4 ms·

The blunders computers make and that human players make are/feel very different. I wouldn't expect to last long if I were cheating on, say, lichess.org by playi

The blunders computers make and that human players make are/feel very different. I wouldn't expect to last long if I were cheating on, say, lichess.org by playing out the moves of a mix of engines at various ratings.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
You could still use computer assistance which could suggest several different moves with explanations, and you could just pick one of those, maybe not necessarily the best move. Basically computers can give good hints for you. Pretty sure this type of thing would be undetectable.
- amcoastal 6y ago
  You can also just use the computer for the opening. If you don't have a certain opening, or response to a certain opening memorized, just use a computer. The difference between a memorized opening and what a computer would suggest is basically nil.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    This is the only sort of cheating suggested in this thread that wouldn't be caught, but wouldn't actually be that helpful.
    - YawningAngel 6y ago
      It's pretty helpful for the average human. Most people can't blast out 15 moves of theory correctly for every possible opening, so you'd avoid a lot of bad middle games or losses to traps. It probably isn't as helpful to a grandmaster, but that's true of engine analysis in general
      - tsbinz 6y ago
        Unless you're very careful I think it should be detectable at those levels. If someone is taking the same amount of time when playing some rare and tricky opening line as they are when playing the QGD, that's pretty fishy if they don't have the level where you have a big variety memorized.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        > It's pretty helpful for the average human. Most people can't blast out 15 moves of theory correctly for every possible opening, so you'd avoid a lot of bad middle games or losses to traps. Yeah, although at that level lots of people are also getting into good positions, having no idea why it is good, and losing it.
- calrueb 6y ago
  I think the problem here is that chess engines are going to recommend 'non-human' moves at any point of the mid/endgame. And these 'non-human' moves could be the first/second/third best moves according to the engine. You'd have to have to have decent understanding of the game to realize what moves aren't going to blow your cover. I am confident over the long run anti-cheating software could pick this up in most cases. But also what are the incentives for someone to cheat at online chess over the long run? It wouldn't be that interesting for more than a couple days to get a quick thrill of beating a bunch of people in my opinion.
- sullyj3 6y ago
  Explaining the moves is a very difficult problem, in a sense the "line" (series of moves) the computer recommends as best for both players is the explanation. Translating that information into, say, english, or some sort of useful graphical format, would be a pretty novel feature.
  - jsnell 6y ago
    https://decodechess.com/ https://decodechess.com/ does that kind of thing.
- noxvilleza 6y ago
  An easy way to detect cheaters is to look at overall accuracy as some aggregate metric of deviation from 'optimal' (as per the engine(s) used). This could just be a average of squares of centipawns lost per move, or classifying moves like how chess.com does (brilliant/best/excellent/good/inaccuracy/mistake/blunder/missed-win) and then looking at average distributions from this.

mewpmewp2 6y ago

You could still use computer assistance which could suggest several different moves with explanations, and you could just pick one of those, maybe not necessarily the best move. Basically computers can give good hints for you. Pretty sure this type of thing would be undetectable.

amcoastal 6y ago
You can also just use the computer for the opening. If you don't have a certain opening, or response to a certain opening memorized, just use a computer. The difference between a memorized opening and what a computer would suggest is basically nil.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  This is the only sort of cheating suggested in this thread that wouldn't be caught, but wouldn't actually be that helpful.
  - YawningAngel 6y ago
    It's pretty helpful for the average human. Most people can't blast out 15 moves of theory correctly for every possible opening, so you'd avoid a lot of bad middle games or losses to traps. It probably isn't as helpful to a grandmaster, but that's true of engine analysis in general
    - tsbinz 6y ago
      Unless you're very careful I think it should be detectable at those levels. If someone is taking the same amount of time when playing some rare and tricky opening line as they are when playing the QGD, that's pretty fishy if they don't have the level where you have a big variety memorized.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > It's pretty helpful for the average human. Most people can't blast out 15 moves of theory correctly for every possible opening, so you'd avoid a lot of bad middle games or losses to traps. Yeah, although at that level lots of people are also getting into good positions, having no idea why it is good, and losing it.
calrueb 6y ago
I think the problem here is that chess engines are going to recommend 'non-human' moves at any point of the mid/endgame. And these 'non-human' moves could be the first/second/third best moves according to the engine. You'd have to have to have decent understanding of the game to realize what moves aren't going to blow your cover. I am confident over the long run anti-cheating software could pick this up in most cases. But also what are the incentives for someone to cheat at online chess over the long run? It wouldn't be that interesting for more than a couple days to get a quick thrill of beating a bunch of people in my opinion.
sullyj3 6y ago
Explaining the moves is a very difficult problem, in a sense the "line" (series of moves) the computer recommends as best for both players is the explanation. Translating that information into, say, english, or some sort of useful graphical format, would be a pretty novel feature.
- jsnell 6y ago
  https://decodechess.com/ https://decodechess.com/ does that kind of thing.
noxvilleza 6y ago
An easy way to detect cheaters is to look at overall accuracy as some aggregate metric of deviation from 'optimal' (as per the engine(s) used). This could just be a average of squares of centipawns lost per move, or classifying moves like how chess.com does (brilliant/best/excellent/good/inaccuracy/mistake/blunder/missed-win) and then looking at average distributions from this.