Accuser Takes the Deal

Hey Erik, it's tacticaltrickyknight.

I sent you a pm but what you're attempting to do here is more like a personal attack more than anything.

Anyway let's check the numbers, so 140 losses out of 300 games, sure that's not 50% but that's extremely close isn't it? Now add the argument (which was stated during the chat) that since I was mad at losing to cheater (or what I consider to be a cheat anyway), I kept playing to get my rating back. Which means that everytime, if I were to stop playing, I'd be quite at more than 50% losses.

So you can make fun of me here, my numbers weren't literally true but the idea is there.

You can argue that i'm just weaker than that, but eventually I believe I could prove that this is happening for any rating, meaning that even if you consider my real bullet rating to be at 1300, I'd get outplayed by 1200 rated users the exact same way (this is theorical). You claimed that losing/winning 50% of the time is normal, but let me remind you once again that you were so entitled not to listen to the argument and just reject them: the more I lose, the more I play weaker player (opponent are found within my rating range), meaning that it is not so normal anymore to lose/win 50% of the time, I should be winning much more then, until I get my to my normal rating. But that was part of my argument: it's not happening, I was losing the exact same way to a 1650 and to a 1500 (of course this is not true for most game but it's true often enough to illustrate the problem).

I'm a patzer, there's no denying of that but I know how to play chess and i have a lot of bullet experience, I beat Aman in 3m after he gave his queen away (material odds shows, 3|0), certainly that means something regarding my skills other than bullet.

You can make fun of me for my reaction, but telling me to write reports when i'm blocking 150 users a day on your website is not an option. You can make fun of the numbers, for sure it's hard to give a percentage number of cheaters, but the problem is real, the rating is completely irrelevant. When I play on lichess (bullet rating stable at 1800) I have almost never this feeling of playing an engine. I played on lichess today, i lost a lot, i never thought i was playing an engine, my opponents all made obvious mistake that us patzer make at this level in bullet, but on chess.com, it's never like that, never.

Another point is that cheater don't even actually care, when i confront them they will either insult me (whereas a normal reaction for a player being accused of cheater is to be humble and proud about it and to reply "err no i'm not an engine user but thanks") or they will just admit it right away. These people are at their 90th account, a ban feels like a breeze to them.

Chessnetwork stopped playing on chess.com for this reason, the gingerGM himself is not a fond of them cheater as well and has expressed his feeling toward it, does it take a GM title to be considered on chess.com? I know it is extremely difficult to be sure that an user cheated but it is a reality that chess.com is infested with them, telling me to go play on a different website if I'm not happy is not a solution to the problem, and it's what I'm doing already. 

Happy holydays ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 mixed feelings? i guess you weren't watching then...

the guy's chat was endless, talking about something that had nothing to do with what the rest of us were watching.

I for one am glad @erik shut him up

No, I wasn't there.

Now that I read the whole topic, I see this was something of a hobby for this guy, making these claims in various places.

But think of it this way, what if it's some 12 year old who doesn't know he's being an idiot?

In his long post as Ouims he's making the same mistakes, talking about having to block 150 people and how people really are cheating against him.

i have to block a dozen people every time i watch chessTV... this guy was on the verge when @erik's challenge made it mildly interesting...

if he was a 12-year-old who didn't know he was being an idiot, then that's one less idiot on the site with posting privileges... two if his duplicate account is also sanctioned...

But my point was that endless off topic chat doesn't necessarily justify his treatment if you consider that he may be too young to help himself. In that case a better action would be to mute and/or for mods to send private messages dealing with his illusions.

In the end it serves as a good object lesson, but that's why I have mixed feelings.

...or perhaps a chesskid account?

Hey Erik, it's tacticaltrickyknight. 

I dont know if staff/modeator will answer this publicly, but...

Is a "permament" ban even possible?

Is it realistic to think that its possible to prevent someone from creating multiple accounts?

Maybe a good answer is:

It's like asking if it's possible to build a house that's impossible to break into. It basically comes down to who invests more time, resources, and skill into the endeavor (the burglar vs the house builder).

Chess.com has ways of making it difficult to get back on. Users have ways around that. Chess.com has ways around those and on and on.

I suppose technically as long as the house has doors and windows (to continue the metaphor), it can't ever be 100% sealed... but at the same time it can be extremely impractical to crack it

Ikr pretty funny 😂

Wow you won an argument on the internet

Here comes the pigeon playing chess memes...

Considering what was shown, erik must be so well endowed

...

Chess.com has ways of making it difficult to get back on.

...