This is why it always amuses me somewhat to hear a low to medium rated player accused of cheating.  I was in live chess the other day and the accusation was levied against a player rated around 1300.  In addition to refusing to accept that if the accused were a cheater they would likely not be rated as low as 1300, the accuser couldn't seem to grasp that almost any cheating players would likely be so far out of their league, ratings wise, that they'd be unlikely to be matched up against them in the first place.

I seriously doubt that I've faced any cheaters here for this reason.

dsarkar: Your idea is excellent, and it would be even more excellent if there were a method for determining how "computer-like" or "human-like" a series of moves are, without human intervention.

why do you care? when whoever it is goes to an otb tourney or a coffee house then the world will know. If he or she wants to be a net sensation liar (if they are cheating) let them... Do your best for you. i'm sure everyone that owns a chess engine and uses this site is tempted but if you're real with yourself and chess you'll take your lumps the old fashoined way and let patience and study prevail.

I suspect I have played against more than one cheater on the site, but I can confirm for sure that I have played against one confirmed cheater.

atomicchicken: cheaters who are not ignorant initially deny it. Then they maybe say that their "friend" sometimes plays on their account, so it's not their fault. Then maybe they eventually get around to saying that they did in fact use an engine, but that they didn't know it was against the rules.

But I agree that one wouldn't want to be so lenient as to encourage players to use an engine "one time". I wonder if there's a clear way to determine whether a user is aware of such issues. For example, you are, and I am. Maybe someone in live chess who tells the whole world XYZ is a cheater! also knows about the rule. This might be a difficult problem, but is it really much more difficult than determining how "computer-like" a move or sequence of moves is?

i don't agree with cheating but alot of you are making comments like this is some sanctioned site. This is chess.com not the US Federation of Chess.com if you catch my drift... If FIDE or USCF had this type of site then cheaters beware but chess.com doesn't command that respect as of yet.

This is like a mixture of myspace and yahoo chess.

I don't think whether chess.com is officially sanctioned in some manner or not is really relevant.  What is at stake is the ability for users to trust that they are here on a level playing field and to derive enjoyment out of using this site as a result.  If cheating were rampant here then I suspect that interest from most users would quickly wane.  For this reason, taking a strict stance against cheating is just good business for chess.com -- sanctioned or not.

i did not ask mandelshtam to leave the site. he is leaving on his own accord. i let him know that he could stay if he agreed to follow the rules as he clearly is a strong player.

i'll vouch for ozzie any day. ;)

I don't think anyone should take the games played on chess.com that seriously. I think it is a way to learn and improve their game. Anyone that uses a search engine only cheats themselves. The turn based chess allows a lot of time for each move. The games should be played at a high level. There is no money involved so lets just enjoy chess.

I agree with TheGrobe. Just like eBay, the site is only as good as the amount of trust the users have in it.

I disagree with QinShiHuangdi. I think the quality of play on this site is higher than Yahoo, higher than Facebook, higher than FICS. It is probably 2nd to ICC, and only because they have a 15 yr head start. It is amazing the quality of features you can get once you start charging for your service.

Awwwwe, Erik... you're too kind!

As far as mandelshtam is concerned, in my opinion he shouldn't be forced out (well done Erik!). It's very easy to take a hard stance on cheating, and to say that even if someone doesn't understand what they're doing they should be punished. It's also a fair way to look at it. The thing is, this is a website for playing chess on, not an international tournament that makes any difference to anything official. I personally pay for membership because I enjoy the site, and I think it's very well run, and I'm happy that I don't face cheaters every game. What I do find is that I play on here mostly as a stepping stone to learning new concepts in chess, giving me practice with openings, and slowly improving my rating. If I lose a game and go down a bit in rating, so what? I know roughly what my skill level is, and I also know when I'm improving because I can see exactly where I'm improving.

I find it sad that people would cheat on such a site, but it's to be expected. If you put any game online you'll get people who cheat at it, and those who deliberately do so should be banned with the biggest hammer possible, but those who genuinely have made a mistake, does it really make a difference to anyone if they're allowed to stay? The admins will still do as good a job of banning people who deliberately cheat, and at the end of the day you'll probably still be having fun with games. Just because mandelshtam doesn't get banned, doesn't mean that the site will suddenly be awash with cheaters offering the same excuse, but it is in the spirit of the site as a community that embraces people.

ummm... If you would have read my post a couple of post earlier you would not have wasted your time typing this... cheating is wrong (I SAID THAT EARLIER) but what's Eric going to do? post a mod in in everyone's computer room. What you said I already said. Please...read all post before quoting me.

Just out of curiosity... short of the member just admitting that s/he cheated with a program, how do you:

a. detect a chess computer (i.e. how can you tell that the player is using a program)?

b. how can you enforce a "no cheating" rule?

You can probably bet that playing a time control faster than 2 minutes (with or without increment) is clean. But you can use an engine in 5 0, or slower.

I agree with this guy except I pay to be here and i didn't know face book had chess. Oz... what are you saying? Can I get chess credibility from this site in the same way I could get it from sanctioned correspondence chess? CHeating is wrong it messes up play I AGREE with all that. Im just saying you guys are taking it a little to seriously. Now if Eric went to the Chess Federation and listed Chess.com as a club of soem sort you have a case but until then it's a chess web site like with some extra benny's.

I've read your posts and I don't feel I wasted my time at all.  I disagree with the sentiment of both your post, which to me reads as though you feel being proactive about cheating is futile and that we should leave the cheaters to their empty victories secure in our moral superiority.

The problem with this sentiment is exactly what I was trying to highlight: the cheaters do not operate in a vacuum and as a result they have an impact on everyone who plays on this site.  Erik and co would be remiss not to vigilantly protect all of their hard work and investment in this site against such a cancerous practice were it to become rampant (and trust me, if cheating were tolerated, I fully believe that it would quickly become the norm as non-cheaters would leave this site).

I trust that chess.com has very effective means of detecting cheaters that stop short of posting a mod in everyone's computer room, so I reject the notion that it is futile.  I also fully understand and respect the need for complete non-disclosure of those processes.

I don't really see what all the hoopla is about.  I'm here to practice and enjoy chess.  If someone I'm playing makes some strong moves and refutes my ideas, I learn from it.  If someone consults an engine and makes some strong moves and refutes my ideas, I learn from it.  Whether the move idea originated in the person's brain or came from an engine, my experience of it is the same.

As Erik's alluded to earlier in this thread Chess.com has a policy of non-disclosure when it comes to the means of detecting and dealing with cheaters.  I'm sure that the reasons for this are to prevent cheaters from finding ways of combating these detection processes (security through obscurity of a sort).  As a result I wouldn't anticipate the answers to your questions to be forthcoming.

i think a lot of the players use the seach engines does not bother me i just like goog strong games.