user2785: I'm trying to improve my tournament play, so I play classical chess on LiChess (me on LiChess).  In some (not all) of my games, I do well and have very few or no "inaccuracies" and maybe 15 centipawn loss (example centipawn loss: 6, 14, 19).  Only a few of my games are at this level, though.
I'm paranoid that someone will report me for cheating, and my account will consequently incur problems.  Also, as a result of playing classical chess with a 2100-ish rating, I encounter people who are almost certainly cheating from time to time (at some point in their game history, they just stopped making mistakes), which creates an atmosphere of mistrust.
Question: Need I be concerned about being classed as a "cheater" if I sometimes play good classical games on LiChess?

user825: Don't worry. 2100 is hardly a cheater rating, 1000 more may land you in troubles.
While you didn't commit too many blunders in your games, you also failed to follow the computer best lines. You will be fine.

user18738: No. 
Plenty of honest players who will sometimes get the centipawns you are describing in 3 minute or even one minute games. Don't worry about opponent's cheating - it's an unhelpful distraction and lichess algorithm will catch them eventually and refund the rating.
There is also the danger of people making false accusations with good intentions - cheat detection is not a simple issue (read FIDE anti cheating expert Ken Regan's blogs and presentations but good luck understanding them without a maths PhD)
Centipawns is quite a bad measure anyway - ignores difficulty of moves.

user12873: No you absolutely don't need to worry. The big chess sites (LiChess included) have refined algorithms to detect cheaters. Unless you're consistently playing like an engine in most/all of your games, you're fine.
I've played on ICC and chess.com for over a decade and have yet to be suspected of being an engine :)

user4393: Lichess is good about false positives as far as I know. Unfortunately confirmed cheating in longer time controls is harder to catch because many people won't make engine moves every time. In general most good players will not play rapid online for this reason.

user18168: Lichess is definitely very good at avoiding false positivies and rectifying those false positives when they do occur.
Even though I don't have access to moderator tools on lichess, one can spot cheaters fairly easily. They usually have the following characteristics:

A "flat" time graph where all of their moves took about the same length of time - even simple recaptures.
Having no mistakes, and less than three inaccuracies (obviously)
Perfectly executing a long checkmate sequence in the fastest way possible. This is a good catch because even a good player will likely turn a mate in 6 into a mate in 7 or 8. Computers do it perfectly.

Numbers 1 and 2 are fine by themselves IMO, so you have nothing to worry about unless you spend the same amount of time on each move in those games where you have few inaccuracies. Number 3 is a sort of "icing on the cake" for me; your games look fine.

2785: <p>I'm trying to improve my tournament play, so I play classical chess on LiChess (<a href="https://lichess.org/@/becky82" rel="nofollow noreferrer">me on LiChess</a>).  In some (not all) of my games, I do well and have very few or no "inaccuracies" and maybe 15 centipawn loss (example centipawn loss: <a href="https://lichess.org/2putlAi8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">6</a>, <a href="https://lichess.org/d2fiPQHH" rel="nofollow noreferrer">14</a>, <a href="https://lichess.org/FFkcJPPC" rel="nofollow noreferrer">19</a>).  Only a few of my games are at this level, though.</p>

<p>I'm paranoid that someone will report me for cheating, and my account will consequently incur problems.  Also, as a result of playing classical chess with a 2100-ish rating, I encounter people who are almost certainly cheating from time to time (at some point in their game history, they just stopped making mistakes), which creates an atmosphere of mistrust.</p>

<p><strong>Question</strong>: Need I be concerned about being classed as a "cheater" if I sometimes play good classical games on LiChess?</p>
 825: <p>Don't worry. 2100 is hardly a cheater rating, 1000 more may land you in troubles.</p>

<p>While you didn't commit too many blunders in your games, you also failed to follow the computer best lines. You will be fine.</p>
 18738: <p>No. </p>

<p>Plenty of honest players who will sometimes get the centipawns you are describing in 3 minute or even one minute games. Don't worry about opponent's cheating - it's an unhelpful distraction and lichess algorithm will catch them eventually and refund the rating.</p>

<p>There is also the danger of people making false accusations with good intentions - cheat detection is not a simple issue (read FIDE anti cheating expert Ken Regan's blogs and presentations but good luck understanding them without a maths PhD)</p>

<p>Centipawns is quite a bad measure anyway - ignores difficulty of moves.</p>
 12873: <p>No you absolutely don't need to worry. The big chess sites (LiChess included) have refined algorithms to detect cheaters. Unless you're consistently playing like an engine in most/all of your games, you're fine.</p>

<p>I've played on ICC and chess.com for over a decade and have yet to be suspected of being an engine :)</p>
 4393: <p>Lichess is good about false positives as far as I know. Unfortunately confirmed cheating in longer time controls is harder to catch because many people won't make engine moves every time. In general most good players will not play rapid online for this reason.</p>
 18168: <p>Lichess is definitely very good at avoiding false positivies <em>and</em> rectifying those false positives when they do occur.</p>

<p>Even though I don't have access to moderator tools on lichess, one can spot cheaters fairly easily. They usually have the following characteristics:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>A "flat" time graph where all of their moves took about the same length of time - <em>even simple recaptures</em>.</p></li>
<li><p>Having no mistakes, and less than three inaccuracies (obviously)</p></li>
<li><p>Perfectly executing a long checkmate sequence in the fastest way possible. This is a good catch because even a good player will likely turn a mate in 6 into a mate in 7 or 8. Computers do it perfectly.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Numbers 1 and 2 are fine by themselves IMO, so <strong>you have nothing to worry about</strong> unless you spend the same amount of time on each move in those games where you have few inaccuracies. Number 3 is a sort of "icing on the cake" for me; your games look fine.</p>
