Is KB still banned?

we were talking about kb (keyboard). and your claim was that 3% or more use keyboard. autoclick is not keyboard. nor is cheating with a weak engine. those are completely different issues.
if you want to have a discussion about anything, you will have to define what you are talking about, not just switch to something different when you are told that the numbers you pulled out of your don't make any sense.

@glbert said in #21:
> we were talking about kb (keyboard). and your claim was that 3% or more use keyboard. autoclick is not keyboard. nor is cheating with a weak engine. those are completely different issues.
> if you want to have a discussion about anything, you will have to define what you are talking about, not just switch to something different when you are told that the numbers you pulled out of your don't make any sense.

Sometimes people just want to be right. I was proposing something that would have a similar effect to KBing. Which by all extensive purposes would be related to the OP. But sure, you are right man XP

@DABO5000 said in #20:
> 3. Mathematically my numbers are supported. Chess.com says .3 percent of users are cheating. And lets be honest here. Lichess is great, but they will never with the limited resources they have, out detect chess.com. It is unfortunate. But I digress. Most of them are going to be cheating at higher levels. But I would imagine not too high so they don't get caught.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are digressing about.

I'l@Toadofsky said in #23:
> Respectfully, you have no idea what you are digressing about.

I'll take your word for it. I do know that money unfortunately means something in regards to development. Meaning more minds. Chesscom for example could hire a bunch of top of the line mathmaticians that have 0 interest in chess. Whereas lichess would need to rely on a significantly smaller pool of people that care about chess. Lichess is a great site, the interface is unparalleled. So the core group of you guys that worked on this site are brilliant.

But speaking on mathematics. Because there is a very large sample size on both sites. Numbers should be very close to one another. This is in regards to the propensity of cheating. One of my pet peeves is to disregard this statement by indicating that there are different samples. Unless you can prove such a claim, it is far more likely to that both sample sizes are similar.

Another argument that can be made is that because lichess players have more of a conscience / care more about chess which might be true. However. such an argument can not be made without concrete data which would be quite difficult to get.

I also have to make a slight correction as it is actually .14% that chesscom has acknowledged to. I am admittedly paranoid regards to cheating due to the ease for people to do it. Solutions to such issues include having a subset stress test the detection by thinking up on methods. But the ethics of this can cause issues.

@DABO5000 said in #24:
> But speaking on mathematics. Because there is a very large sample size on both sites. Numbers should be very close to one another.

Lichess also publishes its code, in case there are any concerns about quality and people interested in helping. I've contributed to this code, as have other scientists. Chess.com could afford to hire mathematicians although during their conference livestreams they've never mentioned such a thing; during the Niemann case they mentioned consulting Glickman as he is independent. There have been public reports of titled players being caught cheating months after the fact; admittedly, Chess.com has many more players to keep track of (at least according to SEO and to their own numbers).