Cheaters Beware - You Will Be Caught

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but I don't get this.  If you crank your rating by doing this, then there is no measure of what is going on, you will pitch up against better players and your rating will just drop like a stone.

 I know I am going to lose many games until I get my chess head on again, but artificially pumping the rating would be pointless because as son as I started playing for real it would just drop.   Is there some universe where this is not true?

 in the universe where you never start playing for real and stay a cheater.

You only cheat yourself when you cheat at chess. I've said before, the greatest gift chess has given me has been lessons learned, learned through losses. Cheating would only deprive me of a part of the game I enjoy so much. I'm glad it's impossible to cheat at becoming a professional guitarist (although some really bad musicians have made it to the top playing really bad guitar).

"I'm glad it's impossible to cheat at becoming a professional guitarist"

 I could (easily) be wrong, but as I've always heard, when Paul McCartney, who could play guitar, took over playing the bass guitar when Stuart Sutcliffe left the group, he actually had to fake it for a while until he became proficient.

If that's the case, it seems he sort of cheated at guitar, or at least blurred the line between possible and impossible.

do cheetahs play speed chess....?

ok, ok, I'm sorry.

In the general scheme of things, does it really matter if someone cheats ?.

How can you tell if people are using computers??  surely its impossible to figure out if a move is software generated or the result of brainpower??

From a personal point of view, cheating is so pointless, ok so you get a high rating, but you cant get any satisfaction from winning using a computer program.

 Besides which, if you ever play for real (i.e in person on a real table) then you wont have the experience of learning from your mistakes and will surely be beaten by someone that doesnt cheat.

 Anyway you can use the game analysis function to map out scenarios that are a bit tricky.

I don't understand how one could benefit from resigning after a few moves, isn't that a loss for the player?

I think that the setup with timeout claiming would be better. 

well sure these type of people are called xheats and cheayers for a reason, as the name suggestsetc. It has also beeen pointed out the old saying of 'Inocent until proven guilty', but surley if these people are using cheating through the use of end game help and several accounts to inflate their points and rating then they will never actually play a proper personbecause if they do then they will be beat and their rating will drop like a stone as has already been said. It could however be that they are just not apt with the way to set up a game on Chess.com and should actually be using the un-rated games so that they can improve their skills instead of the rated games inadvetantly.

Although nobody would need to cheat against me to increase their rating as I have still got quite a ways to go to improve, but just as a point how do you actually know when someone is cheating in your game? 

 i KNOW someone is cheating the moment i start losing...

maybe one day I will reach that levle of plat too Erik...

 i don't know what you mean. i would consider hungry hungy hippos a fake game :)

"hungry hungy hippos"

is that one of those "don't ask, don't tell" things?

I think fake games would mean if a person registered under two different names and played himself at chess, allowing one of his (or her) identities to win to boost his or her rating (though, like a ponzi scheme, it would eventually implode anyway).

It shouldn't.  But you and I don't make the rules here.