I don't get it! Why cheat?

Originally posted by Varenka
There’s no easy answer to preventing cheating. However, I wonder if in conjuction with other methods, getting players to annotate some of their games may help?

For example, if someone creates no suspicion, there is no requirement for them to annotate any games. But as the suspicion increases, so does the requirement to annotate. Optionally, these annot ...[text shortened]... eans the cheater can't just copy all engines moves, especially cheaters who are weak players.

What an idiotic idea.

So strong players now have to give out free chess lectures as well as coughing up their subscriptions annually?

I think it's great that you guys are spit-balling ideas, but let's not get ridiculous...

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I agree annotations can sort out the men from the boys. Cheaters will just rattle of variations whereas genuine players will give reasons and variations at the key decision points that explain their reasoning. These key points are not always the points where an engine would identify the greatest shift in balance.

... but, and this is a very big but, m ...[text shortened]... good annotations may help indicate innosence the inability to annotate does not indicate guilt.

I dont think that annotations can be considered as "100% non-cheating" sign. In my opinion also decent players may cheat as I know at least few RHP cheats who are definitely not patzers.

Originally posted by Crowley
What an idiotic idea.

So strong players now have to give out free chess lectures as well as coughing up their subscriptions annually?

I think it's great that you guys are spit-balling ideas, but let's not get ridiculous...

And who said every strong player would have to supply annotations? We're only talking about players who have raised suspicion otherwise.

And once someone has supplied convincing annotations, the chances of them needing to do so again are reduced, etc.

Originally posted by Korch
I dont think that annotations can be considered as "100% non-cheating" sign. In my opinion also decent players may cheat as I know at least few RHP cheats who are definitely not patzers.

That's true. And if we're looking for a 100% cheat detection method, then we're not going to find it. The question is whether a combination of approaches can help improve the detection method.

decent players may cheat

Again, I agree. But patzers on here have more to gain as opposed to an IM cheating. Ok, we'd like to detect both cases, but in terms of ratings the biggest cheats are those who's artificial rating is well beyond their true rating. And the bigger the gap, the harder it is for them to provide matching annotations.

Originally posted by Varenka
We're only talking about players who have raised suspicion otherwise.

Define: Raised suspicion?

Originally posted by Crowley
Define: Raised suspicion?

Gone from losing multiple games against 1100's to being rated 2000+ within 1 year?
I think that's pretty blatant.

Originally posted by Crowley
Define: Raised suspicion?

e.g. suspicious rating graph, or a worrying number of "Fair Play Tickets" raised against them, or a high correlation of their moves matching those of an engine, or maintaining an unrealistic throughput of moves per month without a realistic blunder rate, etc.