________ Are Ruining Online Chess

I agree. No one should report people at random.

However, reporting high rated rapid players who win games is not random.

It only gains points if the person is a cheater therefore it is very ethical. Furthermore, a rating that is not adjusted after losing to a cheater is inaccurate, and this inaccuracy has a ripple effect throughout the rating pool, giving everyone you play against a slightly inaccurate rating too.

And look, it's not like I don't understand what you're saying.

Many years ago a dumb kid recommended to everyone that we should report at least 10 people every day (but not too many because it would overwhelm chess.com). He wasn't a troll, he was... different.

Anyway, I understand that it's distasteful to report someone without having a reason other than they happened to play against you... and just because they get banned for cheating, it doesn't necessarily mean they cheated in their game against you... so maybe you gain rating points you don't deserve.

See, these are some arguments you could use against me... so it's not like I'm trying to be disagreeable. I understand...

But cheating exists in long time control games, and if I were to play them, then I'd follow the advice I gave the OP on page 1. I can't fully protect myself against cheaters, but by aborting against suspicious accounts, and reporting people I lose to, I have a high chance of only losing to honest players.

1)
again if reporting "high rated rapid players who win games" would be good thing to do cc would check them more automatically.  By acting like this you are simply saying "I can find the cheater better than cc even when I don't invest any time for checking accounts etc.." And thats obviously not true at all.
I know that I repeated myself there but i have never obtain any answer to that from you.
2)
its not ethical because its higher chance for finding the cheater without your theorethical report.

If chess.com had a higher chance of finding cheaters without reports, then the report button wouldn't exist. I know you think that reporting someone just for winning is not a good reason, but it's not just because they won, it's because they won a long time control game at a high rating.

In any case, why do you think chess.com's random account checks are more likely to find cheaters? I already explained why we can doubt this.

BRUH..
1) there is a difference between report what normal peple do and your theorethical report which you do randomly, or from some specific group what your choose. But whatever you choose its worse than what would choose cc algorithm because it has more big data and statistics than you. I thought that its obvious.
2) I am not saying that random account checks are more likely to find cheaters. I am saying that the way how cc do that is the way how more likely  find cheaters compared with your choice of any group or random choice.  

I don't think you understand my posts but...

If chess.com thinks my reports are hurting their business, they're free to ignore my reports.

They would gladly do that if they know that you are reporting people randomly, or reporting everybody with who you have played.. or idk what other stupidly choose group you would want to target..

Anyway, the main point of your argument is chess.com's algorithm is more likely to catch cheaters... but you're just guessing.

First of all you're guessing that they don't check randomly (there are benefits to checking purely randomly).

Secondly you're guessing that they're more likely to find cheaters than my method of reporting people I lost to.

Thirdly you're guessing that even if my criteria is worse, that my reporting hinders their ability to catch cheaters (which is very unlikely as they check millions every day, in other words I'd move the needle at most on the order of 0.000001%)

It's an ad hoc argument originating from your personal disgust for what you think of as my ego, or as my defaming innocent people.

I dont say that they do or not do choose randomly I say that they do the most sufficient way..
I dont know which one is it you don't know that too.

And thats obviously true. They have more data, more statistics and everything to be better than you. If you are not a person who is winning cassino every day your method will be worse.

The only thing what you said there is that it doesn't matter because its only one report from many. But even that one could be invested better and with everyone you will make like that you will make the cc abillity to catch a cheater slightly worse

Right, you don't know, you're just guessing.

You say they use their data to make it efficient, but you don't know that. They might check accounts at random.

I mean, first all, I don't think anyone working at chess.com has the training or ability to use that data to make checking accounts efficient. They'd have to pay a consultant to do it for them... and if they're already catching a high % of cheaters they may have decided it's not worth it.

Thats absolutely ridiculous. With all the money and information they obviously have better algorithm than yours choose could be. We can discuss how much better it is but that it's better is totaly clear. 

Hi all, 

Please discuss cheating in the forum 

https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum

And report suspicious members 

https://support.chess.com/article/209-how-do-i-report-someone

In May 2021 they reviewed about 300 million games for fair play.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-month-in-review-may-2021

I think that's a fairly high percentage of all games played, so special algorithms for which users to check may not be useful. For example since 10|0 is the most common time control and since noobs almost never use all their time, we might say something like the average game takes 10 minutes to finish. Then we see ~50,000 games in live chess meaning 6 games an hour * 24 hours a day * 50,000 games * 30 days in a month = ~200,000,000 games. Obviously this is a low estimate since we didn't even get up to 300,000,000 but the point is it's a reasonably high percentage of all games played. For example if you already check 30% of games, and if cheaters occur at the rate of about 1 in 400 then special targeting may not increase your efficiency by a meaningful amount.

In any case, I guess you don't realize people who went to school for business, web design, and even programming don't get much mathematics training. Anyone can guess to make it more efficient, but to actually use the data well I imagine they'd hire a consultant (as they did for most of their cheat detection efforts which @DanielRensch has discussed in YouTube videos)

In any case which is more efficient is a side debate since I never claimed people should report because it's efficient. You're making things up because you dislike my idea.

Every so big company like chess.com is, use their data to make their site better they have money to get whatever people they want. Also saying that people who work in programming don't need mathemathics is not true at all.
I don't mind what the Dany did in that video, he did assume that the person is a cheater for some actual reason. But what did you propose is wrong because you would do that without the reason.
 And finally what is more efficient is the whole point of this debate. If your way is less sufficient then it does harm the cc abillity to catch cheaters and catching them is what I believe we both would like to do. If you don't, and if you are willing to missuse the report feature to your own adventage while its worse for cc as a site, then thats where I would say its not ethical.
I dislike your idea for a good racional reasons, which I am describing you. 

I didn't see it much below 1200.  Above 1800, I see about 1 every 25 games.  They are usually pretty easy to pick out.  A simple example was a couple years ago when I played in a 45+45 game and went over my game with my coach (a strong IM) and I had commented on one of my opponent's moves "I have no idea what this accomplishes - it looks bizarre and yet he played it after only thinking for 45 seconds".  My coach looked at it and couldn't figure it out.  Then he fired up his engine and came back saying "Ah, so if you let the engine cook for 42+ ply, it likes the rook here because after all these other moves he can then win a pawn - no human is seeing that and there is no way this is in his preparation because you are on move 35 in a sideline of a sideline already!"  Needless to say, I was not surprised to see said opponent banned a couple weeks later.

I am repeating myself because you are not able to listen to me. Or more like you don't wanna...
1) Companies don't get whatever they want but they get more than you personally and thats enough for this debate. We are comparing efectivity of yours pick (in which you are not willing invest any time for account check) and cc algorithm pick. Person doesn't need to be a genius to know that the pick of cc will be better most of the time.
2) It doesn't harm people which you would report, but it does harm the people whose oppenents would be checked instead of the yours opponents.
3) It makes things more fair for you personally but for cc like a site its unfair because its unable to check others poeple who would be more likely cheater than your opponent would be. That's what is unfair about it.

From screen shots I've seen, the frequency of cheating in rapid games is MUCH higher than 1 in 400, which is the frequency of games checked to users banned that chess.com reports, so no matter their method, reporting in rapid helps them catch more cheaters... heh.

Yes, I am assuming that.  Because thats how big companies work. They don't do statistics because its fun for them.
Again thats the variation to "It doesn't matter because its only a few reports." Thats not a valid argument. We are talking about if its good thing to do it not how much good or bad thing it is.
Why you should let go even the one cheater go to free?
I don't believe you a thing about what is a good or bad criterium. That's what cc algorithm should say, not you as a random person with zero information. Also good criterium would be checking the account and looking for some patterns what would indicate cheating, investing some time in it. I believe thats what normal people do before they report somebody. 

I edited my post.

Chess.com reports banning 1 person for every 400 games they check.

As long as at least 1 out of 400 people I report are banned, it means I'm doing better than chess.com's average.