Most of these "answers" by the expert are like a politican. Q "why aren't cheaters being banned" A "well our anti cheat is best by far, so indentifying cheaters is no problem, we just can't find the games they cheated in" So in other words your piece of trash anti cheat can't find the cheaters, because it takes too long to find out they are cheating? Or just saying some obvious flaw won't be fixed because their priority is in somewhere else. These answers give me 0 confidence things will improve
If reporting why/how/where you believe someone has cheated becomes a compulsory part of reporting someone, most people just don't bother except for the people who are genuinely convinced. All the people that report players out of spite will stop and the amount of games they have to sift through will decrease dramatically.
For anybody interested in why his data is not as solid as he thinks check out the vid, How to Catch A Cheater With Math by the youtube channel Primer. Suffice it to say it is a more sophisticated undertaking then Jacksark seems to realize. Firing up a spread sheet might make you feel less salty after losing online chess, but real cheat detection is a science, and cheating as problem requires considerations of more factors than most people seem to appreciate bc they are not "experts" Even if they can make a presentation with stastics in it, does not mean the stastics they have considered are sufficient for creating a robost cheat detection system.
I dont even think you needed to give such a long answer for 'why not play otb', it requires scheduling of 2 people which just isnt easy, online is instantaneous at any time (obviously there is a Q time, but its far quicker than driving somewhere to play otb)
for sure, there are many more factors to it than that though & wanted to talk about it longer because it seems to go over peoples heads. i always get the question "why don't you try getting a title" in videos & lots of Europeans and North Americans just don't really understand how expensive and inconvenient that would be living in Australia just getting from tournament to tournament.
@@jacksarkisian Please also do not spout nonsense about 99% of the world being "not safe" for otb. The simple reason is, online is immediate and otb does not come even close to this aspect and people from two different parts of the world can play and also become friends.
@simplehealthy living Nowhere did he claim that 99% of the world is unsafe for otb chess! It helps if you actually watch h the video before commenting. If you read his comment he talks about getting titles. Ths has to be done otb.
The number of people justifiying themselves with the "improvement" excuse is absurd. This is the most pathetic and nonsense reason and they should be ashamed. You're bad, you will never improve and you're clowns
i mean any cheating in general is super disappointing - but convincing yourself its for "improvement sake" is just depressing. if you want to verse harder players play open unrated challenges against them, or play against tough engines offline. gaming the system will never get anyone far.
Yep, this is literally what "game review" is for. Checking where you went wrong with an engine after a game is a great way to study the lines you missed. I don't see how cheating during the game would even help. 🤷
It might seem a bit strong, but I genuinely feel like cheating in any game is just one of the saddest things for a person to do in life. It's a game, so it's meant to be something you do for fun, and not even important, ultimately - if you can't even face losing a Chess game on fair terms, what does that say about your approach to self-improvement in literally anything of actual importance in your life, or your honesty and trustworthiness in general? If something is hard, it's a great opportunity to push yourself to get better at it. If that doesn't interest you, then perhaps it's just not the right hobby for you in the first place? 🤷
It's hard to believe that algorithms can reliably detect a skilled cheater. If someone uses a weaker chess engine than Stockfish, even an outdated version, and avoids the top recommended moves, they could still win while the detection systems report low accuracy, not identifying it as computer aid. Computers have been beating world champions since 1997, and modern engines don't even consider those older moves optimal anymore. So, relying on algorithms to catch a smart cheater is practically impossible.
They can't even detect their bots as cheating, and it's why I think that cheating is more prevalent at lower levels with lower accuracy than publicly available information. If you are at 1000 ELO you just have to pick a 1500 ELO bot and you'll win the majority of your games, and like you say outside engines mean that it'll be difficult to police that as well.
@@worldcesarexactly. All the cheaters that I've fought have played only a few percent more accurately than me and their other opponents. I am actually a little bit impressed with their detection algorithm because I would not have suspected a couple of those players at all. I think they start to push a liiiiittle too hard with the engine moves and get overconfident that they wont be caught (probably when they run into another cheater doing the same thing 😂). Honestly, Id rather fight someone who just plays 100% accuracy because then it is funny at least. So much worse to think you're playing a real person and things are working, but they were never in any remote danger of losing. Really ruins online chess tbh.
14:47 a better way would be to grade each account on the accuracy of its reports. If a random 1000 elo player is correct 90% of the time in identifying cheater, his account should have a higher trust factor than say Kramnik's account who has a terrible success rate and just reports anyone without any proof or evidence. Over time the more trust worthy accounts will point the anti cheat team to more likely cheaters making the system more efficient
this is a great idea actually. i know a lot of games use a "karma" system with reports to stop players from spam reporting everyone they verse. would be great to see a similar system built in for Chess.com!
No, this is a terrible idea. If you are a 1000 elo player, chances are if your opponent has 90%+ accuracy, he is cheating. Whereas at Kramnik's level, everyone can play games at 90%+ accuracy. So naturally the lower your ELO is, the more obvious cheaters are.
@@bee2690 Haha, I've plenty of games over 90 - and not all are low-move games (under 25 moves). Maybe you should use the review (and analysis) feature before thinking all players, who beat you with 90+ are cheating - odds are you blundered so badly, that it was easy for them to 90+
I would be willing to provide a driver's license to identify with my account. 1. People are probably more willing to cheat because they're anonymous. 2. Bans (or temporary bans) would actually be more effective since you couldn't just open a new account.
there have been talks of this on Chess.com for years now, but nothing has materialised from it. would love to see something like this implemented specifically for a "verified pool" so we at least have the option to play there.
Don't be stupid things such as your drivers license or rather information should never be shared to a private company if possible. The damage that could be done to you is theoretically immeasurable
@@TalusMagssparov Don't be stupid (to return your words to you). You show ID to buy liquor, cigarettes, and get in a bar. You put your address and credit card all over the internet to order things to your house. Don't be 'holier than thou'
Yeah that over the board chess thing sucks, where there is not enough opponents.... In NZ opponents are not the problem but their rating is 900 for most and haven't taken lessons like I have so only one game and then they never play me ever again 😂😂😭😭😭
Really good video, of which I pretty much agree with everything. The only thing is that citing that people only really live in 5% of Australia is probably actually a boon for chess and not a bane. Limiting the amounts of places people can live will drive up the population in the places they do, and things like chess are more likely to occur in higher density areas.
thankyou man & you're 100% right. however i felt had i not mentioned that the assumption that there's other cities nearby to play in would be made which is not the case in Australia. you can't go for a 1 hour drive to the next big city to go & play, you have to drive 8 hours to the next big city to go & play.
I have reported a cheater and even messaged his other opponents to report him, obvious high accuracy and cant play bullet. Clear cheat and he's still not banned. Chesscom is doing nothing.
agreed, faced 5 obvious cheaters this week. 1 got banned, 4 are still going about it, cheating almost every single day nothing being done. But still you are supposed to believe they have the best anti cheat "by a landslide" when these clowns would have been sent to shadow realm in lichess ages ago
Actually amazing video, I was actually a little bit scared about my 10 game win streak to get to 2200 blitz which also contained some high accuracies but you definitely cleared some doubt about that, also W Fianchetto Club Caro-Kann shirt and love to see you talk about geography lol edit: I am not gonna mention the Arsenal game until your next stream
Wait wut - linking the active or most recent game(s) with a complaint should be an obvious, easy, and quick IT solution! The game(s) check can then be automated without requiring substantial resources, perhaps during off-peak hours. How has this not been implemented (?!)
its a good question. my best guess is that for the past X years Chess.com has almost solely been putting their effort into perfecting their anti cheat. now that they've gotten it to a point they're happy with they've started to look at optimizing other things too. i guess if your goal has been to get an anti cheat to cover all bases it wouldn't be crazy to overlook something as simple as this feature 🤷
One possible reason might be that they feared the work load to then read through the explanations and look through the related games may have gotten quite out of a hand. Perhaps adequate staffing needs for such features would need to be factored in more and justified in the budget. Budget constraints are always tough in businesses... All that said, I still think at the very least, the report should automatically have an index link or identifier variable to the game that was played during / right before the report for cheating was made. That way, when the volume of reports is high enough, it would be much easier for bots and especially humans to search the games that were deemed most suspicious for very irregular behavior. Surely that wouldn't increase data usage that much.
@@jacksarkisian Thank you for replying. Same here :-) Also streaming. You get to know the community. In addition I'm a member of the Chess Dojo and there I really do trust the fellow students 🙂
I suspect they come to the conclusion it's more profitable to just ignore the problem. Fighting with cheating consumes resources, and it doesn't improve public perception - it doesn't look good when you see 1/3 of your opponents got banned due to fair play. So they need to ban only most blatant, obvious cheaters, which is least costly.
In Adelaide we actually have quite a lot of OTB chess. Every Thursday evening there's rapid/blitz & most Tuesdays have classical chess. Plus there's a few weekend tournaments each year. Additionaly there's clubs spread around the suburbs who host rated & casual events.
this is great, and certainly the best you'll get for a city like Adelaide - but the issue still persists that you can only really play OTB Chess twice a week. this paired with the fact none of those events are FIDE rated (barring the few weekend tournaments), and you'll be versing repeat opponents most weeks. every major city has an active Chess community like this, but its nowhere near big enough to completely replace the presence of online Chess as a whole - or even come close.
Great video! Cheating has always been a problem in the online environment. It can be disheartening to play a game-any game online-that has active cheating taking place.
One of the things i found while going down the cheater rabbit hole is they dont all just use an engine, those are the ones who cheat at higher level. Theres A LOT of cheaters that cheat for the exact reasons you mention here(they think they didnt deserve to lose elo, and want it back quickly). They use an engine that can be tuned by level, and say theyre 1000elo they can set it to 1800 and are almost certainly not going to get caught(unless the program is recognized, which is avoidable). Chesscom also definitely needs to be more strict and not give so many chances, it should be auto ban. Id say the main reason for cheating is the eagerness/tilt theory you mention here, meaning its largely intermittent and often the engine isnt used for most of the game.
I would like to be able to restrict playing new accounts created within one year of my account, over time it will filter out more and more accounts which are cheating if they employ other methods of banning accounts which are cheating. It does mean that for the first year you are in the Wild West a bit more, but it's unlikely everyone will filter that way. I recently reported a player who had at 700 ELO in a tournament won 15 games in a row with 90+ accuracy, even though his usual accuracy was 40-60%. The account was still live months after I checked with a nice diamond next to it still. It doesn't seem difficult to pick up on a new player or a low ELO player, or any player having 10+ wins in a row or a sudden extreme jump in accuracy for a period of time.
I have degree in data science, I do know math and data. U did fine in first video. Even we as professionals not 100% accurate it is not possible. Edit: If I was 100% accurate all the time, I would sell ticket to my show which I perform 100% accuracy right after my flying trick.
Hey mate. Love your videos and I’m glad I found your channel. I’m also from Adelaide. Can I ask where you got your shirt from? I love playing the Caro.
thankyou mate, glad to know theres actually other people in Adelaide playing Chess hahahha. shirts from Fianchetto Club, links in the description of the video - some super clean & subtle drops there for sure 👌not 100% sure but i think i might have the code "jacksark" there for a % off too!
Very disappointed to see that for the longest time the report function used to require a description, and was changed to its current state, which is broken to the extent that it cannot be given information what game was being played at the time. I’m glad they responded and gave you a roadmap for the changes.
The main reason is people selling accounts (e.g. 2100 costs 20-50$ but 2400 costs 200$ and more). So if you have 2100 rating you can easily get into 2400 and make 200$, create new account, repeat
never heard of that reasoning but i will take you on your word for it. sounds stupid asf to be buying those accounts tho lmao. why tf would anyone spend 200$ on an account on chess.com lmfao that sounds so dumb
There's an obvious way to give accounts reporting priority: those who have a good history of reporting cheaters accurately and frequently. It's such a logical solution to the problem. It would immediately lead to much better and faster cheat detection.
The fair play checks also examine a lot of other stuff outside of games, such as whether you exited the tab or window for extended periods of time. (We know this because it has been mentioned in cheating reports)
If you were to register with your ID and, if it was proven that you were committing fraud, you would be blocked across all platforms and perhaps even face a fine, that could perhaps help.
Wow sad... The site also says they have zero tolerance for cheating. Yet I report the cheaters on rapid that are clearly using the best stockfish moves EVERY move, they get like 95-99 percent accuracy in complex games repeatedly, they take around the same time every move and clearly don't even try to hide that they're cheating. Then I see games they actually try to play legit to try to lower their accuracy score and they blunder and get mated in 1 in the opening. It's not even subtle, they're OBVIOUSLY cheating... And they never get banned!
Online streamers have the most motivation and greatest opportunity to get away with cheating. By making a good player great it builds the audience and revenue. Are we sure they are all clean - human nature suggests otherwise.
Farfetched idea coming up. Do you think it would work to make a separate chess website where cheating is allowed and everything goes? Maybe some % of cheaters would jump over
cool idea, i don’t think an entirely new website would be feasible but a game mode on Chess.com that allows players to use engines could be interesting for sure. although there might be the offset of that encouraging cheating in regular play - would definitely be a double edged idea.
I just want to clarify a bit the rating refund: in general, the refund is not necessary because of the way the rating calculation works. Let's say you loose a game to a cheater and your rating decreases by 10. In the next game whatever the result, your rating loss in case of a defeat is less than it should be and the rating increase is bigger than it should be in case of a win. So, in around 5-6 games your rating will be back to its 'correct' value before the cheating happens. Now the only issue is if cheating happens too frequently because in this case it takes a bit more games to get to the correct value. But if cheating stays below 15-20% then things should be fine (sometimes though I think cheating is a lot more frequent than that).
All of the different openings that i researched don't even work on people at 1000 ELO rating, and YES i am doing them correctly. Either people or cheating, or grand masters play at 1000 ELO as well as 2k +.
@patrickbutler165 Good point. That makes sense. Low rated players don't know openings. So they are likely to use some assistance from bots or extensions to avoid a disaster in the opening.
So as for the improvement thing about cheaters I remember when I was younger I created an new account, where I chose master, I was about 1200 at the time. Playing and beating 1500s gave me quite the confident boost and motivation. To be clear I have closed said account (hadnt read alt rules at the time I did it). So I can somewhat understand the idea, but the execution is really poor if you cheat.
The anticheat review of every single game should be performed by the user machine, after they agree during installation. If they don't agree, they can only play un rated games. Every time user logs in, the report on their games is sent to the website. In this way the website doesn't need resources
I think you make a lot of good points but your solutions for adding more "trusted" accounts just wouldnt help imo. Nepo literally called out Hikaru for cheating this week, and when the top 5 players in the world can't look at games objectively when they are involved there is really no proof adding more "trusted" accounts wouldnt just add more false flags. Other than improving the anti cheat algorithms I don't see it getting better.
With regards to a "trust" system you could be given higher reputation when accounts are reviewed and they are determined to be cheaters or likely cheaters. Similarly if a player is abusing the report button they could be ignored or lower priority.
automation is definitely the end goal - but i'd rather see semi-automation if it means reducing false bans. most of us don't realise how frustrating a false ban would be until it happens to us, definitely not something i want to see on the platform either.
At the heart of this lies a truth: chess players care a lot about ELO. But if you're a casual beginner like me, forget about ratings. Every loss will drain the joy from the game (fair or unfair). Focus on playing regularly and improving your game. Treat online chess like any other online game. You can't rid of cheaters from online games. Don’t let ratings or cheaters steal the fun. If something feels off, play only if the position excites you; otherwise, just move on to the next game.
because running stockfish on every single game on Chess.com 24/7 would crash the website. if this were to be implemented, Chess.com would hike membership prices tenfold to compensate for the lost finances needed to allow site stability with such a demanding feature running in the background.
I think a bigger problem imho is the 2nd chance policy (wish you had asked about this), its tacit approval of cheating and a baffling policy, why I will never play there again until its removed, thx however for the great vids on topic and others
i did ask about the second chance policy and its being removed by Chess.com. didn't think to mention it because i didn't think many people knew about it anyway 👍
it blows my mind they don't analyse the game that was reported as cheating! Surely there is a way of at the very least sampling that data based on compute resource and then doing a deeper dive into accounts which get flagged as cheating. It seems the process could be streamline to auto check that game, if positive flag and run a deeper auto analysis of the account, and then pass to a human to make a final decision. Also if you report a game as cheating and it isn't then you should probably not have your reports considered for a reasonable amount of time, again I would base this on a resource queue. Even if full account ban action isn't taken for case of cheating a ban scale can be imposed for first, second, third detections, say 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and then an account closure.
Do you know how to stop cheaters on chess? Ban everyone who does ratings climbs. I am so sick and tired of everyone who does this. They are the REAL cheaters because they are being dishonest. They start at the bottom of their supposed ELO rating, which means anyone you face in an online game might be a Master posing as a 750 ELO rated player. Chess needs to ban players who do this
to an extent i agree with this, i think some rating climbs are disingenuous but its impossible for Chess.com to properly police that. when rating climbs give back the Elo 100% of the time i don't think its a big enough issue to warrant forfeiting the educational value they possess.
I find it purely disrespectful that they only investigate people who have been reported by many users while in their site they say that if the person you suspect didn't get banned it likely means that they didn't cheat. They should be honest about their resource limitations and be open to suggestions from their users.
It's a money issue. Most users don't pay to play, so the website has limited resources. RUclips, Gmail and Facebook probably handle bug reports in the same way.
It is true that a piece of evidence need not be determinative on its own. It is but a brick in the wall. So date of opening an account is some evidence but not determinative. Only in view of all the evidence should something be determinative, but that does mean the evidence might compose if many different small pieces of evidence.
Chessplayers can be found everywhere! When I was sailing in the South Pacific in 1982, I found them on sailboats, in the islands, everywhere, so this Australia statical approach for me isn't very convincing. But I do applaud your effort to stamp out cheating. Now move on to stamping out cheating on your partner.
It's rare at my level and bracket I see cheaters, but it does happen. I ran into one back in September who was 100% cheating. It was a new account, won every match after sacrificing a minor piece etc. I reported, but of course, the reports mean nothing. The account stopped playing after 30 days, likely knowing how long it takes the algorithm to catch up.
manually banning a handful of players from my last video isn't going to solve the problem for other people, nor for me over the next 100 games i play. would much rather they work on tangible solutions 👍
@@jacksarkisian that goes without saying , i'm trying to highlight the fact that they said they watched your video , yet no action was done in relation to video , which leads me to believe they didn't watch it or maybe have a different system i guess. I think the solution for cheaters starts with some sort of ID Hardware / Browser fingerprint ban once they are caught , because what happens like you said , people just make new accounts and start over again , and ofc they get better at cheating with time , so a more effective ban system is necessary . Also when it comes to detection , some sort of tribunal could be used ( back in the day in league of legends we had a system were trusted old players could vote on games , wether this person cheated or not ) . The final idea is ofc refining the algorithm itself to detect impossible moves that are simply too hard to find for a human . fun vid btw
It’s a shame you didn’t film it as a sort of interview style video with Kassa. But the information you provided is very interesting. However, I don’t really get, why can’t they tie the report button to report the account but also take into account which game was reported. Seems like a very obvious oversight, and his response or making players send the game links and describe the cheating, will only hurt the system.
initially i wanted to have this "update" video in an interview format with Kassa, however I suppose in his eyes I could've cut the video however I wanted and shone him & Chess.com in an unfairly poor light. hopefully in the future it will be more possible due to how I've conducted these videos. definitely a weird oversight from Chess.com - maybe just an overconfidence in the anti cheat's ability to do this job itself and not realising how many resources it'd take up. I certainly don't think its going to hurt the system though, giving the anti cheat & fairplay team more information can only do good in my opinion.
it actually does make sense to me why would it "feel" that anti-cheat gets worse over time, it's the forever battle, same as with anti-viruses etc., IF you know what the "rules" are (in case of viruses operating system coding, open source app coding etc.) you get better in avoiding them / finding loop holes. Therefore it has to adjust continuously but even IF that is happening, you cannot forsee everything, that is just not possible. In case of chess cheating, especially on higher level, this is even more complicated because the player already knows good moves, so how many hints such a player needs to gain advantage that they are capable to convert on their own? 1? 2 max? idk... it's sad that this is necessary to even solve and speaks on who we, as people. are - just a freaking virus taking advantage of everything we can for our gain, prioritizing "unfair" for my gain instead of considering that "fair" is beneficial to all
We have to look at the economics. Most players don't pay to play, so it is too expensive to look through all their games. Just compare the number of employees to the number if players. Furthermore it is difficult to distinguish between cheating and a stroke of luck, so in practice this problem will never be solved. But it could be interesting to gather statistics on behavior that indicate cheating (Fast moves that would normally require analysis.. etc)
I still cannot believe they have prizes for online tournaments. I just assume that if the integrity of the event is so very vulnerable, then having such a tournament would be a problem. As for the otb issue, I do have to say that in this digital era it is nice that people can play from anywhere. But reality is that online chess seems impossible to secure. I do not know that there really is a solution.
Chess servers had cash prizes in the early days of Internet chess but it was a case of beer money $20-$50 or a months membership extension not $1000-$10,000 prize pools that attract criminals and hustlers.
@@alecgoudreau6397 They did? I don't remember any of that, but that I doubt I would have been a competitor for any prizes. I remember playing on a listserv and then in ASCII for a while. Then on FICS and the ICC. I guess the ICC might have had some tournaments. Like I said, though, it might just not have been on my radar.
@@Alekhine01 Yes, they did in the tomato tournaments on ICC used to award membership extensions (about a month) if a player won and there were very low cash prizes Fics did that too; they ran fair play checks on all the winners games before giving anything.
I don't encourage cheating but I actually like to play against Stockfish. I usually want my opponent to be stronger than me so that I can challenge myself and see how strong I really am. Sometimes, I play Stockfish and see how long I can last without getting checkmated.
The problem with that, is that it will encourage you to play solidly/passively and try to always lock up the position You’ll still lose, but you’ll lose slower…… there’s no point in even trying to generate an active position with counter play against Stockfish, because it’s so much better than you that it’ll never work out for you But in REAL chess, against human opponents, it’s a horrible idea to play slowly and passively, and you will win most of your games by playing actively and generating threats that your opponent doesn’t properly address
Why not just terraform Australia to turn it into a lush, tropical climate and become the supreme leader of the country where you can force people to play over the board with you??
Even at low and medium levels, that's a lot of cheating, but not like all the game. People just play, and when they see that they're lost, they use the engine to find the way out and the wining move. I play blitz 3-0 and what I'm doing is to play very fast, lots of times i can make the cheater run out of time and then he starts to play again on his own and loses the game. For me like 30-40% today use some kind of cheating
2:40, this isnt really delusional, im not saying it should be done of course, but i remember Alexander Kotov saying that its good to look at games between masters and ametuars, which would be very similar to looking at games between advanced players and engines. So whioe it CAN technically help, its not a good way to improve
for the next couple of months maybe, but when Chess.com roll out their planned updates the information in this video won't be useful for cheaters. everything else has been public knowledge just maybe not common knowledge. for what its worth everything in this video has been cleared by Kassa and isn't sensitive information that shouldn't be public knowledge 👍
Question(Reasonable, inquisitive, generally speaking the public would wish to ask it just as much) - Answer: I don't care lalalalala I cant hear youlalala
If you want to face stronger opponents on cdc you don't have to cheat. Aside from challenging stronger opponents, many tournaments and club games will pit you against stronger opponents, especially if you are actively seeking them out.
I still think account verification is the way to go. If you think it's worth the risk to play against a cheater but get paired much quicker then you could do something like CS2 where account verification pairing can be temporarily turned off.
It's good that someone is talking about this in a civil and informative way! Unlike some other players..........
I just wanted to say I love you.
Kramnik disliked this.
I agree, Danya should stop with cursing and insults and respond with an actual arguments.
Most of these "answers" by the expert are like a politican. Q "why aren't cheaters being banned" A "well our anti cheat is best by far, so indentifying cheaters is no problem, we just can't find the games they cheated in" So in other words your piece of trash anti cheat can't find the cheaters, because it takes too long to find out they are cheating? Or just saying some obvious flaw won't be fixed because their priority is in somewhere else. These answers give me 0 confidence things will improve
If reporting why/how/where you believe someone has cheated becomes a compulsory part of reporting someone, most people just don't bother except for the people who are genuinely convinced. All the people that report players out of spite will stop and the amount of games they have to sift through will decrease dramatically.
For anybody interested in why his data is not as solid as he thinks check out the vid, How to Catch A Cheater With Math by the youtube channel Primer.
Suffice it to say it is a more sophisticated undertaking then Jacksark seems to realize.
Firing up a spread sheet might make you feel less salty after losing online chess, but real cheat detection is a science, and cheating as problem requires considerations of more factors than most people seem to appreciate bc they are not "experts"
Even if they can make a presentation with stastics in it, does not mean the stastics they have considered are sufficient for creating a robost cheat detection system.
I dont even think you needed to give such a long answer for 'why not play otb', it requires scheduling of 2 people which just isnt easy, online is instantaneous at any time (obviously there is a Q time, but its far quicker than driving somewhere to play otb)
for sure, there are many more factors to it than that though & wanted to talk about it longer because it seems to go over peoples heads. i always get the question "why don't you try getting a title" in videos & lots of Europeans and North Americans just don't really understand how expensive and inconvenient that would be living in Australia just getting from tournament to tournament.
@@jacksarkisian Please also do not spout nonsense about 99% of the world being "not safe" for otb. The simple reason is, online is immediate and otb does not come even close to this aspect and people from two different parts of the world can play and also become friends.
@@simplehealthyliving4681don't be a dick mate.
Whar a rude response. Your comment if significantly more nonsensical spouting.
@simplehealthy living
Nowhere did he claim that 99% of the world is unsafe for otb chess! It helps if you actually watch h the video before commenting.
If you read his comment he talks about getting titles. Ths has to be done otb.
The number of people justifiying themselves with the "improvement" excuse is absurd. This is the most pathetic and nonsense reason and they should be ashamed. You're bad, you will never improve and you're clowns
i mean any cheating in general is super disappointing - but convincing yourself its for "improvement sake" is just depressing. if you want to verse harder players play open unrated challenges against them, or play against tough engines offline. gaming the system will never get anyone far.
Yep, this is literally what "game review" is for. Checking where you went wrong with an engine after a game is a great way to study the lines you missed. I don't see how cheating during the game would even help. 🤷
It might seem a bit strong, but I genuinely feel like cheating in any game is just one of the saddest things for a person to do in life. It's a game, so it's meant to be something you do for fun, and not even important, ultimately - if you can't even face losing a Chess game on fair terms, what does that say about your approach to self-improvement in literally anything of actual importance in your life, or your honesty and trustworthiness in general? If something is hard, it's a great opportunity to push yourself to get better at it. If that doesn't interest you, then perhaps it's just not the right hobby for you in the first place? 🤷
@@ryanyt6971 I try very hard to understand their point but I don't get it. All those wins mean nothing, they will get crushed otb over and over
They won't play OTB.
it’s not a problem for the site, only for their members.
until most people stop playing, then it's a problem for them as well
It's hard to believe that algorithms can reliably detect a skilled cheater. If someone uses a weaker chess engine than Stockfish, even an outdated version, and avoids the top recommended moves, they could still win while the detection systems report low accuracy, not identifying it as computer aid. Computers have been beating world champions since 1997, and modern engines don't even consider those older moves optimal anymore. So, relying on algorithms to catch a smart cheater is practically impossible.
They can't even detect their bots as cheating, and it's why I think that cheating is more prevalent at lower levels with lower accuracy than publicly available information. If you are at 1000 ELO you just have to pick a 1500 ELO bot and you'll win the majority of your games, and like you say outside engines mean that it'll be difficult to police that as well.
If a
@@CGoody564Gothamchess said something like this on Lex Friedman's show: only dumb cheaters use the top recommendations every time.
Yeah but its not that simple cuz it would be more like 85% @@CGoody564
@@worldcesarexactly. All the cheaters that I've fought have played only a few percent more accurately than me and their other opponents. I am actually a little bit impressed with their detection algorithm because I would not have suspected a couple of those players at all. I think they start to push a liiiiittle too hard with the engine moves and get overconfident that they wont be caught (probably when they run into another cheater doing the same thing 😂). Honestly, Id rather fight someone who just plays 100% accuracy because then it is funny at least. So much worse to think you're playing a real person and things are working, but they were never in any remote danger of losing. Really ruins online chess tbh.
I would still like to know how they couldn't ban an account for months that made every move of the game in 0.7 seconds or less.
14:47 a better way would be to grade each account on the accuracy of its reports. If a random 1000 elo player is correct 90% of the time in identifying cheater, his account should have a higher trust factor than say Kramnik's account who has a terrible success rate and just reports anyone without any proof or evidence. Over time the more trust worthy accounts will point the anti cheat team to more likely cheaters making the system more efficient
this is a great idea actually. i know a lot of games use a "karma" system with reports to stop players from spam reporting everyone they verse. would be great to see a similar system built in for Chess.com!
No, this is a terrible idea. If you are a 1000 elo player, chances are if your opponent has 90%+ accuracy, he is cheating. Whereas at Kramnik's level, everyone can play games at 90%+ accuracy.
So naturally the lower your ELO is, the more obvious cheaters are.
@@bee2690 game review accuracy is a terrible way to detect cheaters anyway. That's not what my comment was referring to
@bee2690 It's not necessarily true if you're 1000 and you get 90+ you're cheating. It's if you're 1000 and you're getting consistent 90+ accuracies.
@@bee2690 Haha, I've plenty of games over 90 - and not all are low-move games (under 25 moves).
Maybe you should use the review (and analysis) feature before thinking all players, who beat you with 90+ are cheating - odds are you blundered so badly, that it was easy for them to 90+
I would be willing to provide a driver's license to identify with my account.
1. People are probably more willing to cheat because they're anonymous.
2. Bans (or temporary bans) would actually be more effective since you couldn't just open a new account.
there have been talks of this on Chess.com for years now, but nothing has materialised from it. would love to see something like this implemented specifically for a "verified pool" so we at least have the option to play there.
Don't be stupid things such as your drivers license or rather information should never be shared to a private company if possible. The damage that could be done to you is theoretically immeasurable
@@TalusMagssparov Don't be stupid (to return your words to you). You show ID to buy liquor, cigarettes, and get in a bar. You put your address and credit card all over the internet to order things to your house.
Don't be 'holier than thou'
Yeah that over the board chess thing sucks, where there is not enough opponents.... In NZ opponents are not the problem but their rating is 900 for most and haven't taken lessons like I have so only one game and then they never play me ever again 😂😂😭😭😭
yeah isolated island nations must be so much worse than Australia. imagine that 1 Chess prodigy living at Point Nemo 😭😭
Really good video, of which I pretty much agree with everything. The only thing is that citing that people only really live in 5% of Australia is probably actually a boon for chess and not a bane. Limiting the amounts of places people can live will drive up the population in the places they do, and things like chess are more likely to occur in higher density areas.
thankyou man & you're 100% right. however i felt had i not mentioned that the assumption that there's other cities nearby to play in would be made which is not the case in Australia. you can't go for a 1 hour drive to the next big city to go & play, you have to drive 8 hours to the next big city to go & play.
@@jacksarkisian That's fair. Regardless, great watch. Cheers.
I have reported a cheater and even messaged his other opponents to report him, obvious high accuracy and cant play bullet. Clear cheat and he's still not banned. Chesscom is doing nothing.
agreed, faced 5 obvious cheaters this week. 1 got banned, 4 are still going about it, cheating almost every single day nothing being done. But still you are supposed to believe they have the best anti cheat "by a landslide" when these clowns would have been sent to shadow realm in lichess ages ago
Actually amazing video, I was actually a little bit scared about my 10 game win streak to get to 2200 blitz which also contained some high accuracies but you definitely cleared some doubt about that, also W Fianchetto Club Caro-Kann shirt and love to see you talk about geography lol edit: I am not gonna mention the Arsenal game until your next stream
please spare me i didn't even watch that Arsenal game i was sick all week 😭
Wait wut - linking the active or most recent game(s) with a complaint should be an obvious, easy, and quick IT solution! The game(s) check can then be automated without requiring substantial resources, perhaps during off-peak hours. How has this not been implemented (?!)
its a good question. my best guess is that for the past X years Chess.com has almost solely been putting their effort into perfecting their anti cheat. now that they've gotten it to a point they're happy with they've started to look at optimizing other things too. i guess if your goal has been to get an anti cheat to cover all bases it wouldn't be crazy to overlook something as simple as this feature 🤷
The shame is that is how it used to work
One possible reason might be that they feared the work load to then read through the explanations and look through the related games may have gotten quite out of a hand. Perhaps adequate staffing needs for such features would need to be factored in more and justified in the budget. Budget constraints are always tough in businesses...
All that said, I still think at the very least, the report should automatically have an index link or identifier variable to the game that was played during / right before the report for cheating was made. That way, when the volume of reports is high enough, it would be much easier for bots and especially humans to search the games that were deemed most suspicious for very irregular behavior. Surely that wouldn't increase data usage that much.
So good to have friends that you can trust and play with, the more the better 🙂
100%, thankfully i know a lot of people near my rating because i stream & make videos. makes playing casual Chess much more enjoyable!
@@jacksarkisian Thank you for replying. Same here :-) Also streaming. You get to know the community. In addition I'm a member of the Chess Dojo and there I really do trust the fellow students 🙂
Thanks for this enjoyable video again. Similarly, it was also very informative!
Thank you for the update and the interview!
I suspect they come to the conclusion it's more profitable to just ignore the problem. Fighting with cheating consumes resources, and it doesn't improve public perception - it doesn't look good when you see 1/3 of your opponents got banned due to fair play. So they need to ban only most blatant, obvious cheaters, which is least costly.
In Adelaide we actually have quite a lot of OTB chess. Every Thursday evening there's rapid/blitz & most Tuesdays have classical chess. Plus there's a few weekend tournaments each year.
Additionaly there's clubs spread around the suburbs who host rated & casual events.
this is great, and certainly the best you'll get for a city like Adelaide - but the issue still persists that you can only really play OTB Chess twice a week. this paired with the fact none of those events are FIDE rated (barring the few weekend tournaments), and you'll be versing repeat opponents most weeks.
every major city has an active Chess community like this, but its nowhere near big enough to completely replace the presence of online Chess as a whole - or even come close.
Great video! Cheating has always been a problem in the online environment. It can be disheartening to play a game-any game online-that has active cheating taking place.
Their tactic to deal with online cheating? Deny its even as bad as everyone says and call them crazy like they do Kramnik.
exactly
Ego is the most obvious reason, and the way describe it resonates
One of the things i found while going down the cheater rabbit hole is they dont all just use an engine, those are the ones who cheat at higher level. Theres A LOT of cheaters that cheat for the exact reasons you mention here(they think they didnt deserve to lose elo, and want it back quickly). They use an engine that can be tuned by level, and say theyre 1000elo they can set it to 1800 and are almost certainly not going to get caught(unless the program is recognized, which is avoidable). Chesscom also definitely needs to be more strict and not give so many chances, it should be auto ban. Id say the main reason for cheating is the eagerness/tilt theory you mention here, meaning its largely intermittent and often the engine isnt used for most of the game.
Another great video Jack, thank you!
Thank you for your efforts! 🔥
Way to jack 👏, a very well put together video.
thankyou bro
I would like to be able to restrict playing new accounts created within one year of my account, over time it will filter out more and more accounts which are cheating if they employ other methods of banning accounts which are cheating. It does mean that for the first year you are in the Wild West a bit more, but it's unlikely everyone will filter that way. I recently reported a player who had at 700 ELO in a tournament won 15 games in a row with 90+ accuracy, even though his usual accuracy was 40-60%. The account was still live months after I checked with a nice diamond next to it still. It doesn't seem difficult to pick up on a new player or a low ELO player, or any player having 10+ wins in a row or a sudden extreme jump in accuracy for a period of time.
I have degree in data science, I do know math and data. U did fine in first video. Even we as professionals not 100% accurate it is not possible.
Edit: If I was 100% accurate all the time, I would sell ticket to my show which I perform 100% accuracy right after my flying trick.
I lost to one cheater and proceded to lose like 10 out of 12 games
Skill issue
@@Surreal_Bread says 300
Happened to me in a tournament. Went 1-14 with the icing on top being a 700 finding smothered mate.
agree with the problem, disagree with methodology, no hard feelings, just a fact
Hey mate. Love your videos and I’m glad I found your channel. I’m also from Adelaide. Can I ask where you got your shirt from? I love playing the Caro.
thankyou mate, glad to know theres actually other people in Adelaide playing Chess hahahha. shirts from Fianchetto Club, links in the description of the video - some super clean & subtle drops there for sure 👌not 100% sure but i think i might have the code "jacksark" there for a % off too!
Appreciate the info. Just noticed you also coach. You’ll be hearing from me soon.
You talk really well. The words come out fast and good.
if someone” only” had the evaluation bar from an engine, but not use any of the engine moves, it would be undetectable
Depends if it’s a browser extension or not though
Very disappointed to see that for the longest time the report function used to require a description, and was changed to its current state, which is broken to the extent that it cannot be given information what game was being played at the time.
I’m glad they responded and gave you a roadmap for the changes.
On occasion I’ve had success reporting as “other” and providing the links there but I suspect this is extremely sub optimal
They should allow users to filter who they play against by join date. The problem would almost disappear.
The main reason is people selling accounts (e.g. 2100 costs 20-50$ but 2400 costs 200$ and more). So if you have 2100 rating you can easily get into 2400 and make 200$, create new account, repeat
never heard of that reasoning but i will take you on your word for it. sounds stupid asf to be buying those accounts tho lmao. why tf would anyone spend 200$ on an account on chess.com lmfao that sounds so dumb
There's an obvious way to give accounts reporting priority: those who have a good history of reporting cheaters accurately and frequently. It's such a logical solution to the problem. It would immediately lead to much better and faster cheat detection.
The fair play checks also examine a lot of other stuff outside of games, such as whether you exited the tab or window for extended periods of time. (We know this because it has been mentioned in cheating reports)
Oh no people cheating at the lower level are NOT being caught anymore. Idk what happened in the last year but it’s hell down there
yea, it's a warzone out here at 1100
I don't cheat. My opponents just do not see how bad my sacrifices actually are.
If you were to register with your ID and, if it was proven that you were committing fraud, you would be blocked across all platforms and perhaps even face a fine, that could perhaps help.
Avoid rematches...
I have found that most players that will hang a queen on move 10 will rematch with 90% accuracy and steamroll you.
Wow sad... The site also says they have zero tolerance for cheating. Yet I report the cheaters on rapid that are clearly using the best stockfish moves EVERY move, they get like 95-99 percent accuracy in complex games repeatedly, they take around the same time every move and clearly don't even try to hide that they're cheating. Then I see games they actually try to play legit to try to lower their accuracy score and they blunder and get mated in 1 in the opening. It's not even subtle, they're OBVIOUSLY cheating... And they never get banned!
why is no one talking about that perfect video outro
Online streamers have the most motivation and greatest opportunity to get away with cheating. By making a good player great it builds the audience and revenue. Are we sure they are all clean - human nature suggests otherwise.
Farfetched idea coming up. Do you think it would work to make a separate chess website where cheating is allowed and everything goes? Maybe some % of cheaters would jump over
cool idea, i don’t think an entirely new website would be feasible but a game mode on Chess.com that allows players to use engines could be interesting for sure. although there might be the offset of that encouraging cheating in regular play - would definitely be a double edged idea.
Chesscom is lagging in more than one way.
I have an issue where I get to an endgame and during the endgame the opponents all of a sudden are playing exactly like a computer.
I just want to clarify a bit the rating refund: in general, the refund is not necessary
because of the way the rating calculation works.
Let's say you loose a game to a cheater and your rating decreases by 10.
In the next game whatever the result, your rating loss in case of a defeat is less than it should be and
the rating increase is bigger than it should be in case of a win.
So, in around 5-6 games your rating will be back to its 'correct' value before the cheating happens.
Now the only issue is if cheating happens too frequently because in this case it takes a bit more games
to get to the correct value. But if cheating stays below 15-20% then things should be fine (sometimes though I think cheating is a lot more frequent than that).
All of the different openings that i researched don't even work on people at 1000 ELO rating, and YES i am doing them correctly. Either people or cheating, or grand masters play at 1000 ELO as well as 2k +.
Or you arent good enough at middle game or endgame
@patrickbutler165
Good point. That makes sense. Low rated players don't know openings. So they are likely to use some assistance from bots or extensions to avoid a disaster in the opening.
@@billmorrigan386 That is the reason why i cheat :) to get back at the people more than likely cheating too.
Bruh, you're just awful at the game. At 1000 elo, you just don't need to blunder a piece, that's it. Sincerely, 2300 Blitz player
@@billmorrigan386 Aren't you 1000 as well?
So as for the improvement thing about cheaters I remember when I was younger I created an new account, where I chose master, I was about 1200 at the time. Playing and beating 1500s gave me quite the confident boost and motivation. To be clear I have closed said account (hadnt read alt rules at the time I did it). So I can somewhat understand the idea, but the execution is really poor if you cheat.
The anticheat review of every single game should be performed by the user machine, after they agree during installation. If they don't agree, they can only play un rated games. Every time user logs in, the report on their games is sent to the website. In this way the website doesn't need resources
I think you make a lot of good points but your solutions for adding more "trusted" accounts just wouldnt help imo. Nepo literally called out Hikaru for cheating this week, and when the top 5 players in the world can't look at games objectively when they are involved there is really no proof adding more "trusted" accounts wouldnt just add more false flags. Other than improving the anti cheat algorithms I don't see it getting better.
With regards to a "trust" system you could be given higher reputation when accounts are reviewed and they are determined to be cheaters or likely cheaters. Similarly if a player is abusing the report button they could be ignored or lower priority.
They just have to automate the process more and revamp their website. They should keep an eye on new accounts especially.
automation is definitely the end goal - but i'd rather see semi-automation if it means reducing false bans. most of us don't realise how frustrating a false ban would be until it happens to us, definitely not something i want to see on the platform either.
next video: I confronted chess cheaters
At the heart of this lies a truth: chess players care a lot about ELO. But if you're a casual beginner like me, forget about ratings. Every loss will drain the joy from the game (fair or unfair). Focus on playing regularly and improving your game. Treat online chess like any other online game. You can't rid of cheaters from online games. Don’t let ratings or cheaters steal the fun. If something feels off, play only if the position excites you; otherwise, just move on to the next game.
What do you mean people cheat because of ego that's the exact reason I won't ever cheat because my ego is too big
Why reports are required for anticheat to work? They should detect anomaly account without any user input, does not make sense to me
because running stockfish on every single game on Chess.com 24/7 would crash the website. if this were to be implemented, Chess.com would hike membership prices tenfold to compensate for the lost finances needed to allow site stability with such a demanding feature running in the background.
I think a bigger problem imho is the 2nd chance policy (wish you had asked about this), its tacit approval of cheating and a baffling policy, why I will never play there again until its removed, thx however for the great vids on topic and others
This is an underrated comment
i did ask about the second chance policy and its being removed by Chess.com. didn't think to mention it because i didn't think many people knew about it anyway 👍
I feel like it's complicated with ego, cuz unless you are a public figure, cheating for ego is very stupid.
it blows my mind they don't analyse the game that was reported as cheating! Surely there is a way of at the very least sampling that data based on compute resource and then doing a deeper dive into accounts which get flagged as cheating. It seems the process could be streamline to auto check that game, if positive flag and run a deeper auto analysis of the account, and then pass to a human to make a final decision. Also if you report a game as cheating and it isn't then you should probably not have your reports considered for a reasonable amount of time, again I would base this on a resource queue. Even if full account ban action isn't taken for case of cheating a ban scale can be imposed for first, second, third detections, say 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and then an account closure.
Do you know how to stop cheaters on chess?
Ban everyone who does ratings climbs. I am so sick and tired of everyone who does this. They are the REAL cheaters because they are being dishonest. They start at the bottom of their supposed ELO rating, which means anyone you face in an online game might be a Master posing as a 750 ELO rated player.
Chess needs to ban players who do this
to an extent i agree with this, i think some rating climbs are disingenuous but its impossible for Chess.com to properly police that.
when rating climbs give back the Elo 100% of the time i don't think its a big enough issue to warrant forfeiting the educational value they possess.
Don’t forget about us chess players who live in the remote parts of North America. The vast majority of our population lives near the coasts.
I find it purely disrespectful that they only investigate people who have been reported by many users while in their site they say that if the person you suspect didn't get banned it likely means that they didn't cheat. They should be honest about their resource limitations and be open to suggestions from their users.
It's a money issue. Most users don't pay to play, so the website has limited resources. RUclips, Gmail and Facebook probably handle bug reports in the same way.
It is true that a piece of evidence need not be determinative on its own. It is but a brick in the wall. So date of opening an account is some evidence but not determinative. Only in view of all the evidence should something be determinative, but that does mean the evidence might compose if many different small pieces of evidence.
Chessplayers can be found everywhere! When I was sailing in the South Pacific in 1982, I found them on sailboats, in the islands, everywhere, so this Australia statical approach for me isn't very convincing. But I do applaud your effort to stamp out cheating. Now move on to stamping out cheating on your partner.
It's rare at my level and bracket I see cheaters, but it does happen. I ran into one back in September who was 100% cheating. It was a new account, won every match after sacrificing a minor piece etc. I reported, but of course, the reports mean nothing. The account stopped playing after 30 days, likely knowing how long it takes the algorithm to catch up.
they watched your video but the guy in the last video wasn't banned
manually banning a handful of players from my last video isn't going to solve the problem for other people, nor for me over the next 100 games i play. would much rather they work on tangible solutions 👍
@@jacksarkisian that goes without saying , i'm trying to highlight the fact that they said they watched your video , yet no action was done in relation to video , which leads me to believe they didn't watch it or maybe have a different system i guess.
I think the solution for cheaters starts with some sort of ID Hardware / Browser fingerprint ban once they are caught , because what happens like you said , people just make new accounts and start over again , and ofc they get better at cheating with time , so a more effective ban system is necessary .
Also when it comes to detection , some sort of tribunal could be used ( back in the day in league of legends we had a system were trusted old players could vote on games , wether this person cheated or not ) .
The final idea is ofc refining the algorithm itself to detect impossible moves that are simply too hard to find for a human .
fun vid btw
It’s a shame you didn’t film it as a sort of interview style video with Kassa. But the information you provided is very interesting. However, I don’t really get, why can’t they tie the report button to report the account but also take into account which game was reported. Seems like a very obvious oversight, and his response or making players send the game links and describe the cheating, will only hurt the system.
initially i wanted to have this "update" video in an interview format with Kassa, however I suppose in his eyes I could've cut the video however I wanted and shone him & Chess.com in an unfairly poor light. hopefully in the future it will be more possible due to how I've conducted these videos.
definitely a weird oversight from Chess.com - maybe just an overconfidence in the anti cheat's ability to do this job itself and not realising how many resources it'd take up. I certainly don't think its going to hurt the system though, giving the anti cheat & fairplay team more information can only do good in my opinion.
it actually does make sense to me why would it "feel" that anti-cheat gets worse over time, it's the forever battle, same as with anti-viruses etc., IF you know what the "rules" are (in case of viruses operating system coding, open source app coding etc.) you get better in avoiding them / finding loop holes. Therefore it has to adjust continuously but even IF that is happening, you cannot forsee everything, that is just not possible. In case of chess cheating, especially on higher level, this is even more complicated because the player already knows good moves, so how many hints such a player needs to gain advantage that they are capable to convert on their own? 1? 2 max? idk... it's sad that this is necessary to even solve and speaks on who we, as people. are - just a freaking virus taking advantage of everything we can for our gain, prioritizing "unfair" for my gain instead of considering that "fair" is beneficial to all
5:24 bro isn’t there massive spiders and other Australian monster creatures
They stay in the dunny.
My favorite is when I'm up +3 then my opponent makes absolutely top engines moves after and destroys me. He defiantly wasn't cheating though. FML.
The more I learn about cheating the happier I am not good at chess.
get well soon brotha
Watching you lunge forward every clip cut is hilarious.
hahahah i think this is because i'm short sighted so naturally i have poor depth perception & don't know how far from my camera i am 😭😭
Everyone has to put up a good behaviour bond. If you are caught cheating, a proportion of your money goes to your opponent.
What about hech 2 pawn?
i'm never living the haytch 4 thing down 💀💀
I didn’t know Hugh Grant had a son that was into chess.
We have to look at the economics. Most players don't pay to play, so it is too expensive to look through all their games. Just compare the number of employees to the number if players.
Furthermore it is difficult to distinguish between cheating and a stroke of luck, so in practice this problem will never be solved.
But it could be interesting to gather statistics on behavior that indicate cheating (Fast moves that would normally require analysis.. etc)
you forgot an important reason for cheating, its trolling and attention, especially when targeting streamers.
Sir you are very methodical, all the best.
I still cannot believe they have prizes for online tournaments. I just assume that if the integrity of the event is so very vulnerable, then having such a tournament would be a problem. As for the otb issue, I do have to say that in this digital era it is nice that people can play from anywhere. But reality is that online chess seems impossible to secure. I do not know that there really is a solution.
Chess servers had cash prizes in the early days of Internet chess but it was a case of beer money $20-$50 or a months membership extension not $1000-$10,000 prize pools that attract criminals and hustlers.
@@alecgoudreau6397 They did? I don't remember any of that, but that I doubt I would have been a competitor for any prizes. I remember playing on a listserv and then in ASCII for a while. Then on FICS and the ICC. I guess the ICC might have had some tournaments. Like I said, though, it might just not have been on my radar.
@@Alekhine01 Yes, they did in the tomato tournaments on ICC used to award membership extensions (about a month) if a player won and there were very low cash prizes Fics did that too; they ran fair play checks on all the winners games before giving anything.
I don't encourage cheating but I actually like to play against Stockfish. I usually want my opponent to be stronger than me so that I can challenge myself and see how strong I really am. Sometimes, I play Stockfish and see how long I can last without getting checkmated.
The problem with that, is that it will encourage you to play solidly/passively and try to always lock up the position
You’ll still lose, but you’ll lose slower…… there’s no point in even trying to generate an active position with counter play against Stockfish, because it’s so much better than you that it’ll never work out for you
But in REAL chess, against human opponents, it’s a horrible idea to play slowly and passively, and you will win most of your games by playing actively and generating threats that your opponent doesn’t properly address
I'm 800 Elo, played a game yesterday where my opponent saw a forced mate in 6 with a bishop sac. Played the 6 moves in 8 seconds lol
Was that me? I’m around that ELO and I use the Greek gift with London way too much. (:
Probably a smurf
Can you please do a similar one to the first video but about blitz?
Why not just terraform Australia to turn it into a lush, tropical climate and become the supreme leader of the country where you can force people to play over the board with you??
Even at low and medium levels, that's a lot of cheating, but not like all the game. People just play, and when they see that they're lost, they use the engine to find the way out and the wining move. I play blitz 3-0 and what I'm doing is to play very fast, lots of times i can make the cheater run out of time and then he starts to play again on his own and loses the game. For me like 30-40% today use some kind of cheating
2:40, this isnt really delusional, im not saying it should be done of course, but i remember Alexander Kotov saying that its good to look at games between masters and ametuars, which would be very similar to looking at games between advanced players and engines. So whioe it CAN technically help, its not a good way to improve
Jack I feel like some of these questions are making it easier for cheaters to avoid sanctions
for the next couple of months maybe, but when Chess.com roll out their planned updates the information in this video won't be useful for cheaters. everything else has been public knowledge just maybe not common knowledge. for what its worth everything in this video has been cleared by Kassa and isn't sensitive information that shouldn't be public knowledge 👍
Sofia-Harrison is a cheateer
Ban her guys
Question(Reasonable, inquisitive, generally speaking the public would wish to ask it just as much) - Answer: I don't care lalalalala I cant hear youlalala
If you want to face stronger opponents on cdc you don't have to cheat.
Aside from challenging stronger opponents, many tournaments and club games will pit you against stronger opponents, especially if you are actively seeking them out.
hmmm why not just look at games between players in top x players in every time control but with a higher weight to slower time controls?
You also have 3 time zones, Call out to Just One More Watch
I think at a certain level you can't play rapid anymore
Cheater plays hundreds of games before getting banned
I still think account verification is the way to go. If you think it's worth the risk to play against a cheater but get paired much quicker then you could do something like CS2 where account verification pairing can be temporarily turned off.
Good idea but most users are kids how can you do that
@@user-fp8vl3mb2i account verification would be optional, you'd still be able to play chess but you wouldn't be able to play in the "verified" pool.
Good video!
3:41 "north america" just say the us
yo why is there a super loud noise at the very end for no reason?
16:28 this was already a thing like 4 years ago before they removed it? Why are they going backwards?