Cheaters Beware - You Will Be Caught

haha, I LOLd

Should I just watch any old player? What rating range should I look at? What does "at club level" mean?

I really don't think cheating is much of a problem here @ chess.com as it is most places ... my rating (in online chess) floats around 2100 and I rarely face someone I 'know' is a cheater.  Maybe it's only a problem at the high levels?

Yeah, those are exactly my thoughts. I face tons of people in turn-based who are obviously not using a bot. In 1 min chess, I would be thrashed by a bot, and I win most of my games there.

In some isolated circumstances, my detection alarm has gone off (and in two of those cases they were definitely using a computer) but these are not the norm.

The notion that cheating is rampant in the lower levels is highly implausible.

Well ozzie, your detection alarm did not go off when you were defeated by MirceaH, who had 100% agreement with the first choice of Fritz. Why you did not report him?? You let him continue his cheating, while at the same time trying to give everybody the impression that he is a great player.

I do not think that cheating is rampant here, but there are way too many strong players. Compared to them, the correspondence world champions from the past look like stupid kids. So do today's top GM's. Who are those people? Why has nobody heard about them??

MirceaH was one of the two I was talking about, especially in the game where I had white. In the game where I had black, I wrote it off to a worse opening DB.

You would not know whether I did or did not report him, so don't guess.

Maybe some of them are today's top GMs (it may come as a surprise, but my real name isn't TheGrobe).

The fact of the matter is, it's not really an apples to apples comparison to hold games played here up next to games played by GMs because the time controls aren't even remotely similar.  There is so much time available to a turn-based player here to work through all of the possibilities that it shouldn't be a shock to see some real quality games here.

Even so, by who's assessment do the top games here make today's GMs and correspondence players from the past look like "stupid kids" -- it's certainly a subjective claim, and I have seen a lot more amazing GM games than games played on chess.com showcased, so I'm not convinced it's a claim that has merit.

TheGrobe, I agree. Costelus, there is a way for you to attack this problem such that you do not directly accuse anybody. Just say "I researched a top 200 player, and compared some playing statistics with some of today's top GMs and also some top correspondence players. Here are the results." The hand-waving and generalizations get out of control.

Ozzie: you said in that petition thread that you did not report MirceaH. That's why the Romanians were so furious on me so that they excluded me from their team: "Mircea defeated so many great players, nobody had any doubt about his playing strength. It had to come you - I was like 1400 at that time - to report him!"

I am also very curious Ozzie, how come you suspect only 2 players from those you played with. Very curious :))

Of course, I do not have the time to make a detailed statistics over all the games somebody plays here. Chess.com should have such tools. All I can do is to pick a game and analize the moves. And I did that, for some players. Because I hate to play against cheaters. The results showed not only GM strength, but way above GM strength :) 

And to be clear: I do not accuse anybody! If chess.com considers that you can just come from nowhere and play much better than Tal or Kasparov, it is their opinion. I simply disagree with that.

Grobe: here is another thing. In the past, a correspondence game took months or even years to complete. Today, on chess.com, many top players have like 50 simultaneous games, they finish in let's say 2 months. How come they achieve much better quality than the correspondence games from before the computers age?

Again, what's your data?

"And I did that, for some players. ... The results showed not only GM strength, but way above GM strength"
-- reference/data needed. Make sure to not include the player name.

"they achieve much better quality than the correspondence games from before the computers age"
-- reference/data needed. Do not include the player name.

OK, I forgot I said that I didn't report MirceaH. But that doesn't mean that I didn't suspect him. I said as much in that thread, that he played as black with a very curious style. Most strong players wouldn't lock their bishops in to total purgatory. Here is the game for your reference.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=12063088

I don't think the burden of proof is on me to explain your claim so much as it is on you to demonstrate that this is in fact an accurate claim.

Ozzie, here is plenty of data:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/

I will post the results of the analysis I do before choosing with whom to play. If I do it anyway, why not? Of course, I will not mention the player's name.

About Mircea curious style... He's not alone, for sure. I played against him a Panov attack, with an IQP position (I was White). He had no idea how to play against it. Well, no human idea :) At that point I realized I'm playing against artificial intelligence.

I went to that site and do not see any data... what am I missing?

Cheating ! ...What a great idea ... I wish I'd thought of it .......he he

 Not logic fail. EPIC PHAILSAUSE fail

Well Ozzie, it does not have big red letters :) All the information is there.

In general, a GM will achieve roughly 50-60% full matches with an engine. Variations may occur, for instance the game might be very sharp and the lines forcing. 

Here is an example of cheating (the opinion of Kevin Regan):

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/BV2.results

Here is an example when the test results were inconclusive:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/TK6results.txt

Note that, for the last link, Topalov's team accused Kramnik of cheating when they found a 75% matching between his moves and an engine. In a single game. 

Now, do you think I exaggerate when I can't believe that amateur players, without an ELO, can achieve 85% consistently, even in correspondence games?

 Seems like people will try to play the system no matter if they gain anything, or not. Working in a correctional facility, like I do, brings out these characters on a daily basis. I hope you'll keep ousting these losers, Erik, so the rest of us can enjoy the site,play the game, and converse with right thinking members.

costelus, I am still waiting for any data [from chess.com] which supports anything that you say.

I don't disagree with the technique. You just haven't backed up anything you've said with, you know, actual facts. How many games have you analyzed here? You quote the 85% number above. Is this one game?

Other people's analysis != data.

Cheaters come in all shpaes and forms and strenths, and has all kinds of motivations for doing so. And besides. Look at the club players below like 1600 or so. Now you tell me NM were does a person learn form? I'll tell you. Books. Lasker and Nimzo, so what? Now you got these 1000 rated players who got sick of losing all the time and now suddenly there winning. How? Overprotection, diagonal control, and they have these strange 5 move combos just to win a pawn. In Blitz! Do you know anyone less than 1600 who cares about pawns? HA! Don't make me laff. Only puters win pawns. These people just plugged the game into the puter and than they win. That's why a NM should watch them games, cuase you can see there playing above the level before Nimzo.  Now they don't feel so bad about losing all the time, but you could tell, becuase 2 weeks ago they weren't even controlling the center. Another thing is this. There here to learn, and that's how they learn, not by cheatin all the time, but just little bits at a time, until they feel good again. So they shoudl treat the weak player just like they do the +2000, cuase sometimes that's were cheaters come from and you can just nip it in the butt.

Improvement is evidence of improvement, not cheating.

It can be both. Here's how it works. "Hi this Chess.com, we're gonna be lookin for cheaters above 2000, so if your below 2000, cheat away." Everyone does it. Whose to stop ya, when people say it's just improvement?