we have scrubbed thoroughly for XSS many times :)

it was actually a formatting error when pasting in from MS Word (evil word!!).

Ok, I just had to point out that the banner add for "mydailymoment.com" that is displayed on this page right now asks "Is Your Partner Cheating?"  It goes on to suggest that we "take the quiz and find out."  I think we've found the source of Erik's secret cheat detection techniques!  It's all based on a new online quiz technology!

Seriously though, the add was simply too appropiate for the thread topic.  I wonder if the server that serves up the adds picks up on keywords like "cheating."

Does it count as cheating if I use another chess engine to battle this chess engine to see their variations and how they react to moves and such? Also may i use in vote chess AFTER I make my vote to see what the computer would have done?

1. not cheating if you play against our computer :)

2. yes - you may not use an engine until after the entire game is over.

Using any engine at any point during an ongoing game is cheating.

But I thought Erik stated you can use a engine to analyze but not for use with the vote chess, or is it only for after the game? Because if so then I'm guessing I'm marked as a cheater because I used an engine once for the GM Becerra vs Chess.com to see how we messed up and how the comp would've avoided this.

Cultural interpretations of what does and does not constitute cheating are entirely irrelevant though -- it's a question of agreeing too, and then choosing to violate the rules of this site.  It's pretty cut and dry and not open to interpretation, cultural or otherwise.

As long as any and all outside analysis is performed after the game is complete I'm pretty sure it's OK (Erik & co., please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here).  If you used an engine before completion of the game, it was in violation of the rules.

Analysis after the game by a computer or by another person, or by an alien from Neptune, are all fine. :-) We wouldn't offer Computer analysis for finished games here if we were going to flag you for cheating after you used it. :-)

I agree 100% with regards to this site and the way they choose to handle the issue.

That does not mean I need use the same appelations and nomencalture in my own life.

My point was that i may, or may not, choose to view people that violate a term of services contract as "bad people", nor do I feel need to "be protected" from them. 

My only advocacy of potential policy change was to allow them to stay with their new nominal change.   Having a label, and "cheater" works fine, attached their user name so that people would know.  It might be even more painful reminder for others to not be tempted to do something similar.  ...sort of the way the Amish deal with this....they don't kick you out, they just don't include you in any barn raisings any longer....Scarlet letters, and all that fun stuff to do in controlled communities...

......there are already some trophies that come close to imply and accuse.....

...or at least that's how I  mean it when I send them.....hehe...

I think that it would be a great idea if Erik makes a separate topic containing only the FAQ about cheating and the list of cheaters (updated weekly let's say). And this discussion to be put into a separate topic, if you feel it is needed.

One main concern people had was that chess.com do not ban many cheaters. I shared this concern. But now, seeing the long list of names, I can understand that they do figth against this cheating plague.

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot: excellent question, I think, and deep.

~ Top Super GM's use multiple engines running overnight to find Novelties to use otb.  Players (such as myself) read NIC yb and play very same line looking to spring exact same tactic here (or anywhere else, otb even).

~ Play same line repeatedly (let's say English attack/Najdorf) here online. Analyse each game, use improvements found each time in subsequent games.

To me, and I speak for myself only here, I think these are within parameters and not considered cheating. Although even here, in this area, some people draw their lines in different spots and with different implements. 

For me, the real test is my own memory. So, i do not even use databases and the such, even when allowed on other cc sites ( I play ICCF which allows even the kitchen sink--another interesting sideline on that later), and even there where it is allowed to use any brain available, I use just my own.  But, that's just me.  I understand other people get their fun in other ways than I do, so I try to not get so ticked about people with bogus handicapped tags for parking close to the mall shoppes either, but will admit to being a bit of a work in progress on this issue.

What was I talking about.....

Oh yes, the importance, to me, of memory.

Also, as an avid collector of Goichberg Signatures, I would like to gain another this coming July.  Memory will help in that pursuit.

yep. i think we made the right decision to do this. we'll keep adding people to the thread as they are discovered.

This is very good, to consolidate the issue like this. But I agree with posters who suggest the list of cheaters and the comments for response by chess.com staff be placed under separate threads for better convenience. Perhaps also to show the last registered ratings of the cheaters so we can see at what levels cheating occurs.

Multiple accounts also break the rules here. Is chess.com going to publish a list of such accounts that have been closed - the master account as well as its subordinate account(s)? If so, it would be helpful if chess.com states the reason for closing the accounts - whether for cheating or for opening multiple accounts.

The cheaters I reported did play much better than Capa or Kramnik. In general, there is a huge difference between human and computer play. Even if that human happens to be named Kasparov...

Surely this is not a problem.

Remember back in the days of Korchnoi-Karpov and Karpov-Kasparov when Karpov would cheat by hiring psychics to sit in the audience and mentally control the play of his opponents?  Few would admit that they were really afraid of the psychics, but having them there often put players off their game because they had to concentrate on the game as well as blocking out the mind control waves.  If they lost they could blame it on the distraction.  Now players who are outplayed have a new excuse- - my opponent did not make the moves, a machine did.  In some cases this is true, but some just can't accept that anyone plays well.  They may be 1400-1500 with a losing record, but no one could be better than them and see things they don't.   Look at some of the comments we see:  if a player takes a long time on routine moves they are using a program!  If someone makes a strong move quickly they are using a program!  If someone always wins(even against weak players) they are using a program!  If someone alternately has good and bad games they are sometimes using a program!  If someone makes a move that would never occur to you they are using a program!  If they know the openings better than you they are using a program!  If they play the middle game better than you they are using a program!  If they play the endgame better than you they are using a program!  If you lose every game, everyone is using a program!  How did losing players feel good about themselves before there were computers??  Or psychics?