I didn’t participate in Coronacup 3 because of the obligation for dan players to record themselves. I don’t really like playing serious online games already and that extra hassle of setting up recording just spoils the fun for me (and I think people would still be able to cheat if they really want to).
So I just let it pass. I’ll wait until I can play IRL tournaments again.
Indeed it seems easier to still cheat than to set up the recording in the first place! An accomplice behind the camera feels easier to get hold of than learning about the required set up.
The point of the camera is not to eliminate cheating completely but to make it more difficult. I am glad I am a kyu player so that the video is not mandatory, but if I had to record myself I think it would be reasonable to enforce rules similar to those in an IRL tournament. For instance if you are allowed to get up from your chair several times IRL then you should be allowed to do so online.
Well finding an accomplice is a part of the difficulty too
For a programmer, I think it wouldn’t be too difficult to setup an automated “accomplice” that spectates the game, feeds the moves into AI and shows a Lizzy type of view on a monitor somewhere behind your playing monitor, so you can check the AI’s output with minimal eye movement.
And to not get caught by post game analysis by referees, you could play your own moves as long as they are not big mistakes according to the AI and only use the AI to avoid larger mistakes.
I think that would work to beat almost any human player without getting caught (if you are around mid dan yourself).
Yes but any reasonable anti-cheating policy would require you to film yourself in the room, from behind your back, not from the laptop webcam, precisely to avoid the easy trick of setting another monitor behind your playing monitor.
When the camera doesn’t show your eye movements, the camera’s field of view won’t be the same as your own field of view when looking from the corner of your eye, so you would still be able to cheat. So you would need multiple cameras.
Still, you may be able to cheat with some clever tricks involving mirrors, projectors or audio.
In a much less favourable environment like some examination at the uni, I saw how students had ways to cheat. Here where you configure yourself the anti cheat at home, i don’t believe one sec that someone will not do it if he wants to.
You can always cheat anyway, the point is to make it reasonably cumbersome. At the end of the day referees will decide, but this kind of tools help their decision.
Being publicly seen doing something and being recorded doing something are very different things.
As I’ve said previously, people are so scared of cheating they think every opposition is suspicious. Historically, pitchforks against anyone advising some consideration before putting rules in place are expected…
And also I found it weird, in all online tournaments directions say “your screen and mouse hand should be visible”. How about people who play on their phones/ tablets and don’t have a computer?..
And I take it this is not a barrier we would be interested to minimize?
To really ensure that cheating is impossible, all players would have to play in an environment and with equipment (and perhaps even body scans) that is under full control of the organisation and referees. That may be doable for top pro title matches, but it’s just not practical for larger online events with many dozens or even hundreds of (mostly amateur) participants.
So we should be aware that only the more naieve cheaters will get caught by anti-cheating policies that are still somewhat practical in the latter type of event.
I think the point is more about signalling than practical effect. The aim is not too make cheating impossible since that is likely impossible anyway but rather to send the message that cheating is taken seriously and significant efforts will be made to prevent it. This means that if you are considering or tempted to cheat somehow there is a somewhat higher bar/greater disincentive than for a tourney where the organisers just decide that since cheating can’t be fully prevented then they will do nothing about it.
As in Go, threatening an outcome is maybe a more effective approach. Organisers are “harassing the weak group” of cheaters in order to “profit elsewhere” rather trying to “kill the group outright and losing overall”!
[Edited to clarify that organisers are not evil harassers. It’s just a Go analogy]
(I think the sentiment of your last sentence would be clearer if you got rid of the word ‘just’)
Hi, this brings me to an interesting idea:
Do you think that it is possible to program AI algorithms that detect (the possibility of) cheating? It would suffice if the algorithms could detect cheating at a certainty level of about 80 percent. The games would than be flagged and human referees could have a look at them?
I agree that filming is a pain and not necessarily a way to avoid cheating completely, and yes it could be a privacy problem as well.
Automated AI cheating detection however would be a good solution to this and I think it will stop many people from cheating when they know something like this is implemented.
And I question that will surely arise sooner or later: whose laws apply regarding the recordings?
Such a program exists and has been used in the Corona Cups 2 and 3. In addition to the program, suspicious games were/are analyzed by strong human players.
Up to a certain point, yes, but it’s not a given. For example, a lot of schools implement anti-cheating surveillance for doing tests at home, and this does feel like a human rights violation: either you enforce people to give up their privacy, or if they refuse you obstruct their access to education. This does not suddenly change when education becomes voluntary (like university).
Your argument would also be problematic with things like facebook gathering your data: you’ve provided the data to facebook yourself, voluntarily, yet still it seems many people feel there are some rights to privacy being violated by facebook.
Yes - I find the blurry line here to be around “voluntary”.
Primary education is clearly not voluntary, and filming primary students doing homework is a horrific sounding idea. Tertiary education is not really “voluntary” either.
I guess if you are a pro, then participation is really not that voluntary at all - and changing the rules after you became pro is hard in you in that case.
For us amateurs, it is more leaning towards voluntary. Notably, when all the dust is cleared and “how these measures should work” is settled those who don’t like it can set up their own amateur tournies without these measures. No-one will join those because when push comes to shove everyone knows that cheating is a problem and want it dealt with…
This is exactly the type of veiled “threat” always used to anyone who pushes back, you know. “You can try it your way, but we will cast you out unless you comply to whatever we ask”.