Scientific references for anti-cheating technology?

Sort:
Avatar of AWSmith61

[COMMENT DELETED]

 

Originally a post about science behind cheating (which I am questioning - I don't believe it & would like to test it out & see if it really works - but I want to test it in a lab obviously, not at the expense of real people online which is not fair to the test subjects or to science.

 

Here's the appropriate place to test it:

 

https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum

Avatar of notmtwain
AWSmith61 wrote:

I've been digging and every web site I hit on this topic lacks any verifiable documentation of how it detects anti-cheats.  Basically the principle I've homed in on is that the software compares a player's moves to those of similar ranked players in similar situations and compares that to the output of an engine. What I want is to see some more of this technology.  I can understand it's easy to catch someone who plays well against an 1800 rated player just by talking with them. "Why did you play e3?" is followed by a poor understanding of the position for instance.  But what about that 1800 rated player who 'sometimes' cheats?  I've heard of GM's being 'busted' and I can't help but be suspicious of the methods when noone - even the professors working on it - have any real documentation I can look at and then run some tournament games through it and see if it falsely accuses.  

My interest is purely scientific, just look at my awful play and you can see I am improving but still suck at 1350ish. I just want to see some of the 'proof' that's out there.  Chess.com can keep their methods secret, they are in a position where I think that's best.  But chess.com isn't the only source of anti-cheating activity.  I suppose their access to 1M games / day conveniently in electronic format helps with the database comparisons of rating vs. move choice.  However I'm still just stumped in situations where a game has like 4 moves per position that are within 50 centipawns of each other with the 5th best move being 75 centipawns off. How can a distinction be made in that area? Is it some statistics anomaly that I'm not educated on?

Could a chessbase database be useful for detecting cheating at the < 1800 level?  Does anyone really cheat who is rated under 1800? 

I almost had a minor in psychology when I went to college so I have a fascination with predicting human behavior and chess is a very interesting area to study it.  Just look at how accurate ratings are at predicting odds of a win.  Vegas can set odds and guarantee profit over hundreds of games using ratings.

Any references you can find that show more about HOW the checks are made, preferably with public information on the databases used, would be appreciated.  

You can't have done much digging if you haven't figured out that this is not the place. Such discussions are not allowed here.

Join the Cheating Forum. All questions are answered.

Avatar of AWSmith61

K.  I'll look there.

 If the topic is forbidden here, that explains why I kept finding dead threads on it. 8)

Avatar of The_Chin_Of_Quinn

Science is a lie. Truth is all about what you feel in your gut.

If you feel someone is cheating, then that proves it. If "facts" try to "prove" you wrong, then it's a conspiracy.

Avatar of The_Chin_Of_Quinn
AWSmith61 wrote:

K.  I'll look there.

 If the topic is forbidden here, that explains why I kept finding dead threads on it. 8)

Also it wouldn't make sense for chess.com to be explicit with their methods, because then would be cheaters would plan their cheating accordingly.

Avatar of The_Chin_Of_Quinn

Suffice to say it's an uneducated fat guy in a room. Fat is important because if feelings from the gut equal truth, then the man with the biggest gut has the most truth.

Uneducated is even more important because "facts" are lies. We know this because our gut says so.

Avatar of CookedQueen
AWSmith61 wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]

What the hell got all those people in their mind creating threads and removing the entry posting just after a few minutes thereafter. If you don't want a discussion or answers then DON'T create a thread. This is spamming and trolling!

Avatar of AWSmith61

I wish we could discuss it here.. 8/ The "trust me, I'm right" argument just doesn't hold water for me b/c I'm an engineer. I don't tend to flip around, particularly if a game is intense.  I guess it's b/c I'm fascinated with coincidences in science.

Avatar of CookedQueen
2Q1C wrote:

He was informed this was the wrong place to discuss such things so did the right thing and deleted the OP since you can't delete threads. He did the honourable thing in my opinion. He should be commended.

Such information needs to be given there instead of letting the people puzzle around!

 

Avatar of AWSmith61

I hope a mod locks the thread - I found the cheating forum here at chess.com and applied to join.  It's not exactly easy to find.  It's not in the drop down on the forums (new chess.com interface). It's not returned by a search for cheating forum. It's in Share / Clubs / search for cheating.  The cheating club! 8)

And no offense taken from Cooked Queen.  It's the internet. It's forums. It happens. 8) I like this community too much to get bogged down in flames.  I'm also too old to get bogged down in flames (44 this year).  And I've got too much chess to study, too many kids to raise (G11, B9, B7, B5, G4), and recently a funeral to attend, etc., etc.  Too busy being alive. ;-)

 

[locked as requested and for the obvious reason -- MOD]

This forum topic has been locked