"When a student sits down at a test, he knows how to cheat, in principle. But how does he decide whether or not he’ll actually do it? Is it logic? An impulse? A subconscious reaction to the adrenaline in his blood and the dopamine in his brain? People cheat all the time. But why, exactly, do they decide to do it in the first place?
One early theory, promoted by the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, held that cheating is governed by our moral development: the more advanced we are, the less likely we are to cheat. According to Kohlberg, we pass through six stages as we grow older, during which we become progressively less egotistical and more practiced at reasoning through the problems of morality. With each step in development, we become less likely to cheat. Cheating, in other words, is the result of a lack of moral fortitude and education. Later views contended that people cheat based on the situation. In 1996, the psychologist and economist George Loewenstein presented a cold, rational formula: people weigh the benefits of the unethical action against the costs of committing it, and decide accordingly. That same year, the psychologists David Messick and Max Bazerman countered with a less precise, more emotional approach, positing that cheating is the result of a highly subjective reasoning process that includes three types of argument: how we think about the world, how we think about other people, and how we think about ourselves. Eight years later, Bazerman offered an addendum to his initial view. For the most part, he said, our decision to cheat or not cheat occurs on a subconscious level. It’s a result of situational forces of which we are hardly, if at all, aware."
www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/inside-the-cheaters-mindI got to wondering if cheating at games, chess in particular, is a "disease", similar to spouses cheating on their partner? The above link and quote regards cheating in school tests. Studies have been conducted with theories put forth. Has there been a study specifically regarding chess?
I reported someone using assisted play in correspondence games and not 5 minutes later this "fool" was banned. The use was transparent, all one needed to do was take a minute and view his last 13 wins.
What are people thinking? Not necessarily the cheating, but they surely must realize the practice can't last long. Maybe it's not so complicated. It's the internet. Nobody knows them. Make a new account. I hope Lichess has developed methods to prevent repeated offenders from returning.
This thread is about clinical studies out there by qualified experts in the field of human behavior. I have no interest in naming and shaming, rants about the injustices done or being a so-called "victim". It is meant to be a discussion of the human mind. What is it about chess that provokes this reaction? Surely it is more than simply "winning" a board game.
Awareness of the topic, people taking that extra time to question and search within themselves, may help to prevent chess players from going down that path of cheating. It does after all appear quite easy, no jail time is threatened. The consequences do not involve taking responsibility for their actions. The offenders have only themselves to answer to. Although, this is not 100% true, as professionals occasionally succumb to the temptation.
Great thread! I'd love to hear others thought/research on the topic. It's always confounded me and look forward to a thoughtful discussion!
Cheating occurs in virtually every competitive game. Having played quite a few (including, but not limited to chess), I've been exposed to a wide spectrum of behavior over time and can share some of my experience.
First, and most importantly: don't worry about cheaters. If you're playing anything digital, most likely the product's team has automated screening methods which will catch the majority of (first time, inexperienced) cheaters. On lichess, and other chess servers, algorithms can do the heavy lifting while a human can verify the results for individual reported users. Users with win rates well above 50% and with low centipawn losses per game will likely be flagged as cheaters. Human analysis (with a computer) can help to determine if these players are in fact using computer assistance.
Cheaters are a very small part of the population in *any* game, and few of them are talented players. While you get better at chess by solving problems over the board, they use a machine to do that for them and never end up learning much about the game. This is why you typically find fewer cheaters that are strong players. In addition, players who have invested considerable time in getting better at chess rarely feel validated by using a computer to win matches.
Because this thread is "inside the mind of a cheater", I thought I'd proffer an experience from about 20 years ago that quickly taught me what the long-term consequences of cheating are. As a kid (maybe 10 years old), I bought Diablo, an RPG computer game where you level a character up by fighting the bad guys in dungeons. I played this single player against the computer, not against humans.
The grind to get a Diablo character to a high level takes many hours. So why not use a character hacking app that instantly gives me all the best gear and maxes out my level? After about an hour of playing with my glitzy new creation, I found that the game was dull and meaningless. It turned out that the question I had to ask myself was "how much fun is this going to be if I only ever use overpowered, hacked characters to play the game?" Like in every competitive game, once you cheat the first time you decide whether you'll make a habit of it. Players who have an interest in a career with longevity are unlikely to be consistent cheaters because it takes the excitement and satisfaction out of winning.
Fundamentally, it seems that in the mind of a cheater, there is a lack of honesty primarily with oneself. To deny thoughts of the future (what will my chess career be like if I cheat every game?) and feelings of boredom/futility (hmph, won another game by inputting the computer's moves) we can assume the cheater is not honest with themselves about the way that cheating makes them feel if they consistently do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was another group of cheaters who excel at cheating. To them, I imagine that the competitive game they're playing isn't chess, it's attempting to cheat on multiple platforms without getting caught. Getting better at cheating is more important than getting better at chess, and satisfaction is derived from continuing to cheat in subtle ways without being flagged. Because the primary motivation for these cheaters is not to win the chess game, they are unlikely to be affected by the emotional consequences of cheating (boredom, etc.). Although none of us wants to lose to these artful cheaters, it must be said that they perform a useful function by ensuring that a robust anti-cheating system continues to evolve. As more of these crafty cheaters get caught, new methods of discovering behavior that violates the rules of the game/site and security is improved. None of us like them, but in any competitive ecosystem parasites like these do still perform a useful function.
@dRr0x0rZZ Great insights. The personal experiences you shared, the well thought response rings true.
Yes, the final word is the lack of honesty primarily within oneself. What is the satisfaction? I liked the video game analogy of using a "hack" to progress rapidly, to reach the final destination, but soon realizing the game was not fun.
Chess is a little different, in that there exists no end to the games. Temporary results with no goal of completion. Often the motivation is "revenge". Players assume they were cheated, respond with Stockfish to even the score. But I think it is not so simple an explanation.
Psychologists write their books, get paid the big bucks by patients to lie on their couch. But how much gets to the root of the behavior? Are cheaters at chess prone to cheating in general or is there something unique about the game that provokes? There is enough information out there that program users know they will get caught with habitual cheating. They simply do not care as new accounts can be made. Of concern is the on/off cheater, either by game or occasional moves. The practice in the end is no different.
Is the behavior symptomatic?
@dRr0x0rZZ wrote: "Although none of us wants to lose to these artful cheaters, it must be said that they perform a useful function by ensuring that a robust anti-cheating system continues to evolve. As more of these crafty cheaters get caught, new methods of discovering behavior that violates the rules of the game/site and security is improved. None of us like them, but in any competitive ecosystem parasites like these do still perform a useful function."
!!! Good Stuff
Adds: Nothing is 100% infallible, but the checks and balances used, repeatable verifications, users can be assured that every measure is taken to ensure fairness.
Assuming all people are acting rationally... I think it's a matter of perceived risk vs perceived payoff a lot of the time for a cheater.
For instance if you are 95% sure you will not get caught cheating, and you win a million dollars for cheating, and only a slap on the wrist if caught it's probably in your best interest to cheat.
On the other hand if there is a 95% chance you will get caught, and you only win 50 dollars and if you get caught you go to prison. It's probably not in your best interest to cheat.
So... in a position of "cooking the books" or some "insider trading" where you can make a ton of money if you are working for some financial institution... Makes some sense if you probably just get a slap on the wrist...
on the other hand if you are a broke, it's usually not a good idea to stick up the convenient store when you wind up getting shot by police, or put in prison for 10 years
There are cheaters at the top, and cheaters at the bottom.
Reward vs risk most definitely is a major contributor to the equation. But I think one must look beyond the obvious.
Some people would never cheat, under any circumstances, even if it meant a big monetary gain. While others do not hesitate, regardless of the risks involved.
Finding a wallet on the street with identification. $5 inside or $5000. Do you return it? For some the pros and cons get weighed. For others there are no 2nd thoughts. They either return it or keep it. There is no moral decision to weigh.
Often the issue does not regard financial gain. Winning can be just as much a driving force. I wonder if chess brings out this behavior in people who would never consider cheating in other aspects of their lives, or is it simply just another manifestation?
