Cheating at online chess: Here is a scenario:

@dboing said in #29:
> there are PVs (command line SF can do 20, lichess 5). but yes time factor is actually the foundation of most of SF evolution, to the point of fastforwarding a lot to deep at expense of width, with some repair tricks. don't worry. time is not invisible to SF.

I meant it in cheat prevention, not engine analysis accuracy. If Stockfish is doing its job as it is supposed to, did the programmers put in an additional measure, unnecessary for the engine, but to ward off/detect cheating by delaying the evaluation to be reported at certain evaluations (example I cited in my previous post).

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #31:
> I meant it in cheat prevention, not engine analysis accuracy. If Stockfish is doing its job as it is supposed to, did the programmers put in an additional measure, unnecessary for the engine, but to ward off/detect cheating by delaying the evaluation to be reported at certain evaluations (example I cited in my previous post).

sorry, forgot which thread I was in... yes we could look at irwin.... but such curiosity might come with rumors....;)
also, i think vanilla chess problems are already plentiful... and with hidden stories to uncover already.

@sheckley666
I agree with you for the most part, however, to clarify I do not think a 1300 elo player (Patzer) could use an engine incrementally and play at 2600+ level. I'm not worried about that happening in the least.

I do however think that a player between about 1600-2300 elocould raise their elo by about 200 points by using an engine every other move. Using an engine would decrease the odds of a blunder or inaccuracy by 50%, which means a player who occasionally drops pieces or misses checkmates, won't miss them half the time.

@WorldRenownPatzer It's funny, out of 4 pages of replies, I think you are the only person who actually took a stab at answering my initial question: Would the Bots and Moderators be able to catch it stop it.
I thank you for that!

@InkyDarkBird
I respectfully disagree with your comment about why people don't like cheaters. I don't like cheaters because I don't like losing. It sucks playing a person whose elo is 1700 and then they play at a 2200 level. I go back and review the game and they have 0 inaccuracies, 0 blunders and are a playing like an IM or GM.

@Mercy-Man You are absolutely right about bullet (and superblitz) I think it would be pretty difficult to incrementally cheat in bullet. Great Insight!

@boilingFrog I like the way you think. If someone went to that much work I wouldn't mind losing to them.

One imprtant note about cheaters:
While us non-cheaters (=suckers) improve our openings and endgame, because middlegame is too complex and unknown, cheaters get bored crushing everyone, and sometimes like to give us an advantage - playing a terrible opening, then using the prog - watching how it slowly beats the human.

So, if the opening is, not 'dubious' but complete c**p, and the middlegame is perfect chess, and you're being checkmated with a perfect attack out of nowhere...

* a tip for cheaters *and* suckers: I just found out you can see multiple lines at the Analysis board - Menu - Multiple lines. This helps suckers too, because now you can make up openings, choose sneakier lines against known defenses, or create counter-gambits.

When cheaters cheat in chess the computer is the winner. Cheaters never win.