21–30 of 33 posts
Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the interesting experience of being banned from a Call of Duty 4 server, back when the franchise still had servers. It happened like this: we were playing the game mode Sabotage, and it went into overtime. When this happens, the game shows the exact location of every player on the map to every other player and prevents respawns until there's nobody left on one team, at which point the other wins. In CoD you can…
Chess is obviously a game without hidden information in the game state, so cheating comes in one of two types on these online services: 1. There is no human player at all, just a bot playing the game (maybe being paid for by a user to boost their rank). This is likely detected by all the usual anti-bot heuristics that many web services have. Another option might be looking for statistical outliers on how highly playe…
But Scenario (2) is rather complex - most strong players who are "smart cheaters" would use the Stockfish suggestions infrequently, perhaps just once per game. The difference to the game result can be significant, but detecting this sort of cheating is a statistical exercise.
As you said, it comes down to thresholds, and setting a tradeoff between false positives and false negatives.
And let's not forget that a false negative, which is the default case and extremely common, also has an effect – it disadvantages all the honest players who lose to a cheater.
Very interesting read. I don't play video games, but I do play online chess, and in online chess, there is a huge epidemic of cheating. Many cheaters are banned by chess.com. Some of these bans go unnoticed, but in other cases, the cheaters passionately insist that they were not cheating. And I don't believe them. In a minuscule number of cases, chess.com has been known to reverse a ban. But chess.com does not provid…
Why do you believe they are almost always right? Without understanding the anti cheating technology, I feel it's impossible to judge.
It's apparent that chess.com has tuned the detection threshold to near certainty, which lets many cheaters through, at least for a long time.
What often gets lost in criticism of the corporate entity is that undetected cheating (i.e. false negative by the anti-cheating software), which is very common, also has a cost, and victims.
Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
This is by design. Anti-cheat solutions are intended to be opaque. This also applies to bans from many online platforms. This needs to change, because their systems are not 100% accurate. They need to be able to prove that you cheated or broke ToS before they can ban you and effectively steal any money you've paid them.
Very interesting read. I don't play video games, but I do play online chess, and in online chess, there is a huge epidemic of cheating. Many cheaters are banned by chess.com. Some of these bans go unnoticed, but in other cases, the cheaters passionately insist that they were not cheating. And I don't believe them. In a minuscule number of cases, chess.com has been known to reverse a ban. But chess.com does not provid…
2 years? Jeez. All for a crapfest game haha. Kudos to you for going through with that. I guess they have a streaming platform so reputation was on the line, but I would not have put this much effort. Did you use AI to generate legal documents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is by design. Anti-cheat solutions are intended to be opaque. This also applies to bans from many online platforms. This needs to change, because their systems are not 100% accurate. They need to be able to prove that you cheated or broke ToS before they can ban you and effectively steal any money you've paid them.
I completely agree with you. These anti cheat systems, whether it is related to video games or university work or anything in life, need to be fully open and transparent otherwise as you say without understanding and proof of what you did wrong, there shouldn't be any ban or punishment. If they find you in breach of a contract, they should be required by law to prove how you broke the contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with you. These anti cheat systems, whether it is related to video games or university work or anything in life, need to be fully open and transparent otherwise as you say without understanding and proof of what you did wrong, there shouldn't be any ban or punishment. If they find you in breach of a contract, they should be required by law to prove how you broke the contract.
The amount of people in this thread who think online video games can be equated to imprisonment or being kicked out of university or other actually-important things is rather shocking.