if you have legitimate concerns about a game played then use the report function, that is what it is there for. provide a link to the game and a brief explanation of your concerns. as time passes even if you go back and check the game in future and it looks like nothing has happened, that does not always mean nothing has happened, they could have taken some form of action but would keep that private and confidential between that account and lichess, it would only be more publically obvious if they actually close an account for violating terms of service and mark the account on that basis, then you can see that. If you are playing via home page and have blocked an account then you should not play that account again, but if you play the arena tournaments you could still be paired.
@nadjarostowa said in #9:
> The green ball might change color, but I assume that you have to close the browser window, to disconnect.
>
>
> The green ball the the very indicator for being connected or disconnected. Again, there are many ways to play on lichess.
Not the case, the green ball is often switching, but the text (opponent disconnected x amount of time left) Is NOT showed when this happens, so there is clearly something else going on. For the text to appear, maybe a moderator or webpage builder can explain the difference. Between the green light turning off without the text appearing.
"How much losses did you find suspicious? I mean really, you sound like you report almost every opponent you lose against, while in reality everything is completely fine."
Why would I find other losses suspicious ? Why are assuming things ? I have no problem loosing in chess, if that helps you sleep at nights. The problem is, well read the first post again. :) I try to look at losses like a way to learn new Things, There is one opening I hate to play against, so now I have studied how to beat it, and got some progress. And nothing to report home or to lichess about in those losses.
And I think my win lost ratio is pretty good. So no need to be suspicious over losses in general.
> The green ball might change color, but I assume that you have to close the browser window, to disconnect.
>
>
> The green ball the the very indicator for being connected or disconnected. Again, there are many ways to play on lichess.
Not the case, the green ball is often switching, but the text (opponent disconnected x amount of time left) Is NOT showed when this happens, so there is clearly something else going on. For the text to appear, maybe a moderator or webpage builder can explain the difference. Between the green light turning off without the text appearing.
"How much losses did you find suspicious? I mean really, you sound like you report almost every opponent you lose against, while in reality everything is completely fine."
Why would I find other losses suspicious ? Why are assuming things ? I have no problem loosing in chess, if that helps you sleep at nights. The problem is, well read the first post again. :) I try to look at losses like a way to learn new Things, There is one opening I hate to play against, so now I have studied how to beat it, and got some progress. And nothing to report home or to lichess about in those losses.
And I think my win lost ratio is pretty good. So no need to be suspicious over losses in general.
*facepalm*
Another important point: a "blunderless performance" can be deceiving and depend a lot on how the game goes. The point is that the blunder / mistake / inaccuracy classification is not based on evaluation change but on change of so-called "winning chance" which is derived from the evaluation. Therefore the same kind of mistake (from human point of view) is classified in a very different fashion depending on current situation. E.g. hanging a piece will be definitely a blunder in an equal position as it changes the winning chances a lot; however, once you are e.g. a rook down, hanging another rook, however bad mistake it is, does not decrease your winning chance enough. And once your winning chance is less than 30%, you cannot possibly play a move that would classify as a "blunder" in the analysis, however hard you try; not even by blundering a checkmate in one. Likewise, if you are e.g. a queen up, hanging a rook may be inconvenient and make you feel stupid but it does not usually decrease your winning chance enough to classify as a blunder.
As the game in question was very uneven for most of the time, it wasn't in fact easy to blunder for either side and you only managed to do that by blundering a piece and then choosing to give up a rook rather than a bishop in the next move; but after that, the difference was again high enough to mask common mistakes that would classify in an even position.
The morale of the story is: do not take the engine numbers too seriously unless you learn well what exactly they mean and how to interpret them correctly.
As the game in question was very uneven for most of the time, it wasn't in fact easy to blunder for either side and you only managed to do that by blundering a piece and then choosing to give up a rook rather than a bishop in the next move; but after that, the difference was again high enough to mask common mistakes that would classify in an even position.
The morale of the story is: do not take the engine numbers too seriously unless you learn well what exactly they mean and how to interpret them correctly.
All I can say is, keep investigating. If a first time report fails, do another with better evidence.
Report further suspicious behavior, and lichess will surely take action.
Report further suspicious behavior, and lichess will surely take action.
@paulw7-uk said in #11:
> if you have legitimate concerns about a game played then use the report function, that is what it is there for. provide a link to the game and a brief explanation of your concerns. as time passes even if you go back and check the game in future and it looks like nothing has happened, that does not always mean nothing has happened, they could have taken some form of action but would keep that private and confidential between that account and lichess, it would only be more publically obvious if they actually close an account for violating terms of service and mark the account on that basis, then you can see that. If you are playing via home page and have blocked an account then you should not play that account again, but if you play the arena tournaments you could still be paired.
They will hardly ban someone because of one game but the account has a 1000 blitz rating and a 91% accuracy despite a lost piece in the opening seems indeed highly unlikely.
> if you have legitimate concerns about a game played then use the report function, that is what it is there for. provide a link to the game and a brief explanation of your concerns. as time passes even if you go back and check the game in future and it looks like nothing has happened, that does not always mean nothing has happened, they could have taken some form of action but would keep that private and confidential between that account and lichess, it would only be more publically obvious if they actually close an account for violating terms of service and mark the account on that basis, then you can see that. If you are playing via home page and have blocked an account then you should not play that account again, but if you play the arena tournaments you could still be paired.
They will hardly ban someone because of one game but the account has a 1000 blitz rating and a 91% accuracy despite a lost piece in the opening seems indeed highly unlikely.
@mrbasso said in #16:
> the account has a 1000 blitz rating and a 91% accuracy despite a lost piece in the opening seems indeed highly unlikely
This is a similar problem to what I pointed out in #14. Contrary to popular belief, the accuracy numbers cannot be seen as a universal measure of play quality or compared between different games or even players, even less should they be expected to correlate directly to player rating. And they absolutely cannot be seen as a sign of cheating.
Everyone can have high accuracy numbers from time to time (higher rated players more often in general but there can still be big differences in that regard between players of similar level depending on their style). IIRC my record is something like 98% which some people would surely find conspicuous; however, I don't think I played unusually well in that game, it's rather a result of how the game went. I have other games, often with accuracy below 90%, which I'm much more proud of.
> the account has a 1000 blitz rating and a 91% accuracy despite a lost piece in the opening seems indeed highly unlikely
This is a similar problem to what I pointed out in #14. Contrary to popular belief, the accuracy numbers cannot be seen as a universal measure of play quality or compared between different games or even players, even less should they be expected to correlate directly to player rating. And they absolutely cannot be seen as a sign of cheating.
Everyone can have high accuracy numbers from time to time (higher rated players more often in general but there can still be big differences in that regard between players of similar level depending on their style). IIRC my record is something like 98% which some people would surely find conspicuous; however, I don't think I played unusually well in that game, it's rather a result of how the game went. I have other games, often with accuracy below 90%, which I'm much more proud of.
The accuracy is calculated badly. Still you are expected to blunder back at that rating, not to play the game perfectly to the end. But only one game is not enough to say anything. It could have been an exception.
@mrbasso said in #18:
> Still you are expected to blunder back at that rating, not to play the game perfectly to the end.
I'm afraid that's not how it works. These random blunders are often related to one's mindset and ability to focus which can vary a lot, both between games and within a game.
One example is my 9 year old daughter who is a beginner. I've often seen her play horrible games against level 1 or 2 Stockfish here on lichess, blundering pieces every few moves, often in totally absurd way (I suspect she subconsciously knew that most of the time she would get away with it against the bot). Games against human opponents were still bad but not nearly as much. And then she sits to a physical board against me and blunders one bishop in the whole game. Even for me it was hard to believe it's the same player as I've seen playing online. (And it's not a matter of online vs OTB, few times we played online when we were in different places and she also played much better than usual.)
From my own experience I can say that once I accept that the game is already lost and I don't have to worry about the result (as in the game I linked earlier), it's very liberating and it often allows me to play better. And I suspect the lower rated a player is, the more their play can be affected by current state of their mind as mental strength and consistency are important factors of chess improvement.
> Still you are expected to blunder back at that rating, not to play the game perfectly to the end.
I'm afraid that's not how it works. These random blunders are often related to one's mindset and ability to focus which can vary a lot, both between games and within a game.
One example is my 9 year old daughter who is a beginner. I've often seen her play horrible games against level 1 or 2 Stockfish here on lichess, blundering pieces every few moves, often in totally absurd way (I suspect she subconsciously knew that most of the time she would get away with it against the bot). Games against human opponents were still bad but not nearly as much. And then she sits to a physical board against me and blunders one bishop in the whole game. Even for me it was hard to believe it's the same player as I've seen playing online. (And it's not a matter of online vs OTB, few times we played online when we were in different places and she also played much better than usual.)
From my own experience I can say that once I accept that the game is already lost and I don't have to worry about the result (as in the game I linked earlier), it's very liberating and it often allows me to play better. And I suspect the lower rated a player is, the more their play can be affected by current state of their mind as mental strength and consistency are important factors of chess improvement.
@mrbasso said in #18:
> The accuracy is calculated badly. Still you are expected to blunder back at that rating, not to play the game perfectly to the end. But only one game is not enough to say anything. It could have been an exception.
You are a strong player, and you will come up with ideas to make the position difficult and give your opponent enough rope to hang themselves.
The OP, on the other hand, didn't come up with any resistance at all in that game. I just let the engine run in 5-best-mode. No matter what the opponent plays, he wins. And taking stuff with check are obvious easy moves. Taking more stuff without check: also not hard. Pinning pieces or attacking things? Yes, what else do you expect your opponent to do?
Often, getting a high accuracy score is not so much dependent on your own moves, but rather on your opponent's moves. If your opponent doesn't give you chances to go wrong, you can get over 90% *very* easily.
In fact, I bet I could play bad enough to get most 1000 rated players to play 90%+ games against me. And people would be super suspicious of them, when in fact this was almost forced upon them.
> The accuracy is calculated badly. Still you are expected to blunder back at that rating, not to play the game perfectly to the end. But only one game is not enough to say anything. It could have been an exception.
You are a strong player, and you will come up with ideas to make the position difficult and give your opponent enough rope to hang themselves.
The OP, on the other hand, didn't come up with any resistance at all in that game. I just let the engine run in 5-best-mode. No matter what the opponent plays, he wins. And taking stuff with check are obvious easy moves. Taking more stuff without check: also not hard. Pinning pieces or attacking things? Yes, what else do you expect your opponent to do?
Often, getting a high accuracy score is not so much dependent on your own moves, but rather on your opponent's moves. If your opponent doesn't give you chances to go wrong, you can get over 90% *very* easily.
In fact, I bet I could play bad enough to get most 1000 rated players to play 90%+ games against me. And people would be super suspicious of them, when in fact this was almost forced upon them.