way. Perhaps a foreign concept for some so let me explain it another way:

Banning non-cheaters and labelling them as cheaters just wouldn't be right (even though chess.com can ban whoever they want, I know that).  What are we at now almost 700 bannings in the last few hours? No mass banning is going to be anywhere near 100% accurate. Conclusion: some of the banned were not cheaters, they were just good.

Oh hey just occurred to me - unless chess.com suddenly  increased their staffing of titled players there's no way one IM (old method) could have reviewed that many cases over the last few hours. Suggests to me they have switched to a software-only process. Fascinating. 

You're making some pretty unfounded charges based on some pretty tenuous lines of reasoning.  Chess.com has never taken bannings lightly, in fact, they have traditionally erred so far on the side of not closing accounts if there was any doubt that the cheating problem has gotten downright out of hand here.

I don't believe for a second that this attitude has changed, what I strongly suspect is that they've invested in the development of a new methodology that gives them the degree of confidence far higher than their previous methodology never could.

I also know that this has been in the works for a while, with the announcement being made three weeks ago, after quite a bit of analysis had already clearly been done.

The fact is, neither of us know what the methodology entails, so let's not pretend we do.  I, for one, trust chess.com to continue to be vigilant about not closing the accounts of innocent players after all of the time I've spent participating in the Cheating Discussion Group, and I also trust that they've taken this into accuont with their new methodology.  Belief and conjecture?  Sure, but then I'm not the one making accusations.

corrijean
corrijean
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#28

I personally have analyzed/reported several of the banned players. They had extemely high engine match up rates. These are players I have analyzed over the last year, and they have finally been banned today. This was a sudden event. It took a lot longer than it should have. I'm very happy that I won't have to worry anymore about the honesty of the groups I play as a member of.

royaleFork
royaleFork
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#29
Fleishkoph wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Fleishkoph wrote:
lgeyer wrote:
socket2me wrote:

Do we know what tools chess.com uses to determine how a person has cheated?  It seems pretty subjective, however I am glad that the cheaters are being caught.

They don't disclose exactly what kind of methods they use, but it seems that they (mainly) use some statistical tools, and only kick people if they have an extremely high confidence that they are cheating. For all (not really, but some...) the dirty details join "Cheating Forum" and browse the endless threads in their forum. It won't be much fun, though...

Yes, they use some statistics and methodolgy designed by a guy who not a chess player, not a computer expert and not a statistician. 

How a non-chess player can possibly know what he is looking at, or how any chess player not a GM or IM is qualified to interpret such results is beyond me. But supposedly an IM reviews the "candidates" briefly (ie rubber stamps it) before players get banned.

If you've been following any of the discussion in the cheating forum it's been clearly explained (ad nauseum) how cheating detection can and does work, and can be effectively implemented by anyone regardless of chess skill.

Yes, I've been following those discussions and that's precisely how I know it's not effective, accurate, or used in a fair and consistent manner. 

Any monkey can write software or do data entry but if they don't know what they're looking at do you really trust the result? I don't. 

Likely a good portion of  those caught were actual cheats. But not 100%. Not mathmatically possible. 

Any monkey can write software? Ouch... That's quite the insult to those of us who are programmers or will be writing programs for a living... Anyways, I'd like to meet these monkeys...

Glass8
Glass8
Aug 3, 2011
0
#30

Conceptually speaking it's very easy to find out if somebody's cheating. Computers have been playing better chess than any human, even world champions, for 15 years now, and just think how far computers have advanced in the past 15 years! They can make the "perfect" move, move after move after move, whereas no human can with that kind of consistency. No way no how. The longer the string of perfect moves in unforced continuations, the more likely the so-called human player is using a computer. To whit, anybody can make 1 perfect move, even a patzer, from pure luck alone. But what about 2, or 3, or 20? The longer the string, the odds against it grow expontentially fast... unless, of course, they are using that perfect calculator called a computer. Even Kasparov cannot make 20 perfect moves in a row. Yet somehow hundreds of chess.com players can, day in and day out. Of the 700+ accounts banned today, I'm confident that the methodology is bulletproof and that every single one of them was a cheater.  

corrijean
corrijean
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#31
Glass8 wrote:

Conceptually speaking it's very easy to find out if somebody's cheating. Computers have been playing better chess than any human, even world champions, for 15 years now, and just think how far computers have advanced in the past 15 years! They can make the "perfect" move, move after move after move, whereas no human can with that kind of consistency. No way no how. The longer the string of perfect moves in unforced continuations, the more likely the so-called human player is using a computer. To whit, anybody can make 1 perfect move, even a patzer, from pure luck alone. But what about 2, or 3, or 20? The longer the string, the odds against it grow expontentially fast... unless, of course, they are using that perfect calculator called a computer. Even Kasparov cannot make 20 perfect moves in a row. Yet somehow hundreds of chess.com players can, day in and day out. Of the 700+ accounts banned today, I'm confident that the methodology is bulletproof and that every single one of them was a cheater.  

 Spot on.

sapientdust
sapientdust
Aug 3, 2011
0
#32
royaleFork wrote:

Any monkey can write software? Ouch... That's quite the insult to those of us who are programmers or will be writing programs for a living... Anyways, I'd like to meet these monkeys...

 

mateologist
mateologist
Aug 3, 2011
0
#33
corrijean wrote:

I personally have analyzed/reported several of the banned players. They had extemely high engine match up rates. These are players I have analyzed over the last year, and they have finally been banned today. This was a sudden event. It took a lot longer than it should have. I'm very happy that I won't have to worry anymore about the honesty of the groups I play as a member of.

GOOD JOB !! The sooner they get rid of these people the better. Who the hell wants spend their time and money playing someone on any site only to get shot-down with  Ryba- 4 !! Keep up the good Work .   Cool  

kco
kco
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#34
Fleishkoph wrote:
corrijean wrote:

I personally have analyzed/reported several of the banned players. They had extemely high engine match up rates. These are players I have analyzed over the last year, and they have finally been banned today. This was a sudden event. It took a lot longer than it should have. I'm very happy that I won't have to worry anymore about the honesty of the groups I play as a member of.

Are you a GM or WGM?

 What is your problem Fleishkoph ? Don't like the way chess.com closing the cheaters account ? If you don't like it, leave. If you have so much knowlegde (also with clock/lag cheating) why not share it with the staff of chess.com ?

royaleFork
royaleFork
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#35

Well played, sapientdust.

corrijean
corrijean
Show your flair!
Aug 3, 2011
0
#36
Fleishkoph wrote:
corrijean wrote:

I personally have analyzed/reported several of the banned players. They had extemely high engine match up rates. These are players I have analyzed over the last year, and they have finally been banned today. This was a sudden event. It took a lot longer than it should have. I'm very happy that I won't have to worry anymore about the honesty of the groups I play as a member of.

Are you a GM or WGM?

Are you a GM or WGM? Your rating is close to mine. What makes you an expert? I have actually put some effort into analyzing, benchmarking, and studying. You are simply regurgitating the same lines cheaters have used over and over again in the cheating forum.

Glass8
Glass8
Aug 3, 2011
0
#37
Fleishkoph wrote:
Glass8 wrote:

Conceptually speaking it's very easy to find out if somebody's cheating. Computers have been playing better chess than any human, even world champions, for 15 years now, and just think how far computers have advanced in the past 15 years! They can make the "perfect" move, move after move after move, whereas no human can with that kind of consistency. No way no how. The longer the string of perfect moves in unforced continuations, the more likely the so-called human player is using a computer. To whit, anybody can make 1 perfect move, even a patzer, from pure luck alone. But what about 2, or 3, or 20? The longer the string, the odds against it grow expontentially fast... unless, of course, they are using that perfect calculator called a computer. Even Kasparov cannot make 20 perfect moves in a row. Yet somehow hundreds of chess.com players can, day in and day out. Of the 700+ accounts banned today, I'm confident that the methodology is bulletproof and that every single one of them was a cheater.  

 

Of the 700-ish accounts banned today as cheaters it's impossible to have 100% accuracy especially knowing the detection methodology being used (which clearly you do not). Detecting online chess cheats is not as easy as some people think. It has nothing to do with players ratings, or if they don't play OTB, or if there is a disparity between their chess.com and OTB ratings. T3 engine matching is not foolproof, and it's far from bulletproof. Reality is there are plenty of ways to manipulate the results if one was so inclined.

I'm certain a large percentage of those players were cheating, but no way 100%...'specially as the number of cheaters banned in a 24 hour period continues to grow.  

I'm certain that the methodology that chess.com uses is such that the false positives are way way less (orders of magnitude less) than the false negatives. This is why I'm confident that every one of the players banned today was a cheater, no exceptions. I'm also confident that there are thousands of players who cheat but did not get banned (false negatives). 

TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Aug 3, 2011
0
#38
To be fair, it's been cheat apologists in addition to just cheaters making that flawed argument. I can't think of a single case where I thought the person posting that same argument actually believed it themselves and this is no exception which is why I ask what stake someone who doesn't appear to be a cheater themselves could possibly have in trying to undermine the credibility of the cheat detection methodology in such a duplicitous manner.
TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Aug 3, 2011
0
#39
There are definitely players who have yet to be banned. I presume in most cases they've simply not yet been analyzed, but in many more I suspect borderline or inconclusive results in alignment with chess.com's track record of conservatism in this matter. There's one player I've analyzed personally who was a blatant positive who's still here. I suspect he's in the former group.
jfklbj
jfklbj
Aug 3, 2011
0
#40
Glass8 wrote:

Conceptually speaking it's very easy to find out if somebody's cheating. Computers have been playing better chess than any human, even world champions, for 15 years now, and just think how far computers have advanced in the past 15 years! They can make the "perfect" move, move after move after move, whereas no human can with that kind of consistency. No way no how. The longer the string of perfect moves in unforced continuations, the more likely the so-called human player is using a computer. To whit, anybody can make 1 perfect move, even a patzer, from pure luck alone. But what about 2, or 3, or 20? The longer the string, the odds against it grow expontentially fast... unless, of course, they are using that perfect calculator called a computer. Even Kasparov cannot make 20 perfect moves in a row. Yet somehow hundreds of chess.com players can, day in and day out. Of the 700+ accounts banned today, I'm confident that the methodology is bulletproof and that every single one of them was a cheater.  

I don't even think they could fool the Chess.com system by making 2nd and 3rd best moves. I think the real key is not making any blunders. EVERYONE blunders now and then. Of course the difference between a master blunder and a patzer difference is big, everyone makes a few, even the best players. Someone that never makes any blunders should be suspect.

This forum topic has been locked