4 ms·

Also, have tools to record and replay games, and knowlegable moderators who can identify signs of cheating and ban offenders. This will count for a lot, even if

Also, have tools to record and replay games, and knowlegable moderators who can identify signs of cheating and ban offenders. This will count for a lot, even if someone can cheat well enough to appear highly skilled naturally (which almost always requires at least moderate skill at a game), it won't be quite so rage-inducing. This doesn't scale very well, though.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
These days aimbots are so sophisticated and able to include fuzzing, that it's virtually impossible to tell because they can mimic a player's movement, miss occasionally, etc. About the only cheat you can really identify is glass-walling, because usually people who do it eventually slip up and aim/shoot perfectly at someone they plainly cannot see.
- xmprt 2y ago
  Really good players can get lucky pretty often because of game sense so even glass walling is hard to detect for certain if a player shoots through walls and kills their invisible opponent. We see this often even in pro play for tactical shooters.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    High level Q3 games had a lot of predicted movement kills for ages, long before vision automated aimbots. I'm not sure how anyone could even distinguish a perfect reaction there from a predicted shot that worked out.
  - greiskul 2y ago
    Yup, At top level play, players know the games and the maps so much that they can get some kills through walls just from knowing that its is likely that an opponent WOULD be at the other side at second X after seeing/hearing them at second Y.
stevage 2y ago
> knowlegable moderators who can identify signs of cheating and ban offenders Oh boy, this absolutely does not work for chess at high levels. Endless debates and arguments. Like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ctj85n/viih_sou_update/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ctj85n/viih_sou_upd... A very good player invented a stupid opening and then somehow won a lot of games against top players with it, and chess.com decided he was cheating (without presenting evidence) and banned him. It really seems like he wasn't.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
  Top reply there: > It sounds like if you want the answers you desire then you'll need to contact a lawyer and figure out if you have any right to them. What legal recourse would there even be here? Some sort of civil action?
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    IANAL and not particularly familiar with the particulars here, but very likely, the answer is "there is no legal recourse." As a private entity, chess.com is within its rights to admit or reject people for any reason it wants, except on the basis of certain protected classes (which cheating is not one of them). Furthermore, the terms of use for an account probably says something to the effect of "we have the right to ban you for whatever reason we feel like, and you have no real recourse." One could still attempt to sue, but the almost certain result is to flush tens of thousands of dollars in the toilet just to get thrown out on the motion to dismiss for lack of a case.
    - stevage 2y ago
      They may have a slightly stronger case for defamation or similar because chess.com said the account was closed for "fair play violation", but still.
      - jcranmer 2y ago
        The case for defamation is weaker than normal here, since chess.com (from what I can tell) never told anyone but the user that they considered them a cheater--there's no statement being made that can have the quality of being defamatory in the first place, except the statement being made by the user.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

These days aimbots are so sophisticated and able to include fuzzing, that it's virtually impossible to tell because they can mimic a player's movement, miss occasionally, etc. About the only cheat you can really identify is glass-walling, because usually people who do it eventually slip up and aim/shoot perfectly at someone they plainly cannot see.

xmprt 2y ago
Really good players can get lucky pretty often because of game sense so even glass walling is hard to detect for certain if a player shoots through walls and kills their invisible opponent. We see this often even in pro play for tactical shooters.
- viraptor 2y ago
  High level Q3 games had a lot of predicted movement kills for ages, long before vision automated aimbots. I'm not sure how anyone could even distinguish a perfect reaction there from a predicted shot that worked out.
- greiskul 2y ago
  Yup, At top level play, players know the games and the maps so much that they can get some kills through walls just from knowing that its is likely that an opponent WOULD be at the other side at second X after seeing/hearing them at second Y.

stevage 2y ago

> knowlegable moderators who can identify signs of cheating and ban offenders Oh boy, this absolutely does not work for chess at high levels. Endless debates and arguments. Like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ctj85n/viih_sou_update/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ctj85n/viih_sou_upd... A very good player invented a stupid opening and then somehow won a lot of games against top players with it, and chess.com decided he was cheating (without presenting evidence) and banned him. It really seems like he wasn't.

SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
Top reply there: > It sounds like if you want the answers you desire then you'll need to contact a lawyer and figure out if you have any right to them. What legal recourse would there even be here? Some sort of civil action?
- jcranmer 2y ago
  IANAL and not particularly familiar with the particulars here, but very likely, the answer is "there is no legal recourse." As a private entity, chess.com is within its rights to admit or reject people for any reason it wants, except on the basis of certain protected classes (which cheating is not one of them). Furthermore, the terms of use for an account probably says something to the effect of "we have the right to ban you for whatever reason we feel like, and you have no real recourse." One could still attempt to sue, but the almost certain result is to flush tens of thousands of dollars in the toilet just to get thrown out on the motion to dismiss for lack of a case.
  - stevage 2y ago
    They may have a slightly stronger case for defamation or similar because chess.com said the account was closed for "fair play violation", but still.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      The case for defamation is weaker than normal here, since chess.com (from what I can tell) never told anyone but the user that they considered them a cheater--there's no statement being made that can have the quality of being defamatory in the first place, except the statement being made by the user.