@mCoombes314 that's why the moderators could more quickly/easily see if someone is suspect of cheating
great idea to make them as images @Linnemann
What will you do if player passed the test with very weak performance and a year after he won against GM, @Linnemann?
I agree it is a good indicator, but it isn't a proof of cheating.
I agree it is a good indicator, but it isn't a proof of cheating.
@AlbatzVI
The test is an extra indicator. Not more. There are of course cases where it happens that a weak player beats a GM because the GM drops a rook etc. Happens in every real life tournament. Of course the admins who do the cheat detection will still have to check manually.
If a player which has performed bad in the test however plays five or more 0 0 x games in a row, longer than 25 moves with less than 25 centipawn loss, this test will give useful extra information. A very strong player (2500+) can do that and he will perform excellent in the test. A weak player who performed bad can not do that.
Also, as i mentioned, i see this more as a good method to CREATE PROVISIONAL RATINGS. It is not necessary to add the test just for purposes of cheat detection, because the current system seems to work quite well.
EDIT: it is also a possibility to repeat the test for each player once per year, to reflect changes in playing strength.
The test is an extra indicator. Not more. There are of course cases where it happens that a weak player beats a GM because the GM drops a rook etc. Happens in every real life tournament. Of course the admins who do the cheat detection will still have to check manually.
If a player which has performed bad in the test however plays five or more 0 0 x games in a row, longer than 25 moves with less than 25 centipawn loss, this test will give useful extra information. A very strong player (2500+) can do that and he will perform excellent in the test. A weak player who performed bad can not do that.
Also, as i mentioned, i see this more as a good method to CREATE PROVISIONAL RATINGS. It is not necessary to add the test just for purposes of cheat detection, because the current system seems to work quite well.
EDIT: it is also a possibility to repeat the test for each player once per year, to reflect changes in playing strength.
Lately more people come to lichess (~ 19.000 online users), most important many titled players, but also cheaters. Lichess has a good system for detecting cheaters, but lately I think that is start to showing that's overworking. In the past on half hour from report and with no more then 100 games the cheater was banned. Now the ban comes with 1-2 days delay and found cheater with more than 500 games. OK that's normal and I understand that, I love lichess and I'll stay here, but a professional GM doesn't see it like this, he doesn't like to lose as we are. It's important to not lose such players from lichess. For example an account Kive....a is used from a Top GM for educational and entertaiment purposes. On total 80 games the 10 games was obvious against cheaters!! From 3 reports only 1 return true after a day. The teacher transfer the account to ICC.
I think a good idea is to create a RING OF TRUST (like fide online arena do) that a player has for example 4/4 reputation that's human. So that we can search for match only against humans.
I personally haven't the knowledge to propose the criteria how should work (games?, reports?, statistics?) but I think it's a good way to regain the TRUST, to keep good players on lichess and to limit the hard work of moderators and CPU cycles.
What do you think?
I think a good idea is to create a RING OF TRUST (like fide online arena do) that a player has for example 4/4 reputation that's human. So that we can search for match only against humans.
I personally haven't the knowledge to propose the criteria how should work (games?, reports?, statistics?) but I think it's a good way to regain the TRUST, to keep good players on lichess and to limit the hard work of moderators and CPU cycles.
What do you think?
@KingDeathGR #15 that sounds scary. Must i be nice in order to be trusted? Who decides that im trustworthy? The patz i just teached a lesson? Meh.
I have thought about this test again and i now think that it adds too much complexity. So forget my comments #8 and #15 please.
@Linnemann that I 'm saying is : No anti-cheat test, keep the same anti-cheating method that site use but extended to match formula with the ring of trust. All players and with 0/4 trust can play games, nothing's change. The trust must grow as the clean games grow, the same as reports for cheating for a user returns false. Personally if a match against a user with say 20 total games with an ELO 1700 and play like 2100 I don't trust him & don't play more than 2 games with him.
2) To be trusted you must no cheating
3) Decision come from the same system and persons as today
2) To be trusted you must no cheating
3) Decision come from the same system and persons as today
@KingDeathGR I dont understand you. You mean, in order to play you, a player must reach some trust level? And he earns that trust level by playing some amount of clean games? Against whom? Players who agree to play players with a low trust level? Who would do that? Everyone will set the trust level in his formula to the highest possible value, no? So how can someone actually reach some trust level?
@Linnemann 1) In order to play with me if I set 4/4 or 2/4 ROT (Ring Of Trust) a player must have reach this level. 2) Yes 3) against anybody 4) Not everyone will set the trust to the highest as this would limit the match players and would be delay the time to find the correct partner 5) for the same reason as 4 and from tournaments. This is not new idea, its allready functional at FIDE arena site and works very well.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.