Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Mysterious Rating Change


  • 3 years ago · #1

    Daws74

    [The site's policy is to limit discussion about cheating to the Cheating Forum.

    http://www.chess.com/groups/view/cheating-forum

    More information in the FAQ  http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/124/0/cheaters--cheating-what-you-need-to-know - Moderator]

    I noticed that former #1 rated player on this site mysteriously had his rating drop after his latest win, see the game history:

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/ehunting

    Recent Games

     WhiteBlackResult# MovesDateAction 
       ehunting (2727)  JbRiver1 (2628) 1-0 (won) 1 9 Aug 2011 view
     
       ehunting (2870)  qazzaqy2k (2721) 1-0 (won) 27 7 Aug 2011 view  

     

    Any idea why this would occur?

  • 3 years ago · #2

    Daws74

    Guess it doesn't matter now... banned for cheating.

  • 3 years ago · #3

    suredeath-snakebite

    They claimed the rating drop was a computer glitch and when I kept complaining because they wouldn't, or couldn't rectify the problem, they labled me as a cheater and closed my account. I was a member for 28 months and had 8 months remaining on my membership. So, they beat me out of $20.00 in membership fees as well.

    This was not my first run in with them. Not so long ago. they changed the time limit rules in a tournament after everyone had already joined and started to play. When I complained, they said you can quit but we will penalize you. In other words it was, "go stick it in your ear."

    There are plenty of other chess web sites on the Internet. I'll just move on to the next one.

    ehunting - former chess.com member

  • 3 years ago · #4

    oinquarki

    suredeath-snakebite wrote:

    Apparently chess.com does not like winners or complainers.


    But but but then who do they like?Surprised

  • 3 years ago · #5

    suredeath-snakebite

    They like patzers.

  • 3 years ago · #6

    SteveCollyer

    suredeath-snakebite wrote:

    They like patzers.


    { ehunting (Games: 20) }
    { Top 1 Match: 512/803 ( 63.8% ) 
    { Top 2 Match: 641/803 ( 79.8% ) 
    { Top 3 Match: 701/803 ( 87.3% ) 
    { Top 4 Match: 739/803 ( 92.0% ) 

    They don't like engine users.

  • 3 years ago · #7

    goldendog

    It's so hard for cheaters to muster a showing of shame, it seems. Instead they reappear with unbelievable stories of their innocence and the motives staff had for wronging them so.

  • 3 years ago · #8

    Conflagration_Planet

    goldendog wrote:

    It's so hard for cheaters to muster a showing of shame, it seems. Instead they reappear with unbelievable stories of their innocence and the motives staff had for wronging them so.


     That's just what the SA of a group I used to be in did. He claimed Chess.com accused him of cheating because he coached people for free, and they didn't like it.

  • 3 years ago · #9

    jedikush

    wht does top 1 2 3 4 match mean? like they compare his games to the computer engine.. and its exactly what the engine would do?

     

    heres a hypothetical. what if someone got so good..they literally played like the rybka or fritz engine.. (capablanca was one of the greats where computers dont find errors in his games)  what would happen then when chess evloves into super geniuses who study computer chess from age 5.. by 21 they are super GM's... but if u compare their games to an engine it would seem as if they use it.

  • 3 years ago · #10

    goldendog

    jedikush wrote:

    wht does top 1 2 3 4 match mean? like they compare his games to the computer engine.. and its exactly what the engine would do?

     

    heres a hypothetical. what if someone got so good..they literally played like the rybka or fritz engine.. (capablanca was one of the greats where computers dont find errors in his games)  what would happen then when chess evloves into super geniuses who study computer chess from age 5.. by 21 they are super GM's... but if u compare their games to an engine it would seem as if they use it.


    Short answer: The greatest players don't play like Rybka the way the cheaters do. They've been tested.

    For more discussion go here

    http://www.chess.com/groups/forum/cheating-forum

    and read the threads and then ask questions as needed.

  • 3 years ago · #11

    Conflagration_Planet

    jedikush wrote:

    wht does top 1 2 3 4 match mean? like they compare his games to the computer engine.. and its exactly what the engine would do?

     

    heres a hypothetical. what if someone got so good..they literally played like the rybka or fritz engine.. (capablanca was one of the greats where computers dont find errors in his games)  what would happen then when chess evloves into super geniuses who study computer chess from age 5.. by 21 they are super GM's... but if u compare their games to an engine it would seem as if they use it.


     Even if that could happen they would be known as super genius GMs. Not patzers who somehow play just like chess engines.

  • 3 years ago · #12

    Timotheous

    The rate at which cheating detection algorithms evolve is most likely faster than the rate at which human chess abilities can improve. While no system will ever be perfect, I have confidence that it will be good enough.


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.