How did he cheat ?

Ongly 90% ? thas the prove of not cheating !

me

I prefer to make my own moves and mistakes without a computers help ...

Eric, it doesn't matter why you didn't accuse him earlier. Because you didn't do so earlier you shouldn't do it now. Plain and simple. (Incidentally, your actions seem to indicate that you care quite a bit.)

The second part of your cliche seems as yet unfulfilled, but the first is a rather obvious reaction for anybody who is accused of anything. In just circumstances you're allowed to defend yourself. The current cheater policy pursued by chess.com is a serious stain on their repuation.

@ Feeling BackStabbed 

Clearly you ARE associated with cheating...seeing as you've just been banned for cheating 

@Mathjis

I didn't accuse him earlier because frankly I don't see a point. Most of the top players on this site who don't have a legit OTB/Correspondence Federation rating are probably computer users...but who cares? It's like that on every online chess site and that's probably never going to change. I rarely play these people and even if I did I dont take online chess seriously enough to give a hoot about what engine they're using.

This thread is already a cliche...

Banned User: "I DIDNT CHEAT NO WAY NO HOW!! LOLZ!!"

Banned User's Friends: "NO WAY HE CHEATED CUZ HE GOES TO CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY AND SAID I PLAYED GOOD ONCE!! LOLZ!!"

etc etc etc...it goes on like this

A true injustice is it most likely comes from the general staff and not those who began this site. But I could be wrong, yet the only things I see in response to bans are from the general staff, those put into their position because the main staff needed help; the main staff who should be looking into things like this before things begin to happen.

Lucid

That is a cowardly way of accusing somebody, Eric Mittens. If you felt he was cheating you should have complained about it openly before he was banned. Now you should just keep your mouth shut.

I don't think chess.com can both be ethical and ban an innocent member. If there is any doubt they should not ban and if Lucid was innocent, then surely there must have been doubt. I don't know if Lucid was innocent and, frankly, I don't care, but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of players being banned without any evidence being presented. I know the flawed rationale, but chess.com gets a distinctly dictatorial feel if it's members are expected to blindly trust the justness and insight of the great leader.

EricMittens,

I resent that, I am in no way associated with cheating. In fact, no computer can teach you how to apply your play in teaching others, and that is what I do.

So are you proposing that if I was using a computer, all of those individuals who I have lost to, from 1600 rating to most int he top 50, should be banned as well? Because obviously they beat a computer and this should be suspect.

It ills em to see talk like this, and KillaBeez I assure you no ill-mannered playing was apart of this group.

I play a handful of openings because I have expertise in those openings and stray away from most other openings. If you don't believe me research my games.

It's talk like this that allows those in charge to allow injustices such as this.

Lucid

Wow, that's a shock.  What exactly does an admin of French Defense Fanatics do?

Because the cheating detection system is really lousy.

Why do you suppose he evaded the cheating detection system for over a year?

It's about time, I played him once and suspected he might be cheating. I compared his moves to fritz 11's suggestions and he had something like a 90%+ matchup. Checked some of his other games...same thing.

Good riddance.