3 ms·

I guess a basic implementation might compare the moves performed by the player under evaluation against the move that an engine would suggest? Presumably an ex

I guess a basic implementation might compare the moves performed by the player under evaluation against the move that an engine would suggest? Presumably an excellent player might often make the same moves as an engine, so this measure alone isn't going to be perfect. But it could be a starting point. You might also look at the player's historical performance and watch for suspicious changes, or perhaps look for patterns in the time taken to play the move?

ddek 5y ago
It's hard because often cheaters will play 'clean' until they get behind or to a particularly ambiguous spot, when they will cheat for one or two moves. The really hard part of chess is what to do in the mid game, once you're off your scripted opening, there is still lots of material, and neither player has any significant vulnerabilities. A computer is useful here.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. There's so much variance you could do. One does not have to alt tab to input and mirror chess engine moves with Stockfish. You can use neural network only, which is trained on human players, and have a programmatic way for AI to have suggestions on where to move show up on your screen. Time delay being pretty much non-existant, and maybe even good script can pre-move very obvious things for you. Maybe the AI will give you 3 non blunder moves, and you can yourself choose which makes the most sense or just block you from obviously blundering, but maybe like only 90% of the time. I don't like giving out ideas here, but I feel like these are obvious ways one could cheat and go undetected.
  - eru 5y ago
    > You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. That would be hard to distinguish from someone memorizing an opening book. So hard to detect.
    - lmohseni 5y ago
      On lichess, it’s possible to compare your current game against a book. I feel like it’s really improved my understanding of opening theory.

ddek 5y ago

It's hard because often cheaters will play 'clean' until they get behind or to a particularly ambiguous spot, when they will cheat for one or two moves. The really hard part of chess is what to do in the mid game, once you're off your scripted opening, there is still lots of material, and neither player has any significant vulnerabilities. A computer is useful here.

mewpmewp2 5y ago
You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. There's so much variance you could do. One does not have to alt tab to input and mirror chess engine moves with Stockfish. You can use neural network only, which is trained on human players, and have a programmatic way for AI to have suggestions on where to move show up on your screen. Time delay being pretty much non-existant, and maybe even good script can pre-move very obvious things for you. Maybe the AI will give you 3 non blunder moves, and you can yourself choose which makes the most sense or just block you from obviously blundering, but maybe like only 90% of the time. I don't like giving out ideas here, but I feel like these are obvious ways one could cheat and go undetected.
- eru 5y ago
  > You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. That would be hard to distinguish from someone memorizing an opening book. So hard to detect.
  - lmohseni 5y ago
    On lichess, it’s possible to compare your current game against a book. I feel like it’s really improved my understanding of opening theory.