lichess.org
Donate

How often should 2000-rated players win with above 90% accuracy?

#22
@Cedur216 said in #16:
> #RemoveAccuracy

Or rename it to Pseudo Accuracy or Overall Winning Chances or anything better than the Misleading Accuracy.
I would need time to think about a better name.
Cheers
PS: Maybe Pseudo Garbage Accuracy is at least an improved temporary name for immediate use?
#23
@SaltWaterRabbit said in #21:
> NO accuracy should NOT be USED at all for unfair play detection!

I don't think you know much about this. Find a banned player, and you will find high accuracy. Find a game with 98% accuracy, and you will probably find that the player is banned. I've seen many hundreds of banned players on chess.com, and I have had many of them banned by reporting them. I have lots of experience with this. But as said, accuracy is never used alone. Time used per move and other factors must be taken into consideration. Some games have high accuracy for a reason, not related to cheating.
#24
I count four errors in #23:

> Find a banned player, and you will find high accuracy.

The error is "high". The correct word is "an".

> Find a game with 98% accuracy, and you will probably find that the player is banned.

The error is "will probably". The correct word is "might".

> I've seen many hundreds of banned players on chess.com, and I have had many of them banned by reporting them.

The error is "many" (2). The correct word is "some".

> But as said, accuracy is never used alone.

The error is "alone". There's no correct replacement.
#25
You have misunderstood this. To effectively identify the vast majority of cheating, Chess.com computes an aggregate Strength Score. Strength Score is a measurement of the similarity between the moves made by the player, and the moves suggested as “strongest moves” by the chess engine. In a sense, it is a measure of the accuracy of play. In short, it's pretty much the same as accuracy over several games.
#26
@Rogue_Berserker said in #23:
> I don't think you know much about this. Find a banned player, and you will find high accuracy.

JUST to be clear: I am talking about technical analysis for fair play by chess sites which strive for objective measures and avoid Accuracy etc.. It is positive that you take the time to report possible non-fair players.

Danny R is on record (youtube video) saying that they definitely do NOT use Accuracy (CAPS) in their cheat detection schemes. The problem is that it is too non-specific and fuzzy. As you mentioned they can use time per move pattern, plus fingerprint of games and changes, changes in distribution of very good or very bad moves, and similarities analysis. (plus ??). They use a pot of good moves from a wide variety of engines and do just just focus on the top 5 engines.

It is a positive thing that you report suspected cheaters but it is difficult to get strong definite statistical evidence. In the reporting business, most reporters hit below 1% correct. If you are 5-10% correct, that is very good and if 50% correct you are an absolute superstar. Some non-fair play people are bar watchers so that they know only when something has changed - especially a big possible change for them.

From your experience, you probably report a lot of people who the site takes no action against them - that is the nature of reporting - it is very difficult often to be highly correct. The sites need to be objectively sure that they are correct before taking action.

If needed I can share a bunch of links to sites, podcasts and videos that focus on fair play issue,. I have to go play OTB game.
Cheers
#27
@SaltWaterRabbit said in #26:
> Danny R is on record (youtube video) saying that they definitely do NOT use Accuracy (CAPS) in their cheat detection schemes.

That's because they use Strength Score instead. As I pointed out in my last post, it's pretty much the same as accuracy over several games.
#28
@SaltWaterRabbit said in #26:
> links to sites, podcasts and videos

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Danny Rensch State of Chess.com YT Stream
youtu.be/Ri3Z809CbS8

lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/kramnicks-current-study-of-cheating-in-on-line-chess?page=6#52

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/kramnicks-current-study-of-cheating-in-on-line-chess?page=6#57

Gingersquirrelnuts
3 months ago

#57
@AlexiHarvey said in #56:

>Well actually big swipes at anyone who threaten revenue - is my cynical take.
>
........ ....

I'm not a huge fan of Danny Rensch, but to give him credit, he's repreatedly made a point of telling the world that CAPS (the accuracy score) isn't usable to tell if somebody's cheating. The fact that people continue to walk up that path regardless is disappointing.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Danny Wrench on Identifying Cheaters
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIMIfjYNZ1A
#30
@SaltWaterRabbit said in #20:
> Accuracy % is a dangerous measure to use even for suspicions as its meaning is non-intuitive and rather difficult to interpret.
>
> LiChess finally started to shows a little i info icon near Accuracy that links to the following.
> lichess.org/page/accuracy
>
> There are many factors involved in the generation of Accuracy Percentages and different factors can dominant depending on the situation. Again, it is difficult to interpret the Accuracy percentage values.
> Accuracy tries to compare the overall winning chances of the two players within the confines of a single chess game.
>
> The info blurb does say:
> "It is flawed to compare accuracy to a numerical grade you would get on a test. In more complex positions it is harder to find the best moves, so your accuracy might drop accordingly. "
Yes, but if all factors are brought together- like game with no holes( can be even not high accuracy, but very hard to breaktrought)+ pauses or whatever per turn of opponent, his ability to press and make unobvious moves, and all stuff , including , how you feel the game develops , can make a right guess of cheating

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.