you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

they claimed to have proof for iirc hundreds of times cheating in online matches!

They merely stated his play was, across many games, indistinguishable from a cheater, they didn't have actual hard proof that he was cheating.

If they had actual proof they wouldn't have needed to settle

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In chess, doesn't that mean he was playing well?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    It's a bit more nuanced than that. Chess engines exist, and computers have the ability to always make the most correct move given the current board state 100% of the time, even when viable alternatives exist. That's how they tend to catch cheaters. If you're out of book moves and making engine optimal moves every turn, there's a strong suspicion that you are using a computer to cheat. Even Grandmasters play sub-optimal moves, so when novices come out swinging with near-100% accuracy on their scorecard, it raises a lot of alarm bells.

  • source
  • parent