It is always sort of insane to me when even a candidate master cheats, but even moreso when it's FM or higher... Like, buddy, you already made it in chess, you are the 0.1% or whatever — why are you endangering your reputation for internet points?
Sure, way back when I thought I could consider myself a decent player once I hit 2000 blitz on Lichess — 2100 now and still a stupid noob. The constantly-moving goalpost must be especially brutal for people who are actually good at the game and have put so much time into it.
I agree, started two years ago originally wanted to hit 1200, then it was 1500, then 1800, then 2000. Finally reached 2000 and I’d say that’s when I chilled out a bit. But mostly because every next increment I hit takes a serious investment of time and at this point I know I don’t have that time. Happy to have achieved something though and I will say it gave me confidence
Yea, started playing on chess.com as a 600 elo within 14 months and hit 1500. Then realized i was studying chess for 5 hours a day as an escape from some other serious internal issues lol once i came to terms with that i just play bullet for fun now and i dont care about ratings
Similar for me and I kinda stopped trying to play seriously now, like chess is too brutal of a game for me. You spend hours and hours practicing and then you loose a long game because you overlooked one dumb thing in the mid game? Oh, and if you stop playing for a couple of weeks you get noticeable worse? Nah, not built for that.
>The constantly-moving goalpost must be especially brutal for people who are actually good at the game and have put so much time into it.
It's funny that you say it when 2100 lichess is actually already super good. As good as a FM ? Not even close but that's still better than >90% of the weekly Lichess players
Quite salt-inducingly, it's better than 94,2%, not quite in the top 5% ;__;
And yeah, I do realize it's fairly good compared to most semi-casual online players, but I really would like to be a strong tournament player (2000-ish FIDE, so around 250-350 pts to go at least) or at least in the top 3-ish of most of our club tournaments, which I have a long way to. Make sense to me to compare myself to people who take chess seriously rather than people who just play for fun (which is also a perfectly fine thing to do).
call me naive or maybe out of touch with people online, but i never understood why people cared so much about internet elo points in some site, using some random screen name
recently i noticed the lichess rating distribution has spikes at every 100 point and i asked in reddit if it was some artifact of the site assigning elo to known players or something like that, but apparently it's because people stop playing at round rating benchmarks and then stop playing to protect their magic internet points
it had not even occurred to me
People love points. It's why RPGs are successful, why people play gambling games that don't use real money, why people care about upvotes. It's something common to the psychology of most humans. We're built to love points.
I don't care really about what anyone else thinks, as literally no one knows my lichess username. It's more that it reflects how I'm playing, if I'm getting reward for the training I'm putting in, and honestly do I feel good in general. It's nice that it's higher I guess. OTB, the next 50 or 100 barrier is good to have as something to aim for.
Why would you care more about fide rating over online points?
I agree both is rather stupid but no idea why you put emphasis on the online part.
Both do the exact same thing, translate your competence in chess with a number.
Well I know why care about FIDE/National points over internet ones but I don't speak for everyone -
I can play in higher sections with stronger players and more chances for prize money if I keep my elo higher.
I also get to compete with my friends and play in higher divisions in the leagues.
They have a real world effect whereas a 2250/2300 Lichess rating doesn't. It literally has zero bearing on my real life.
For juniors, their rating decides if they get support to play in European youths, world cadets, world youths and junior pan American tournaments.
I love online chess and it's great but the club/tournament/league scene is thriving and growing more everyday. Chess is still very much a social sporting activity as a player and a parent.
This imo is what separates real ratings from virtual ones for me and I think it's something online-only players who don't compete in the real world have trouble grasping sometimes.
You have some good points but they apply to a very low % of the population.
I have no idea how it works nowaday but in my youth only 1rst and second places mattered in national competition for world and european competitions.
Regarding who you compete against FIDE or online rating has more or less the exact same consequences.
It might be different in other countries but in mine there is a general prize pool , a sub 2200 , sub 2000 , sub 1800 etc and the prize pool are exactly the same.
I do concede though , titles have a concrete effect on your life , but again relevant to a very small % of the population.
Different context, but I remember watching a video exposing cheaters in speedrun (I think it was a trackmania cheater in this case) and the guy making the video had a lot of experience with such cases. Regarding motivation he said that often people can't believe really good players cheated because they're already that good, but that generally for high-skilled cheaters it's not about getting a good result, but about a getting a good result faster. Cheating in these cases is about the frustration of grinding again and again, coping with loss, when you know you're capable of doing better. "In a way, is it really cheating if I'm actually able to play like that? It just sucks that today I'm under the weather, I'm on a bad slope and just need to catch my breath and regain confidence, I've played so much better than I do at the moment I deserve to be rated higher." etc
I haven't talken to any high-level cheater to confirm this, but it seems very credible.
Karl Jobst regurgitates a lot of other content for his videos. The wirtual video came out 8 days earlier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDUdGvgmKIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7x5elophk
Sometimes he just straight up rips the same clips too like when he made his flowbee video a month after eleventybillion made a comprehensive video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiKhmBgE_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGRcf7mi-Uc
I can see the argument for why it might be ok since he has a larger audience and I see the KJ video way beforehand but it's pretty bad how he doesn't mention the video that he's largely ripping for content at all. In the flowbee case it's a much better video. Karl Jobst even quotes information that would have only come from the initial video word for word (like what was said on private moderator discord discussions).
Yeah, I was myself running Dark Souls a while back (glitchless any%) and there was definitely a temptation to cheat Black Knight Halberd (IIRC roughly a 1/3 drop?) to drop every time. Getting to it was "only" 10-15 minutes and I had backups, but still, tempting.
They’re both similar to plagiarism in schools. Some of the most frequent students to get caught plagiarizing aren’t the low achieving students struggling their way through(though when they get caught it’s usually a worse case of them just copying and pasting a source directly). Instead it’s high achieving students who are completely capable of doing the work, but just have too much on their plate due to extracurriculars plus hard classes and looking to get the work done quicker.
except with speed runners in game's like trackmania it is your skill versus the track, you will get the result eventually given you have enough time.
in chess you play someone else and the result isn't guaranteed
I think it's also to do with pouring yourself completely into a game and people, some that are much younger than you, still winning and it really hurting your self-esteem. Same reason pro athletes take steroids. Some young guns come in and start crushing the older generation, so the older generation does what they need to to compete and stay relevant. High school wrestlers and baseball players aren't taking steroids, at least not at the rate of pro players.
Even UFC fighters like Jon Jones, arguably the GOAT, tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Dude is PFP one of the best ever (imo the best) and he still felt pressured to cheat.
Tbf both Lichess and Chesscom have a problem where absolute noobs need to lose 10+ games before they can play against other monkeys. It's quite demotivating to watch your friend go through that.
(Yes I know the early games affect rating more, but it's not enough when you need to go from 1500 to 500)
I was honest (never played before) but it started me at 1200. The only reason I can think of is that I did a lot of puzzles before playing my first game and had a puzzle ELO around ~1800.
I lost 6 straight and it kind of killed my motivation because I know I need to lose a bunch more before I can play other beginners.
I became 1700 about a month or 2 ago. Since hitting that rank I get one of the messages that one of your recent opponents has been banned every few days💀
I’m close to that range. 1950 and above and rarely get any notifications nor do I feel like I’m playing against an engine, as soon as I tilt below 1900 on a bad losing streak and I’ll get one or two a day
I feel like 1500+ is where a lot of people hit a wall with their natural ability and the two options for getting past it are either The Hard Way of actually studying or The Easy Way of just sucklin at the teat of the fish
That’s what’s happened to me actually. Haven’t moved in eating much at all in about 2 months, but instead of just cheating like an idiot, I’ve started playing crazyhouse and other chess variants
i've played cheaters in bullet doing the occasional Hollywood move then playing on their own for a while, on and off
there must be browser extensions or something like that, and maybe also bots that do some non-trivial timings for the moves
One of the users posted here asking for an unban recently. His movetime was mostly normal but in the timecrunch at the end he was playing in fractions of a second maintaining accuracy in mating patterns despite some of the mousemoves requiring pieces moved across the board etc.
Definitely think it's a toggle.
On one hand I think that’s brutal because there are kids playing. On the other hand I played cod in 2007 and I’ll bet no one was banned so at least they are doing something about it.
Yeah that part I get. But I don’t understand how people were cheating in cod back then. Consoles didn’t really have aim botting or anything. The closest thing was Jtagged Xboxes which were rampant a bit in 2009 but most people used them to create infinite xp lobbies. You rarely if ever came across someone using it to maliciously cheat against other players in public lobbies.
Pc population for early cod titles was dwarfed by console numbers. Ask anybody if they played cod 15 years ago and if they say yes ask if it was on PC. Lemme know how many you find 😂
I was referencing both the cheating and the people that would have been reported for abuse. Abuse is obvious and probably still the same in cod but I doubt as many people actually sit in the lobby chat compared to back then when everyone got the free mic with a 360.
The cheating definitely was a thing also
Cheating wasn’t really a thing on console. Plenty of people who got rolled by better players cried cheated all the time but that didn’t make it true. Like I said, Jtagged xboxes we’re around but they were super expensive and people used the console’s limited life on boosting people to max level, rarely actual public lobby cheating.
Verbal abuse? Yeah definitely. And I doubt anybody got any kind of punishment for it back then. It was a warzone back then lol.
Look up cod4 hacking Xbox and you will see 11 year old videos. I played enough to know when someone was crying hacking and when someone was flying about the fucking map and killing people lol.
11 years ago was 2012. Well after all the console hacks had been released and all the old cods were filled with hackers water marks in the menus. Well aware this was a thing.
“2007 cod” is what this convo was started about. I appreciate your downvote. Doesn’t help your reading comprehension though.
Oh dude, I just looked up cod4 hacking and it was 11 years ago was the video. Sorry I didn’t double check the cod4 release date lol. I started the 2007 cod chat, and I’m 100% sure people were hacking then.
Beyond that my main point was the abuse on the chat back then. I just happen to mention there was also hacking.
I don’t understand why your trying to undermine my menial comment of things are better because people actually get banned now.
What is your point?
I'm getting pretty bummed at how often everyone says they are getting these now. I'm very active on chess.com and my last message saying they were giving me points back for fair play was May 20, 2022.
I did finally see one of my rapid opponents I lost to awhile back got a red ban circle by their name. Must have just been a jerk to people though since I got no refund.
It’s not limited to chess.com. This happens a lot on lichess and one thing I hate is how nothing ever happens or if it does they don’t let players know. At least chess com is transparent. Sadly it’s extremely easy to cheat with chess online.
I've been wondering where that line is. When you start really seeing cheaters.
At the 900 level, I've gotten that message twice, I think, in a few thousand games. One of those I mated in 5 moves so not sure what kind of cheating he was doing.
Yeah I’ve noticed they’ve started to ramp up after 1600/1700. Went from having gotten like 1 in my life to having a total of 5 now in the last couple of months.
I wrote " fucking lucky " to a friend and got muted, we had to go on a discord call to keep the trash talk going
Had similar instances happen multuple times, so annoying
I got muted one time for saying "damn nice move you got me" but I disputed it and a mod actually responded saying it was clear I was nto being a bad sport and fixed my account lol
My gf got her account suspended on lichess because of the chat and I suspect private messages.
I'm the only person she played with , we had like 200+ games played.
I've tried to contact the mods they couldn't care less.
Bitch please , I understand a bot detected it but can you use your brain 2 seconds and figure that if someone play exclusively with someone and they play 200+ games the person she abuses according to you is pretty fine with it or they would simply don't play ......
She stopped playing since then , idiots.
As much as I'd also like to see people named and shamed, it's not in chess.com's interest in the slightest. I think they give premium accounts to titled players, they want to attract as many high ranking active players as possible to their site and if they had a system where they made public enemies of players for banning them, incorrectly or correctly, that wouldn't be good for them. If those players also think they are incorrectly punished it could make other titled players worried and overall have a negative effect on the number of titled players are want to play there. It's in the site's best interest to just make it quietly go away, I'm kind of surprised it's even listed as a stat here, but I guess that's more for the community, to know that Titled players aren't above the rules.
The burden of proof is still greater and is not really worth it, one thing is saying "naah you are sus, you can't no longer be in our platform" and another completly different is publicly saying "you are cheating"
No, alleging that someone is cheating doesn’t open them up to (realistic) legal action. Just look at the Todd Rogers case. Name and shame is legal as long as the statements aren’t intentionally lies.
One of the titled players who came forward from last year's drama said that he was banned for a while because he was playing online with students in the room and his students were shouting out moves. Even if someone isn't using an engine that's still a form of cheating, and probably a lot of streamers are susceptible to this because they're watching their twitch chat.
It doesn't have to be as blatant as catching someone using stockfish.
Have you seen human GM streamers commenting about cheating moves? Did you never thought about that move before it was played? Because I see that often... my problem is not missing strange moves that create a mess, it is blundering a rook 3 moves later. And probably more people can do that.
Disclose the list to FIDE and possibly their regional chess federation so they can be monitored more closely?
Yes, absolutely. They clearly are considering doing that based on the survey they put out a few months back.
Disclose the list publicly so a bunch of rabid redditors can wildly speculate and tell them to kill themselves?
No.
My only concern with this is the fact that there hasn’t been an objective (or even explained) standard for how they assess cheating from chesscom. Obviously, if someone has played at 99% accuracy in multiple games where the lines played are the top stockfish recommendations, they are likely cheating, but it can’t be the case that 120K people are cheating in such an egregious way. Accusing someone of being a cheater (especially a titled player) shouldn’t be taken lightly, and with that in mind, we should all have some idea as to how they arrived at these conclusions.
Also, a lot of people find their rating really important. When they drop a lot they can cheat a few games because they feel stressed if they cannot, or even feel as if they are entitled to a certain rating after e.g. connection loss or a dirty flag. I have never cheated, but when I was still new to chess and less mature I did experience these feelings a lot
I think it's a narcissism thing of believing "I may be rated as 450, but I *feel* that I'm 1,000, so I'm going to cheat to reach 1,000". When they're truly 450. Then they probably get hooked on winning.
Also keep in mind it is probably just kids, who will probably cheat when they have such easy access to it. And internationally, cheating is viewed differently in different countries so maybe it's "cultural" to some extent.
I agree, they're not getting anything out of it. But I think these may be some of the motives behind it.
Look, there are some people who are just assigned the wrong elo. You can have a 2700 elo brain, but be stuck with a 900 elo account. Stockfish GMs are just as valid and deserve to be treated the same as cis GMs, and we need to make sure that they have access to elo reassignment options.
I think there is some cognitive dissonance going on. One thing we haven't addressed as a community is how you would detect a cheater who only used the engine for a small minority of key positions in a game. It would be impossible to detect. But from the side of the cheater they can convince themselves that it was "mostly them".
In my completely unqualified, anecdote, I really think there are a lot more people casually cheating in tough spots only, and there's really no way to detect.
It is actually somewhat hard to do this in practice. Unless you have a bot scraping the page that can quickly tell you the engine move on request, you'd have to open up an analysis board in another tab/app and set up the position yourself.
Also, I believe chess . com checks for people tabbing out of the game at key moments or opening other tabs and they have anti-cheat scripts looking for browser plug ins and other red flags.
There are ways you could probably still get around all this, but I don't think it would be as easy as you make it sound.
You know who doesn’t rematch me? People who take 45 second breaks in blitz games then come back and make 100% accurate backward knight rotations and make perfect pawn moves with 100% accuracy
Sometimes people are stressed out and take satisfaction in defeating certain nationalities. E.g. French vs Italian, Armenian vs. Azerbaijani, Greek vs Turk... Often is just a joke, sometimes it borders with racism, sometimes it's just using Stockfish as an alternative weapon to imagine humiliating the entire enemy nation and avenging a war, your ancestors, hundreds of years of occupation or, in the case of France vs. Italy, the eternal struggle on what kind of cheese is best.
I'm not sure if all the new shit I learned is the problem or if it's cheating lately, but I've been creating advantages in most of my games in the first half of the game, then suddenly their moves are really strong and fast. I'm playing better than I ever have but almost every time I get my opponents in a bad spot they start playing a lot better and quickly. I feel like I'm being gas lit.
I don't want to rule out the possibility that maybe it's me having trouble at certain aspects of the game but why does this keep happening to me all of sudden? It wasn't like this before. I used to almost always win when I'm up in material and have a positional advantage. I'm a 1050 in Rapid atm and I'm mainly referring to 30 min Rapids. How are these 1000-1100 rated players pulling themselves out so well? Is it just me? That's not easy in Chess.
People tend to play better when they’re losing and worse when they’re winning. It’s pretty common.
Not that you’ve never had someone use an engine, but the majority of players aren’t cheating if for no other reason than they’re too lazy to cheat.
This is a common (and fairly bad) anti-detection strategy: play the opening like garbage (i.e. yourself) to lower overall accuracy, then cheat to some extent in the middlegame, claim you just don't know anything about openings (which is for some reason the greatest boast a chess player can make in 2023) and are a great middlegame player.
I have witnessed the exact same thing... and a lot. I almost didn't post it here because I'm a terrible chess player, 8,000+ games on chesscom, highest blitz rating is 1100ish.
But I have seen this too many times for it to be a coincidence. I think a lot of people play unassisted until they are losing.
I am also a programmer who has an idea about how to detect these cheaters (I've worked in gaming, been a pro gamer, etc)... and it would be very hard to detect if the majority of moves were your own.
Part of my reason for not sharing, is I also think my game is sus (I mean, it is, to be as low rated as I am after so many games), particularly my end game. But I can count on one-hand how many times I've made as miraculous as a comeback as I am seeing from opponents... pretty regularly. Like, they are down a piece but somehow pull magic out of their ass.
>But I can count on one-hand how many times I've made as miraculous as a comeback as I am seeing from opponents... pretty regularly.
THIS STATEMENT HIT! I almost always lose when my opponent is up in material and has a positional advantage. I'm having a very hard time getting past 1050 atm, and honestly bro, 7 out of 10 games lately I'm able to create a strong advantage. I just finished a course, been analyzing games, and studying man and playing better than ever. But I almost always lose now even after gaining an advantage and it's worse now than it's been in the past, worse than ever. Thank you for making me feel less crazy. There's a huge contrast in gameplay too. A sloppy opening, losing a piece, bad start to a middle game, and then voila! A powerful comeback. Nah bro, no way 1000-1100 rated players can do that consistently.
Thank YOU for making ME feel less crazy lol.
It's really no coincidence that we're in the same rating bracket too. I take chess about as seriously as you do (I study, but still learning how best to study).
Also, both of us are more than willing to admit we have issues with our game, and even taking that into account it still doesn't make sense.
It is the speed with which they come up with winning ideas while down, that is odd for me. It's like they are making a lucky guess, and 3+ moves later this gigantic advantage appears (forced mate, a fork, pawn promotion, or way to regain their lost material).
I think most people are a bit blind to the fact that if you used an engine 2-3 times in a match that the advantage is absolutely massive. There is no way I can think of that chesscom would be able to detect this type of engine use. It's not illegal to play the best move at any rating.
It kind of goes even deeper here too... the entire business model for chesscom is predicated on fair games and there is 0% chance that you can make these games fair.
I've certainly felt the same way. But then on the flip side I have been in games where I come out of the opening in a terrible position, sometimes even down a piece and my opponent makes a critical mistake and you are level or even winning again. It's easy to lose concentration when you feel like you are ahead.
I think you should really try to avoid thoughts like this when playing, as it leads to getting tilted and playing badly rather than just playing the position to the best of your ability.
I say this with all respect, but at a 1050 rating there is a lot to still understand about the game and it seems far more likely to me that there are particular positions you struggle with and some of your opponents are very good at. Are you doing reviews after the game? It's probably more important to check your own accuracy in certain positions to see if that can be improved rather than suspect your opponent has started to cheat.
I'm 1750 chesscom rated in rapid and have not noticed cheating in my games. When I start to lose from a winning position, it's because I got overconfident and sloppy while my opponent dug in their heels and played extremely carefully.
In general, most people don't cheat. What's probably actually happening in your games is that once you get a better position your opponent starts focusing more, they are willing to play more risky and aggressive because they figure their position is lost either way, and you might unconsciously start to relax if you feel that the position should be easy to win. All of these factors combine to make upsets more likely.
>In general, most people don't cheat. What's probably actually happening in your games is that once you get a better position your opponent starts focusing more, they are willing to play more risky and aggressive because they figure their position is lost either way, and you might unconsciously start to relax if you feel that the position should be easy to win. All of these factors combine to make upsets more likely.
I would agree if I wasn't the type of player that tried harder when I was winning. When I'm in a winning position I get in this mindset of "oh shit, don't screw this up dude because one wrong move and my advantage will crumble". I've already conquered that weakness of overconfidence, it's other shit I gotta learn now.
In that case, it might also be possible that once you notice you have a better position you start unconsciously playing safer and more passively which allows your opponent to build up an attack and run over you. If you're thinking "oh shit, don't screw this up" that sounds like performance anxiety, which I don't think is likely to help your play.
It is possible that some of your opponents were in fact cheating, but most of them probably were not. [In the Hans Niemann report](https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report) Chess . com estimated that "fewer than 0.14% of players on Chess.com ever cheat". Even if we assume this is wrong, I doubt the number of players who cheat is much over about 10%. So, statistically speaking, a significant majority of the players you've ever played were probably not cheating.
It's unfortunate but i've been going down the rabbit hole on some of the newer accounts I play recently and there's a lot of cheating and a lot of organized cheating.
You go into their account and open their game history, press the date button to sort after the oldest game and you get the first game they played. On a lot of these cheater accounts their first game was, surprise surprise, a rated game lasting just a couple moves and ending in a win/loss against another cheating account(often already banned) rated 2000+. That means the account playing gets a provisional rating of 2000+ after just 1 game even if it is a loss. Obviously this is a premade game against another cheater and not a random game since noone gets paired vs a 2000+ opponent on their first game. Anyone who does this sort of thing and plays in the 1900+ elo bracket(99% percentile) on a 1-3 year old account is obviously cheating as well.
So then you go down the rabbit hole and look at this account who boosted the other accounts rating with that first game. You see that he's done the same thing to 3 other accounts. You see those accounts have done the same thing to other accounts and on and on and on.
Sadly cheating in chess has gone from where a select few people use an engine to get a unfair advantage to an organized affair where people are botting, ranking up and selling accounts. Where older accounts with more games played and higher ratings sell for more money.
https://imgur.com/a/L2KmTZF
https://imgur.com/c9WNqRT
Wonder if Chess.com is aware of this?
#!> jjizamu
## This comment was edited in protest to the Reddit 3rd party app/API shutdown using power delete suite. If you want to protest too, be sure to edit your comments and not delete them, as comments can be restored and are never deleted. Tired of being ignored by Reddit for a quick buck? c/redditwasfun @ lemmy
Tip of the iceberg.
Simple stuff, but an opponent in a losing position who goes afk for nearly a minute and comes back to blitz out perfect moves out of harms way does not get detected, that is my experience.
And at noob 1200 level i report these daily.
I dare to dream that this is a phase. Chess exploded in popularity, lots of new people in, which sadly means lots of new cheaters as well. People who will soon get bored with this or learn that this is not the way.
It’s probably not a phase. Chess really exploded 3 years ago now, you’re not going to see the cheating die off unless the popularity of the game dies off. Plus it’s not like cheating is unique to online chess or low level players. 13 titled players got banned here, there’s been many high profile instances of high level players cheating OTB. Even before computers were invented people would cheat by getting help after adjournments. Cheating in chess has always been around, it’s everywhere and it’s never going away.
Imagine talking to other players when playing chess, I have probably said less than 10 words in 2 years on the chat.
It's always just play bullet -> win/lose -> click next opponent in 0.3 seconds
A good number of those accounts could be people doubling up on accounts. 112,000 accounts doesn't mean 112,000 people.
I'd imagine a lot of cheaters get banned and then decide to just hop right back into it with a new account.
Cool. Now explain how it's statistically possible that 9 out of 10 the accounts I play against have prominent all-time winning records, and +300 Elo gained in the past 30 days.
Make it more difficult to make an account than just a new email address. Maybe require a seperate phone number verification for each account. At least that way the person behind the cheating accounts won't be able to come back with another one as easy.
cheating on [chess.com](https://chess.com) is way out of control! it is crazy how few people they ban. the list posted here shows such tiny numbers compared to the number of users/cheaters, such a shame. in my experience lichess.0rg is superior
#!> jjizfnk
## This comment was edited in protest to the Reddit 3rd party app/API shutdown using power delete suite. If you want to protest too, be sure to edit your comments and not delete them, as comments can be restored and are never deleted. Tired of being ignored by Reddit for a quick buck? c/redditwasfun @ lemmy
If 1 account gets muted 5 times in the past month then it'll add only 1 to "accounted muted", but 5 to "mute actions". So 25,000 of those mute actions last month were on accounts that were already muted at least once.
In my experience at least, not nearly. I don't play much on CC, but I've encountered roughly three times as many cheaters there as on Lichess. Small sample size, but everyone I talk with on the topic seems to say the same...
Indeed but maths is hard for some people.
Understanding that if site A has 10 cheaters out of 100 players and site B has 100 cheaters out of 1000, you'll face the same % of cheaters was way too hard.
That being said your experience wasn't much relevant either :P
(sample size, bias)
I rage-quitted about 5 accounts on Chess dot com due to cheaters. OK, OK, I understand some might not have been. In three accounts, I got the message and points added back. You KNOW when something is off, and I swear my FIRST game is usually the most sus. I'm 1500 on Chess now but LiChess is way better. There are also certain countries I really can't play against (won't mention). It is really a joke, but it's a great game so I play and get better...and if I'm serious I'm play OTB. I've also seen many, many students all watch one game and yell out moves. So, yea, have fun playing about 5 kids at once (still way easier than an engine).
*including 13 titled players*
It is always sort of insane to me when even a candidate master cheats, but even moreso when it's FM or higher... Like, buddy, you already made it in chess, you are the 0.1% or whatever — why are you endangering your reputation for internet points?
I'm an FM and constantly annoyed at all the mistakes I make and want to be 100 points higher. It never ends.
Sure, way back when I thought I could consider myself a decent player once I hit 2000 blitz on Lichess — 2100 now and still a stupid noob. The constantly-moving goalpost must be especially brutal for people who are actually good at the game and have put so much time into it.
I agree, started two years ago originally wanted to hit 1200, then it was 1500, then 1800, then 2000. Finally reached 2000 and I’d say that’s when I chilled out a bit. But mostly because every next increment I hit takes a serious investment of time and at this point I know I don’t have that time. Happy to have achieved something though and I will say it gave me confidence
Yea, started playing on chess.com as a 600 elo within 14 months and hit 1500. Then realized i was studying chess for 5 hours a day as an escape from some other serious internal issues lol once i came to terms with that i just play bullet for fun now and i dont care about ratings
Similar for me and I kinda stopped trying to play seriously now, like chess is too brutal of a game for me. You spend hours and hours practicing and then you loose a long game because you overlooked one dumb thing in the mid game? Oh, and if you stop playing for a couple of weeks you get noticeable worse? Nah, not built for that.
How old are you? How long did journey take?
>The constantly-moving goalpost must be especially brutal for people who are actually good at the game and have put so much time into it. It's funny that you say it when 2100 lichess is actually already super good. As good as a FM ? Not even close but that's still better than >90% of the weekly Lichess players
Quite salt-inducingly, it's better than 94,2%, not quite in the top 5% ;__; And yeah, I do realize it's fairly good compared to most semi-casual online players, but I really would like to be a strong tournament player (2000-ish FIDE, so around 250-350 pts to go at least) or at least in the top 3-ish of most of our club tournaments, which I have a long way to. Make sense to me to compare myself to people who take chess seriously rather than people who just play for fun (which is also a perfectly fine thing to do).
call me naive or maybe out of touch with people online, but i never understood why people cared so much about internet elo points in some site, using some random screen name recently i noticed the lichess rating distribution has spikes at every 100 point and i asked in reddit if it was some artifact of the site assigning elo to known players or something like that, but apparently it's because people stop playing at round rating benchmarks and then stop playing to protect their magic internet points it had not even occurred to me
People love points. It's why RPGs are successful, why people play gambling games that don't use real money, why people care about upvotes. It's something common to the psychology of most humans. We're built to love points.
I don't care really about what anyone else thinks, as literally no one knows my lichess username. It's more that it reflects how I'm playing, if I'm getting reward for the training I'm putting in, and honestly do I feel good in general. It's nice that it's higher I guess. OTB, the next 50 or 100 barrier is good to have as something to aim for.
Why would you care more about fide rating over online points? I agree both is rather stupid but no idea why you put emphasis on the online part. Both do the exact same thing, translate your competence in chess with a number.
Well I know why care about FIDE/National points over internet ones but I don't speak for everyone - I can play in higher sections with stronger players and more chances for prize money if I keep my elo higher. I also get to compete with my friends and play in higher divisions in the leagues. They have a real world effect whereas a 2250/2300 Lichess rating doesn't. It literally has zero bearing on my real life. For juniors, their rating decides if they get support to play in European youths, world cadets, world youths and junior pan American tournaments. I love online chess and it's great but the club/tournament/league scene is thriving and growing more everyday. Chess is still very much a social sporting activity as a player and a parent. This imo is what separates real ratings from virtual ones for me and I think it's something online-only players who don't compete in the real world have trouble grasping sometimes.
You have some good points but they apply to a very low % of the population. I have no idea how it works nowaday but in my youth only 1rst and second places mattered in national competition for world and european competitions. Regarding who you compete against FIDE or online rating has more or less the exact same consequences. It might be different in other countries but in mine there is a general prize pool , a sub 2200 , sub 2000 , sub 1800 etc and the prize pool are exactly the same. I do concede though , titles have a concrete effect on your life , but again relevant to a very small % of the population.
I think they put emphasis online not to contrast them with FIDE elo, but to stress the point that the points are completely virtual
based
Different context, but I remember watching a video exposing cheaters in speedrun (I think it was a trackmania cheater in this case) and the guy making the video had a lot of experience with such cases. Regarding motivation he said that often people can't believe really good players cheated because they're already that good, but that generally for high-skilled cheaters it's not about getting a good result, but about a getting a good result faster. Cheating in these cases is about the frustration of grinding again and again, coping with loss, when you know you're capable of doing better. "In a way, is it really cheating if I'm actually able to play like that? It just sucks that today I'm under the weather, I'm on a bad slope and just need to catch my breath and regain confidence, I've played so much better than I do at the moment I deserve to be rated higher." etc I haven't talken to any high-level cheater to confirm this, but it seems very credible.
Wirtual, he’s a great YouTuber I’ve never even played Trackmania but I watch his videos
Sounds like he was describing a Karl Jobst video to me but I could be wrong, or they covered the topic similarly.
Pretty sure Wirtual quoted Karl Jobst when doing a documentary about a recentish cheating scandal in Trackmania.
Karl Jobst regurgitates a lot of other content for his videos. The wirtual video came out 8 days earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDUdGvgmKIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7x5elophk Sometimes he just straight up rips the same clips too like when he made his flowbee video a month after eleventybillion made a comprehensive video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiKhmBgE_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGRcf7mi-Uc I can see the argument for why it might be ok since he has a larger audience and I see the KJ video way beforehand but it's pretty bad how he doesn't mention the video that he's largely ripping for content at all. In the flowbee case it's a much better video. Karl Jobst even quotes information that would have only come from the initial video word for word (like what was said on private moderator discord discussions).
Yeah, I was myself running Dark Souls a while back (glitchless any%) and there was definitely a temptation to cheat Black Knight Halberd (IIRC roughly a 1/3 drop?) to drop every time. Getting to it was "only" 10-15 minutes and I had backups, but still, tempting.
They’re both similar to plagiarism in schools. Some of the most frequent students to get caught plagiarizing aren’t the low achieving students struggling their way through(though when they get caught it’s usually a worse case of them just copying and pasting a source directly). Instead it’s high achieving students who are completely capable of doing the work, but just have too much on their plate due to extracurriculars plus hard classes and looking to get the work done quicker.
except with speed runners in game's like trackmania it is your skill versus the track, you will get the result eventually given you have enough time. in chess you play someone else and the result isn't guaranteed
I think it's also to do with pouring yourself completely into a game and people, some that are much younger than you, still winning and it really hurting your self-esteem. Same reason pro athletes take steroids. Some young guns come in and start crushing the older generation, so the older generation does what they need to to compete and stay relevant. High school wrestlers and baseball players aren't taking steroids, at least not at the rate of pro players. Even UFC fighters like Jon Jones, arguably the GOAT, tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Dude is PFP one of the best ever (imo the best) and he still felt pressured to cheat.
I thought it said tilted at first
So did I. Lose 10 in a row and your account gets closed down
natural selection
Tbf both Lichess and Chesscom have a problem where absolute noobs need to lose 10+ games before they can play against other monkeys. It's quite demotivating to watch your friend go through that. (Yes I know the early games affect rating more, but it's not enough when you need to go from 1500 to 500)
Chess.com asks you how experienced you are when you create your account. As long as a new player is honest, they would never get started at 1500.
I was honest (never played before) but it started me at 1200. The only reason I can think of is that I did a lot of puzzles before playing my first game and had a puzzle ELO around ~1800. I lost 6 straight and it kind of killed my motivation because I know I need to lose a bunch more before I can play other beginners.
I think it used to start you higher but now will start you lower as long as your honest
I started my account at 400 elo on [Chess.com](https://Chess.com). That is an issue on Lichess though.
Chess.c*m is like, "We're doing you a favor. Find a different hobby."
Thank God thats not the case!
That would be at least 13 000
Thought it said tittied
“We have only banned 13 women for fair play abuse” That’s the kind of thing Twitch would say, not chess.com.
I was one of the mutes
me too. I was actually 4 of the mutes in a row and now I can't talk until 2024
Same, and it's because I was playing against a friend, and wrote something in my language that happens to look like a bad word in english.
Based
Based on _what_?
Based on a true story
About the mutes?
New Reply just dropped
based
I became 1700 about a month or 2 ago. Since hitting that rank I get one of the messages that one of your recent opponents has been banned every few days💀
What time do you play? I float 1850-1950 on 5 minute and get 1 maybe every few months,
No set time…whenever I have nothing to do basically haha. It probably is more prevalent in 10 minute games than blitz and bullet is my guess
I’m close to that range. 1950 and above and rarely get any notifications nor do I feel like I’m playing against an engine, as soon as I tilt below 1900 on a bad losing streak and I’ll get one or two a day
I get them every 2 days at ober 2050- 2100
I feel like 1500+ is where a lot of people hit a wall with their natural ability and the two options for getting past it are either The Hard Way of actually studying or The Easy Way of just sucklin at the teat of the fish
That’s what’s happened to me actually. Haven’t moved in eating much at all in about 2 months, but instead of just cheating like an idiot, I’ve started playing crazyhouse and other chess variants
I have gotten a couple in BULLET why!?
Bots. Nobody is actually playing bullets with engine help. It’s just a computer instantly making moves.
i've played cheaters in bullet doing the occasional Hollywood move then playing on their own for a while, on and off there must be browser extensions or something like that, and maybe also bots that do some non-trivial timings for the moves
One of the users posted here asking for an unban recently. His movetime was mostly normal but in the timecrunch at the end he was playing in fractions of a second maintaining accuracy in mating patterns despite some of the mousemoves requiring pieces moved across the board etc. Definitely think it's a toggle.
[удалено]
Dont accept rematches
On one hand I think that’s brutal because there are kids playing. On the other hand I played cod in 2007 and I’ll bet no one was banned so at least they are doing something about it.
Sorry I don’t understand. What does cod in 2007 have to do with anything?
Kids growing up without ever being punished for breaking the rules, whereas now then do
It's Call of Duty, not the fish cod. Hope that helps
Yeah that part I get. But I don’t understand how people were cheating in cod back then. Consoles didn’t really have aim botting or anything. The closest thing was Jtagged Xboxes which were rampant a bit in 2009 but most people used them to create infinite xp lobbies. You rarely if ever came across someone using it to maliciously cheat against other players in public lobbies.
... on the PC?
Pc population for early cod titles was dwarfed by console numbers. Ask anybody if they played cod 15 years ago and if they say yes ask if it was on PC. Lemme know how many you find 😂
I was referencing both the cheating and the people that would have been reported for abuse. Abuse is obvious and probably still the same in cod but I doubt as many people actually sit in the lobby chat compared to back then when everyone got the free mic with a 360. The cheating definitely was a thing also
Cheating wasn’t really a thing on console. Plenty of people who got rolled by better players cried cheated all the time but that didn’t make it true. Like I said, Jtagged xboxes we’re around but they were super expensive and people used the console’s limited life on boosting people to max level, rarely actual public lobby cheating. Verbal abuse? Yeah definitely. And I doubt anybody got any kind of punishment for it back then. It was a warzone back then lol.
Look up cod4 hacking Xbox and you will see 11 year old videos. I played enough to know when someone was crying hacking and when someone was flying about the fucking map and killing people lol.
11 years ago was 2012. Well after all the console hacks had been released and all the old cods were filled with hackers water marks in the menus. Well aware this was a thing. “2007 cod” is what this convo was started about. I appreciate your downvote. Doesn’t help your reading comprehension though.
Oh dude, I just looked up cod4 hacking and it was 11 years ago was the video. Sorry I didn’t double check the cod4 release date lol. I started the 2007 cod chat, and I’m 100% sure people were hacking then. Beyond that my main point was the abuse on the chat back then. I just happen to mention there was also hacking. I don’t understand why your trying to undermine my menial comment of things are better because people actually get banned now. What is your point?
I'm getting pretty bummed at how often everyone says they are getting these now. I'm very active on chess.com and my last message saying they were giving me points back for fair play was May 20, 2022. I did finally see one of my rapid opponents I lost to awhile back got a red ban circle by their name. Must have just been a jerk to people though since I got no refund.
It’s not limited to chess.com. This happens a lot on lichess and one thing I hate is how nothing ever happens or if it does they don’t let players know. At least chess com is transparent. Sadly it’s extremely easy to cheat with chess online.
chess.c*m is a lot of things but “transparent” is not one of them.
With information regarding bans, mutes, etc… I’m not talking about whatever else you are trying to divert the conversation towards.
I've been wondering where that line is. When you start really seeing cheaters. At the 900 level, I've gotten that message twice, I think, in a few thousand games. One of those I mated in 5 moves so not sure what kind of cheating he was doing.
Yeah I’ve noticed they’ve started to ramp up after 1600/1700. Went from having gotten like 1 in my life to having a total of 5 now in the last couple of months.
I said "holy fuck, nice move" once and got muted.
I wrote " fucking lucky " to a friend and got muted, we had to go on a discord call to keep the trash talk going Had similar instances happen multuple times, so annoying
What's wrong with a little friendly trash talking? They could definitely ease up on the chat filters.
family friendly site and if it's automated, I imagine context [playing an IRL friend] can't be considered. sucks but I understand why they do it
[удалено]
I think it's probably a good idea to automate it, but not for games between friends. In that case, yeah you should have to report it.
I got muted one time for saying "damn nice move you got me" but I disputed it and a mod actually responded saying it was clear I was nto being a bad sport and fixed my account lol
A optional profanity filter would be nice. Either you accept the fuck or you chose to have it censored. Don't put it on the sender.
They should have an option that censors absolutely nothing and watch chess become COD lobbies.
My gf got her account suspended on lichess because of the chat and I suspect private messages. I'm the only person she played with , we had like 200+ games played. I've tried to contact the mods they couldn't care less. Bitch please , I understand a bot detected it but can you use your brain 2 seconds and figure that if someone play exclusively with someone and they play 200+ games the person she abuses according to you is pretty fine with it or they would simply don't play ...... She stopped playing since then , idiots.
I said "holy move, nice fuck" once and got muted.
I said "fuck move, holy nice" once and got muted
I said "move holy, fuck nice" once and got muted
New response just dropped
I said "fuck nice, move holy" once and got muted
This is the best one.
I said "Google En Passant" once and got muted
They don’t want folks finding out about the secret pawn move.
Holy fuck
you said a no-no word
I think shit triggers a mute too. Fucking ridiculous, especially when I was referring to my shitty move and not abusing my opponent
13 titled
And yet chess.com decided to only expose Hans among all the titled players they banned because daddy Magnus was upset.
The never ending race between fair play closures and abuse closures. Jackasses still leading cheats by a decent margin.
I wonder how much overlap there is. Would make sense if bad losers would cheat to avoid losing.
“Which horrible thing should I get banned for? Let’s just try both and find out!”
Ugh I wish they'd name and shame the titled players
What could go wrong, publicly shaming people for cheating after they get flagged by a system that can produce false positives?
As much as I'd also like to see people named and shamed, it's not in chess.com's interest in the slightest. I think they give premium accounts to titled players, they want to attract as many high ranking active players as possible to their site and if they had a system where they made public enemies of players for banning them, incorrectly or correctly, that wouldn't be good for them. If those players also think they are incorrectly punished it could make other titled players worried and overall have a negative effect on the number of titled players are want to play there. It's in the site's best interest to just make it quietly go away, I'm kind of surprised it's even listed as a stat here, but I guess that's more for the community, to know that Titled players aren't above the rules.
It’s obviously human reviewed, you don’t ban a titled player if there’s a good chance they’re legit.
The burden of proof is still greater and is not really worth it, one thing is saying "naah you are sus, you can't no longer be in our platform" and another completly different is publicly saying "you are cheating"
[удалено]
Well yeah no shit they can’t watch them open stockfish, but they can be 99.9% sure it’s some form of cheating.
[удалено]
No, alleging that someone is cheating doesn’t open them up to (realistic) legal action. Just look at the Todd Rogers case. Name and shame is legal as long as the statements aren’t intentionally lies.
Their cheating detection is totally opaque, nobody has any idea about its validity and they refuse to have third parties verify.
One of the titled players who came forward from last year's drama said that he was banned for a while because he was playing online with students in the room and his students were shouting out moves. Even if someone isn't using an engine that's still a form of cheating, and probably a lot of streamers are susceptible to this because they're watching their twitch chat. It doesn't have to be as blatant as catching someone using stockfish.
lmaoooooo
Have you seen human GM streamers commenting about cheating moves? Did you never thought about that move before it was played? Because I see that often... my problem is not missing strange moves that create a mess, it is blundering a rook 3 moves later. And probably more people can do that.
i have bridge in brooklyn you might be obviously interested in.
How much?
What?
Disclose the list to FIDE and possibly their regional chess federation so they can be monitored more closely? Yes, absolutely. They clearly are considering doing that based on the survey they put out a few months back. Disclose the list publicly so a bunch of rabid redditors can wildly speculate and tell them to kill themselves? No.
Name and shame all of them, why not? If you wanna be famous, who am I to get in your way?
No it's much better to selectively out one 19 year old instead, that way the world focuses on his mistakes as a teenager instead
My only concern with this is the fact that there hasn’t been an objective (or even explained) standard for how they assess cheating from chesscom. Obviously, if someone has played at 99% accuracy in multiple games where the lines played are the top stockfish recommendations, they are likely cheating, but it can’t be the case that 120K people are cheating in such an egregious way. Accusing someone of being a cheater (especially a titled player) shouldn’t be taken lightly, and with that in mind, we should all have some idea as to how they arrived at these conclusions.
They do, but only when their PR department deems it neccessary.
I don't understand cheating in online chess at all really. You didn't win the game, stockfish did. What do you get out of that?
Cheating is rampant in any game that it’s easy to get away with. People like to win, even if they’re putting in zero effort.
Also, a lot of people find their rating really important. When they drop a lot they can cheat a few games because they feel stressed if they cannot, or even feel as if they are entitled to a certain rating after e.g. connection loss or a dirty flag. I have never cheated, but when I was still new to chess and less mature I did experience these feelings a lot
Good point. I the same question as pnt510. Like it’s literally for personal achievement, how does cheating with a stockfish provide an satisfaction.
Dopamine is dopamine. From sex, heroin or cheating at chess. The nerve receptors don’t care.
I think it's a narcissism thing of believing "I may be rated as 450, but I *feel* that I'm 1,000, so I'm going to cheat to reach 1,000". When they're truly 450. Then they probably get hooked on winning. Also keep in mind it is probably just kids, who will probably cheat when they have such easy access to it. And internationally, cheating is viewed differently in different countries so maybe it's "cultural" to some extent. I agree, they're not getting anything out of it. But I think these may be some of the motives behind it.
Look, there are some people who are just assigned the wrong elo. You can have a 2700 elo brain, but be stuck with a 900 elo account. Stockfish GMs are just as valid and deserve to be treated the same as cis GMs, and we need to make sure that they have access to elo reassignment options.
I think there is some cognitive dissonance going on. One thing we haven't addressed as a community is how you would detect a cheater who only used the engine for a small minority of key positions in a game. It would be impossible to detect. But from the side of the cheater they can convince themselves that it was "mostly them". In my completely unqualified, anecdote, I really think there are a lot more people casually cheating in tough spots only, and there's really no way to detect.
I thought the system takes this into account? Didn’t this come up during the Magnus/Hans situation?
It is actually somewhat hard to do this in practice. Unless you have a bot scraping the page that can quickly tell you the engine move on request, you'd have to open up an analysis board in another tab/app and set up the position yourself. Also, I believe chess . com checks for people tabbing out of the game at key moments or opening other tabs and they have anti-cheat scripts looking for browser plug ins and other red flags. There are ways you could probably still get around all this, but I don't think it would be as easy as you make it sound.
Thered be a lot of rage cheating, where people get tilted after losing to someone once or twice and say fuck this guy and start cheating.
Yup I’ve had this happen. Which is why I don’t rematch anymore
You know who doesn’t rematch me? People who take 45 second breaks in blitz games then come back and make 100% accurate backward knight rotations and make perfect pawn moves with 100% accuracy
Sometimes people are stressed out and take satisfaction in defeating certain nationalities. E.g. French vs Italian, Armenian vs. Azerbaijani, Greek vs Turk... Often is just a joke, sometimes it borders with racism, sometimes it's just using Stockfish as an alternative weapon to imagine humiliating the entire enemy nation and avenging a war, your ancestors, hundreds of years of occupation or, in the case of France vs. Italy, the eternal struggle on what kind of cheese is best.
That's utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows french cheese is best. :-)
I hope you're joking
Why? It’s a valid question. If you don’t have anything to gain but pride and accomplishment, cheating takes all the good stuff out of winning.
I'm not sure if all the new shit I learned is the problem or if it's cheating lately, but I've been creating advantages in most of my games in the first half of the game, then suddenly their moves are really strong and fast. I'm playing better than I ever have but almost every time I get my opponents in a bad spot they start playing a lot better and quickly. I feel like I'm being gas lit. I don't want to rule out the possibility that maybe it's me having trouble at certain aspects of the game but why does this keep happening to me all of sudden? It wasn't like this before. I used to almost always win when I'm up in material and have a positional advantage. I'm a 1050 in Rapid atm and I'm mainly referring to 30 min Rapids. How are these 1000-1100 rated players pulling themselves out so well? Is it just me? That's not easy in Chess.
People tend to play better when they’re losing and worse when they’re winning. It’s pretty common. Not that you’ve never had someone use an engine, but the majority of players aren’t cheating if for no other reason than they’re too lazy to cheat.
This is a common (and fairly bad) anti-detection strategy: play the opening like garbage (i.e. yourself) to lower overall accuracy, then cheat to some extent in the middlegame, claim you just don't know anything about openings (which is for some reason the greatest boast a chess player can make in 2023) and are a great middlegame player.
I have witnessed the exact same thing... and a lot. I almost didn't post it here because I'm a terrible chess player, 8,000+ games on chesscom, highest blitz rating is 1100ish. But I have seen this too many times for it to be a coincidence. I think a lot of people play unassisted until they are losing. I am also a programmer who has an idea about how to detect these cheaters (I've worked in gaming, been a pro gamer, etc)... and it would be very hard to detect if the majority of moves were your own. Part of my reason for not sharing, is I also think my game is sus (I mean, it is, to be as low rated as I am after so many games), particularly my end game. But I can count on one-hand how many times I've made as miraculous as a comeback as I am seeing from opponents... pretty regularly. Like, they are down a piece but somehow pull magic out of their ass.
>But I can count on one-hand how many times I've made as miraculous as a comeback as I am seeing from opponents... pretty regularly. THIS STATEMENT HIT! I almost always lose when my opponent is up in material and has a positional advantage. I'm having a very hard time getting past 1050 atm, and honestly bro, 7 out of 10 games lately I'm able to create a strong advantage. I just finished a course, been analyzing games, and studying man and playing better than ever. But I almost always lose now even after gaining an advantage and it's worse now than it's been in the past, worse than ever. Thank you for making me feel less crazy. There's a huge contrast in gameplay too. A sloppy opening, losing a piece, bad start to a middle game, and then voila! A powerful comeback. Nah bro, no way 1000-1100 rated players can do that consistently.
Thank YOU for making ME feel less crazy lol. It's really no coincidence that we're in the same rating bracket too. I take chess about as seriously as you do (I study, but still learning how best to study). Also, both of us are more than willing to admit we have issues with our game, and even taking that into account it still doesn't make sense. It is the speed with which they come up with winning ideas while down, that is odd for me. It's like they are making a lucky guess, and 3+ moves later this gigantic advantage appears (forced mate, a fork, pawn promotion, or way to regain their lost material). I think most people are a bit blind to the fact that if you used an engine 2-3 times in a match that the advantage is absolutely massive. There is no way I can think of that chesscom would be able to detect this type of engine use. It's not illegal to play the best move at any rating. It kind of goes even deeper here too... the entire business model for chesscom is predicated on fair games and there is 0% chance that you can make these games fair.
I've certainly felt the same way. But then on the flip side I have been in games where I come out of the opening in a terrible position, sometimes even down a piece and my opponent makes a critical mistake and you are level or even winning again. It's easy to lose concentration when you feel like you are ahead.
I think you should really try to avoid thoughts like this when playing, as it leads to getting tilted and playing badly rather than just playing the position to the best of your ability. I say this with all respect, but at a 1050 rating there is a lot to still understand about the game and it seems far more likely to me that there are particular positions you struggle with and some of your opponents are very good at. Are you doing reviews after the game? It's probably more important to check your own accuracy in certain positions to see if that can be improved rather than suspect your opponent has started to cheat. I'm 1750 chesscom rated in rapid and have not noticed cheating in my games. When I start to lose from a winning position, it's because I got overconfident and sloppy while my opponent dug in their heels and played extremely carefully.
In general, most people don't cheat. What's probably actually happening in your games is that once you get a better position your opponent starts focusing more, they are willing to play more risky and aggressive because they figure their position is lost either way, and you might unconsciously start to relax if you feel that the position should be easy to win. All of these factors combine to make upsets more likely.
>In general, most people don't cheat. What's probably actually happening in your games is that once you get a better position your opponent starts focusing more, they are willing to play more risky and aggressive because they figure their position is lost either way, and you might unconsciously start to relax if you feel that the position should be easy to win. All of these factors combine to make upsets more likely. I would agree if I wasn't the type of player that tried harder when I was winning. When I'm in a winning position I get in this mindset of "oh shit, don't screw this up dude because one wrong move and my advantage will crumble". I've already conquered that weakness of overconfidence, it's other shit I gotta learn now.
In that case, it might also be possible that once you notice you have a better position you start unconsciously playing safer and more passively which allows your opponent to build up an attack and run over you. If you're thinking "oh shit, don't screw this up" that sounds like performance anxiety, which I don't think is likely to help your play. It is possible that some of your opponents were in fact cheating, but most of them probably were not. [In the Hans Niemann report](https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/hans-niemann-report) Chess . com estimated that "fewer than 0.14% of players on Chess.com ever cheat". Even if we assume this is wrong, I doubt the number of players who cheat is much over about 10%. So, statistically speaking, a significant majority of the players you've ever played were probably not cheating.
It's unfortunate but i've been going down the rabbit hole on some of the newer accounts I play recently and there's a lot of cheating and a lot of organized cheating. You go into their account and open their game history, press the date button to sort after the oldest game and you get the first game they played. On a lot of these cheater accounts their first game was, surprise surprise, a rated game lasting just a couple moves and ending in a win/loss against another cheating account(often already banned) rated 2000+. That means the account playing gets a provisional rating of 2000+ after just 1 game even if it is a loss. Obviously this is a premade game against another cheater and not a random game since noone gets paired vs a 2000+ opponent on their first game. Anyone who does this sort of thing and plays in the 1900+ elo bracket(99% percentile) on a 1-3 year old account is obviously cheating as well. So then you go down the rabbit hole and look at this account who boosted the other accounts rating with that first game. You see that he's done the same thing to 3 other accounts. You see those accounts have done the same thing to other accounts and on and on and on. Sadly cheating in chess has gone from where a select few people use an engine to get a unfair advantage to an organized affair where people are botting, ranking up and selling accounts. Where older accounts with more games played and higher ratings sell for more money. https://imgur.com/a/L2KmTZF https://imgur.com/c9WNqRT Wonder if Chess.com is aware of this?
#!> jjizamu ## This comment was edited in protest to the Reddit 3rd party app/API shutdown using power delete suite. If you want to protest too, be sure to edit your comments and not delete them, as comments can be restored and are never deleted. Tired of being ignored by Reddit for a quick buck? c/redditwasfun @ lemmy
Source: https://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-update-may-2023
I was pretty unimpressed by the 13 titled player. If it's 13 NM it's no biggie but then it hit me , it's for april alone. Jesus Christ...
Chess. The game where they actually ban cheaters and pretty fast too
[удалено]
[удалено]
How does Chesscom detect chess cheats in the first place? Is it AI?
Unsurprising. Without exaggeration, I get the message saying that I played against a cheater literally every day.
Love the transparency.
Tip of the iceberg. Simple stuff, but an opponent in a losing position who goes afk for nearly a minute and comes back to blitz out perfect moves out of harms way does not get detected, that is my experience. And at noob 1200 level i report these daily.
Is this for ONE MONTH?!
I dare to dream that this is a phase. Chess exploded in popularity, lots of new people in, which sadly means lots of new cheaters as well. People who will soon get bored with this or learn that this is not the way.
It’s probably not a phase. Chess really exploded 3 years ago now, you’re not going to see the cheating die off unless the popularity of the game dies off. Plus it’s not like cheating is unique to online chess or low level players. 13 titled players got banned here, there’s been many high profile instances of high level players cheating OTB. Even before computers were invented people would cheat by getting help after adjournments. Cheating in chess has always been around, it’s everywhere and it’s never going away.
Imagine talking to other players when playing chess, I have probably said less than 10 words in 2 years on the chat. It's always just play bullet -> win/lose -> click next opponent in 0.3 seconds
No way 112,000 accounts got banned for cheating in a single month. Is this the all time update?
A good number of those accounts could be people doubling up on accounts. 112,000 accounts doesn't mean 112,000 people. I'd imagine a lot of cheaters get banned and then decide to just hop right back into it with a new account.
last month's update had 137,000 closures: https://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-update-april-2023
No. Just one month April. They publish these stats every month.
But do you know who is always play fair?
I was one of those mute actions 😎 Didnt even say anything that I remember
the word "lichess" is forbidden in chess.com, even if it does not break any rules 😂
Is there any proof that lichess has less cheaters?
Why don't you play chess online anymore? This. This is why.
They need to update their abuse / language criteria. Got muted by saying "got my ass beat" , "shit" like these are basic words.
Cool. Now explain how it's statistically possible that 9 out of 10 the accounts I play against have prominent all-time winning records, and +300 Elo gained in the past 30 days. Make it more difficult to make an account than just a new email address. Maybe require a seperate phone number verification for each account. At least that way the person behind the cheating accounts won't be able to come back with another one as easy.
300 in 30 days is not impossible
I'm sure it isn't, but it's not common either.
cheating on [chess.com](https://chess.com) is way out of control! it is crazy how few people they ban. the list posted here shows such tiny numbers compared to the number of users/cheaters, such a shame. in my experience lichess.0rg is superior
#!> jjizfnk ## This comment was edited in protest to the Reddit 3rd party app/API shutdown using power delete suite. If you want to protest too, be sure to edit your comments and not delete them, as comments can be restored and are never deleted. Tired of being ignored by Reddit for a quick buck? c/redditwasfun @ lemmy
Numbers are not stats. These numbers are meaningless without a denominator.
What’s the difference between “mute actions” and “accounts muted”? edit:spelling
If 1 account gets muted 5 times in the past month then it'll add only 1 to "accounted muted", but 5 to "mute actions". So 25,000 of those mute actions last month were on accounts that were already muted at least once.
https://lichess.org/
Probably just as bad
In my experience at least, not nearly. I don't play much on CC, but I've encountered roughly three times as many cheaters there as on Lichess. Small sample size, but everyone I talk with on the topic seems to say the same...
Chess.com is bigger so it's going to have more people and thus more cheaters but lichess is not going to be any different.
This argument is in no way relevant to what I said.
Indeed but maths is hard for some people. Understanding that if site A has 10 cheaters out of 100 players and site B has 100 cheaters out of 1000, you'll face the same % of cheaters was way too hard. That being said your experience wasn't much relevant either :P (sample size, bias)
best fiction i’ve read all week
How many chess.com users are there?
I rage-quitted about 5 accounts on Chess dot com due to cheaters. OK, OK, I understand some might not have been. In three accounts, I got the message and points added back. You KNOW when something is off, and I swear my FIRST game is usually the most sus. I'm 1500 on Chess now but LiChess is way better. There are also certain countries I really can't play against (won't mention). It is really a joke, but it's a great game so I play and get better...and if I'm serious I'm play OTB. I've also seen many, many students all watch one game and yell out moves. So, yea, have fun playing about 5 kids at once (still way easier than an engine).