"I would like to commend you on explaining many (C)heater tactics and Internet
Chess issues on your site.(...)
In the last STC 45 45 League tourney I played 33 games.
After checking all my games I discovered fully 1/3 of them computer
assistance was used. Some were very blatant and easy to spot (...) I learned much about cheating and how to spot machine moves. SeveraI other players also started going over their games from that STC tourney and we were all amazed at how rampant cheating is at
all levels.(...)"
Sat Jun 09 13:15:05 2001
Message-ID: <4f.cda5501.2853dda6@aol.com>
The ICC is committed to the principle that an ICC member has the
right to know if he/she is playing against a computer program
or someone who is using computer assistance in their ICC games.
(...) Due to our efforts, the chance of playing against an unlabelled computer is significantly smaller than on other chess sites.
(...) The ICC never labels someone as a computer unless there is overwhelming
evidence of computer assistance. And never without first giving a
private warning and a chance to stop.
(...) For first-time cheaters, you will be officially warned,
and you will get an email letter from ICC describing the
warning, and an ICC message alerting you that you have email.
Eric Peterson, help speedtrap 12/4/99
When cheaters are caught and interviewed, they say "Rating points are meaningless" but when they were undetected and were cheating, rating points were meaningful in their minds. Who has a problem with rating points? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
When cheaters are caught and interviewed, they say "It's just a game." but when they were undetected and were cheating, winning was important for them. They can't respect the way this game was intended to be played. Who has a problem with the game of chess? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
When cheaters are caught and interviewed, they say "others cheat" but, in the beginning, when they didn't cheat, they didn't report their own suspicions. When they were cheating, they didn't care about the honest-playing members they abused. They did to others what they reproached about others. Who has the legitimacy of complaining about others? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
When cheaters are caught and interviewed, they say "I've been abused by cheaters myself.": they compensated the abuse they claim to be victim of by abusing others. Who abused and abuse others? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
When interviewed, cheaters are persistent about their own reasons why they cheat: "I only cheated against Cs.", "I only cheated against other cheaters", etc... They highly value the truth about their own motivations for cheating. But they won't agree that their own tells be disclosed in their finger notes: disclosing the truth for them, about them, regarding them, only applies in privacy, in secrecy, in confidentiality when they are faced with the threat of a (C) or another label.
When cheaters have a high or artificially maintened rating, they benefit from all kinds of social dividends. They want their handle to be recognized, respected, appraised. When they are +(C)ed or put apology notes for 60 days, they don't want to be noticed and hate the social humiliation. Is exposure and social disgrace a normal process to restore some balance within an ICS community?
Honest-playing members are those who were (unwittingly or not, unaware or not, suspecting or not) abused, conned and fooled. Is exposure and social disapproval a normal process to restore some balance in the minds of those who abused, fooled and conned shamelessly? Is exposure and social humiliation a normal and effective way to elevate the collective morality against cheating in a sport environment, on an ICS? In the final instance, who is responsible for the cheaters' own decisions? Who was, is and always will be responsible for the consequences of one's own actions at the detriment of others?
Cheaters resort to unannounced, clandestine computer-assistance to play. When they are (C)-labelled without prior announcement, they hate that. They feel that such treatment is rude. They demand a chance to be warned first, in secret or in private before a (C) appears; they demand a chance to stop without public consequences for them. They believe that this is fair and that they deserve it. ICC understood them and agreed with them. Honest-playing members demanded a chance to be warned first if they were to play a comp-assisted opponent. They believe that this is fair and that they deserve it. Who had the right and the legitimacy to be warned in the first place? Cheaters once they are positively detected or honest-playing members when they issue or accept a "seek" expecting to play a human?
Cheaters demand a chance to be warned first, in secret, in private before a (C) appears. They believe that this is fair and that they deserve it. ICC understood them and agreed with them. Honest-playing members demand a sensible and clear chance to know in advance who has been proven to be ethically unreliable... so that they can choose willingly and wittingly to play or to avoid these people. They believe that this is fair and that they deserve it. Who has a legitimate right here? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
For cheaters, truth, mercy, fairness and justice regarding them shouldn't apply to the members they fooled, conned and abused. They demand the justice they refused to others. They claim to deserve the justice they refused to their victims. They request the mercy, fairness, tolerance and understanding they refused to others.
Cheaters hate to be humiliated in broad daylight, whether temporary or circumspectly; they hate being exposed no matter what they did, no matter what they do, no matter how many people they fooled, abused, conned over months of cheating. But these same cheaters didn't mind benefiting from an increased appraisal from others during months, thanks to cheating. In fact, they loved all this increased social visibility in a wide range of ICS events.
Cheaters hate to be +(C)ed without a prior warning: they feel that this is rude. Cheaters didn't mind resorting to unannounced comp-assistance while playing hundreds of games. Hundreds of honest-playing members were never warned in any way that they were going to play cheaters assisted by comps.
When cheaters are interviewed, they say "No one was hurt. No one complained. No one was damaged. They most probably all recovered their lost points by now.". The fact is that they cannot be sure if no one complained. The fact is they contributed concretely to an atmosphere of constant defensive and negative suspicions and to a generally accelerated pace of time controls. No one likes playing chess under these conditions. One cannot enjoy, learn and improve his tennis game by playing ping-pong all the time. Who is responsible in the first place for the paranoia? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
When pressures, tensions, fears, feelings of helplessness and powerless due to an absence of official reliable information, etc... reach an unbearable state, who quits an ICS to never come back? Labelled cheaters or exasperated honest-playing members?
Strangely enough, even ICSes admins contribute to the spreading of such distortions of reality.
I've heard many ICSes admins say that "Rating points are meaningless". If that's the case, then why do ICSes need to reset ratings of caught cheaters? If that's the case, then why do ICSes need to reset the "best" rating of caught cheaters? If rating points are meaningless to some ICSes admins, then why are they proud of their current rating, best rating, etc...? Why do they need to invalidate other people's perspective on the matter of rating points? Shouldn't that be also the case for the others who are being lectured about the meaninglessness of rating points?
I've heard ICSes admins say "Cheating is not a crime". If that's the case,
then why don't they expose the people who
do such little, naughty, trite things and teasing, kidding jokes? They won't lose their jobs, get
a divorce, lose their house, driver's license, do jail time because they were caught cheating on
an ICS? If the cheaters' anonymous handles, not even their real identity, get a (C) or some other
label, it doesn't mean that the people behind these anonymous handles are criminals. So why not
expose them?
I've heard ICSes admins say "It's only a game". If that's the case, then why are they embarrassed when they get replied "It's only a game server and there are other chess servers around", "I can spend my money elsewhere or otherwise too. Bye.". If chess is only a game, then why do we need ICSes or care about ICSes offering internet services in the first place? If chess is only a game, then why do we need commercial ICSes anyway?
I've heard ICSes admins say "No harm was done, so no foul.". If that's the case, then why do we need to report something that didn't, couldn't cause any harm to anyone? Why do we have admins, expert detectives, etc... to detect activities that do no harm to no one? Why do we need helpfiles, labels, protocols, policies, auto-login warning, etc... about something that does no harm to no one? Why do we have discussions, debates almost everywhere about paranoia and accelerated paces of time controls? If no harm was done, then why are some people so upset, so tired, so exasperated, so paranoid about a thing that does no harm? Why have I had so many unprovoked and unexpected on-line talks (some being very long) with people trying to convince me that cheating is harmless, that cheating shouldn't affect others? If I was in their mind senselessly over-exaggerating about everything, then why did they care to bother me, to spend so much energy to convince me of the harmlessness of cheating?
I've heard ICSes admins say "Cheaters only harm themselves.". If that's the case, then why should ICSes sanction the people who only damage and hurt themselves? Why should cheaters be warned, sanctioned and eventually banned?
(I've heard lots of others. "Cheating in unrated games isn't abuse.", "Cheating in team games isn't abuse.", etc... I've even been told once on ICC that "Cheaters are paying members too; they play chess too, you know.", etc, etc, etc,...)
Finally, who is gaining something in this whole story? Who is playing and truly enjoying internet chess on an ICS when suspicions are reported and cheaters are positively detected? Cheaters or honest-playing members?
I think we are all losing here.
