OpenChess

two titled players at chess.com were caught out cheating in the tilted tuestday event.
all based on deep heuristics and statsitical evaluation.


http://www.chess.com/blog/DanielRensch/ ... n-chesscom

The systems we use to detect cheating are based on deep heuristics and statistical evaluation. We have spent years developing our technology, and continue to invest heavily in our counter-cheating systems. We employ one full-time on-staff statistician, and another full-time "detective" of sorts.

At a very high level, we look at specific aspects of the user's activity on the board, and compare the consistency and quality of play to what is achievable by the strongest human minds in the game — as well as the strongest engines. We have analyzed millions and millions of games and developed clear profiles to distinguish between human, super-human, and engine-level play. In these two cases, the evidence collected was overwhelming.

terrapene wrote:two titled players at chess.com were caught out cheating in the tilted tuestday event.
all based on deep heuristics and statsitical evaluation.


http://www.chess.com/blog/DanielRensch/ ... n-chesscom

The systems we use to detect cheating are based on deep heuristics and statistical evaluation. We have spent years developing our technology, and continue to invest heavily in our counter-cheating systems. We employ one full-time on-staff statistician, and another full-time "detective" of sorts.

At a very high level, we look at specific aspects of the user's activity on the board, and compare the consistency and quality of play to what is achievable by the strongest human minds in the game — as well as the strongest engines. We have analyzed millions and millions of games and developed clear profiles to distinguish between human, super-human, and engine-level play. In these two cases, the evidence collected was overwhelming.

both the cheaters are denyintg it.

http://www.chess.com/blog/jscontom1/imp ... s-response

http://www.chess.com/blog/ViktoriaGlori ... -tilicheev

http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive? ... er=9ShMat2

http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive? ... Viacheslav

dr_oli

Hello everybody!

I am here to publish a reply from 9ShMat2 to Danny. Unfortunately, Danny decided not to publish it in article. But every person should have a right to say. Hope staff won't remove this message.

"Dear Denny,

Do you really want me to agree with that lie which you want thrust to public and me under the pretext of eternal ban?

I didn't use the help of computers. And I have some arguments for it:

• Last game which I won against Nakamura (after which scandal began) – I won only thanks to preparation in a opening. I know this trap from 13 years if black instead of RD8+ would do 0-0-0+ as well as play in this position –an equal end-game will be. The player with such level had to know it. I didn't make practically any move of my own and it is logical – the game ended in opening!

• I won game with George Meyer only thanks to his elementary miss. He gave me chance to win him in one move (simply to take his Knight ). If he saw it, the position would remain equal (honestly, my even worse).

• In many games I had the worst position. I won only because of overlooks and misses of my rivals or won in a time trouble. In opening I always played with a good speed, it is nothing like cheaters play. Because I played without any help, just according to my memory. To call it “cheating” – it is ridiculous.

• In the 7th game I won an end-game without 3 pawns in time trouble. How does the cheater came to this? I was played all game, I tried but I could not create any problems to my rival and only in a time trouble won! How you can explain it?

• All my life I am the extremely unstable player. When I catch spirit I really play very well. I won not one strong tournament in a blitz. For example, in Pardubice (it seems, in 2008) I reached the final where played 9 strong MG including (Shakhriyakh Mamedyarov and Rauf Mamedov) and I, for that time I was only CM. At the same time I play too weak, when something without any reason goes badly.

• When I catch spirit – I play very strongly in bullet. It can confirms many victories on chess.com over TOP-GM (including Andreykin, Meyer and others).

• I make good money on my work, and chess is my hobby. I am lucky that I don't need to earn with the help of chess, as well as I don’t need to cheat to earn this money.

• And yes, it is my best tournament on the Internet in my memory! I didn't expect to get even to the top three. I offered a draw in some games, but they refused and by a lucky chance I won.

It turns out if IM (not GM) wins a tournament –he is a cheater. I understand that you wanted to please Nakamura (to whom I treat with mad respect and recognition) and also his fans, for whom it was a pity that in the last game Nakamura loses to some unknown IM. But who is at fault that Hikar got in the children's trap known for everybody who plays this variant in Alapin’s system?!

I didn't see any proofs of cheating, just only proofless charges. You dared to publish publicly article with charges without real facts. On what grounds? Who gave you the right to write about me in such way?

I treat your charges with a smile. I don't need even that money which I won honestly-give this money, as you planed, to those who will benefit you more. Though, I also don't approve your act. I am afraid to remind that the public slander is a crime.

Are you criminals? I don’t think so…

Publish my full original answer in the same place, in article, if you want to continue this silly subject.

Also don't forget to specify that if you IM, you have no right to win such strong tournament.

Best regards,

Simply international master.

(P.S Sorry for English, it is not my native, hope you understand)"

Update 2015-06-03:

Upon further review, Chess.com wishes to make an apology to our community, clarify its position on the topic of detecting the use of unfair assistance during online chess games, and refine our policy on how these situations will be handled moving forward.

Chess.com's goal is to create the best, most fun playing and learning experience for chess enthusiasts around the world. We are not in the business of gossip and scandal. And we don't need to engage in legality debates that that deny a simple truth: Short of confession, etc., there can never be 100% proof of cheating in online chess.

Our evidence is statistical and circumstantial. However, the level of certainty we derive from our current technology is more than enough for us to act based on our own terms and conditions. Period. Even more importantly, it is enough for us to act based on our goals: to keep our experience as good as possible for the majority of members.

From this point forward, we will deal with the players in question and all others privately.

A big ****-up, if you ask me. Some amateurs accusing people based on secret "technology" that they probably hardly understand themselves.

Statistically, you're always going to find statistical outliers.

This:

We have spent years developing our technology

is a dead giveaway for incompetence. Not the first time I see this. (The guys I am thinking of actually managed to get an innocent person sentenced to life in prison. Took many years for the truth to come out.)

syzygy wrote:

Update 2015-06-03:

Upon further review, Chess.com wishes to make an apology to our community, clarify its position on the topic of detecting the use of unfair assistance during online chess games, and refine our policy on how these situations will be handled moving forward.

Chess.com's goal is to create the best, most fun playing and learning experience for chess enthusiasts around the world. We are not in the business of gossip and scandal. And we don't need to engage in legality debates that that deny a simple truth: Short of confession, etc., there can never be 100% proof of cheating in online chess.

Our evidence is statistical and circumstantial. However, the level of certainty we derive from our current technology is more than enough for us to act based on our own terms and conditions. Period. Even more importantly, it is enough for us to act based on our goals: to keep our experience as good as possible for the majority of members.

From this point forward, we will deal with the players in question and all others privately.

A big ****-up, if you ask me. Some amateurs accusing people based on secret "technology" that they probably hardly understand themselves.

Statistically, you're always going to find statistical outliers.

This:

We have spent years developing our technology

is a dead giveaway for incompetence. Not the first time I see this. (The guys I am thinking of actually managed to get an innocent person sentenced to life in prison. Took many years for the truth to come out.)

they used more than jsut strength of play, which was already beyond suspicion.
a different sort of detcection was used.
when you trigger the red flags, not muech else to say.


Hi Everyone,

I'd like to make a few final points before we put the matter to rest, only to respond to some things that are being said and then discussed "as fact" that are only assumptions and hearsay at best:

First, on the particular point from Viacheslav about the game here:

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1172193905

He is right that I said this game was called into question, however, I will reveal that it was not the strength of play in that one game, but a different sort of detection that triggered a red flag. The strength of play overall by Viacheslav was beyond suspicion already for us (in the TT event), but that one game did serve as a confirming piece of evidence for other reasons, and I did mention that in my email. No more on that matter can be said.

In conclusion, it is our intention to remain an industry leader in cutting-edge cheat-detection technology.

terrapene wrote:they used more than jsut strength of play, which was already beyond suspicion.
a different sort of detcection was used.

Yes, a secret one, that they are not going to tell you about so that you are all the more awed by its coolness. It's like coca cola, nobody knows what's in it, but everybody loves it!

I've heard all of this before. It stinks of incompetence.

when you trigger the red flags, not muech else to say.

Every day someone will trigger a red flag. That is a statistical certainty.

syzygy wrote:

terrapene wrote:they used more than jsut strength of play, which was already beyond suspicion.
a different sort of detcection was used.

Yes, a secret one, that they are not going to tell you about so that you are all the more awed by its coolness. It's like coca cola, nobody knows what's in it, but everybody loves it!

I've heard all of this before. It stinks of incompetence.

when you trigger the red flags, not muech else to say.

Every day someone will trigger a red flag. That is a statistical certainty.

I've worked on dozens of projects over the years where secrecy was important. Our computer forensics people here at UAB are working with folks around the world, including the FBI and InterPol, tracking down various scams, viruses, etc. They do NOT reveal how they are identifying this stuff. Why tell everyone what to do to avoid that particular identification procedure? ICC has been doing cheating detection for as long as I can remember. I worked with them a long while back when they were first getting started. They don't reveal their methodology either, for the same reason. That doesn't imply "incompetence" to me at all.

syzygy wrote:

terrapene wrote:they used more than jsut strength of play, which was already beyond suspicion.
a different sort of detcection was used.

Yes, a secret one, that they are not going to tell you about so that you are all the more awed by its coolness. It's like coca cola, nobody knows what's in it, but everybody loves it!

I've heard all of this before. It stinks of incompetence.

when you trigger the red flags, not muech else to say.

Every day someone will trigger a red flag. That is a statistical certainty.

data analysis is bwcoming better every day too, invoving homoegeneous adjustments and all that.
once you clean up all the possbile artifacts of data biasses only then can the pictrue be clear.

just now they in ashville proved theire was no significant (p=0.10) pause in glbal warming only after 18 years.
chess cheating is more than old, as the interneet chess club (ICC) existst since 1992 with lots of computers cheating.

terrapene wrote:chess cheating is more than old, as the interneet chess club (ICC) existst since 1992 with lots of computers cheating.

So now anyone can just publicly name and shame "cheaters" without anything to back it up? In the real world you get sued for that and convicted. And rightly so.

syzygy wrote:

terrapene wrote:chess cheating is more than old, as the interneet chess club (ICC) existst since 1992 with lots of computers cheating.

So now anyone can just publicly name and shame "cheaters" without anything to back it up? In the real world you get sued for that and convicted. And rightly so.

they are more than capable and wiling to provide legally required documentation.

• 2) Though Chess.com's exact methods of detection must remain confidential (for obvious legal and operational reasons), if we were ever legally required to provide such documentation to authorities, we would be more than capable and willing to do so.

so now it is showdown time at chess.com.

Otherwise, I will send the materials for most huge chess resources of the world like chessbase.com, chessclub.com, chess-news.ru etc and this scandal will go away from the walls of chess.com - because it's necessary to send these news for people from all over the world. As you can understand - in this way the sutiation will continue for a long time and is it what for you looking creating platform for fun?


IMPORTANT ANNOUNCE:

Due to some messages with Daniel Rensch we decided to postpone the time of making the final decision. Here is the letters:

"Hello Daniel.

Hope you are doing great.

Whole this situation is pretty annnoying, and I suppose that everyone already tired about this theme. You always said that chess.com is the chess platform for fun and learning experience - what for we need to burn this fire? People should play chess on chess.com, not reading scandals and even take a part in it.

But anyway, I'm still detected by majority chess.com members as the cheater and I'm sad about it.

I see only one loyal way which leads to compromiss - I want you to understand that I don't need your money, my account can be closed further, but the only one thing that I really need it is the respect of chess.com members. If you publically will post in your blog apologies for this situation and words that my name is clear - it will be enough. Otherwise, I will send the materials for most huge chess resources of the world like chessbase.com, chessclub.com, chess-news.ru etc and this scandal will go away from the walls of chess.com - because it's necessary to send these news for people from all over the world. As you can understand - in this way the sutiation will continue for a long time and is it what for you looking creating platform for fun?

Sincerely hope that you will choose right way and we could finish this miscomprehension in the most nearest future.

Best wishes,

Viacheslav Tilicheev/ Friendly-chess ©"



"Thank you for your email Viacheslav.

We are certainly in agreement that no one likes this scandal, and I can say that we are sorry for the way this was handled (as I also said in the post).

Please give me a few days before writing back anything further.

Daniel Rensch

VP of Content & Professional Relations

Chess.com, LLC"

Due to this I want ask you to temporary stop discussion here, because all we have another things to do and finally, firstly with platform was created for playing chess.

I wish you all the best and I will wait for response, after it we definitely will back to this theme for some time more.

Viacheslav Tilicheev.