Blog GilaChess

In reality, the situation is far more complicated.

The issue is not whether simultaneous logins are technically possible. They are. The real question is whether tournament organisers can obtain reliable evidence that such activity occurred during a game. As things stand, the answer appears to be no from the organiser’s publicly available tooling; internal Lichess data may exist but is not something organisers can assume they can access.

A Feature, Not a Bug

Lichess has long supported multiple concurrent sessions on the same account. A player can remain logged in on a phone, tablet, and computer simultaneously without the system automatically terminating the other sessions. For comparison, even chess.com allows multiple logins BUT strictly limits the playing feature to one login, the other logins can use the chess.com features like forums, analysis room etc but only one login for playing session.

From a user experience perspective, this makes perfect sense. Players often switch between devices, suffer unstable internet connections, or need a backup device during online play. Multiple active sessions are therefore an intentional feature rather than a security flaw.

This practical convenience, however, creates a challenge for competitive events especially eSports.

If the same account can be accessed from more than one device at the same time, then the possibility exists for another person to interact with that account remotely.

The existence of this possibility does not prove wrongdoing. It simply establishes that the mechanism exists.

What Lichess Actually Tracks

Some observers assume that a tournament organiser can simply ask Lichess for login records and verify whether an account was being accessed from different locations.

Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

Lichess allows users to view their own currently active sessions and revoke them if necessary. However, once a session ends, it is no longer available as a persistent historical record that can be used later as evidence.

More importantly, there is no public API that allows organisers to retrieve detailed login histories, simultaneous connection records, or lists of IP addresses associated with an account during a specific event.

In other words, there is no readily available "double-login report" that an appeals committee can request and examine.

Anti-Cheat Is Not Identity Verification

Another common misconception is that Lichess's anti-cheating system would automatically detect this sort of scenario.

Not necessarily.

Lichess's cheat-detection tools are primarily designed to identify suspicious play patterns such as engine assistance, unusual move accuracy, statistical anomalies, and related behavioural indicators.

They are not designed to determine who is physically operating the keyboard or mouse.

This distinction is important.

If a second person logs into an account and makes moves manually, the resulting game may still look entirely human. From the platform's perspective, the moves may not trigger conventional anti-cheating alarms because no engine assistance is involved.

The platform can analyse the moves. It cannot easily determine the identity of the person making them.

Why the SUKMA Demonstration Matters

This helps explain an important detail in the SUKMA case.

Reports indicate that the Appeals Committee conducted an on-site demonstration showing that the same Lichess account could indeed be accessed and used from multiple devices.

Notice what this demonstration accomplished.

It established technical feasibility.

It did not establish direct evidence that such activity occurred in the disputed game.

This distinction is crucial. The committee demonstrated that the alleged method was possible, but because no platform-generated historical login records were available, the demonstration could not function as retrospective proof.

That leaves organisers in a difficult position whenever allegations involve remote account access rather than traditional engine cheating. In my opinion, any decision made would be unfair to both parties. Lose-lose situation.

The Bigger Lesson for Online Chess Events

The real takeaway is that tournament integrity cannot depend entirely on the playing platform.

Whether the platform is Lichess, Chess.com, or any other online system, organisers must build additional layers of supervision if they want to investigate or prevent remote intervention.

These measures may include:

• Dedicated competition devices
• Continuous screen recording
• Webcam monitoring
• Arbiter observation
• Controlled playing environments
• Pre-game security checks of active sessions

Even these measures are imperfect, but they provide evidence that the platform itself cannot supply.

Final Thoughts

The SUKMA controversy highlights an important blind spot in online chess administration.

Lichess is excellent at hosting games and detecting many forms of cheating. However, it was never designed to serve as a forensic tool for proving that an account was simultaneously controlled from multiple locations.

For tournament organisers, that means a simple but important reality must be accepted:

Lichess can facilitate fair competition, but it cannot by itself provide conclusive evidence of remote move manipulation.

If organisers want that level of accountability, the responsibility lies not with the platform alone but with the tournament's own monitoring and regulatory framework.

Of course the other solution is not to use LiChess at all and develope a custom playing platform or at least if still using LiChess, define an online-chess evidence protocol before the event. This was ridiculous a year ago but today with the advances of AI one can comfortably do this even without coding expertise.

As for me, I am not even suggesting any solution or pointing out who or what is at fault. I am not qualified for that. My only interest is to document this so that something, hopefully,  can be learned from this. Just like chess, a disastrous move was documented in the opening, next time steer away from this.

• Starcraft 2, 
• League of Legends, 
• Dota 2
• Street Fighter 6
• Tekken 8
• Valorant