People having accounts closed

Cheating in chess is an issue that Chess.com takes seriously. That said, it has minimal impact on the site and shouldn't be a concern for 99.9% of players. Unfortunately, there is much more paranoia about the topic than it actually deserves. Also, having several constant and redundant threads on the topic that circulate with the same questions and comments over and over again isn't helpful, and instead causes people to worry more than they need to. We have posted FAQs below that should address all questions on the topic. We have posted the Chess.com FAQs and policies here:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-policy-on-cheating?page=1

 
Thanks for helping keep Chess.com safe and friendly!

My point is, book moves in the opening will add to the percentage.  Basic tactical patterns will add to the percentage.  Forced moves/obvious moves will add to the percentage.  Taking advantage of the opponent's obvious inaccuracies will add to the percentage.  As well as taking advantage of the opponent's blunders.  All mathematically accepted calculating methods set aside;

We must, in alignment with our judicial process as Americans, keep in mind the following;

- INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.  This means literally PROVING that this person is guilty.  You must be able to produce evidence that this person has the computer installed on his PC, and is actively using (or has even used once) said Chess computer in a game from this site (i.e., illegally userhacking into the person's computer somehow and obtaining such information). Furthermore;

          a.  You must also prove that this person is NOT an 'undiscovered genius or Super-Grandmaster with too much time on his hands.'  Self-admittedly he is not the latter, and while the former may be even 99.9% unlikely, the rule of the law is 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.  This means the site administration must obtain proof of identity, as someone mentioned earlier, as well as proof of intellectual/chess competence through some who-knows-how made up process.

          b. If the site DID obtain information via accessing the person's computer illegally, I figure a lawsuit is definitely an option.  (And DON'T rule this out as nonsense; first of all, the administration is not infallible, and with their policy of "We won't tell you how we know, we just.. know." it's suspicious possibilities get a big jump.  Though I'm not one for conspiracy theories; we "just knew" there were WMD's in Iraq, right? )

          c.  The site really does need to publish their 'detection' methods.  They can covertly obtain and analyze data (hopefully not in an illegal manner) until Carpal Tunnel renders their little hands useless; but in the end the person (and the community) atleast still needs to know why a highly valued player, teacher, and friend was deleted.  Like someone above me posted; Mr. StaffPawn could just be sitting in his office, flipping coins to see who gets banned and who doesn't.

         d.  I'm almost certain if we analyzed twenty games for the top 10 players on this site, we'd be losing a few more members as well.  But we aren't doing that, are we, staff?  Not saying the administration's subjective inspection might be so inconsistent for any suspicious reasons.. (i.e., Being friends of staff, being staff themselves, or perhaps even monetary 'issues'.  Again though, I won't follow up on a detailed conspiracy theory.)

- I understand that this site, due to tension of Media Rights Laws, doesn't really have to follow any laws (or the Constitution for that matter), but if we're going to debate from a moral/ethical standpoint, then we must use a moral/ethical thought process, of which you will see my points are aligned.

- As a person who is far more knowledgeable of the process than I posted above;

2) All engines are different.  Shouldn't you check on several?

The idea is to check at least 20-30+ games and then work out the averages over time.  The games need to be chosen objectively (ie last 20 games played by suspect or all games from final round(s) of a tourney) and have at least 20 moves out of book.  There may be a few differences between Rybka, Chessmaster & Fritz, but providing these are recent versions, over many games the differences should be negligable.

- Note, OBJECTIVELY, not SUBJECTIVELY. (This person being one of the obvious persons of knowledge concerning the investigation process in this particular forum for this particular matter.  Hope this suits you, richie_and_oprah.)

In direct response to richie_and_oprah:

Though I'm starting to doubt you were removed from said sites because of your "charm", your suggestion has been the tailoring force behind this post; I've quoted the foremost figures on the subject, as well as used the teachings of postgraduate lawyers whom I've spoken to (not on this particular matter, of course, but concerning the process of proving an accusation; *hint hint* as you'll notice most of my points share similarity to the judicial process).