Like to ask two questions about Chess.com's modifications to match results

Just found this example for a club result modified by Chess.com after an account closure:

This looks to be the given situation (https://www.chess.com/club/matches/1804288):

1. Match started on July 6.
2. @x-3981996998 lost both their games on time on July 9.
3. Their opponent @nomasterhere played 1. d4 and 1. ... c5 (after 1. e4).
4. @x-3981996998 closed their account on July 10.
5. @nomasterhere got their account closed around July 21.
6. Chess.com states: "Account was closed during the match and lost points." 
7. Provisional match result for a 20 players match has been changed from 19-17 to 17-19.

Let's try to understand: One of both players simply lost two games on time after their opponent just made one well known standard opening move in both of the games. Twelve days later Chess.com has closed the latter account for one reason or another: Whatever this reason might have been, it looks to be completely unrelated to those two games, doesn't it?

My two questions remaining: Why did Chess.com modify the result for two games in this match, which do apparently not show the slightest indication of any irregularity?

Why does Chess.com believe it is fairer, more appropriate, and ultimately correct for Club A (and no longer Club B) to lose this match?

to anwser your second question, I would think becuase that one person was cheating, so the other club should win

It is complicated, but cheating is worst

If you click on the no entry red circle it should show the reason for the account closure, or indeed their player name. That may help to clarify

.

Apparently there is not the slightest indication for any kind of irregularity in these two games (lost on time after move 1).

An absurd decision. Should be overturned. A player is awarded 2 wins without even making one move in either game. Typically a player wins on time against a cheater who has his account closed for cheating. For example, player A has made 10 moves and player B has also played 10 moves in their game. But player B gets closed for cheating - and what happens next? Player A must wait for the 3 day time limit to expire before the game is determined as win for player A. Player B loses on TIME when his time runs out. There would not have been an automatic win, instead it would have been a time limit win.

The way I see it , the team with the cheater has to be penalized.A player losing on time is bad for team, but chess.com doesn’t have to penalize players for that.

.

Apparently there is not the slightest indication for any kind of irregularity in these two games (lost on time after move 1): They have ended after 1. d4 and 1. e4 c5 ...

When a player loses/draw against a cheater while a club match is incomplete,Chess.com always gives 2 points to the loser.So I guess it doesn’t depend on how they lost( Checkmate,Abandonment,On time).

.

Apparently no one has cheated in these two games (they have ended after 1. d4 and 1. e4 c5).

Why does Chess.com modify these game results without the slightest indications for any kind of irregularity?

It is all about the team being penalized for having a cheater.
Anyway,this is just my opinion.

I guess the policy of chess.com assumes that the player who violates the Fair Play rules intended to cheat in all games from a certain point in time onwards, regardless of whether or not the opportunity to cheat actually materialized in each of those games.

.

Well, question is: Why does Chess.com modify these game results without the slightest indication for any kind of irregularity? Probably it's not about you and your opinions, is it?

.

Okay, would be great to get some confirmation from Chess.com about such an assumption.

The two games in this match apparently don't show any kind of irregularity, which may explain a modified match result, do they?

Why does Chess.com believe it is fairer, more appropriate, and ultimately correct for Club A (and no longer Club B) to lose this match?

On computer, when you drag the cursor on the cheater’s score they give an explanation. “The player’s account has been closed during the game ( the club match I suppose) and lost points”

.

"Account was closed during the match and lost points." This is the correct text and was already quoted in my initial post. It explains what has happened. It does not explain, why Chess.com believes, that their decision is appropriate to deal with two games, which do apparently not show the slightest indication of any kind of irregularity (1. d4 respectively, 1. e4 c5 ... and over).

Whan an account is closed for cheating all their games are considered to have been cheated. I've seen players caught for cheating in live and have some absolutely valid daily matches closed that way. I've also seen players being closed even before a single move was done in a match with the same effects. I've also seen, in big and long matches, payers being closed long after a game was finished and points reallocated when it was obvious they started cheating long after that specific game.

I guess cheating detection being a statistical exercice that cannot be decided on a single match CC has an all or nothing policy. I don't like it but I don't really see another solution either. Case by case points update would also be problematic.

It seems reasonable for all a player's games to be forfeited when their account is closed for FPV. Even if there's no sign they cheated in every game.

Isn't this a discussion for the Cheating Forum club, rather than Club Admins?

.

Why does someone modify results in daily matches without checking if games there are impacted by player's behavior? My example shows just one case of two games, which do not show the slightest indication of any kind of irregularity.

Whatever one likes to imagine as reason for the account closure, it does not impact the two games in question: Why does Chess.com believe, it is fairer, more appropriate, and ultimately correct for Club A (and no longer for club B) to lose in this match?

We can't do very much to change site policy but we can work harder to keep cheats out of our clubs!

Nobody gets in to my national club with an account less than 12 months old and that does a lot to weed out cheats. In my experience too many club admins are greedy to acquire ever more higher-rated players but don't look carefully enough at how those ratings have been achieved.

Should confiscated game points be awarded to an opponent that's timed out? That's not so easy to judge but the site will do what it deems fit and doesn't generally ask for advice from us.