Some areas of concern & imperfect points.

1) I hope that I wont be accused of sandbagging as I have resigned occasionally when observing my opponent timing out all games or the ban notice sticker, also if an oppo' plays very quickly and goes off tack I sometimes offer the draw in appreciation of the prompt move play. This is an unscientific approach to try and balance the grading plus points already received via default wins from accounts closed.

2) How do you account for grading losses against banned players, for me its not possible, due to uncertainties on actual playing strength.

3) Does chess.com offer the services of a reaper to accompany the unfortunate soul into the after-chess.com-life, I wonder just in case.

4) Five accounts closed in the last ten games, can anyone beat this 50% bad news stat.

2) How do you account for grading losses against banned players, for me its not possible, due to uncertainties on actual playing strength.

I think that you lose the same amount of points as if they weren't banned, but I'm not sure.

Thanks for this SuiteLycee you are right.

Whats the playing strength of the accounts closed, an unclear line.

Its the first forum topic I've introduced. 

well I've found someone who beats point 4 50% a certain Nostradamus70 who sits on top of the standard tree, last ten games has seven default wins for various reasons giving a 70% bad news stat. 

Actually I'm starting to wonder about Nostradamus70 himself. I took his latest 54-move win against KevinGarnet and plugged it into Deep Rybka 3 on my quadcore computer. The result was quite revealing. From move 11 on, every move by white matched Rybka's top choice. On move 23, Rybka starts to have trouble finding a good move until reaching depth 17 when it suddenly finds Nd2, which is what white played of course. Same thing happens again on move 31. Rybka discovers Bxe6 is best on depth 17, also the move white played.

The only move that didn't immediately match was 47. c4, which by this point my partial 6-piece TBs were kicking in and influencing the eval. After a considerably longer think, Rybka eventually found c4 was indeed completely winning for white.

So to recap:

From move 11 all the way out to the final 54th move, white's play was identical to Deep Rybka 3. If we take out the first 10 moves as part of the opening book, that's a 100% match rate. I can only conclude there is blatant cheating going on here. Why hasn't this guy been flagged yet for it?

FirebrandX- Indeed, even the top players in the world would not match with Rybka 100% for 43 consecutive moves, even with 3 days to analyse each and every one. Have you reported said player?

Not yet, I just now finished my analysis of the game with Deep Rybka 3. It's still mind boggling how each and every move was exactly what Rybka chose. Black on the other hand, looked to be playing legit.

Top players in history had some amazing rates (sometimes even 70%+!) but never anywhere near 100%. The main reason is, no-one plays with a completely tactical plan in mind- there's always some position features a human player will consider, and humans make plans, unlike computers.

I think your insane.

Who, me? Well yes I'm insane now that you mention it.

Anyway, I do have to apologize. After reading more articles and faqs on the site about cheaters, I found an entry where the faq suggests not posting the suspected cheater's name on the forums. I had missed this part before and so I apologize for that.

no not you.

Given the relatively small number of online games played by Nostradamus70 I don't think he can justifiably be top of the standard rating list, also a fair portion of those games are default wins for accounts closed etc. Not his fault though, but the chess.com grading calculation method is up the creek. 

With a name like Nostradamus, maybe he was just a master of prediction ! ;-)

Well, if someone plays for 54 moves with 100% agreement with Rybka, then it's pretty likely (read: near certain) that in fact it's Rybka playing.