Ok - how about this:
On completion of each game, RHP prompts you to check a box, 'Do you suspect your opponent used an engine to assist his play?' Yes/No.
If yes, then mark your certainty from 1-10 with 10 being absolutely 100% sure.
These results would not be public and would not show up on a players profile. What they would do is quietly accumulate in the background over time and be visible to the site admins at all times.
To keep it balanced you generate a 'suspect rating' only once 20 (or more or less depending on what seems a fair number of people) opponents have actually clicked 'Yes' on you.
The site admins could then have thresholds where that invisible 'engine user suspect rating' triggers investigation:
0-5 No action
6-8 Monitor
9-10 Thorough investigation.
This way - no user would ever know theirs or anyone elses 'suspect rating', they wouldn't know who out of their opponents may have clicked yes or no either. The site admins would gain a lot of data without any effort (and I guess cheats are pretty good at spotting other cheats) and the blatant cheats would stick out like a sore thumb due to the number of yes's and the strength of them. It'd also make it easy for them to keep an eye on the 'monitor' groups actual playing strength rating to see if that increases in line with the engine use feedback tool.
It may also satisfy players in that they know their feedback *is* helping build cases against cheats automatically and that it's FAIR. Even if one person had a grudge and vindictively kept sending the 'Yes', '10' feedback then that would also be pretty obvious and you'd also have to rack up another 15-20 or so 'yes' and '9-10's from other players to warrant a thorough investigation.
I realise this system will have lots of aspects that'd need looking at a whole lot more stringently than I've just managed but it may work? Plus at least it's an *idea* to improve the situation rather than a whinge *about* it 🙂
*edits are me correcting my typos!
It's good to see a discussion of possible ways to deal with suspicions of engine use, rather than a lot of finger-pointing.
I like the idea just described, but I've seen some problems with the EBay method. The target knows who he's playing and when the game finishes, so the result would need to be safely out of sight of everyone except admins.
Originally posted by MissOleumHow qualified is the average chess player to speculate whether an opponent is using an engine? I know I'm not.
It's good to see a discussion of possible ways to deal with suspicions of engine use, rather than a lot of finger-pointing.
I like the idea just described, but I've seen some problems with the EBay method. The target knows who he's playing and when the game finishes, so the result would need to be safely out of sight of everyone except admins.
Originally posted by Green PaladinI'd expect a lower-end rating limit - perhaps 1800 or above for both players. Since the majority of players on this site are well below this level, their opinions are better not canvassed. A "undecided" option would provide an out for anyone without a strong opinion.
How qualified is the average chess player to speculate whether an opponent is using an engine? I know I'm not.
If you're not good at spotting engine use (and I'm not) then you click no. Or if someone arouses suspicion without really being sure then Yes and a low rating. If you know your Chess well then I guess you can spot it easier. My point is that using the system I described would mean that a lot of people would all have to agree and all have to be 90% certain to warrant a thorough investigation. That threshold in itself may need tweaking, it's a bit high but you get the general principle - it's no accident if you receive 20 Yes's with 9/10 ratings and nothing else. This is likelier to happen to high end cheats playing strong human opponents.
MissOleum - thanks for the feedback, the 'suspect rating' would never be public knowledge, it would be a mechanism that works in the background and purely for the site admins to see. No player would ever know his or anyone elses rating, therefore they would never know if an opponent had 'yes'd' him or how close he was to being investigated or monitored until it happened.
It would also make it easier for the site admins as they'd have all the suspect games already marked with a 'Yes' from an opponent as being worth looking at. They could even have something in place that ran a Yes marked game through an engine or engines to detect match ups and return a %. That could be automated I'm sure. While never catching the devious cheats it may get a few of the incompetent ones and get them without too much work for the site admins.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchIf people have cheated in tournaments, then it affects every other player in that tournament. I would have thought the vast majority of site users would vote for cheats to be banned.
And how do you do this exactly?
Cancel a subscription?
It wouldn't surprise me if less than 5% of users actually visit the chess forum & maybe 85% of people on this site are below 1500, how many people do you think are actually directly affected by the engine use problem?
To the vast majority this is simply an issue that has no relevance.
If people are that bothered they should try to improve their online blitz play or concentrate on OTB.
I don't want to play blitz games and don't have the opportunity to play a range of others OTB. But if I wanted to play a computer, I wouldn't have joined this site. I am sure others (of all ratings) are feeling the same way and that's why this thread exists.
Did you read the thread that this one replaced?
Despite knowing that a lot of negative feelings will be triggered, I want to put my 2 cts anyway, so how about this: this is a correspondence chess site, why not accept the facts of life (just like the ICCF does) and not forbid engine use at all? I don't use engines, but I don't (well, 'didn't' is more precise, since I don't play rated games anymore) mind losing to an engine. Losing to a strong player using engines or losing to a very strong human player doesn't make any difference to me, and it shouldn't to you except when you attach too much importance to ratings. Ratings don't mean anything in a non-regulated environment. In a regulated environment, players don't have many opportunities (or risk) to win (or lose) many points by playing against players of a different skill category.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by crazycolThat seems like a great idea!
Ok - how about this:
On completion of each game, RHP prompts you to check a box, 'Do you suspect your opponent used an engine to assist his play?' Yes/No.
If yes, then mark your certainty from 1-10 with 10 being absolutely 100% sure.
These results would not be public and would not show up on a players profile. What they would do is quietly accumula ...[text shortened]... er than a whinge *about* it 🙂
*edits are me correcting my typos!
The main problem that I see with it is who will do the "thorough investigation"?
The site owners have abolished the Game Mods, who were the only people to do any investigating.
It all comes down to whether they are serious about stopping engine use. At the moment, it doesn't look like they are.
Originally posted by MissOleumthe majority of stronger players here probably have reasonably good instinct on when they're against an engine, but I've also seen some quite high rated players who seem somewhat blind to it. I suppose it depends a lot on your personality. some of us assume the best from other people, some are cynical bastards, and the rest are paranoid. -I don't really think you could get very accurate results as a whole from that kind of a crowd.
I'd expect a lower-end rating limit - perhaps 1800 or above for both players. Since the majority of players on this site are well below this level, their opinions are better not canvassed. A "undecided" option would provide an out for anyone without a strong opinion.
not to mention that we already have a working solution, which is accurate and pretty independent from human error. save for deliberate sabotage...
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by Mephisto2Yes, but it's not just about ratings. Engine users spoil the enjoyment of a lot of people, and also ruin tournaments and clan matches. Why have tournaments at all, if they are inevitably won by an engine? Why have clans? A clan which is full of engine users, would quickly dominate the clan leagues, making it pointless for other clans to compete.
Despite knowing that a lot of negative feelings will be triggered, I want to put my 2 cts anyway, so how about this: this is a correspondence chess site, why not accept the facts of life (just like the ICCF does) and not forbid engine use at all? I don't use engines, but I don't (well, 'didn't' is more precise, since I don't play rated games anymore) mind ...[text shortened]... o win (or lose) many points by playing against players of a different skill category.
Originally posted by Mephisto2>> except when you attach too much importance to ratings
Despite knowing that a lot of negative feelings will be triggered, I want to put my 2 cts anyway, so how about this: this is a correspondence chess site, why not accept the facts of life (just like the ICCF does) and not forbid engine use at all? I don't use engines, but I don't (well, 'didn't' is more precise, since I don't play rated games anymore) mind ...[text shortened]... o win (or lose) many points by playing against players of a different skill category.
So why don't you play rated games anymore?
People play on RHP because they don't get much fun out of playing an engine.
Originally posted by crazycolSounds like a great idea. However, the engine users might mess it up, by randomly and frequently accusing others.
Ok - how about this:
On completion of each game, RHP prompts you to check a box, 'Do you suspect your opponent used an engine to assist his play?' Yes/No.
If yes, then mark your certainty from 1-10 with 10 being absolutely 100% sure.
These results would not be public and would not show up on a players profile. What they would do is quietly accumula ...[text shortened]... er than a whinge *about* it 🙂
*edits are me correcting my typos!
Originally posted by Mephisto2I understand your point - but do not agree. Just because the facts indicate that it isn't possible to catch all the cheats does not mean we shouldn't try.
Despite knowing that a lot of negative feelings will be triggered, I want to put my 2 cts anyway, so how about this: this is a correspondence chess site, why not accept the facts of life (just like the ICCF does) and not forbid engine use at all? I don't use engines, but I don't (well, 'didn't' is more precise, since I don't play rated games anymore) mind ...[text shortened]... o win (or lose) many points by playing against players of a different skill category.
The day we stop trying to eliminate cheating and cheats from any sport (not just CC Chess) is the day that these people have finally won. Who wants to see that?