[syphia]

> If a game is good, it’s going to attract cheaters.

I have started to consider that games should be inherently cheat-resistant, not protected by anti-cheats.

Chess and Go are less affected by cheats by their design. It's not nearly as frustrating to lose to a cheater when they're working with the same information you are, and when they perform actions that a human could reasonably perform.

I find that rulesets enforced by nature or by the design of the system are, to me, more interesting than rulesets enforced by agreement and punishment, even if the "agreement" is not to hack the game. It forces more creativity and makes games offer more relevant experiences instead of copying the same formula.

As for identity systems etc. to permaban cheaters, I think that if it takes increasingly strict levels of monitoring and crackdown and reliance on "trusted authorities" to keep these beloved games playable, it might be better to move on and find new games. Few (if any) individual games or genres of games matter enough to warrant this attention.

[mentalfist]

>Chess and Go are less affected by cheats by their design.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this position?

[syphia]

Cheating might break tournament or social rules, but it doesn't break the game. So yes.

And any online game can be "cheated" by having someone better play in your place, or abusing the ranking system, but again that is breaking a social/meta-game rule, not a game rule.

Cheats in FPS games effectively break the rules of the game (wallhacks), or do things that are entirely impossible for a human (instant-lock aimbot). Chess and Go don't have that problem.

I suppose the difference is moot when everyone imagines that they're in a tournament playing for clout, and not playing to learn strategy.

[DrJaws]

read about the drama of carlsen and niemann before saying that chess is cheat-resistant