lichess.org
Donate

Top List Verification

The top lists of bullet, blitz and especially classical should have players verified before they appear on the top player lists. I won't mention any players specifically here, but the classical top list has normally has one or two engine-assisted players. That's because classical provides enough time for engine users to relay moves.

Reporting to detect engine users will not help, an IP ban can easily be bypassed and so engines have new accounts when detected.

In an engine's view, they think they'll have an easy time getting to the top lists. In order to do that, they obviously have to vs high rated players, whether engine or not. Now, they'll soon find out how many engines there are, and will try to avoid them. High rated players, who are not using engines will always receive challenges from lower rated engines, claiming they are up for it. Most high rated players, are however, careful. Most review profiles and games before accepting a challenge, even more so, in rated. That's why you won't normally see a seek from a 2300 rated player at classical. Both engines and humans want to avoid engines. So engines vs players 200-300 below them to slowly gain their rating.

Players consistently having one or no inaccuracies in blitz games or very short classical games have a likely chance of being an engine. Maybe an automated bot can be used to detect those cases for further investigation.

Possibly players verified not engine can have a tick next to their username, and only players having a tick can appear on the top lists. Maybe if a player has the rating to qualify for a top list but aren't verified, they are scheduled for verification.

Thanks!
So you're saying the site should auto review every high level game with stockfish? This would create a huge burden on the site. I think the only thing to do is adjust player's ratings afterwards if it is discovered they lost to a cheater (as if the game never happened, but maybe some sympathy points). This could maybe be a monthly thing.
It would probably create a lot of burden, but what about limiting the check to candidate top 10s and only a sample size? Or rather, just confirming the top players aren't engines in any way. Adjusting ratings would mean rating recalculation right from the start, ratings are interconnected. They're probably done yearly, they take up a lot of power. But they are worth it.

Thanks

Members who qualify for one of the top lists, or are one of the most active/prominent members could gain a verification rating out of the following:

Green - verified, with a tick in a green circle.
Yellow - suspicious, with a question mark in a yellow circle.
Red - cheater, with a cross in a red circle.

Everyone who isn't classified is unclassified. Unclassified members would cover the majority.

There could be settings to limit your seek/filter to only green or unclassified members, or just green members etc.

What cheaters want is glory, and the only means the cheaters can achieve is through the top lists. If the cheaters need to have a green verification to reach the top list, they won't be able to get to the top list.

Whitelisting would get rid of the few cheaters in the top lists. Green players will gain a re-verification if they reach the rating required for a top list as to prevent cheaters playing genuinely in the start and start cheating into the top lists with their green rating.

Thanks.

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