You are changing the subject of the main conversation from cheating to trust. It is like I talk about government and you talk about birds. Also, how do you measure trust?
@MagnusJamesKasparov said in #41:
> @Sharingam bro is a Kramnik alt
so we have to accept cheaters because trust and you comment this bs. OK
> @Sharingam bro is a Kramnik alt
so we have to accept cheaters because trust and you comment this bs. OK
@Robertocrata said in #42:
> Also, how do you measure trust?
How do you measure, measure a year? youtu.be/hj7LRuusFqo
> Also, how do you measure trust?
How do you measure, measure a year? youtu.be/hj7LRuusFqo
@Toadofsky said in #44:
> How do you measure, measure a year?
Yeah how do you measure trust in someone... Cheaters tend to group up and defend each other, game theory proves it.
> How do you measure, measure a year?
Yeah how do you measure trust in someone... Cheaters tend to group up and defend each other, game theory proves it.
@Robertocrata said in #45:
> Yeah how do you measure trust in someone... Cheaters tend to group up and defend each other, game theory proves it.
Games with huge cheating problems like Takov are a good example. Cheaters have a wiggle they do that only other cheaters can see (through walls) to basically tell each other that they're also cheating and not going to be hostile to one another.
> Yeah how do you measure trust in someone... Cheaters tend to group up and defend each other, game theory proves it.
Games with huge cheating problems like Takov are a good example. Cheaters have a wiggle they do that only other cheaters can see (through walls) to basically tell each other that they're also cheating and not going to be hostile to one another.
@Sharingam said in #39:
> I was referring to cheaters in general
No, in #24 you were not. You were replying to #23 which was about one extreme example illustrating how deeply flawed the "analysis" is. Also, if you were talking in general, you would at least write something like "cheaters"; instead, you wrote "the cheater" (not even "a" but "the"). That's not general at all.
> I was referring to cheaters in general
No, in #24 you were not. You were replying to #23 which was about one extreme example illustrating how deeply flawed the "analysis" is. Also, if you were talking in general, you would at least write something like "cheaters"; instead, you wrote "the cheater" (not even "a" but "the"). That's not general at all.
I am a bit late to this party, but I was disappointed in the lack of substance this post contained. You advocate for a balance of "trust" and detection (and awareness), but I find your solution which focuses on accusations to be unsatisfying as it does not target the root of the problem: Opacity in cheat detection. How are we ever supposed to get "awareness" without any education on how to detect cheaters? And how are we ever supposed to trust chess websites if we see nothing of the internals?
You mention the need for some sort of due process, which I absolutely agree with, however this requires chess sites like Lichess or chess.com to open up about their methods, something they have shown little desire to do. Ken Regan's papers are great, but not enough here. We need more.
This whole chaotic cheat detection situation has grown due to the realization of how opaque the system is. The bottom line is: Justice is hard to spot behind closed doors.
You mention the need for some sort of due process, which I absolutely agree with, however this requires chess sites like Lichess or chess.com to open up about their methods, something they have shown little desire to do. Ken Regan's papers are great, but not enough here. We need more.
This whole chaotic cheat detection situation has grown due to the realization of how opaque the system is. The bottom line is: Justice is hard to spot behind closed doors.
Online chess is busted. It's time to admit it. Unfortunately covid lockdown pushed popular websites to take a decision that has considerably accelerated its demise, namely providing money incentives.
Urgent focus is on live play (with serious efforts including detection of devices, maybe Faraday cages).
Online chess has to be considered again as a pure training tool.
Urgent focus is on live play (with serious efforts including detection of devices, maybe Faraday cages).
Online chess has to be considered again as a pure training tool.
@dreadpresence said in #48:
> this requires chess sites like Lichess... to open up about their methods
Lichess is free software; anyone can download, analyze, and execute all of its source code. It's difficult to get more open than that without letting cheaters break rules.
> this requires chess sites like Lichess... to open up about their methods
Lichess is free software; anyone can download, analyze, and execute all of its source code. It's difficult to get more open than that without letting cheaters break rules.