Thinking that you can make the situation better by reporting people without reason is stupid.
No... I think whether I report or not it doesn't make a difference to chess.com. It only makes a difference to me. I'll be able to increase my rating a little that way.
Also, I don't believe I get any special treatment because of my rating or membership or etc.
Again if they had time to do it at all games they would do that.
Because there is a button "Report" and that button isn't called "Press me after every game" I assume that they have there the button for a reason so you really waste their time etc
They check way more people at random than they do based off of reports... I could look at the stats again, but it's something like 100 to 1. Asking them to check an opponent instead of a random name isn't hurting the process.
And why should be my opponent checked before somebody other random person?
because I have then better chance to get some bonus rating if my opponents really was a cheater? Why is my rating more important than rating of a somebody random?
Because it's much more likely that a high rated rapid player cheats than a high rated blitz or bullet player.
I've complained to chess.com in the past that they should automatically check all the top 200 rapid players, for example... but I don't think they do this (maybe they do?). Oh well.
Also worth noting. A master should be better then a beginner at spotting a cheater so there reports should be more accurate meaning that 1 report from a master has higher value then 1 from a beginner. Also like some masters stream and do youtube content so it is best to act fast if a chessmaster youtuber or streamer report because it would be bad advertising if they didn't act fast on it.
Ehhhh... maybe...
Chess players are people, and people are stupid. I'm not sure I'd necessarily trust a report more just because a chess master made it... maybe they are more trustworthy (?) but I'd want to see the data the proves it before I gave them any special treatment.
As for YouTubers, sure, it makes sense from a business standpoint for chess.com to ban accounts who cheat against popular streamers / youtubers... I think that's unfair, but I also think it really happens.
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.
That was a hypothetical detail...
Where I see the problem is that reporting people randomly is bad because your random tips will be obviously worse than tips of cc programs with gameplay statistics.
Again if they had time to do it at all games they would do that.
Because there is a button "Report" and that button isn't called "Press me after every game" I assume that they have there the button for a reason so you really waste their time etc
They check way more people at random than they do based off of reports... I could look at the stats again, but it's something like 100 to 1. Asking them to check an opponent instead of a random name isn't hurting the process.
And why should be my opponent checked before somebody other random person?
because I have then better chance to get some bonus rating if my opponents really was a cheater? Why is my rating more important than rating of a somebody random?
Because it's much more likely that a high rated rapid player cheats than a high rated blitz or bullet player.
I've complained to chess.com in the past that they should automatically check all the top 200 rapid players, for example... but I don't think they do this (maybe they do?). Oh well.
Also worth noting. A master should be better then a beginner at spotting a cheater so there reports should be more accurate meaning that 1 report from a master has higher value then 1 from a beginner. Also like some masters stream and do youtube content so it is best to act fast if a chessmaster youtuber or streamer report because it would be bad advertising if they didn't act fast on it.
Ehhhh... maybe...
Chess players are people, and people are stupid. I'm not sure I'd necessarily trust a report more just because a chess master made it... maybe they are more trustworthy (?) but I'd want to see the data the proves it before I gave them any special treatment.
As for YouTubers, sure, it makes sense from a business standpoint for chess.com to ban accounts who cheat against popular streamers / youtubers... I think that's unfair, but I also think it really happens.
I mean there are more beginners then master so by that reason there should be more reports from beginners then master.
But don´t you think a report from let say a GM have a higher accurate chance then from a 400 rated player? I can imagen a tired 400-800 report people when they are tired and tilted and they just cant see how there opponent manage to win. While I think a GM has more things to look for because of there better understanding of the game and more experience. Like looking for how long a capture takes versus how long it should take, like you trade queens but your opponent stop and paus before taking back. Or every move takes 5 seconds no matter if the move is easy to find or hard to find. Wouldn't you agree that this things make a stronger player with more experience have advantage when it comes to spotting a cheater. I am not saying that they spot a cheater with 100% rate just that I think they have a higher rate then a beginner. But yeah this is not from data, it is only me speculating. But it makes sense to me, but you are a stronger player then me so I value your input.
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.
That was a hypothetical detail...
Where I see the problem is that reporting people randomly is bad because your random tips will be obviously worse than tips of cc programs with gameplay statistics.
Hmm, I don't know that it's better to target some groups. For the sake of certain stats it's useful to check people at random. I'm not sure how chess.com does it.
Even if with the knowledge that, e.g. high rated rapid players are the most likely to cheat, you may not make the decision to favor investigating them, because the more you weight it towards high rated players, the longer people get away with cheating before they're caught... so again it's not obvious to me the best way to go about it.
Danya might have to cancel his sensei speedrun series due to the massive influx of "suspicious players"
Has Danya ever said that he might have to cancel his speedruns or is that you spectulating?
He has said it.
This video at 24:20
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.
That was a hypothetical detail...
Where I see the problem is that reporting people randomly is bad because your random tips will be obviously worse than tips of cc programs with gameplay statistics.
Hmm, I don't know that it's better to target some groups. For the sake of certain stats it's useful to check people at random. I'm not sure how chess.com does it.
Even if with the knowledge that, e.g. high rated rapid players are the most likely to cheat, you may not make the decision to favor investigating them, because the more you weight it towards high rated players, the longer people get away with cheating before they're caught... so again it's not obvious to me the best way to go about it.
And that's exactly the point. You don't know but cc people should know that because its their job. So leave their job to them and don't try to do it somehow better when the "best target group" what you are able to think of are people with who you personaly played.
Thinking that you can do their job better like that is stupid...
Again if they had time to do it at all games they would do that.
Because there is a button "Report" and that button isn't called "Press me after every game" I assume that they have there the button for a reason so you really waste their time etc
They check way more people at random than they do based off of reports... I could look at the stats again, but it's something like 100 to 1. Asking them to check an opponent instead of a random name isn't hurting the process.
And why should be my opponent checked before somebody other random person?
because I have then better chance to get some bonus rating if my opponents really was a cheater? Why is my rating more important than rating of a somebody random?
Because it's much more likely that a high rated rapid player cheats than a high rated blitz or bullet player.
I've complained to chess.com in the past that they should automatically check all the top 200 rapid players, for example... but I don't think they do this (maybe they do?). Oh well.
Also worth noting. A master should be better then a beginner at spotting a cheater so there reports should be more accurate meaning that 1 report from a master has higher value then 1 from a beginner. Also like some masters stream and do youtube content so it is best to act fast if a chessmaster youtuber or streamer report because it would be bad advertising if they didn't act fast on it.
Ehhhh... maybe...
Chess players are people, and people are stupid. I'm not sure I'd necessarily trust a report more just because a chess master made it... maybe they are more trustworthy (?) but I'd want to see the data the proves it before I gave them any special treatment.
As for YouTubers, sure, it makes sense from a business standpoint for chess.com to ban accounts who cheat against popular streamers / youtubers... I think that's unfair, but I also think it really happens.
I mean there are more beginners then master so by that reason there should be more reports from beginners then master.
But don´t you think a report from let say a GM have a higher accurate chance then from a 400 rated player? I can imagen a tired 400-800 report people when they are tired and tilted and they just cant see how there opponent manage to win. While I think a GM has more things to look for because of there better understanding of the game and more experience. Like looking for how long a capture takes versus how long it should take, like you trade queens but your opponent stop and paus before taking back. Or every move takes 5 seconds no matter if the move is easy to find or hard to find. Wouldn't you agree that this things make a stronger player with more experience have advantage when it comes to spotting a cheater. I am not saying that they spot a cheater with 100% rate just that I think they have a higher rate then a beginner. But yeah this is not from data, it is only me speculating. But it makes sense to me, but you are a stronger player then me so I value your input.
I think players who know about cheating, regardless of their rating, make better reports 
For example, in some stream they asked Wesely So what's the best way to know your opponent is cheating, and he said it's basically impossible to tell. Now... maybe at the super GM level that's true. Maybe they play so close to an engine, or maybe Wesely was thinking about blitz games where he wouldn't have time to consider certain things.
But for example, one obvious sign is making risky decisions that turn out to be very accurate. A human, for example, might force the trade of queens to get an endgame they could win in their sleep, but an engine would keep the position double edged if it calculated a win. Wesely might not know this because he's a super GM who trains for top tournaments and if he only plays other GMs online maybe he has very little experience with cheaters... or maybe like I said he meant in blitz the game goes too fast to know for sure.
Anyway, sure, maybe higher rated players are more trustworthy... but I don't know... I would guess only slightly more trustworthy 
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.
That was a hypothetical detail...
Where I see the problem is that reporting people randomly is bad because your random tips will be obviously worse than tips of cc programs with gameplay statistics.
Hmm, I don't know that it's better to target some groups. For the sake of certain stats it's useful to check people at random. I'm not sure how chess.com does it.
Even if with the knowledge that, e.g. high rated rapid players are the most likely to cheat, you may not make the decision to favor investigating them, because the more you weight it towards high rated players, the longer people get away with cheating before they're caught... so again it's not obvious to me the best way to go about it.
And that's exactly the point. You don't know but cc people should know that because its their job. So leave their job to them and don't try to do it somehow better when the "best target group" what you are able to think of are people with who you personaly played.
Thinking that you can do their job better like that is stupid...
Ok but, like I told you before, I never claimed that I would report all my losses because I thought it was better for chess.com. In fact I said multiple times that I don't think it helps or hurts them either way.
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.
That was a hypothetical detail...
Where I see the problem is that reporting people randomly is bad because your random tips will be obviously worse than tips of cc programs with gameplay statistics.
Hmm, I don't know that it's better to target some groups. For the sake of certain stats it's useful to check people at random. I'm not sure how chess.com does it.
Even if with the knowledge that, e.g. high rated rapid players are the most likely to cheat, you may not make the decision to favor investigating them, because the more you weight it towards high rated players, the longer people get away with cheating before they're caught... so again it's not obvious to me the best way to go about it.
And that's exactly the point. You don't know but cc people should know that because its their job. So leave their job to them and don't try to do it somehow better when the "best target group" what you are able to think of are people with who you personaly played.
Thinking that you can do their job better like that is stupid...
Ok but, like I told you before, I never claimed that I would report all my losses because I thought it was better for chess.com. In fact I said multiple times that I don't think it helps or hurts them either way.
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people. Of course it makes things worse. In the huge amount of reports it doesn't mean a lot but its just objectively bad thing to do, what doesn't help anyhow to catch the cheaters.
Also you claimed before that you don't wanna do that because of your ego. Now you are saying that you don't wanna do it for sake of cc. So for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people.
Incorrect.
for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
I already said: to protect myself against cheaters I'd be very unlikely to notice by myself.
By the way, I've heard streamers give somewhat similar advice... one of them was Gotham... that if your opponent isn't titled, and the account is fairly new, then don't play them because they're probably a cheater.
Of course players like us can't do that because all (or almost all) of our opponents are not titled... but the point is the higher you go, the more you have to think about how to avoid cheaters.
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people.
Incorrect.
for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
I already said: to protect myself against cheaters I'd be very unlikely to notice by myself.
1) why was it incorect
2) why your opponent should be checked before opponent of somebody other, which were picked by cc algorithm, which has obviously higher chance to pick the right person than you have? It seems like an ego thing to me...
Danya might have to cancel his sensei speedrun series due to the massive influx of "suspicious players"
Has Danya ever said that he might have to cancel his speedruns or is that you spectulating?
He has said it.
This video at 24:20
That is sad. Well I hope he don´t stop with speedruns. I love his speedruns videos.
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people.
Incorrect.
for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
I already said: to protect myself against cheaters I'd be very unlikely to notice by myself.
1) why was it incorect
2) why your opponent should be checked before opponent of somebody other, which were picked by cc algorithm, which has obviously higher chance to pick the right person than you have? It seems like an ego thing to me...
At this point you're just repeating yourself. I've already responded to these comments.
We disagree. Sometimes people disagree even after they talk for a little bit. That's fine. Time to move on.
It seems like an ego thing to me...
By the way I haven't reported anyone for cheating...
I can't even remember the last time I reported one of my opponents for cheating. I usually report users who get complained about in the forums, and I look in their game history, and they're obvious cheaters.
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people.
Incorrect.
for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
I already said: to protect myself against cheaters I'd be very unlikely to notice by myself.
1) why was it incorect
2) why your opponent should be checked before opponent of somebody other, which were picked by cc algorithm, which has obviously higher chance to pick the right person than you have? It seems like an ego thing to me...
At this point you're just repeating yourself. I've already responded to these comments.
We disagree. Sometimes people disagree even after they talk for a little bit. That's fine. Time to move on.
I feel like that you just refused to answer me the unpleasant question.
I didn't notice that you would answer these questions before at all.
You are trying to do a job about you don't know anything instead of you would let it to more competent people.
Incorrect.
for what reason would you want to do that exactly?
I already said: to protect myself against cheaters I'd be very unlikely to notice by myself.
1) why was it incorect
2) why your opponent should be checked before opponent of somebody other, which were picked by cc algorithm, which has obviously higher chance to pick the right person than you have? It seems like an ego thing to me...
At this point you're just repeating yourself. I've already responded to these comments.
We disagree. Sometimes people disagree even after they talk for a little bit. That's fine. Time to move on.
I feel like that you just refused to answer me the unpleasant question.
I didn't notice that you would answer these questions before at all.
In #54 I explain to you that we don't know whether chess.com targets certain groups for investigation or not. I give rationale for why it would be sensible to only investigate users at random, and I argue that a common sense rational for targeting high rated players has a downside (therefore we really can't guess whether reporting players helps or hurts).
Additionally, in a previous post, I asserted that higher rated players in longer time formats are more likely to be cheaters.
It seems like an ego thing to me...
By the way I haven't reported anyone for cheating...
I can't even remember the last time I reported one of my opponents for cheating. I usually report users who get complained about in the forums, and I look in their game history, and they're obvious cheaters.
Its fine.. I don't wanna blame you as a person or anything..
I am just saying that reporting random people is objectively bad thing to do if you want to catch cheaters and not only looks how gain some bonus points for yourself non-ethicaly.. thats all..
Besides if everybody would do what you are recomend the report for cheating would lose any sence.
Right. If everyone did it then they'd have to remove the report button.
But you can use that argument for lots of things... if everyone regularly ate fruit to be more healthy, then there'd be a world wide shortage of fruit and some business would go bankrupt (for example if people ate fruit instead of meat) and lots of people would lose their jobs etc.