Farewell

@Bxf7wins said in #78:
> The cheating is clear

Just because you repeat yourself more and more, it will not make your statement true.

@Bxf7wins I appreciate your thoughts but you would engender more trust if you actually addressed the larger issue at concern here, which is potential human bias in the cheat detection system.

Just saying it's obvious based on the public dataset alone doesn't set up a lot of room for people to feel good about the future of online chess. Have you ever heard of "pessimistic meta induction"?

Instead of assuming you're always going to be able to spot a cheater from the outside looking in, it would be interesting to consider the possibility that, just like machines can now fake being human, we humans are also evolving to be better able to calculate like machines.

It's not a matter of if, or when, it's happening. It's happening right now, and if your plan for not giving cheaters an edge hinges on them being lazy enough to not google a book written decades ago then it's not gonna offer much solace to the next false-positive.

Because you have the experience and expertise to look at this issue with a degree of certainty I encourage you to also look at it from a degree of humility. Even the model for an atom is constantly in question. If we're struggling to understand our universe on such a fundamental level, then what's to say with certainty that statistics themselves are always proof of only one thing?

@spidersneedlovetoo said in #82:
> @Bxf7wins If we're struggling to understand our universe on such a fundamental level

Dude, calm down. Its just a guy who cheated!

In the perplexing tapestry of the cosmos, the enigmatic nature of the universe unfurls its tendrils of uncertainty, casting a veil of ambiguity over the very essence of truth. As such, the seemingly innocuous game of chess morphs into a conundrum of cosmic proportions, with every move a dance of duality between honesty and deception. Who's to say if a cunning mastermind has cheated or if the interdimensional fabric of reality itself has conspired to twist the outcome?

With our limited comprehension of the universe's mysterious underpinnings, we remain forever ensnared in this enigmatic conundrum, unable to discern with absolute certainty whether a checkmate is truly the product of strategic genius or a mere cosmic illusion, defying the very boundaries of human understanding.

@EvilPyrokar said in #83:
> Dude, calm down. Its just a guy who cheated!

Lol, All this mystery and when easy questions are put forth right in front of us you'd rather not ask them?

C'mon! As @VulgarisMagistralis so succinctly elucidated: the universe is full of wonder and this isn't even close to that scale. If you're not giving good people a second chance then you're not trying hard enough.

@Evil_Eddy said in #80:
> Why did he closed his account so quick?

But he didn't close his account, he told me the lichess staff did.
I thought they only marked accounts with "this account violated the lichess terms" or whatever, but it appears that at least sometimes they close them.

I guess in a modern era, as players are using computers to help train and make them into better players (by doing post-game analysis as well as opening analysis with engines) they are going to start more and more playing the engine's choices of moves.

Maybe they've started to know the patterns when these are the good moves, and have analysed too why they are good moves.

In particular, many of us who play variants will have picked some of the tactics up from computer analysis, for example, I have seen in anti-chess it is usually a bad move to give up the pieces leaving yourself with just pawns, and in particular it is usually a bad move to give up your king. Not to mention learning some opening sequences from engine analysis.

Я может быть и не знаю как Pepellou играет в блитз или в рапид, потому что я с ним попадался только в zh, но у многих игроков( в том числе и у меня), игра идёт от настроения. Я встречался с этим GM, с которым играл Pepellou. Да, он играет хорошо, но всё могут допустить ошибку, после которой, можно проиграть. Pepellou, играет очень хорошо, хоть и счёт с ним не в мою пользу, но я всё-таки считаю, что он играл честно. У меня был случай, на другом аккаунте(к которому у меня есть доступ) когда я на берсе выиграл, выиграл у Жигалко и у многих его друзей. После того, как Жигалко проиграл мне, он посмотрел моих противников в турнире и начал подозревать меня в читерстве и подал на меня заявку, но мой аккаунт жив. У многих игроков сила игры очень высокая, но у многих она развивается в разных вариантах шахмат. У меня например в блитз, рапид, KOTH, и zh. И я тоже мог сыграть такой же турнир и с таким же результатам, как и Pepellou и что? Меня бы тоже, тогда бы закрыли. Я всё же склоняюсь к мнению, что Pepellou, честный игрок и не изменяет правилом lichess.org.

This just blows. Really sad. :(

I'm also saddened by this unfortunate event. Anyone who follows Pepe's stream knows he does not cheat. That's obvious. Lichess needs to look more closely at its internal processes, and fix it ASAP or this site is in danger of going down a dark path.