Online chess server play: possible issues

[Kevin Pacey]

A couple of possible issues re: online chess server play (at least for me).

1) I normally hate to do any business transaction online (I don't even use credit cards). This may impede my playing on a server that is not one a CFC member gets to play on as part of his membership privileges - that leads me to the next possible issue (which may be one for even this year's AGM elections):

2) It would thus be extra nice (for me anyway) if a White Knight were ever to help the CFC get its own chess server, with no worries about staffing it, to boot.

Google: White Knight :a beleaguered champion who fights heroically for a cause, as in politics. Informal.

[Hugh Brodie]

I've always wondered why people would want the CFC to get its own server. People playing online chess already have their favourite servers, and an almost unlimited number of opponents to choose from - of all strengths. A CFC server wouldn't come close.

The FQE and USCF tried - and failed - to start up chess servers. And I don't know how the FIDE one is going. The existing ones already have the staff, and take care of the cheaters, etc. Why potentially add to the CFC's future woes?

[Kevin Pacey]

One answer is, the CFC would be master of its own house if it ever got its own server (complete with staff) - probably a long-term objective, true; otherwise, if the CFC makes deal(s) with existing server(s), there's no telling when those server(s) may want to alter the conditions of said deal(s).

A CFC server could serve CFC members exclusively, or offer a section where non-CFC members might enjoy playing with less bells and whistles than the section for CFC members - and CFC members could at any moment mix in with the players of that section if they wished to too. There's also the long term possibility of setting up some chess variants of choice if people wish to play. Not to mention offering prizes to either the CFC or non-CFC sections' tournaments (if these are set up). For non-CFC members this could include offering CFC memberships as prizes. There are probably other possible advantages I could think of eventually.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

There is no way that we could possibly set up our own server. We did have a deal with FIDE Arena but there was no one to volunteer to run it. FIDE Arena still wants to continue our arrangement but if it involves work on our end, I have nothing to promise them. Right now I am frustrated with the possible cheating that is going on with online chess. Every day there are reports filling up my email. There are games to look at.

[Fred McKim]

One answer is, the CFC would be master of its own house if it ever got its own server (complete with staff) - probably a long-term objective, true; otherwise, if the CFC makes deal(s) with existing server(s), there's no telling when those server(s) may want to alter the conditions of said deal(s).

A CFC server could serve CFC members exclusively, or offer a section where non-CFC members might enjoy playing with less bells and whistles than the section for CFC members - and CFC members could at any moment mix in with the players of that section if they wished to too. There's also the long term possibility of setting up some chess variants of choice if people wish to play. Not to mention offering prizes to either the CFC or non-CFC sections' tournaments (if these are set up). For non-CFC members this could include offering CFC memberships as prizes. There are probably other possible advantages I could think of eventually.

Hi Kevin

I think CFC organizers are doing just fine, running CFC events at both Chess.com and Lichess.org

Fred

[Kevin Pacey]

...Right now I am frustrated with the possible cheating that is going on with online chess. Every day there are reports filling up my email. There are games to look at.

Forgive me for asking, but I don't understand why the CFC ever allowed this situation to arise. If LiChess and Chess.com have anti-cheating measures (however primitive), why is the onus on the CFC to check for possible cheating in online games? - players should simply be warned that the CFC trusts LiChess and Chess.com's measures vs. cheating, and that's that. If ever-overly-suspicious chess players want to appeal a game they didn't win, at the very least I'd think it should go to a CFC Appeals Committee (after a player forwards whatever fee there might be, if any, for the committee's time and efforts).

The only reason I can think of that the CFC is allowing this situation to happen, where an Executive member gets saddled with looking at a zillion games, would be that the CFC really, really badly wants people to play online CFC-rated games, however much the CFC gets swamped by requests to deal with suspicions of online cheating.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Online servers can ban players for behaviour which is not necessarily cheating (ie changing focus from the playing window). People who cheat often claim that they did not cheat. Some of these people are very young so parents get involved. There are not a zillion games but I have looked at more than 50 games recently. In one case, I thought the case for cheating was weak and the server came back and said that it was inconclusive. In another case, I looked at a number of games but did not find cheating. In a third case, I thought that cheating had occurred as the level of play varied very significantly between one set of games and another only days later.

Currently we have CFC rated (active) online games and thus we need to monitor what is happening.

Cheating is an existential threat to online chess (and also over the board chess) so we have to be involved particularly in the case of players who are caught by servers and then register new accounts to play in CFC rated events.

At the moment, it is handled.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Roughly speaking, there are two levels of protection for online chess: check the games after the fact and require that the players have at least one camera on the game and themselves at all time.