No post body was provided.
Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
91–100 of 122 posts
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would clearly work for someone who is cheating by letting an engine do all the work, but how about someone who mostly plays the game themselves just using the engine rarely? Give Nakamura a minute with Stockfish any two times of his choosing in each game, and he would have probably won the Candidates. Heck, just give a good player a blunder alert that tells them after they have made a blunder that they have done…
I don't think it's that helpful if you're letting Stockfish make a move or two for you per game, or at least at the level I'm at. The engine is so good that it often makes moves that are incomprehensible, setting itself up for an attack in n moves where n is often 10+. If you did want to cheat (but what's the point?) a chrome extension that prevented you from making moves where you lost more then some certain amount…
Anand talked about that a while back. He said even 1 bit of information from Stockfish per game would result in a significant amount of rating points, and be quite hard to detect. I.e. you are in a position where you could choose to play a solid move, or alternatively to launch a risky combination. Stockfish explores the combination and gives you a 1 or 0 saying whether it will work.
I believe cheat detection is done partly by humans. Computers flag something as suspicious and then they show the suspicious moves to some grandmasters who might immediately say "no human would do that", or else "yeah that move looks weird but I could imagine someone making it", that type of thing. There was a youtube of Nakamura looking at such a position a while back. The person had a chance to sac some material in order to simplify to a trivially winning endgame, but instead carried out a ridiculously complicated maneuver that kept the material. Just the sort of thing a computer would do, and Naka pointed it out.
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#93Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably isn't very good and chalks it up to cheating. Chess takes years to get good at. It's a slow slow grind.
Playing people who take 10 seconds every move— whether an obvious “only move” or the most complicated situations… and that pick the move that stockfish makes almost all of the time… are cheating.
Depends I like to slow play. It can frustrate someone to play quicker and make mistakes
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. I'm an amateur player (2200 at lichess) but there are plenty of situations where I simply _know_ the best variation. Plenty of chess players analyze their own games using an engine and then use their memory when they are confronted with the same position. The same with opening theory: when I'm using my opening preparation, I'm playing at GM level as these are just the moves played by GMs in that…
This is a very strong claim that is almost certainly false. Would you be willing to reveal your account so that it can be independently verified? For example I'm 2116 on lichess and looking over the last 10 opponents who are in the neighborhood of 2200, it is never the case that their moves are optimal compared to a chess engine. For the first 10 or so moves yeah sure, just play a book opening, but beyond that people…
Sure, I blunder and I never claimed it to be always the case, but sometimes I know a tree of variations really deep, just because I remembered it from looking at it together with a computer.
Anyway, here's my account on lichess:
toolslive
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
What it looks like to cheat is more than just playing relatively accurate moves. Average move time, centipawn loss over multiple games, blunder/mistake frequency across multiple games, strengh of moves while in time trouble, etc. Cheaters tend to stand out when you look at a short history of games.
That would clearly work for someone who is cheating by letting an engine do all the work, but how about someone who mostly plays the game themselves just using the engine rarely? Give Nakamura a minute with Stockfish any two times of his choosing in each game, and he would have probably won the Candidates. Heck, just give a good player a blunder alert that tells them after they have made a blunder that they have done…
> That would clearly work for someone who is cheating by letting an engine do all the work, but how about someone who mostly plays the game themselves just using the engine rarely?
Thats exactly what those engines try to detect. If you are average player, but every time you start loosing you get significantly better, then there is great possibility that you are cheating. Thats whats looking through history gives you. It's about actually finding deviations from your usual behaviour.
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#97I’ve seen a video of Magnus Carlsen playing on Lichess before. Does Irwin ever accidentally flag him or people like him? Do these sorts of folks have to be verified in some fashion?
> Do these sorts of folks have to be verified in some fashion?
As far as I understand, yes. In Chess.com at least (not sure about Lichess), there will be some kind of human verification for very high-level players, asking to prove that they are IMs or GMs. They can stay anonymous, but they will have the rank appear IIRC. I'm not sure on all the details, I'm very (very very) far from that level :)
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#98Now we have a computer effectively accusing people of fraud (if I understand correctly). How does Irwin address the obvious risks and dangers?
Not sure if it's the same at Lichess, but chess.com flags potential cheaters, and they get reviewed by experts to determine if they are just a very strong player or a cheater.
A few of younger up and coming players were flagged.
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#99I love chess. At my absolute best, I had a over-the-board USCF rating of 2156. I never made it to master no matter how hard I tried. So, ticked off, I gave up serious play. Years go by and while I'm no where near as good these days, I started enjoying playing again. And, then I start running into people online who were clearly using engines instead of their own skills and wits. Now, I only pay with friends and over-t…
I don’t understand this sentiment. The rating of a player will reflect their strength, regardless of whether they are an unaided human, a full computer, or a human with some heuristic to consult an engine. Whatever the player is doing, their rating will reflect their average strength, and the website matches us to players of similar rating. Whether or not a player is pure human, pure engine, or centaur, we get matche…
I disagree. The centaur might have a rating of 2150, but they will sporadically play a 3300 rated engine move. This completely breaks the rating system's probabilities.
This is like boxing in the lightweight division, but your opponent can, at will, use Mike Tyson in his prime to hit you in the face.
Re: Irwin – the protector of Lichess from all chess players villainous
#100I don’t understand what someone gets out of winning chess games by cheating. It would actually make me feel worse about myself.
Cheaters often have the mindset that "everyone else is cheating, so it's only fair that I do too".