It might be rather for the Q&A section but I think posting here is more popular.
This week I lost against a guy with 1794 with superb play on my mobile account. In the evening I looked at the game and the case was clear, at least for me... So I reported him quietly although it seems it was his only game recently where he cheated.
Now he was banned, I got a notification for helping. Well, sounds good. But, no refund? And this brings to my questions: this game emerges in my "worst 5" table and spoiled my winning streak. What about the refunds there?
Thank you for your help. Stay chessed!
Glicko2 will correct itself after a few games, which is better than poking it manually.
I agree it wound be nice if it wasn't included when calculating the stats.
I too agree it would be nice if "worst 5" and winning streak didn't consider this game; in fact given the self-correcting nature of Glicko-2 these seem much more important than any rating point refund.
@flugsio Doesn't that same logic apply to refunds? Ratings will correct themselves downwards anyway, but it makes the people who were cheated feel better
Honestly the refund policy will cause some slight inflation in all players' ratings so it cannot be guaranteed that the same logic applies to refunded points.
@Toadofsky But doesn't your logic also apply to the other case - cheaters have caused all players' ratings to slightly deflate?
@jimj12 Only in the same manner that if a super-GM had joined the rating pool and won every game (in place of the engine); ratings estimate the players' true strength.
#7 But there are miilions of comp-cheaters but super-GMs are still quite rare here. Even if they start to join there way fewer super-GMs than comp-cheaters in the world.
Also a super-GM can lose to other GMs or IMs and strong players here but a computer always beat a human.
#8 I'm not sure about the "millions" number despite the fact that players get riled up when cheaters waste their time.
Another argument is that Glicko-2 ratings aren't zero-sum, so even when a player enters the pool and wins all of their games, that should only cost opponents a few points--points easily offset by, say, players who create multiple accounts because they don't like their rating; or by players who lose a few games & leave.
A third (however unpopular) argument is that cheaters are players and earn ratings, but are not ranked on a leaderboard and do not have the same rights as fair players. However this simple position is not Lichess' position.
#9 The "millions" wasn't meant to be taken literally. What I meant was there are very much more cheaters than super GMs.
