I used to play on FICS. In a few games there the losing player accused me of cheating, although I didn't. People shouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions based on just how the play looks to them. The same player can make good moves and blunders etc. Fortunately this doesn't seem to happen on Lichess.
I agree with the sentiment of not letting cheaters affect your enjoyment of chess and your focus on personal improvement. However, in tournaments with stakes or when momentum and streaks are on the line, the impact of cheating can be particularly disheartening and detrimental. It's essential for chess platforms and tournament organizers to develop better methods to detect and prevent cheating, especially in competitive environments where fairness and integrity are paramount.
@iMoveWood said in #42:
> It's essential for chess platforms and tournament organizers to develop better methods to detect and prevent cheating, especially in competitive environments where fairness and integrity are paramount.
This statement sort of assumes that the methods currently in place are not effective enough. From what do (or can) you draw this conclusion? How can you even know exactly how effective they are?
i like cheating. shut up guys.
That's why I believe playing in person is better.
If people are going to cheat (online) to get higher ratings or win tournaments, then just avoid playing in those tournaments. Instead, play against intermediate players and use an account with an intermediate Elo rating. Let the cheaters have the highest ratings and focus on enjoying real chess, learning, and improving. You can also avoid cheaters online by playing only with people you trust. Discord is a great platform to arrange games, as people within a community are generally less inclined to cheat. Also, besides the anti-cheating methods on Lichess, you can always question suspicious players and subject them to various trials and tests. If cheating persists, you can leave that community altogether and look for another one.
@Molurus said in #43:
> This statement sort of assumes that the methods currently in place are not effective enough. From what do (or can) you draw this conclusion? How can you even know exactly how effective they are?
I’m not specifically talking about Lichess, but I heard a story about a blatant cheater at the Chicago Open who got away with it for far too long. Additionally, on another site, I was having a great tournament in an arena and encountered an obvious cheater in two games, which killed my streak. The player was rated 1500; it felt like a tournament hitman ruining the tournament. Is there a method for post-tournament scoring that takes into account a cheater ruining your streak? No, there isn't, and it greatly reduces the enthusiasm and enjoyment of playing in an online tournament.
Live chess tournaments should consider implementing scare-crowing techniques, such as surveillance with an eye in the sky, and possibly enforcing stronger legal ramifications. This approach would serve to deter potential cheaters and make an example of those caught. By publicly addressing and penalizing cheaters, tournaments can reinforce the seriousness of maintaining fair play and integrity in the game.
I enjoyed the story of how Lichess shadow-bans people without them being aware of it. I hope there is a similar method in place where cheaters think they're getting away with it but aren't, perhaps by black-listing certain IPs.
I think Lichess is doing a great job overall, but I would really like to play Arena-King style tournaments on this site with decent prizes. However, it's probably too much to ask for as an untitled player
@iMoveWood
To be honest, I don't like the Arena tournament format very much. It seems to reward quantity over quality. Disregarding any concerns over cheating (on Lichess they usually get spotted before the tournament finishes), it's much more annoying if an opponent continues playing a totally lost position until his very last second. Also: rewarding streaks... I'm not sure how that actually rewards playing well. It seems a statistical lottery to me. (Again, disregarding cheats.)
And in slower time controls it just makes no sense to even use your time, if you want to finish top 3. So basically all Arena tournaments are bullet tournaments. The only advantage Arena has, is not having to wait for rounds. Personally, I don't consider waiting a problem at all.
With all that in mind, I very much prefer swiss tournaments.
PS: thinking out loud, if you really want prize money, it might be a good idea to not only have an entrance fee, but also a 'fair play deposit' that will only be refunded if you finish the tournament without cheating. I'm pretty sure that will deter the majority of cheaters.
@Molurus said in #48:
> PS: thinking out loud, if you really want prize money, it might be a good idea to not only have an entrance fee, but also a 'fair play deposit' that will only be refunded if you finish the tournament without cheating. I'm pretty sure that will deter the majority of cheaters.
It will also scare off most honest players...
@Molurus said in #48:
> it might be a good idea to not only have an entrance fee, but also a 'fair play deposit' that will only be refunded if you finish the tournament without cheating. I'm pretty sure that will deter the majority of cheaters.
I'm not so sure about this part. History teaches us that draconic punishments did not actually deter wrongdoers. Reportedly, pickpockets and other thieves actually loved the crowds of people occupied by watching their (ex-)colleagues getting their hands cut off as a great opportunity to do their job. Psychologists claim that it's because wrongdoers mostly don't expect to be caught so that the punishment is usually not involved in their decision process.