lichess.org
Donate

Online chess is broken, I assume you’re cheating until you prove me wrong

@gruuk said ^

After a few months of playing online chess, I’ve noticed a shift in my mindset. I now catch myself assuming that my opponent might be cheating until proven otherwise.

Given that almost 90% of players on this site are stronger than you MUST assume opponent is not cheating unless there is compelling evidence to contrary. 1000 rating cheater must cheat very little and very rarely.

ad hominem rarely works as an argument

It's just the truth.

@gruuk said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xgiXa7rP) > > > After a few months of playing online chess, I’ve noticed a shift in my mindset. I now catch myself assuming that my opponent might be cheating until proven otherwise. > > > > Given that almost 90% of players on this site are stronger than you MUST assume opponent is not cheating unless there is compelling evidence to contrary. 1000 rating cheater must cheat very little and very rarely. > > ad hominem rarely works as an argument It's just the truth.

well, a cheater does not have to use all the best moves - just use an engine for inspiration - for instance in a critical moment.

but anyway - online chess is dead to me, I just use this site to play against people I assume are using bots.

well, a cheater does not have to use all the best moves - just use an engine for inspiration - for instance in a critical moment. but anyway - online chess is dead to me, I just use this site to play against people I assume are using bots.

Again, who cares if they are using a bot (even though it is hard to imagine using a bot to get 1000...) There is no difference between playing a 1000 rated human and a 1000 rated bot. Both play a bunch of nonsensical moves, hang a few pieces, and win or lose depending on who hangs the most material. The experience is the same whether its a bot or a human...

-In your last game, after both sides hung multiple pieces, you resigned in a completely winning position!
-Your lose before that, you resigned after hanging your first piece on move 8.
-The one prior to that, you resigned after 8 moves for not particular reason (yes, your position was bad, but material was still even, and nothing particular was imminent. At your level, this should definitely be played on.)
-Prior, you resigned on move 15, after hanging your first piece (not counting the several pawns you hung, of which your opponent took only one).
-The one before, I count 6 times that you hung material that your opponent didnt take before they finally grabbed some and you resigned.

I could go on, but the point is clear... There are typical games between a couple of 1000 players... A few moves of memorized opening theory followed by positionally dubious and random looking moves until both sides start to overlook 1 and 2 move hangs. Nothing that even hints at cheating.

If you want a tip that will increase your rating significantly instantly... Stop resigning. In those 5 games you resigned one in a totally winning position. Once is a position which was obviously worse, but even at the 2000 rated level would not yet have been hopelessly loss, and 3 times in positions where were objectively loss at the 2000 (and arguably at the 1600) level, but which definitely still had plenty of play in them at the 1000 level.

Again, who cares if they are using a bot (even though it is hard to imagine using a bot to get 1000...) There is no difference between playing a 1000 rated human and a 1000 rated bot. Both play a bunch of nonsensical moves, hang a few pieces, and win or lose depending on who hangs the most material. The experience is the same whether its a bot or a human... -In your last game, after both sides hung multiple pieces, you resigned in a completely winning position! -Your lose before that, you resigned after hanging your first piece on move 8. -The one prior to that, you resigned after 8 moves for not particular reason (yes, your position was bad, but material was still even, and nothing particular was imminent. At your level, this should definitely be played on.) -Prior, you resigned on move 15, after hanging your first piece (not counting the several pawns you hung, of which your opponent took only one). -The one before, I count 6 times that you hung material that your opponent didnt take before they finally grabbed some and you resigned. I could go on, but the point is clear... There are typical games between a couple of 1000 players... A few moves of memorized opening theory followed by positionally dubious and random looking moves until both sides start to overlook 1 and 2 move hangs. Nothing that even hints at cheating. If you want a tip that will increase your rating significantly instantly... Stop resigning. In those 5 games you resigned one in a totally winning position. Once is a position which was obviously worse, but even at the 2000 rated level would not yet have been hopelessly loss, and 3 times in positions where were objectively loss at the 2000 (and arguably at the 1600) level, but which definitely still had plenty of play in them at the 1000 level.

@gruuk said ^

well, a cheater does not have to use all the best moves - just use an engine for inspiration - for instance in a critical moment.

but anyway - online chess is dead to me, I just use this site to play against people I assume are using bots.

This is just such a shallow take: if they use it so sporadically that they play like 1000 you're just playing against a 1000, if they're playing better they won't be rated 1000. You're not making sense.

@gruuk said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Ye5a4wXD) > well, a cheater does not have to use all the best moves - just use an engine for inspiration - for instance in a critical moment. > > but anyway - online chess is dead to me, I just use this site to play against people I assume are using bots. This is just such a shallow take: if they use it so sporadically that they play like 1000 you're just playing against a 1000, if they're playing better they won't be rated 1000. You're not making sense.

I believe chess cheaters want to hide. They hide so well that their profiles often seem devoid of emotion, and their play style can be a bit offbeat. The more members report suspected games, the quicker they might get detected.

I'm no doctor or psychologist, but adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" stance is probably not healthy. It likely results in a flood of false-positive accusations that the site must manage, which likely far outnumber actual cheaters. This suspicious mindset doesn't just hurt the community; it most likely degrades our own performance and enjoyment of the game, even if we think otherwise.

I assume some players cheat because they can't resist the temptation to use assistance, or their curiosity leads them to keep the answers beside them to increase their confidence. For others, it might be a misplaced "eye for an eye" reaction to a perceived lack of fairness in the world.

Chess isn't broken, but our empathy sometimes is. When we treat our opponents like bots and build "cold walls" around ourselves, the game stops being pleasant and starts feeling like a mechanical race against a clock. Human opponents should be treated with the respect. Respect is give before, during, and after a match.

I believe chess cheaters want to hide. They hide so well that their profiles often seem devoid of emotion, and their play style can be a bit offbeat. The more members report suspected games, the quicker they might get detected. I'm no doctor or psychologist, but adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" stance is probably not healthy. It likely results in a flood of false-positive accusations that the site must manage, which likely far outnumber actual cheaters. This suspicious mindset doesn't just hurt the community; it most likely degrades our own performance and enjoyment of the game, even if we think otherwise. I assume some players cheat because they can't resist the temptation to use assistance, or their curiosity leads them to keep the answers beside them to increase their confidence. For others, it might be a misplaced "eye for an eye" reaction to a perceived lack of fairness in the world. Chess isn't broken, but our empathy sometimes is. When we treat our opponents like bots and build "cold walls" around ourselves, the game stops being pleasant and starts feeling like a mechanical race against a clock. Human opponents should be treated with the respect. Respect is give before, during, and after a match.

From what I've experienced in games and read in the forums, cheating is worse in the lower rated such as you and I are in. It is frustrating. Consider all the plusses and minuses of the site.

From what I've experienced in games and read in the forums, cheating is worse in the lower rated such as you and I are in. It is frustrating. Consider all the plusses and minuses of the site.

@morphyms1817 said ^

From what I've experienced in games and read in the forums, cheating is worse in the lower rated such as you and I are in. It is frustrating. Consider all the plusses and minuses of the site.

I don't actually believe its worse at the lower levels. Quite the contrary... If you were to cheat, you would quickly move up to the higher levels. It is PERCEIVED to be worse by people at the lower levels, who do not yet have enough understanding of chess to understand how little they actually know, or why they are loosing.

Indeed, when I play OTB coffee house chess, against people who "are good and can beat all of their friends" (but in reality are 1000 level players), I get confronted with all sorts of comments like "Why are your pieces always protected?", "Your lucky that this tactic (typically a fork or a back rank mate) appeared in the position", or "Why are none of my openings (typically very transparent garbage) working today?". In this environment, sitting in front of them, they cannot blame it on cheating, so they effectively pass it off as an unlucky day or similar... Online, these same questions escalate to assumptions of cheating.

@morphyms1817 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/2ZfaNRBc) > From what I've experienced in games and read in the forums, cheating is worse in the lower rated such as you and I are in. It is frustrating. Consider all the plusses and minuses of the site. I don't actually believe its worse at the lower levels. Quite the contrary... If you were to cheat, you would quickly move up to the higher levels. It is PERCEIVED to be worse by people at the lower levels, who do not yet have enough understanding of chess to understand how little they actually know, or why they are loosing. Indeed, when I play OTB coffee house chess, against people who "are good and can beat all of their friends" (but in reality are 1000 level players), I get confronted with all sorts of comments like "Why are your pieces always protected?", "Your lucky that this tactic (typically a fork or a back rank mate) appeared in the position", or "Why are none of my openings (typically very transparent garbage) working today?". In this environment, sitting in front of them, they cannot blame it on cheating, so they effectively pass it off as an unlucky day or similar... Online, these same questions escalate to assumptions of cheating.

@Deshichele said ^

And there probably are people online jealous of some1 who got a fide rating with a chess.com rating they cannot even start to think about getting fide.

Do you think bragging about this even makes sense? Nobody is jealous of you. What kind of paranoia is this?

I've encountered a school senior irl with this thing........ Although it Doesn't matter anyways. You gotta learn to ignore people when needed.

That still does not justify why you mentioned the rating thing. We are not your senior schoolmates. And your last sentence really attempts to divert from my question..

@Deshichele said [^](/forum/redirect/post/JenkPCiL) > > > And there probably are people online jealous of some1 who got a fide rating with a chess.com rating they cannot even start to think about getting fide. > > > > Do you think bragging about this even makes sense? Nobody is jealous of you. What kind of paranoia is this? > > I've encountered a school senior irl with this thing........ Although it Doesn't matter anyways. You gotta learn to ignore people when needed. That still does not justify why you mentioned the rating thing. We are not your senior schoolmates. And your last sentence really attempts to divert from my question..

The site is not responsable for the chess temptations that others have. When we play a game, there is not guarantee of a pleasant outcome. I believe online chess sites have done their due-diligence. Lichess uses statistical tools (like Irwin for engine-like patterns and Kaladin for deviations from a player's normal style) to flag computer assistance. But it's now time that the members find a peaceful solution. This war against assistance has gone on long enough. Boycotting individual players often just fuels more toxicity without solving anything. What is needed is to give each player a profile credibility score. You earn it and would be constantly updated. Just filtering opponents by Time spent playing in the lichess lobby would be a great start. I discovered this browser extension. Some might like it. I just installed it and used it once. When I saw the score I then pressed exit "X" button to remove it from my screen and then I played my first move.

Chess Risk Score
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chess-risk-score/ookpbnahncodokhafpfgamlkfjdmfjjo

The site is not responsable for the chess temptations that others have. When we play a game, there is not guarantee of a pleasant outcome. I believe online chess sites have done their due-diligence. Lichess uses statistical tools (like Irwin for engine-like patterns and Kaladin for deviations from a player's normal style) to flag computer assistance. But it's now time that the members find a peaceful solution. This war against assistance has gone on long enough. Boycotting individual players often just fuels more toxicity without solving anything. What is needed is to give each player a profile credibility score. You earn it and would be constantly updated. Just filtering opponents by Time spent playing in the lichess lobby would be a great start. I discovered this browser extension. Some might like it. I just installed it and used it once. When I saw the score I then pressed exit "X" button to remove it from my screen and then I played my first move. Chess Risk Score https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chess-risk-score/ookpbnahncodokhafpfgamlkfjdmfjjo

@CG314 said ^

"Your lucky that this tactic (typically a fork or a back rank mate) appeared in the position"

Somehow stronger players tend to be consistently more lucky in this sense. Weird conincidence... :-)

I remember some videos by Andras Toth where he analyses games of his students. Quite often he says something like: "I'm starting to feel this is going to end in [some tactical motive]." at some point and quite often it later turns out he was right, even if it often takes 10 or more moves before it actually happens.

@CG314 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/UK5m7qTU) > "Your lucky that this tactic (typically a fork or a back rank mate) appeared in the position" Somehow stronger players tend to be consistently more lucky in this sense. Weird conincidence... :-) I remember some videos by Andras Toth where he analyses games of his students. Quite often he says something like: "I'm starting to feel this is going to end in [some tactical motive]." at some point and quite often it later turns out he was right, even if it often takes 10 or more moves before it actually happens.