3 ms·

Would it be possible to get some probability of cheating per player based on how often they play the best moves according to engines in online and live matches?

ps256 3y ago
You need something more sophisticated, otherwise it's easy to confuse high skill and/or well memorised lines with cheating. And a good cheater will be smart enough to either use engine assistance only in difficult spots and/or frequently pick the second/third best moves from the engine.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  I think the parent's idea is that over-the-board is harder to cheat; therefore you could look at the difference between OTB and online play.
  - 83457 3y ago
    But otb is more stressful.
  - marcyb5st 3y ago
    Correct. My idea is actually that with some grace number of moves that players can play by the book (i.e. openings). After that, run the analysis I mentioned. I agree that playing OTB is more stressful and that is difficult to model in such an approach. I was hoping to at least get some signal to filter out the mostly obvious cheaters and so focus on the remainder that should be less obvious.
busyant 3y ago
> based on how often they play the best moves according to engines in online and live matches One thing that Magnus mentioned about a year ago (I think in relation to his oblique insinuation that Hans Niemann cheated) is that you don't have to cheat throughout the game. He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM). If you cheat like that, it would be considerably more difficult to detect. Caruana recently suggested that ~50% of players had cheated in cash online tournaments. He wasn't particularly clear about what he meant by "50%" but I suspect he thinks that many lesser GMs have done what Magnus suggested: they occasionally "dip their toe" into the cheating realm by checking at some critical point against a more formidable opponent. They don't even need to do this every game. And, human nature being what it is, I bet they can convince themselves that it's not really cheating (e.g., "I was just double checking my favorite move....")
- lysp 3y ago
  > He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM). Not even to that extent. They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it. So all they need is a metaphoric tap on the shoulder.
  - busyant 3y ago
    > They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it. That's right! I think Carlsen even said something to that effect. "This is a critical move." is all he might need to know....

ps256 3y ago

You need something more sophisticated, otherwise it's easy to confuse high skill and/or well memorised lines with cheating. And a good cheater will be smart enough to either use engine assistance only in difficult spots and/or frequently pick the second/third best moves from the engine.

paulddraper 3y ago
I think the parent's idea is that over-the-board is harder to cheat; therefore you could look at the difference between OTB and online play.
- 83457 3y ago
  But otb is more stressful.
- marcyb5st 3y ago
  Correct. My idea is actually that with some grace number of moves that players can play by the book (i.e. openings). After that, run the analysis I mentioned. I agree that playing OTB is more stressful and that is difficult to model in such an approach. I was hoping to at least get some signal to filter out the mostly obvious cheaters and so focus on the remainder that should be less obvious.

busyant 3y ago

> based on how often they play the best moves according to engines in online and live matches One thing that Magnus mentioned about a year ago (I think in relation to his oblique insinuation that Hans Niemann cheated) is that you don't have to cheat throughout the game. He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM). If you cheat like that, it would be considerably more difficult to detect. Caruana recently suggested that ~50% of players had cheated in cash online tournaments. He wasn't particularly clear about what he meant by "50%" but I suspect he thinks that many lesser GMs have done what Magnus suggested: they occasionally "dip their toe" into the cheating realm by checking at some critical point against a more formidable opponent. They don't even need to do this every game. And, human nature being what it is, I bet they can convince themselves that it's not really cheating (e.g., "I was just double checking my favorite move....")

lysp 3y ago
> He posited that if he checked an engine only once per game (at some critical juncture), he would be unbeatable (by any other non-cheating super GM). Not even to that extent. They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it. So all they need is a metaphoric tap on the shoulder.
- busyant 3y ago
  > They just need to be told which single move mid-game to think harder on, and they'll often find it. That's right! I think Carlsen even said something to that effect. "This is a critical move." is all he might need to know....