Titled Review Process Explained

Every week, thousands of titled players play on Chess.com and enjoy varying degrees of success. Some rattle off amazing win streaks or show brilliant form in a prize event, while others achieve rating thresholds that previously seemed beyond reach. In short, notable performances are commonplace—it is the job of the Fair Play team to determine which of these performances are legitimate and which are not. In this piece, we’re going to examine the titled review process from investigation to closure. 

In a previous blog post, we mentioned we’re now closing 100,000 accounts a month. 90% of these closures are done via auto-bans—closures that are based upon algorithmic conditions that are flagged and actioned by our systems. These closures represent the most clear cases of cheating; cases in which the evidence is so strong that human review is usually not required. Titled closures, however, require more scrutiny. Titled players are capable of extremely strong play and require additional review because of the complexity of their cases. As a result, these cases are handled/processed exclusively by our internal Titled Review Committee.

How Does the Titled Review Committee Work?

The Titled Review Committee is composed of eight analysts who are titled players, experts in statistics, or both! Analysts sift through thousands of cheat reports (analysis of a player’s level of play across a collection of games) to identify notable results and actively monitor (in real time) the prize events on site every week. 

If one or more analysts believes there is strong potential for closure, a case is written up. Analysts are assigned to review the player file, evaluate the case and then render their own decision about whether they believe there is enough evidence to determine conclusive cheating. Unanimity among the analysts is required in order to close an account. If even one analyst believes the player is suspicious but does not yet meet our threshold for closure, the account remains in good standing. 

As a remote company, deliberation for titled cases is primarily done asynchronously. However, the most high-profile titled cases are discussed at length in a weekly committee meeting. In this multi-hour meeting, the top 3-4 cases of the week are reviewed: For each case, analysts are assigned the responsibility of laying out the strongest arguments for and against closure. These members of the team present to the committee using stats from reports, in depth manual review of games, and other metrics we’ve specifically designed for titled review. 

Each titled player review in the committee meeting takes between 30 to 60 minutes. After the arguments for and against closure are made, the meeting opens to the rest of the Titled Committee to ask additional questions or share their own research. Once there has been ample time for every member of the Committee to share feedback, the case moves to a vote. There are three options: 

• Conclusive Cheating
• Inconclusive
• No Concern

We only close accounts when there is a unanimous conclusive vote.  If we find the case involving a player to be inconclusive, their account remains open and we may endeavor to do more research and keep the player on our radar during future events. If we have a unanimous conclusive vote, the team finishes the write-up and then the player is closed and informed of the closure via email.

If a player’s cheating is from a prize event or is an offense on a second chance account, it is a public closure. If the player in question is under 18, it is a private closure. This nuance essentially gives grace to young people—we have always believed in second chances, and this policy is in line with that philosophy.  

What do you think about the Titled Review Process? Weigh in below!

IM Kassa Korley

Senior Fair Play & Communications Advisor