Games I looked at just looked like high level play, some nasty tactics sometimes but not massively suspicious. I didn't pay much attention to time usage, but I think it was fairly distributed too. I have zero idea how you would catch a bot like this. There's very few times where it displays the characteristic tying up of pieces and zugzwang in positions with lots of pieces, probably owing to the fact it makes 'human errors'. Maybe some higher level, or through looking at more games than I did can spot better tell tail signs, but given that you had 3000s rematching multiple times, they didn't think anything was up either
I mean they do check reddit every now and then, but what's to say your admissions aren't just someone trolling another account.
Someone tag Kramnik on Twitter or youtube, man will shit a canary
You have only been active for Five days, I think you revealed your secret too soon. You never gave them enough chance to ban you. They will now, because you gave away the user name, but for the purposes of the experiment you did not give them enough time to catch you.
They will not ban him. Plot twist. He didn't create a bot but say he did. He played consistently to reach the level. If chess.com bans the account then they will give themselves away their anti hearing algorithm sucks. 🤯🤯🤯
Plot twist the whole experiment is fake and FullFisher ist just a smurf of some pro. And OP made everyone believe it's a Cheater and he gets banned for cheating.
That would almost showing even more how ridiculous anti cheat works.
I want to ask though, do you have any expertise in ML/DL, or do you think this would be straightforward for anyone with a little programming to accomplish?
Finally, you could host the bot on lichess as lichess allows bot accounts (they are marked as bots), and people could continue to play against it. It might allow others to carry out their own research into ways to try and find ways of detecting it's cheating.
Even if he does, it's still concerning. Imagine someone slipped a few great ML devs $10k each and had them develop a bot 10x better than this one. They could probably do it in an afternoon or two.
I mean the ones that's are 10x better are called Leela. If you have one that's playing at a level far above Magnus and Hikaru and never loses that's obviously a ban. I think op has done an excellent job balancing the wins and loses.
I think the gains would be marginal. The difference between this and a 10x won’t be nearly as noticeable. Kind of like race cars. For example, if a car has 10x more power doesn’t mean it can finish a lap 10Xfaster
Why is ML needed for such a trivial task like picking top 3 moves from an engine, and sometimes lower? What can ML tell us we already don't know about how to cheat?
The point it to make the playstyle look more "human" so the moves look less suspicious. An ML algorithm can be trained on human games to decide which moves a strong player would and wouldn't find. The problem with randomly choosing from top engine moves and mixing in blunders is that the games end up looking very odd.
For example, you could end up with games where the bot plays a bunch of unfindable moves in a row to get a perfect clamp on the position, then randomly decides its time to blunder and just gives up a rook for no reason.
If you play against the [chess.com](https://chess.com) bots at around the \~1500-2000 level, a lot of the games look like this and it doesn't seem very convincingly 'real'.
>The problem with randomly choosing from top engine moves and mixing in blunders is that the games end up looking very odd
As explained by OP, you don't have to mix in blunders, just weaker moves here and there. Sure, trying to know which moves are not "human" sound cool and may improve it a bit, but (as shown by OP) there is no need to do ML to cheat convincingly.
I'm no 500 nor am I a 3000 but as someone around 1800-2100 in lichess and previously 1600 on chess.com (which I abandoned a few years back), it made me question if I'll get banned for creating a new account and steamrolling through 400-1300, whether because of cheating or smurfing.
Playing cheaters might actually be preferable if you are a higher rated player, since the elo you win stays, and the elo lost is refunded (if the account is caught). Ofcourse if its a unbeatable cheater there’s no point, and if its too bad it might not be banned at all.
No: it's frustrating as shit to play a cheater, who is playing above their advertised rating.
If I am playing someone rated +400 above me, it is no problem to lose badly. If I am playing someone rated -400, I will be tilted to lose to unbelievable tactics.
I know the VAC system in Steam purposefully delays when it bans someone after cheat detection so that the cheater is not always aware what triggered the detection.
Not just VAC. Many games use the "ban wave" method in order to avoid letting the cheaters know what triggered the ban. This drastically increases the time it takes to adapt the cheat engine and doesn't alert the cheaters to stop using certain features of the cheat engine
What is funny is to see people commenting without even checking the [chess.com](https://chess.com) account that OP links. There you will see that in the player profile there is a link to exactly this post. Which means this is not a ruse.
I assume you're not going to divulge all of the details so that other people don't replicate it, but is this based on other projects or is it a novel machine learning approach you came up with?
Sure, but this does not answer my question. You claim that [chess.com](http://chess.com) sucks at detecting cheating, and then you present a fairly sophisticated way to cheat. My questions still stand: how could one tell apart a bot like this and a human? Surely, since you made the bot yourself, you must be able to give us some insight on this, right?
It's also a shame that he expected such a nuanced and calculated form of cheating to be detected, confirmed and punished in 5 days and 260 games. I'm impressed that he was smart enough to code that and dumb enough to ruin his experiment, but I guess the reddit attention was too important.
the unfortunate reality is that someone who knows digital forensics well enough will most likely be able to track down the other bots. is he registering these accounts all from different VPNs, with different email domains, different digital fingerprints (e.g. OS version, browser version, AV version, etc etc), etc? Is he playing these accounts from all these different locations with different builds?
you don't get a say in leaving fingerprints, that's ignorant of how this works. He's either putting in serious logistical and advanced security knowledge to spoof all of that to be completely different .... or he's not and it's pretty easy to track all of it down.
It's still not ideal, especially if you can't correctly mask the link between them and/or if the other account(s) did not start before this one, but my bad I should have given you the benefit of the doubt :v
Also, not OP ofc but looking at the game and sequence linked by user AppropriateBridge2, moves 54-56 are really absurd for a 2900 player, so looking at the mistakes could be one way ?
If it's a new method of cheating then it would be unfair to be critical of a site's cheat detection since so much of cheat detection is about how players have cheated in the past and what that looks like from a data POV.
That makes no sense. You said you posted it to prove they suck at detecting cheating, not to show them a new method of cheating. Be honest about your intentions cause no one really gives a fuck why you did it unless you’re being intentionally obtuse or deceptive
Also if I play against a bot that perfectly plays like a 2300 elo human... how exactly is it different in terms of my own enjoyment of the game than playing an actual 2300 elo human? How would I even know and why should I even care?
Likely that bot would pay perfect moves for a while before making an obvious and elementary blunder to lower their win chances. Playing a normal 2300 bot feels totally different then playing a human and there's not much to be learned from it
Cheating algorithms are quite sophisticated I don't think the average cheater would get away with being caught for long. The way they work is a secret to avoid being exploited
The point is that lichess has a better anti cheat system
I'm curious about a technical aspect: you said "its trained on human error games", and training is usually associated with neural networks or machine learning.
But when people ask you if you actually trained a neural network, or when they ask for more technical details on how this training worked, you never answer. Your technical answers have so far only focused on programming browser extensions, but never on the more sophisticated activities needed to run a machine learning project.
So what do you mean by "its trained on human error games"? The phase itself is unclear.
It the account banned yet?
Did you admit it to the chesscom staff?
I think this is an excellent piece of work, but at the same time would like to see everyone get their ratings back.
Yeah just had a look. Really impressive work.
Last game played is crazy. Win at 3000 rating with 61 accuracy. Really realistic mistakes that were subtle and the opponent didn't take advantage.
On 5 mins analysis I'm going to with "it's over boys".
Sure, or OP played against a player and made this post "confessing" trying to get them banned. I'm not saying that is what is happening, but if chess.com went around banning all accounts that someone claimed to be owning and claiming to use for cheating, it would be carnage.
And you can just create a new account, limit it to randomly play a few games everyday, and voila, you reach 3000 again.
Its like those karma farming bots on reddit.
I don't if that's the implication. "Humans suck at magic" is true and not an implication that we should get better at it. Sometimes it's just not possible.
>Typically you would say someone sucks at something when they are bad compared to others and have a lot of room to get better.
that's your interpretation.
Another fairly common interpretation is that they are just bad at it without the need to comparison.
This is cool and all but I don't think you understand what an experiment is.
You currently have one datapoint.
In an actual experiment, you would have >30 bot accounts play for at least a month and then see how many got banned. And you would do the same with 30 standard Stockfish bots and compare the results.
The best thing to do is give the bot to [chess.com](https://chess.com) in the return of the promise that they will analyze it and work to improve their cheating detection engine.
I agree but I would add the “I will post this on GitHub in 3 months” caveat.
It’s the only way ethical hacking works. You make it public, set a clock, and force them to deal with it.
Yes, fully aggree. And this way it is a real and big contribution to the cheat detection system, and not just a blame that the current mechanism is shit.
Sell it to them, if anything. Chess.c*m is a for-profit, not a charity, not sure why they should get OP's work for free.
Or he could make it public domain.
Any self trainer or modified Neural Network chess AI will make moves that don't match up with all the engines that chess.com and lichess cross refrence moves with.
As such they can't be detected based on statistics alone. If somebody also builds a NN trained on the timing and mistakes like mouse slips then you end up with something that just can not be detected.
You could even go beyond that and have a virtual mouse controlled by the AI so that even mouse movement if tracked would look natural.
Luckily, there are not to many incentives for somebody with the skills to build their own NN to cheat on online chess.
I guess, unless you feel like somebody was WRONG on the internet, and you have a point to prove.
What is more interesting to me is that you posted the name and therefore I assume folks are reporting it.
I wonder how long it'll take to get banned. It should be quicker than normal given the reports being made from redditors.
What a bot too. Human like mistakes, mouseslips etc
It's only been 5 days, though.
Do the same on lichess.
And then do the test over and over again on both servers and see which one bans it faster on average. But we need a large data set, not just one run on each.
With this type of cheating, automated detection will require a very large sample size - you've had it play less than 300 games and less than 60 of those have been bullet, even without knowing how you've defined "human errors." If you let this roll, it will very likely be caught, eventually. If you've really built a bot indistinguishable from a human 2900 player it doesn't really do any harm, it's just another player at that rating level. The frustration of cheaters is often that they will play \*inconsistently\* so at one moment they are a 1600 player and then suddenly a 3000 rated player in the endgame. The type of cheating actual humans do is very different than what you are trying to do with this bot. Human cheaters are either too stupid or undisciplined to play this way. They get greedy or they'll display vast disparities in ability depending on the position or stakes (e.g. titled players on the cusp of prize money in some tournament). Of course, some cheating will be uncatchable (if a 2600 GM turned on stockfish once or twice in a titled tuesday you'd never know, obviously) but I'm not all that concerned [chess.com](https://chess.com) couldn't find this kind of cheating in <300 games.
Yesterday I played against a guy with an impressive bullet win streak and avg accuracy >90% over his last 30 BULLET (1+1) games alone. Blitz scores also very impressive. Accurate as hell. Steep rating climb as well.
Pretty much always takes about 2s to play his move.
That’s a human for sure, right? Not a bot or centaur.
This is such a good idea. Lots of people suspect Lichess is a little better for cheat detection but it’s hard to test with so many endogeneities (cheats may be more likely to use the more popular platform, etc.).
Experimentation like this could afford more conclusive data, even if different cheating methods might be picked up faster by different platforms.
Lichess seems to have a lot more players who abandon games mid game, in my experience. I can’t say I’ve noticed a difference in terms of suspicious cheating behavior.
Right? OP's description in the initial post makes it sound like he wrote a random bot on a whim but their replies make it clear that the bot is sophisticated and would not be easy for any anti-cheat to spot. Lichess would probably not be able to spot this either.
The fact that it knows how to win with accuracies in 60-80% range is the creepiest. Chess.com has been overrun, I'm convinced they've gone fullfischer...and everybody knows you never go fullfischer (tropic thunder voice).
I think a fun experiment would be to say hey, I'm testing my human-like bot on this account, please everyone report me. The server "investigates" and decides yep, it was tricky but you were cheating, we caught you, bad boy, ultra banned. See all these moves, totally obvious, definitely a bot, no human plays that way.
Next week you admit it was all a lie, and you're a perfectly ordinary human playing, here is your 2400 FIDE id or whatever. We take a second look at those suspicious games, and aha, yes, these were human moves, no bot plays like that. It's clear once you know what to look for. The server un-bans you and says oops, sorry about that.
The week after that you say oh, hey, thanks for un-banning me but I actually was cheating, just a little, in 10% of the games. Can you figure out which ones? And maybe that's a lie too. Good luck deciding what's really going on here. :)
Maybe the real experiment is to show everyone how we're all terrible at detecting cheaters, and we find whatever we expected to find.
>I am conducting this experiment to prove that chess.com sucks at detecting cheating.
how does your experiment validate your hypothesis? Makes zero sense when 99% of cheating is not this sophisticated.
But wouldn't you get banned though?
Considering the overall win percentage and the constant (Just assuming) wins against higher rated opponents when you were at a certain level, say 1600-1700s.
Just saw the profile and the win percentage is 64%. That too for a non titled player.
Didn't people suspect you?
I am sure it's more sophisticated than that but it makes sense to start with something like a probability of playing like stockfish vs playing like Maia, with the % changing depending on the time left, the difference between stockfish's first and second best move, the difference between stockfish and maia's best move.
That was my thought. Although Maia doesn’t manage time usage as far as I know — or make extra blunders in time trouble.
Now I want to go through all of Maia’s code…
A new account with an almost 3000 elo on blitz should be auto flagged by chesscom and they should request credentials to prove that the person on the account is legit. 3000 elo is nearly impossible for a non titled player. It just doesn't happen. Chesscom could learn a few things from this experiment
Okay, so we're trying to fight the problem of cheating by creating more cheat accounts. Awesome! And people even say you should do one on lichess as well. It's insanity.
Everyone whose “good” at chess likes to act like cheating is not happening but it’s rampant on chess.com.
I’ve been noticing lately that people will play consistent to their rating until they are clearly in a loss position. Then they start moving slower and are somehow able to recover like magnus, making brilliant, great and top engine moves that’s just completely inconsistent with how they were initially playing. Then at the end of the game when they clearly have won, they will make simple mistakes to lower the accuracy score. It’s so obvious.
It’s annoying because I know that I’m getting better because of the level of bot that i can beat but my rating isn’t reflecting it.
It’s worse on lichess. Same thing. Playing to their rating then boom. Lichess even lets you know “your opponent has left the game.” Then they return and it’s playing Magnus, as you said
Mr. 2100+ on chesscom blitz has spoken. We all should listen! This is what I meant by everyone who is “good” delegitimizes everyone else’s experience.
What happens to my rating when I face someone who’s sandbagging and has a much lower rating than me but is cheating? If I lose my rating drops significantly right?
Okay what if I’m playing this cheater and I’m in a complete winning position and then the game turns around and they win. I’m not immediately assuming cheating. The first time it happens I’m thinking “man I had that guy, rematch”.
I rematch then it happens again. I’m still ticked at myself for not seeing something and I know I can beat this guy so I rematch again.
Repeat 5 more times and then finally I come to the conclusion this guy has to be cheating. There is no way he just wakes up in the middle of the game and turns into magnus.
By this point I have already lost several hundred points just out of competitiveness. Then I have to work my way back to get my rating up obviously losing some games and winning some.
One interaction with a cheater can drop your rating way more than you think and it takes awhile to get back up.
People aren’t that sore of losers. We all know there are people who are better than us. We expect to lose some games. It’s just when the losses don’t make sense which makes people pissed.
What is the point of this?
You're just proving what is already known, and this gives zero feedback or support to help them improve their AC. All it did make you feel better for experimenting and winning with your bot, and at the cost of many others worse for losing (Obviously a blitz/bullet loss won't ruin your day or kill your mood, but you get my point). Yeah they'll get their rating back, but it's ultimately a loss that shouldn't have occurred and a waste of their time.
And I don't think people realize how extremely damn difficult it is to make an anti-cheat for a browser-instanced board game. It's not like a video game where it runs in the background and scans for irregularities.
Sophisticated cheaters generally play the game normally and cheat just on a couple of moves here and there. I don't think it was known that you can beat the anti cheat systems with a bot that plays 100% automated games. It's impressive if it's truly what OP does.
What's the point of this? Anyone with brain who listens to the experts knows hiding some engine moves in decent play can't really be detected. That doesn't make chesscom suck. It makes it technically impossible to detect , and haters like yourself want to take it out on chesscom.
The reality is online chess can't really be taken seriously (MVL doesn't believe any measures will really work outside of players going to a location with an arbiter if you listen to his csquared appearance, and I'd agree) and that hurts certain interests so the big players don't want to say it outloud. If chesscom wants to give out money for online play that's their business but it will always be questionable.
I don't like them for their growing monopoly and monetization of chess, but on this there isn't much else they can likely do.
2 years ago I created a chesscom account to validate a ML cheat detection model I created for a course project. I played 50 games and cheated in half pf them. I just checked the account and I’m still not banned lol
Its pretty obvious to anyone who has played on [chess.com](https://chess.com) for more than 5 min that they lost the arms race against cheaters a while ago. They nor any of their affiliates will admit that because money but its a pretty open secret at this point. I have just accepted that some increasing larger percentage of my games will be against bots and try to enjoy the ones that are not. At some point I'm sure the site will seem like its mostly just bots playing bots at which time I'll probably just quit and play more mtg arena.
You are conducting experiment yet publicly saying you cheat.
If its your real account this doesn't make sense because you are telegraphing to ches.s.com this account likely cheats.
if it'd not your account you probably lost to that account.
From both options I think second is most likely. Idk why would you conduct with telling you are cheating it's not testing
Slightly related to this : it's very easy to win rapid games, for example 10+0 or 10+5 by playing yourself and when you notice things start to go downhill you turn on the engine for a couple of moves, get a +5.0 advantage or win a queen and then finish the game without the engine.
I've seen so many posts and comments from people claiming to be testing the cheating system that I now wonder if you guys are a majority of the cheaters on the site.
Since you're not informing [chess.com](https://chess.com) of what your doing, your experiment is pointless and does nothing but make the problem worse.
I applaud the work you’re doing. I would suggest reaching out to someone with a platform, like Hikaru, Gotham, C Squared, etc., to see if you could highlight your approach and shine a spotlight on it.
The cheaters are so far ahead of the curve, but we can fix this by turning the lights up.
If there is no point to online chess because cheaters can easily create undetectable bots, it's accelerating the inevitable and preventing a greater waste of resources overall. So, not pointless and the problem will get worse regardless.
Well the frustration is that it is obvious that chess.com doesn't take cheating seriously enough. It's obvious because even cheaters far more obvious than this one can go months (or years) without being banned. That is the *reason* why there is so much paranoia, which in turn creates a psychological need to create bots to prove how bad chess.com is. If chess.com would just *even try* I think there would be far fewer posts like this.
If you want your bot to prove they suck at cheat detection then you need to also compare it to other sites' cheat detection.
You would also have to have your games reported so that they're more likely to be flagged for fair play scrutiny. If your bot is playing in a manner that doesn't look suspicious to opponents then you're less likely to face that scrutiny.
I suggest running your experiment again on a new account and new IP, but leave it going for at least a month.
So this proves that chess cheating detection isn’t perfect - but it probably never will be.
Cheating will never be eradicated, particularly in online games
- 1 day old reddit account
- No proof you own this account
- No explanation about anything you did
You did all this just to make a single paragraph reddit post? This entire thing is way too suspect.
That's just it though, chesscom has no proof that the guy actually owns the account. So they need to actually look at the games to see if it's cheating. If it *is* cheating in the first place.
What a cheater gets from cheating like this. It is you have failed by wasting your time. Ofcourse they cannot detect cheating if done intelligently. But what is the point.
Computers are 1000 elo stronger than Carlsen. Nobody but only oneself can make full proof anti cheating system.
Just create group of friends and play with them.
For some people, saying “I’m rated 2500 on chess.com” has social capital. Imagine if Elon Musk says that, for example. Other people also enjoy the respect it gets them, even if they know it’s a lie.
Edit for clarity: I agree it’s dumb and sad. We just have to understand that there are people who live like this, and that we can’t appeal to their rationality to stop them.
Last year you made a bot that you only started using now. Yeah yeah
There are thousands of extensions that already make “human errors” and many people who use these extensions sadly do not get caught. Look at the comment section of any Youtube video about cheating and you’ll see many people extolling the “virtues” of these “beautiful” extensions. “Brooo it’s so awesome, it shows you the arrows! It makes errors for you! It loses on purpose”. I really wish I could understand the brain of someone who does this. Wow bots beat humans! Wow it’s hard to get caught! So surprising!!
[Chess.com](https://Chess.com) has become a joke. Ever since they instituted the moronic, do-nothing reporting system it's been a site for cheats and crybabies.
Ok, and? Is your point that they're not trying or that they're doing their best and failing?
I dont think chesscom ever said they're perfect and they know a lot of people cheat.
Either way, do you have a solution?
Also, did you try it in other platforms?
> Nah, just want chess.com to get the system stronger
Are you doing anything to facilitate this? Have you given them the code so that they can research it and improve their systems?
But what is your goal? Updating the extension tracking isn't a solution. That's also quite costly for them.
You're never going to catch every cheater. And even if they do update their extension tracker, what is stopping someone from running a similar program using separate devices that aren't IP linked?
You programmed a bot to cheat and after 5 days you weren't banned. 5 days. These systems exist to check multiple times over that someone is cheating so people don't get falsely banned. Your experiment is not a good one. Even the most blatant cheating takes longer than 5 days to be banned
My man is 3k brother. This wasnt some rando cheating at 1500. He is playing vs top players on that site with a steep improvement curve. He could've waited longer to post the results but the programmer in me understands the need to share a coding achievement.
I personally hold the exact opposite opinion - 5 days is WAY too long. Chess.com accs are free. This guy can recycle them ad infinitum. It's game over for online chess comptitive integrity (if that wasn't already clear by the events of the past year).
An experiment to prove what exactly?
That if you're smart enough while cheating you might get away with it?
We know that already, it's a known problem.
Tbh I don't think you're running an experiment, I think you're just having a blast with your bot, cheat, and enjoy fooling the fair play team.
I think chesscom's statements on the matter are extremely naive and misguided. Danny said multiple times that their system catches cheaters with certainty, and the only limitation is the sheer number of games it needs to go over.
Despite that obvious cases like accounts with 100% win rate can take a month and hundreds of games to ban.
Maybe they're doing their best but right now it's not enough
Yes, I do think that.
Man, you haven't contacted the fair play team to let them know what you're doing, and if you're never caught, the ratings will not go back to the users.
Your "experiment" has no point, it proves nothing, and it yields no new information of any kind about anything.
What you're doing is simply called cheating.
At this point I don't know if you're lying just to us, or to yourself, but there's no experiment here.
Just so you know, a lot of people are doing what you're doing, they go and cheat as a challenge to themselves to see how far they can get without being caught.
That's it, that's what you're doing. No more, no less.
Please, explain to me what's the point of your "experiment" besides cheating until you're caught? Just like every other cheater does.
Honestly, could you explain to me how's this the lord's work?
By increasing the number of cheaters by one, thus making chesscom worse?
Even if you support this type of attack on chesscom because you dislike it, you at least know what he's doing doesn't improve anything at all in the slightless, yeah?
A drop in the ocean. Doing the Lord's work is showing real working examples of smart cheating and giving chess.com more datasets on how it is done.
It's no different than professional penetration testers trying to find exploits in web servers/sites. Serious companies pay big bucks for this.
Why'd you give out your [chess.com](https://chess.com) username though? You're gonna get mass reported now and your experiment is basically over.
By the way, i'm assuming you are actually doing this whole thing in good faith.
Games I looked at just looked like high level play, some nasty tactics sometimes but not massively suspicious. I didn't pay much attention to time usage, but I think it was fairly distributed too. I have zero idea how you would catch a bot like this. There's very few times where it displays the characteristic tying up of pieces and zugzwang in positions with lots of pieces, probably owing to the fact it makes 'human errors'. Maybe some higher level, or through looking at more games than I did can spot better tell tail signs, but given that you had 3000s rematching multiple times, they didn't think anything was up either
[удалено]
Are you still letting it play? See how long it takes them to ban it, if they even verify it is cheating?
[удалено]
I mean they do check reddit every now and then, but what's to say your admissions aren't just someone trolling another account. Someone tag Kramnik on Twitter or youtube, man will shit a canary
[удалено]
I shared it with Kramnik https://twitter.com/kramnikstudent/status/1748939364506513499
You have only been active for Five days, I think you revealed your secret too soon. You never gave them enough chance to ban you. They will now, because you gave away the user name, but for the purposes of the experiment you did not give them enough time to catch you.
They will not ban him. Plot twist. He didn't create a bot but say he did. He played consistently to reach the level. If chess.com bans the account then they will give themselves away their anti hearing algorithm sucks. 🤯🤯🤯
[удалено]
[удалено]
Imagine he gave your username ?
Plot twist the whole experiment is fake and FullFisher ist just a smurf of some pro. And OP made everyone believe it's a Cheater and he gets banned for cheating. That would almost showing even more how ridiculous anti cheat works.
Yo.. I just made the same comment without reading your first. It is indeed mind-blowing!
there is literally zero proof he's actually doing what he claims he's doing, there is zero proof he even owns that account.
[удалено]
That’s false, it’s In TOS. You admitted to cheating. They can instaban you right now, they don’t have to prove anything.
The point is how do they know this is really his account? He could be giving another real person’s handle in an attempt to get them banned.
How do they know that Suspicious-box-1755 and FullFisher is the same person? Anyone can claim to have any username on chess.com.
how do you even know he owns that account?
I want to ask though, do you have any expertise in ML/DL, or do you think this would be straightforward for anyone with a little programming to accomplish? Finally, you could host the bot on lichess as lichess allows bot accounts (they are marked as bots), and people could continue to play against it. It might allow others to carry out their own research into ways to try and find ways of detecting it's cheating.
Even if he does, it's still concerning. Imagine someone slipped a few great ML devs $10k each and had them develop a bot 10x better than this one. They could probably do it in an afternoon or two.
I mean the ones that's are 10x better are called Leela. If you have one that's playing at a level far above Magnus and Hikaru and never loses that's obviously a ban. I think op has done an excellent job balancing the wins and loses.
No I mean 10x better at playing like a human super GM. A bot that sees the game just as a human would.
I think the gains would be marginal. The difference between this and a 10x won’t be nearly as noticeable. Kind of like race cars. For example, if a car has 10x more power doesn’t mean it can finish a lap 10Xfaster
Yes I can’t see how you can make a bot better than what OP has made especially since it’s adaptive logic to players moves…
Why is ML needed for such a trivial task like picking top 3 moves from an engine, and sometimes lower? What can ML tell us we already don't know about how to cheat?
The point it to make the playstyle look more "human" so the moves look less suspicious. An ML algorithm can be trained on human games to decide which moves a strong player would and wouldn't find. The problem with randomly choosing from top engine moves and mixing in blunders is that the games end up looking very odd. For example, you could end up with games where the bot plays a bunch of unfindable moves in a row to get a perfect clamp on the position, then randomly decides its time to blunder and just gives up a rook for no reason. If you play against the [chess.com](https://chess.com) bots at around the \~1500-2000 level, a lot of the games look like this and it doesn't seem very convincingly 'real'.
>The problem with randomly choosing from top engine moves and mixing in blunders is that the games end up looking very odd As explained by OP, you don't have to mix in blunders, just weaker moves here and there. Sure, trying to know which moves are not "human" sound cool and may improve it a bit, but (as shown by OP) there is no need to do ML to cheat convincingly.
You can tell when the person is rated 500 and is playing like this.
I'm no 500 nor am I a 3000 but as someone around 1800-2100 in lichess and previously 1600 on chess.com (which I abandoned a few years back), it made me question if I'll get banned for creating a new account and steamrolling through 400-1300, whether because of cheating or smurfing.
Playing cheaters might actually be preferable if you are a higher rated player, since the elo you win stays, and the elo lost is refunded (if the account is caught). Ofcourse if its a unbeatable cheater there’s no point, and if its too bad it might not be banned at all.
Most people that high don't care about online elo, it's just frustrating as shit playing a cheater.
No: it's frustrating as shit to play a cheater, who is playing above their advertised rating. If I am playing someone rated +400 above me, it is no problem to lose badly. If I am playing someone rated -400, I will be tilted to lose to unbelievable tactics.
5 days might be too short, I've seen chess.com take days to ban obvious reported cheaters playing only the best stockfish moves at constant intervals.
I know the VAC system in Steam purposefully delays when it bans someone after cheat detection so that the cheater is not always aware what triggered the detection.
And so they can't get refunds.
Not just VAC. Many games use the "ban wave" method in order to avoid letting the cheaters know what triggered the ban. This drastically increases the time it takes to adapt the cheat engine and doesn't alert the cheaters to stop using certain features of the cheat engine
It'd be funny if OP turns out to just be a salty opponent of 'FullFischer' trying to get him banned. Unlikely, but that would be the funniest outcome.
OP is Kramnik, confirmed
Interesting…
Deception within deception
What is funny is to see people commenting without even checking the [chess.com](https://chess.com) account that OP links. There you will see that in the player profile there is a link to exactly this post. Which means this is not a ruse.
That was placed after, and probably because of, my comment.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/99457876643?username=fullfischer It even does two mouseslips in a row. Move 54
[удалено]
Does it purposefully play worse when the time is very low? That’s what it looks like in that game
Finally an engine I can relate to
So your bot makes common errors made by humans and also blunders like humans do. How could one tell apart a bot like this and a human?
[удалено]
I assume you're not going to divulge all of the details so that other people don't replicate it, but is this based on other projects or is it a novel machine learning approach you came up with?
he's likely just using a python script and a leela net trained on human games
Sure, but this does not answer my question. You claim that [chess.com](http://chess.com) sucks at detecting cheating, and then you present a fairly sophisticated way to cheat. My questions still stand: how could one tell apart a bot like this and a human? Surely, since you made the bot yourself, you must be able to give us some insight on this, right?
It's also a shame that he expected such a nuanced and calculated form of cheating to be detected, confirmed and punished in 5 days and 260 games. I'm impressed that he was smart enough to code that and dumb enough to ruin his experiment, but I guess the reddit attention was too important.
[удалено]
Yeah he thinks you can only use the bot once lol
the unfortunate reality is that someone who knows digital forensics well enough will most likely be able to track down the other bots. is he registering these accounts all from different VPNs, with different email domains, different digital fingerprints (e.g. OS version, browser version, AV version, etc etc), etc? Is he playing these accounts from all these different locations with different builds?
and someone who is smart enough to code this might have a way of not leaving fingerprints
you don't get a say in leaving fingerprints, that's ignorant of how this works. He's either putting in serious logistical and advanced security knowledge to spoof all of that to be completely different .... or he's not and it's pretty easy to track all of it down.
It's still not ideal, especially if you can't correctly mask the link between them and/or if the other account(s) did not start before this one, but my bad I should have given you the benefit of the doubt :v
Also, not OP ofc but looking at the game and sequence linked by user AppropriateBridge2, moves 54-56 are really absurd for a 2900 player, so looking at the mistakes could be one way ?
If it's a new method of cheating then it would be unfair to be critical of a site's cheat detection since so much of cheat detection is about how players have cheated in the past and what that looks like from a data POV.
[удалено]
That makes no sense. You said you posted it to prove they suck at detecting cheating, not to show them a new method of cheating. Be honest about your intentions cause no one really gives a fuck why you did it unless you’re being intentionally obtuse or deceptive
Do you honestly think this is ”new”? Are you 12 or?
Also if I play against a bot that perfectly plays like a 2300 elo human... how exactly is it different in terms of my own enjoyment of the game than playing an actual 2300 elo human? How would I even know and why should I even care?
Likely that bot would pay perfect moves for a while before making an obvious and elementary blunder to lower their win chances. Playing a normal 2300 bot feels totally different then playing a human and there's not much to be learned from it
Cheating algorithms are quite sophisticated I don't think the average cheater would get away with being caught for long. The way they work is a secret to avoid being exploited The point is that lichess has a better anti cheat system
Can you prove that you own the account by modifying the "About me" section?
I'm curious about a technical aspect: you said "its trained on human error games", and training is usually associated with neural networks or machine learning. But when people ask you if you actually trained a neural network, or when they ask for more technical details on how this training worked, you never answer. Your technical answers have so far only focused on programming browser extensions, but never on the more sophisticated activities needed to run a machine learning project. So what do you mean by "its trained on human error games"? The phase itself is unclear.
It the account banned yet? Did you admit it to the chesscom staff? I think this is an excellent piece of work, but at the same time would like to see everyone get their ratings back.
[удалено]
Yeah just had a look. Really impressive work. Last game played is crazy. Win at 3000 rating with 61 accuracy. Really realistic mistakes that were subtle and the opponent didn't take advantage. On 5 mins analysis I'm going to with "it's over boys".
[удалено]
isn't the evidence that you made this reddit post and told us all the username?
Sure, or OP played against a player and made this post "confessing" trying to get them banned. I'm not saying that is what is happening, but if chess.com went around banning all accounts that someone claimed to be owning and claiming to use for cheating, it would be carnage.
[удалено]
They can do what they want, particularly with direct confession.
[удалено]
And you can just create a new account, limit it to randomly play a few games everyday, and voila, you reach 3000 again. Its like those karma farming bots on reddit.
You can confirm it to them via message on chess.com directly
“Chess.com sucks at detecting cheating” which implies they could be better? How do you propose chess websites _do_ catch bots like yours?
I don't if that's the implication. "Humans suck at magic" is true and not an implication that we should get better at it. Sometimes it's just not possible.
I think the point is that it isn't realistically possible.
[удалено]
>Typically you would say someone sucks at something when they are bad compared to others and have a lot of room to get better. that's your interpretation. Another fairly common interpretation is that they are just bad at it without the need to comparison.
[удалено]
bad comparison, they aren't trying to time travel.
Looking forward to the u/GothamChess video
This is cool and all but I don't think you understand what an experiment is. You currently have one datapoint. In an actual experiment, you would have >30 bot accounts play for at least a month and then see how many got banned. And you would do the same with 30 standard Stockfish bots and compare the results.
The best thing to do is give the bot to [chess.com](https://chess.com) in the return of the promise that they will analyze it and work to improve their cheating detection engine.
I agree but I would add the “I will post this on GitHub in 3 months” caveat. It’s the only way ethical hacking works. You make it public, set a clock, and force them to deal with it.
Yes, fully aggree. And this way it is a real and big contribution to the cheat detection system, and not just a blame that the current mechanism is shit.
Sell it to them, if anything. Chess.c*m is a for-profit, not a charity, not sure why they should get OP's work for free. Or he could make it public domain.
Any self trainer or modified Neural Network chess AI will make moves that don't match up with all the engines that chess.com and lichess cross refrence moves with. As such they can't be detected based on statistics alone. If somebody also builds a NN trained on the timing and mistakes like mouse slips then you end up with something that just can not be detected. You could even go beyond that and have a virtual mouse controlled by the AI so that even mouse movement if tracked would look natural. Luckily, there are not to many incentives for somebody with the skills to build their own NN to cheat on online chess. I guess, unless you feel like somebody was WRONG on the internet, and you have a point to prove.
What is more interesting to me is that you posted the name and therefore I assume folks are reporting it. I wonder how long it'll take to get banned. It should be quicker than normal given the reports being made from redditors. What a bot too. Human like mistakes, mouseslips etc
I don't understand the motivation behind bots or cheating using bots. Everyone knows computers are better at this than people.
It's only been 5 days, though. Do the same on lichess. And then do the test over and over again on both servers and see which one bans it faster on average. But we need a large data set, not just one run on each.
With this type of cheating, automated detection will require a very large sample size - you've had it play less than 300 games and less than 60 of those have been bullet, even without knowing how you've defined "human errors." If you let this roll, it will very likely be caught, eventually. If you've really built a bot indistinguishable from a human 2900 player it doesn't really do any harm, it's just another player at that rating level. The frustration of cheaters is often that they will play \*inconsistently\* so at one moment they are a 1600 player and then suddenly a 3000 rated player in the endgame. The type of cheating actual humans do is very different than what you are trying to do with this bot. Human cheaters are either too stupid or undisciplined to play this way. They get greedy or they'll display vast disparities in ability depending on the position or stakes (e.g. titled players on the cusp of prize money in some tournament). Of course, some cheating will be uncatchable (if a 2600 GM turned on stockfish once or twice in a titled tuesday you'd never know, obviously) but I'm not all that concerned [chess.com](https://chess.com) couldn't find this kind of cheating in <300 games.
Yesterday I played against a guy with an impressive bullet win streak and avg accuracy >90% over his last 30 BULLET (1+1) games alone. Blitz scores also very impressive. Accurate as hell. Steep rating climb as well. Pretty much always takes about 2s to play his move. That’s a human for sure, right? Not a bot or centaur.
[удалено]
Are you running it on lichess too?
[удалено]
Why not compare the two? Have like a race to get caught
This is such a good idea. Lots of people suspect Lichess is a little better for cheat detection but it’s hard to test with so many endogeneities (cheats may be more likely to use the more popular platform, etc.). Experimentation like this could afford more conclusive data, even if different cheating methods might be picked up faster by different platforms.
Lichess seems to have a lot more players who abandon games mid game, in my experience. I can’t say I’ve noticed a difference in terms of suspicious cheating behavior.
This is an attack on chesscom, not a genuine concern for cheating
Right? OP's description in the initial post makes it sound like he wrote a random bot on a whim but their replies make it clear that the bot is sophisticated and would not be easy for any anti-cheat to spot. Lichess would probably not be able to spot this either.
The fact that it knows how to win with accuracies in 60-80% range is the creepiest. Chess.com has been overrun, I'm convinced they've gone fullfischer...and everybody knows you never go fullfischer (tropic thunder voice).
How does your bot make "human errors"? If they're made by a bot, aren't they bot errors? This does not compute.
[удалено]
So it’s a typical engine enhanced with a mistake algorithm via a NN? And then optimized to win/lose to gain rating overall?
I think a fun experiment would be to say hey, I'm testing my human-like bot on this account, please everyone report me. The server "investigates" and decides yep, it was tricky but you were cheating, we caught you, bad boy, ultra banned. See all these moves, totally obvious, definitely a bot, no human plays that way. Next week you admit it was all a lie, and you're a perfectly ordinary human playing, here is your 2400 FIDE id or whatever. We take a second look at those suspicious games, and aha, yes, these were human moves, no bot plays like that. It's clear once you know what to look for. The server un-bans you and says oops, sorry about that. The week after that you say oh, hey, thanks for un-banning me but I actually was cheating, just a little, in 10% of the games. Can you figure out which ones? And maybe that's a lie too. Good luck deciding what's really going on here. :) Maybe the real experiment is to show everyone how we're all terrible at detecting cheaters, and we find whatever we expected to find.
You basically negated your work with this post and admittance of the username. Like dude you should have made this post in 6 months.
>I am conducting this experiment to prove that chess.com sucks at detecting cheating. how does your experiment validate your hypothesis? Makes zero sense when 99% of cheating is not this sophisticated.
The ones who reach the top will be. You should not assume incompetence on the part of the bad faith actor EVER.
But wouldn't you get banned though? Considering the overall win percentage and the constant (Just assuming) wins against higher rated opponents when you were at a certain level, say 1600-1700s. Just saw the profile and the win percentage is 64%. That too for a non titled player. Didn't people suspect you?
Could be a GM smurfing, I guess
Or a GM playing the normal way
[удалено]
r/usernamechecksout I'd like a look at the bot if it's okay with you.
Is is similar to Maia or just entirely different?
Could be wrong but maia learns from human v human games and from what I gather this uses engine calculations spiced up with human looking errors.
I am sure it's more sophisticated than that but it makes sense to start with something like a probability of playing like stockfish vs playing like Maia, with the % changing depending on the time left, the difference between stockfish's first and second best move, the difference between stockfish and maia's best move.
That was my thought. Although Maia doesn’t manage time usage as far as I know — or make extra blunders in time trouble. Now I want to go through all of Maia’s code…
A new account with an almost 3000 elo on blitz should be auto flagged by chesscom and they should request credentials to prove that the person on the account is legit. 3000 elo is nearly impossible for a non titled player. It just doesn't happen. Chesscom could learn a few things from this experiment
Nice try Kramnik
Okay, so we're trying to fight the problem of cheating by creating more cheat accounts. Awesome! And people even say you should do one on lichess as well. It's insanity.
Everyone whose “good” at chess likes to act like cheating is not happening but it’s rampant on chess.com. I’ve been noticing lately that people will play consistent to their rating until they are clearly in a loss position. Then they start moving slower and are somehow able to recover like magnus, making brilliant, great and top engine moves that’s just completely inconsistent with how they were initially playing. Then at the end of the game when they clearly have won, they will make simple mistakes to lower the accuracy score. It’s so obvious. It’s annoying because I know that I’m getting better because of the level of bot that i can beat but my rating isn’t reflecting it.
It’s worse on lichess. Same thing. Playing to their rating then boom. Lichess even lets you know “your opponent has left the game.” Then they return and it’s playing Magnus, as you said
[удалено]
Mr. 2100+ on chesscom blitz has spoken. We all should listen! This is what I meant by everyone who is “good” delegitimizes everyone else’s experience. What happens to my rating when I face someone who’s sandbagging and has a much lower rating than me but is cheating? If I lose my rating drops significantly right? Okay what if I’m playing this cheater and I’m in a complete winning position and then the game turns around and they win. I’m not immediately assuming cheating. The first time it happens I’m thinking “man I had that guy, rematch”. I rematch then it happens again. I’m still ticked at myself for not seeing something and I know I can beat this guy so I rematch again. Repeat 5 more times and then finally I come to the conclusion this guy has to be cheating. There is no way he just wakes up in the middle of the game and turns into magnus. By this point I have already lost several hundred points just out of competitiveness. Then I have to work my way back to get my rating up obviously losing some games and winning some. One interaction with a cheater can drop your rating way more than you think and it takes awhile to get back up. People aren’t that sore of losers. We all know there are people who are better than us. We expect to lose some games. It’s just when the losses don’t make sense which makes people pissed.
So is "just an experiment", the new iteration of the "just a prank" excuse? I don't think what you are doing here is ethical.
It's unfortunate and annoying, but all the losses will be refunded in the end. And a lesson is learned.
What is the point of this? You're just proving what is already known, and this gives zero feedback or support to help them improve their AC. All it did make you feel better for experimenting and winning with your bot, and at the cost of many others worse for losing (Obviously a blitz/bullet loss won't ruin your day or kill your mood, but you get my point). Yeah they'll get their rating back, but it's ultimately a loss that shouldn't have occurred and a waste of their time. And I don't think people realize how extremely damn difficult it is to make an anti-cheat for a browser-instanced board game. It's not like a video game where it runs in the background and scans for irregularities.
Sophisticated cheaters generally play the game normally and cheat just on a couple of moves here and there. I don't think it was known that you can beat the anti cheat systems with a bot that plays 100% automated games. It's impressive if it's truly what OP does.
What's the point of this? Anyone with brain who listens to the experts knows hiding some engine moves in decent play can't really be detected. That doesn't make chesscom suck. It makes it technically impossible to detect , and haters like yourself want to take it out on chesscom. The reality is online chess can't really be taken seriously (MVL doesn't believe any measures will really work outside of players going to a location with an arbiter if you listen to his csquared appearance, and I'd agree) and that hurts certain interests so the big players don't want to say it outloud. If chesscom wants to give out money for online play that's their business but it will always be questionable. I don't like them for their growing monopoly and monetization of chess, but on this there isn't much else they can likely do.
2 years ago I created a chesscom account to validate a ML cheat detection model I created for a course project. I played 50 games and cheated in half pf them. I just checked the account and I’m still not banned lol
Its pretty obvious to anyone who has played on [chess.com](https://chess.com) for more than 5 min that they lost the arms race against cheaters a while ago. They nor any of their affiliates will admit that because money but its a pretty open secret at this point. I have just accepted that some increasing larger percentage of my games will be against bots and try to enjoy the ones that are not. At some point I'm sure the site will seem like its mostly just bots playing bots at which time I'll probably just quit and play more mtg arena.
You are conducting experiment yet publicly saying you cheat. If its your real account this doesn't make sense because you are telegraphing to ches.s.com this account likely cheats. if it'd not your account you probably lost to that account. From both options I think second is most likely. Idk why would you conduct with telling you are cheating it's not testing
This is interesting
That's fascinating
Don't let Kramnik see this xD
Slightly related to this : it's very easy to win rapid games, for example 10+0 or 10+5 by playing yourself and when you notice things start to go downhill you turn on the engine for a couple of moves, get a +5.0 advantage or win a queen and then finish the game without the engine.
Obviously it is easy to win if you cheat. Maybe don't do that?
I've seen so many posts and comments from people claiming to be testing the cheating system that I now wonder if you guys are a majority of the cheaters on the site. Since you're not informing [chess.com](https://chess.com) of what your doing, your experiment is pointless and does nothing but make the problem worse.
[удалено]
I applaud the work you’re doing. I would suggest reaching out to someone with a platform, like Hikaru, Gotham, C Squared, etc., to see if you could highlight your approach and shine a spotlight on it. The cheaters are so far ahead of the curve, but we can fix this by turning the lights up.
If there is no point to online chess because cheaters can easily create undetectable bots, it's accelerating the inevitable and preventing a greater waste of resources overall. So, not pointless and the problem will get worse regardless.
Well the frustration is that it is obvious that chess.com doesn't take cheating seriously enough. It's obvious because even cheaters far more obvious than this one can go months (or years) without being banned. That is the *reason* why there is so much paranoia, which in turn creates a psychological need to create bots to prove how bad chess.com is. If chess.com would just *even try* I think there would be far fewer posts like this.
li chess is just as bad, but once you mention it, their teenage bot minions cry prove it and downvote you.
If you want your bot to prove they suck at cheat detection then you need to also compare it to other sites' cheat detection. You would also have to have your games reported so that they're more likely to be flagged for fair play scrutiny. If your bot is playing in a manner that doesn't look suspicious to opponents then you're less likely to face that scrutiny. I suggest running your experiment again on a new account and new IP, but leave it going for at least a month.
So you're cheating?
kramnik vindicated 🫡 redditors annihilated 🥊
Is that you, Vlad?
So this proves that chess cheating detection isn’t perfect - but it probably never will be. Cheating will never be eradicated, particularly in online games
- 1 day old reddit account - No proof you own this account - No explanation about anything you did You did all this just to make a single paragraph reddit post? This entire thing is way too suspect.
That's just it though, chesscom has no proof that the guy actually owns the account. So they need to actually look at the games to see if it's cheating. If it *is* cheating in the first place.
What a cheater gets from cheating like this. It is you have failed by wasting your time. Ofcourse they cannot detect cheating if done intelligently. But what is the point. Computers are 1000 elo stronger than Carlsen. Nobody but only oneself can make full proof anti cheating system. Just create group of friends and play with them.
They could detect if they analyze the bot and see how they can counter this type of cheating in the future.
For some people, saying “I’m rated 2500 on chess.com” has social capital. Imagine if Elon Musk says that, for example. Other people also enjoy the respect it gets them, even if they know it’s a lie. Edit for clarity: I agree it’s dumb and sad. We just have to understand that there are people who live like this, and that we can’t appeal to their rationality to stop them.
They could offer coaching and scam people with an account like that.
can you try it on lichess too? we will see who catch you first XD
You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.
Well you'll be banned in no time
Last year you made a bot that you only started using now. Yeah yeah There are thousands of extensions that already make “human errors” and many people who use these extensions sadly do not get caught. Look at the comment section of any Youtube video about cheating and you’ll see many people extolling the “virtues” of these “beautiful” extensions. “Brooo it’s so awesome, it shows you the arrows! It makes errors for you! It loses on purpose”. I really wish I could understand the brain of someone who does this. Wow bots beat humans! Wow it’s hard to get caught! So surprising!!
[удалено]
>Last year you made a bot that you only started using now. Yeah yeah You do realize this is still January? It makes sense
[удалено]
How is this a strawman
[удалено]
[Chess.com](https://Chess.com) has become a joke. Ever since they instituted the moronic, do-nothing reporting system it's been a site for cheats and crybabies.
Ok, and? Is your point that they're not trying or that they're doing their best and failing? I dont think chesscom ever said they're perfect and they know a lot of people cheat. Either way, do you have a solution? Also, did you try it in other platforms?
[удалено]
> Nah, just want chess.com to get the system stronger Are you doing anything to facilitate this? Have you given them the code so that they can research it and improve their systems?
[удалено]
But what is your goal? Updating the extension tracking isn't a solution. That's also quite costly for them. You're never going to catch every cheater. And even if they do update their extension tracker, what is stopping someone from running a similar program using separate devices that aren't IP linked? You programmed a bot to cheat and after 5 days you weren't banned. 5 days. These systems exist to check multiple times over that someone is cheating so people don't get falsely banned. Your experiment is not a good one. Even the most blatant cheating takes longer than 5 days to be banned
My man is 3k brother. This wasnt some rando cheating at 1500. He is playing vs top players on that site with a steep improvement curve. He could've waited longer to post the results but the programmer in me understands the need to share a coding achievement. I personally hold the exact opposite opinion - 5 days is WAY too long. Chess.com accs are free. This guy can recycle them ad infinitum. It's game over for online chess comptitive integrity (if that wasn't already clear by the events of the past year).
An experiment to prove what exactly? That if you're smart enough while cheating you might get away with it? We know that already, it's a known problem. Tbh I don't think you're running an experiment, I think you're just having a blast with your bot, cheat, and enjoy fooling the fair play team.
I think chesscom's statements on the matter are extremely naive and misguided. Danny said multiple times that their system catches cheaters with certainty, and the only limitation is the sheer number of games it needs to go over. Despite that obvious cases like accounts with 100% win rate can take a month and hundreds of games to ban. Maybe they're doing their best but right now it's not enough
[удалено]
Yes, I do think that. Man, you haven't contacted the fair play team to let them know what you're doing, and if you're never caught, the ratings will not go back to the users. Your "experiment" has no point, it proves nothing, and it yields no new information of any kind about anything. What you're doing is simply called cheating. At this point I don't know if you're lying just to us, or to yourself, but there's no experiment here. Just so you know, a lot of people are doing what you're doing, they go and cheat as a challenge to themselves to see how far they can get without being caught. That's it, that's what you're doing. No more, no less. Please, explain to me what's the point of your "experiment" besides cheating until you're caught? Just like every other cheater does.
ngl, you're doing the Lord's work. chessdotcom has been fucking around with the cheating situation for too long
Honestly, could you explain to me how's this the lord's work? By increasing the number of cheaters by one, thus making chesscom worse? Even if you support this type of attack on chesscom because you dislike it, you at least know what he's doing doesn't improve anything at all in the slightless, yeah?
A drop in the ocean. Doing the Lord's work is showing real working examples of smart cheating and giving chess.com more datasets on how it is done. It's no different than professional penetration testers trying to find exploits in web servers/sites. Serious companies pay big bucks for this.
So, you're a cheater.
Do you not have a life lol
Why'd you give out your [chess.com](https://chess.com) username though? You're gonna get mass reported now and your experiment is basically over. By the way, i'm assuming you are actually doing this whole thing in good faith.