< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 22 ·
|Sep-20-10|| ||Fezzik: This is an important topic for the future of correspondence chess in general.|
If there is a formula by which we can ascertain with high confidence that someone is using computer assistance, correspondence chess can become a human game again!
Chess.com has stated that their method will only catch the most egregious cheats.
I find chess.com's methodology very interesting. I don't think I agree with their threshholds based on the scant evidence they've produced. Anand, Kramnik and Topalov all played at or even slightly above chess.com's highest limits of human play in their recent World championship matches.
It's reasonable to expect that a grandmaster of correspondence chess will perform at least as well as the best human in a timed game, and probably better. So instead of setting the benchmark at the level of 1980s CC players, it's clear that the benchmark needs to be higher.
Even so, the method itself makes sense.
|Sep-20-10|| ||Zygalski: Fezzik:
The top 3 or top 4 engine match up method is used simply to suggest which members may be blatant engine users. This detailed analysis (every match up line for every non-database move for all 20 games) is forwarded to chess.com staff.
How they deal with this analysis & what checks they run is their business.
I say again; it is not in chess.com's commercial interest to ban a WGM for engine use without extremely convincing evidence of foul-play.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bartonlaos: Zygalski, There are many other honest players with similar records. Take a look at jaisol, for instance:|
Accordingly, jaisol would have had 5 or 6 losses at the 140 game mark and 10 draws. So Yelena Dembo's record is not unusual, especially for the poor-quality of opponents/fans she often faced at that website.
dpruess boasts that Chess.com has never falsely banned an innocent player. Maybe that's because banning "bluesluice90" doesn't destroy the anonymous user's reputation, so rather than fight the false accusation, "bluesluice90" just plays chess at another website.
But accusing a titled player who's identity is known? This is something different. Ms. Dembo now has the choice to take legal action - the question will be whether Chess.com's methods determine with 100% efficiency that a player is cheating. I can guarantee you that Chess.com won't be able to defend their methods in court. Professionally-trained statisticians are too good with numbers to accept a single interpretation for any random sampling within a population.
Yelena Dembo is in the position to bust Erik's bishop over this. If she decides to fight this, Chess.com is in big trouble.
|Sep-20-10|| ||Zygalski: re/jaisol
How do you know that this player is innocent or guilty? Analysis takes time & effort & I'm personally not aware of this player being analysed.
You cannot just randomly pick a highly-rated chess.com player & suggest they must be innocent because they are still on the site! Most members know that there have been many bannings recently from the top 1% highest rateds, but as I say, to be scrupulous takes time.
No-one can say 100% that WGM Yelena Dembo used an engine in her chess.com games. What you can say is that she played far more engine-like chess when out of database than any pre-computer era Correspondence Chess World Champion finalist or Super GM otb player who has so far been analysed under the same conditions for benchmark purposes.
Dembo's account has been closed on chess.com
They would not take that decision based on scant evidence.
I think you should leave it there unless you want me to post the pgn for the 20 games Yelena played so others can run engine checks on them?
|Sep-20-10|| ||Fezzik: Zygalski,
Your repeated point that it's not in chess.com's commercial interest to accuse a titled player of cheating is wrong on two counts.
First, chess.com's credibility and profile will sky-rocket if they correctly boot a proven cheat who is also a titled player.
But secondly, and germaine to the topic, this has absolutely no bearing on the correctness of chess.com's method. Your argument is just a red herring.
Regarding chess.com's methodology, the more tranparent the system is, the better from a legal and advertising perspective. I realise that if the site publishes how it catches cheats it runs the risk of creating smarter cheats. But that's really just a small disadvantage compared to what they would gain by a transparent process.
|Sep-20-10|| ||Zygalski: Fezzik:
Well I should imagine any method which looks for possible engine users would involve noting the frequency at which a suspect's played moves match those of a powerful engine in any given position when the game goes out of a multi-million game database.
Either that or it may involve average error/blundercheck methodology.
It would make an interesting test case, having an expert witness (ie Super GM) go over the Dembo chess.com games looking for signature engine moves & so on.
Also the match up methodology would come under scrutiny & so would all the benchmarks.
It would be fascinating!
|Sep-20-10|| ||CCplayer: It is obvious that chess.com easily could have a good reason to profile itself as a site where cheaters are thrown out, regardless of their OTB achievements and titles. This will appeal to the mass of weaker players who play on the site and will create a reputation of toughness. So the statement that chess.com has nothing to gain is doubtful. It is clear that such a crude and unsophisticated medthod of detection can never hold up in a court of law. IMHO you must have a strong player going through the games with the help of an engine to determine if the player is using engine help. And even this might not be enough. Going by bare percentages would make them a real laughing stock in anyones mind who seriously studied these matters (It doesn't even seem that they take number of available legal moves or difference in evaluation between 1st and 2nd etc - which will indivate a forced move - into consideration). This is the reason I prefer ICCF. Not much of a community, but no rules enforced that cannot be upheld. CC without engines today should be a gentleman agreement type of game, but to many it seems probable that detecting cheating is a real possibility. The real help of an engine in CC for an advanced player lies in eliminating blunders and quickly analyze the tactics of various resulting positions, as well as getting the comps evaluations. Engines today are very strong, but absolutely not flawless. If you just play out the Rybka moves on ICCF you will at best make som draws as white.|
|Sep-20-10|| ||bartonlaos: Zygalski,
If no one can say 100% that Yelena Dembo used an engine, then Chess.com is legally lost. Because this is what it said on Yelena Dembo's profile at Chess.com:
<WGM Yelena Dembo
ACCOUNT CLOSED FOR CHEATING
This member's account was closed because they were found to be cheating.>
Do you see the problem yet, Zygalski? Chess.com's methods can only suggest she was playing engine-like games. Chess.com has to interpret whether the results from the methods are suspicious enough to ban a player from their site. In a court of law, Yelena can take a team of professionally-trained statisticians and they will create a more favorable interpretation of the same data using methods supported by peer-review.
Therefore, Chess.com is lost. What they needed to have posted was:
"WGM Yelena Dembo
ACCOUNT CLOSED - This player was suspected by Chess.com of playing engine-like games, so we've close their account."
Here's another example of Chess.com's overzealous approach to banning: <List of caught cheaters>.
This as we both know is a lie. No one can be called a cheater by Chess.com's methods or its interpretation. The thread should read,
"List of banned users suspected of playing engine-like games"
Zygalski, you cannot win this argument. Neither will Chess.com win this in a court of law. Because of their over-interpretation of the results their methods produce, Chess.com will need to defend such methods and their interpretation ABSOLUTELY. Since their methods cannot be defended ABSOLUTELY, Yelena Dembo will win. That is, if she decides to fight this.
If I was Yelena Dembo, not only would I expect a sincere apology from Chess.com, restoring her good name, but I would also ask that the guy heading the analysis would be fired as well. It is outrageous that he is allowed to keep his job.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: What was it someone told me? If you throw enough money at something you can prove black is white. That's what's happening here. Yelena thought she could get away with cheating because of her title and now she has been caught she is trying to make the issue disappear by throwing untold amounts of money at it.|
|Sep-20-10|| ||Zygalski: Many people have been convicted of far more serious crimes than cheating on an online chess server without having 100% total proof of guilt.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: Yes so if it's so unimportant why threaten legal action? If all it is is some online chess site why create the bother of a law suit? I mean come on do ALL her chess.com games need analysing with 6 different engines to prove it?|
|Sep-20-10|| ||Zygalski: Let's put it this way, with non-database match up rates like those achieved by Yelena in her chess.com games, if she didn't cheat then presumably no-one else has either!|
That's the last I have to say on this rather sad affair.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: And so reaching a 96% match up rate to rybka is normal? 95% against Houdini is normal? Come on surely you can see past this smoke screen?|
|Sep-20-10|| ||SugarDom: First off. Chess.com is not overzealous to banning. How come YD was able to play so many games in the first place. They banned her after analyzing many of her games...|
Secondly, it was not an easy decision for them to remove her account. As much as possible they want titled players playing in the site...
|Sep-20-10|| ||bartonlaos: Zygalski, It's not the degree of the crime that's being questioned. What's being questioned are the methods by which it was determined that a crime had been committed. For example, everyone can agree that someone robbed a bank, and they just have to find out who did it. In Chess.com's case, no one is certain a bank had even been robbed - no one, including Chess.com, is 100% certain that cheating had taken place. In a court of law, they have to answer YES with 100% certainty to justify such defamation of character, and they can't do it.|
|Sep-20-10|| ||SugarDom: You're arguments are really silly <bartonlaos>. |
With your methods, then Chess.com or any other site will not be able to ban anyone because of cheating.
Don't you read Eric Schiller's post? They don't have to prove fairness...
|Sep-20-10|| ||bartonlaos: Sugardom, their methods do not determine cheating, they only suggest it - that's why they have been overzealous. Second, Chess.com's motivations are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether the methods and/or interpretation are statistically sound or unsound. |
Sugardom, they can ban whomever they please. They just need to phrase it in the right way. A player is suspected of cheating. Not A player cheated. That may be a small difference when dealing with a player named bluesluice90, but it's a big difference when dealing with a titled player and the defamation of their character.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: So a titled player should be given a whole different set of rules then? You think its ok for a titled player to cheat in online games but if they get called a cheat then they deserve a law suit?|
|Sep-20-10|| ||tpstar: The best possible outcome is that both sides are right: she played high quality chess, yet her results fell out in a top-3 computer algorithm. Playing under her real identity dramatically reduces the possibility that she would ever use engines during play, while ironically increasing the temptation for her *opponents* to use help and later boast about their great game against her. Note she has been in this group for years, so many kibitzers here won't immediately join any witch-hunting mob rushing to judgment.|
Chess.com seems to have a well-established system to detect computer cheating; it is sad to read so many hundreds of names (some of which are probably repeats and duplicates). Yet it is quite bold to brand someone a CHEATER based on retrograde analysis of their games alone. Other playing sites might say "violation of site policies" or "account terminated" with no explanation rather than labeling them. I can see how two family members would use the same computer, only to have both accounts be CLOSED FOR CHEATING which cannot be undone. Many correspondence players seem to think that everybody is using computers during play, therefore they will too (so-called anti-cheating cheaters).
Her reaction will go a long way to influence public opinion. The site should provide her with the five most "suspicious" games, then she should annotate them explaining her tactics, strategy and thought processes for her fans to review. In the meantime, people making serious accusations about her should provide their real identity on her player page, otherwise their opinions may be discounted and ignored as NN spite.
|Sep-20-10|| ||littleRiver: bartonloas: I will prefer to assume you as one the appointed blogger (paid?) to rescue her from this diaster.
Let me tell you where I am. I am the owner of chess.com, this is my website.
I define my website's TOC, methods, systems, formula, statistics, calculation and all other @#$%s, which whenever someone register on my site, they have to give their consent to abide at all times my TOC/formula/method/calculation/processes, if they violate what course of action might be taken into consideration also have been specified.
Now, who the hell are you, upon giving your consent join my site, violate the rules and question my methods?|
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: Is that a threat? I have no obligation to identify who I am any more than you do!! I can understand that maybe a small % of her games being "engine like" but 20 of her games were analysed and found to be engine like. As I have said before chess.com have no reward to gain from banning a titled player from their site let's face it they want titled players to join so why would they say Yelena was cheating if they firmly believed she wasn't? Do you want ALL her games analysed using top 3 methodology? Maybe even use 6 maybe even 8 engines? How much proof do you want or need?|
|Sep-20-10|| ||SugarDom: <bartonlaos:Sugardom, they can ban whomever they please. They just need to phrase it in the right way. A player is suspected of cheating. Not A player cheated.>|
On that point, i will agree with you.
|Sep-20-10|| ||Loser Of Threads: but that's the <only> point. |
chess.com can accept or ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want. publicly calling someone a cheater is defamation, and that's a whole different story.
no one is suggesting that Dembo should sue for being banned from that festering pit of a website. they are suggesting that she sue for defamation.
|Sep-20-10|| ||bullyboy12708: Loser of threads you got banned from chess.com too did you? lol|
|Sep-20-10|| ||littleRiver: Loser Of Threads: just wondering, now-a-days, where are you visiting?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 22 ·