Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

 Costelus this is laughable, those links don't say anything.  The first shows that you compared a game with a computer eval... yes, we knew that... the second link, ironically, is about exactly what I've been saying... it discusses among other things how the correspondence of computer evaluations to player moves, changes with the player's style. The link in no way discusses their methodology, merely alludes to the fact that they have one. I believe them. Prof Regan sounds like a serious person, studying computer cheating in a responsible, academically rigorous scientific way.

He does not sound like a dilettante with a free chess engine and an attitude, which is what you seem to be, to me.

What you should take away from the second link, Costelus, is humility. Serious people are working on this problem, people who actually understand computer science, chess engines, and statistics. Do you understand those things -- because You seem to think you've got it all figured out. The Ph.ds with all their knoweldge, are still working on it, but you, you "personally have no doubt."

About my methodology -- hunh? I'm not the one ranting in triplicate about having no doubt about discovering cheaters etc.  I'll be the first to admit my conclusions are subject to challenge and are based entirely on my conjecture. My point is that my conjecture is as well, or better reasoned than your conjecture... that's all you've got, some windy unconvincing conjecture, backed by very little. 

Why not write to Professor Regan some questions about this matter -- instead of empty railing about all the cheaters, see if you can come up with five intelligent questions for the professor, I'll bet he responds.

"Why don't you analyze that game? All those who posted in that topic and messaged me about that seem to confirm my results." None of you have any expertise in the evaluation of chess-games for cheating. You're a bunch of yabboo's running your computer engines. Were any of your "assistants" even strong chess players (IM or above -- Professor Regan is an IM.) It's like a witch-doctor diagnosing a bad case of spirit-possession and getting confirmation from other witch-doctors. I did look at that game, my opinion, it looked fishy to me too... guess what: I'm just another witch-doctor.

Reading English is so so hard. I told you, Jg27pyth, all the methodology is described in detail there. Please take your time and read it!

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/Elista2006.html

(look for the word methodology).

Here is an example of a "smoking gun":

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/S-VresultsShredder91.txt

But I guess it's much easier to offend than to read a text in English. 

If you would read more carefully, you could have found that Regan does not work on detecting computer cheating, this is just a time-consuming hobby he has.

Who can analize a chess game if you must be an IM to do it? It seems that nobody, right (at least nobody in the staff of chess.com)? Cheaters, you are welcome!!

Really, an unbelievable, disturbing ignorance. According to you Jg27pyth, I should not question any news I read in the media - obviously I need to be an expert in the field that information is about. Also, I should blindly trust any action of the government of my country - again, I don't have the competence to judge their action.

You know what? You are the model citizen. Any government would just love to have only citizens like you.

All around me .. I can only see cheaters.. 

This one, I was lucky to take a picture with my nano top system camera Olympus 2000X

He had a rating of 940 on chess.com and he beat me in 15 moves. What the %$#@!

Costelus, at some point you need to ask yourself if you're part of the solution or part of the problem.  The non-stop railing, even in threads that ostensibly have nothing to do with cheating (e.g. In the Who's your favorite chess.com player thread your answer was Rybka 3) is about as helpful as the person who yells fire in a crowded theatre.

Yeah, those cheaters ...they are using things like this and others. They can't fool me... Its about time that we do something. NO CHEATERS

This is to much.

Those CHEATERS, they have their own site. 

http://www.cheater.com/

I hope Don Erik and his deputies are really ready for the task.

Of course I didn't read those, those are different links? LOL... Yeah, you've really got me there costelus, damn, I didn't read the links you hadn't posted yet. Silly irresponsible me.

Look, Costelus... I want to make sure you understand my point, because I'm not sure you do --

I'm NOT saying that there's no chess engine cheating on chess.com

I'm NOT saying that chess engine cheating cannot sometimes be detected.

Here's what I am saying:

You are a crank who can be ignored.

Let me expand -- lest you misunderstand: You have every right to voice your opinion once or twice or three or more times, but there's a limit... you've done it going on many dozens of times and it has become, well, tiresome. You still have the right to do it, I suppose, but at this point I feel justified in excercising my right to say: Hey, people, you can ignore this crank bent on wasting time flogging  his I-caught-a-cheater donkey.  My annoyance is compounded by the fact that you voice your opinion high-handedly and back it up with nothing but your own high-handedness. You seem to believe that you are own expert *(rather like Rich and Oprah). Holocaust deniers and 9-11 conspiracy theorists do better. Really.

Nothing you've said, and you've said certainly said it repeatedly, has convinced me even slightly that you know anything about this topic beyond having the ability to run a chess engine for a while and look at the evaluation numbers. Is that really all there is to it?

Do you really believe an untitled chessplayer, who doesn't write engine software, (any software?) and doesn't know statistical analysis (or do you?), has a lot to say about chess engine statistical analysis?

I don't.

I tend to favor the chess.com folks who have lots of their money invested in this problem. I don't trust blindly and completely... it's certainly possible they have dropped the ball, but they are kicking cheaters,and they claim to have methods that go beyond the butt-simple comparision method you use. Your analysis looks very unsophisticated. Chess.com appears as unimpressed as I am by your "analysis" ... yet you go on... and on... and on...

I asked you to formulate five intelligent questions for professor Regan. You haven't come up with one, and I'm not holding my breath. I don't think you are interested in increasing your own understanding or anyone elses -- you think you know it all. As you are so fond of saying, "you have no doubt"  -- bully for you, I encourage you to publish your results under the title, "the surefire I-have-no-doubt method of detecting computer engine cheating"

With a little luck chess.com with see it and hire you to consult with them on their computer cheating issues. Go for it. But don't quit your day job, if you have one.

Ha ha, poor helpless little boy :) the links are on the page I pointed to you first time. Don't think that a quick 3 minutes look is enough to understand what is there! I also messaged you to take this discussion in private. You refused, of course, you couldn't miss the chance to offend me in public.

As you say, nobody has the ability to analyze a game with an engine. An IM like Regan is for sure far below the level of Kramnik, how can he analyze Kramnik's games? You should know that some chess sites encourage their users to signal them cases of possible cheating. Why they do this, if nobody below the IM level can analyze a chess game??

The statistical part in this situation is simple: you just count the matches. I guess you don't need a PhD in Math to do that.

After all, why do you care so much about me? You and others. Why do you track this topic? Just to show me that I am an idiot? I know, I am an idiot, the player I reported is a truly great player, and I refuse to believe that! Anything else?

I also messaged you to take this discussion in private. You refused, of course, you couldn't miss the chance to offend me in public.

Yes, I know, and that struck me as bizarre. Here you are eager to spam your cheater-holler all over chess.com, but then I come along calling you a poseur and suddenly you want to discuss it in private? You've done a better job discrediting yourself than I ever could.

As you say, nobody has the ability to analyze a game with an engine.

Really? Where do I say that?

An IM like Regan is for sure far below the level of Kramnik, how can he analyze Kramnik's games?

An IM is a real chess player: it's professional grade. Yes it's below Kramnik and other super GMs. But when IMs play chess their games matter, they are published and studied... they write books... in short, they have professional standing. An IM working carefully by his or herself with databases and computer resources is absolutely competent to analyze world championship calibre chess, they do it all the time. Anyway... you're arguing against yourself again... if I cede your point and say 'ok, the IM doesn't have the skill to analyze high level chess" where does that leave you?

You should know that some chess sites encourage their users to signal them cases of possible cheating.

Of course I know that -- Chess.com does that... and I'm sure your signal has gotten thru, so, you can ease up now, ok?

The statistical part in this situation is simple: you just count the matches. I guess you don't need a PhD in Math to do that.

Ah, now there's a good question for Dr. Regan, why don't you e-mail him that one... "So Professor, all you do is count the matches, no statistical analysis needed, right?" -- try that, see if he emails you back: "Right! You got it! That's all there is to it!"

Why do you track this topic? Just to show me that I am an idiot? I know, I am an idiot

Now now, don't be too hard on yourself... I haven't, and wouldn't, presume to call you an idiot. I think you're a crank.

This is from Wikipedia -- see if you fit the bill:

Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1998 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a "checklist", the Crackpot index, intended to "diagnose" cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.^[2]

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

i looked at one of the cheaters and it was really funny.  they were like 700 blitz 1200 long and 2500 quick.  one of these things is not like the others...

This site like any chess site can not stop cheating, to say it can insults everyone, at best they can try to control it. If they had a method I am sure F.I.D.E or some other reputable chess site would be using such a method.

My question is, how can a website (chess.com) take cheating seriously when they don't really understand the problem?

I prefer to think that they 1.)understand the problem,2) DO work to address the problem, 3)cannot eliminate the problem,4) know they cannot eliminate the problem, 5)try to do as much as they can to reduce the problem without letting this problem become the focus of the site-- draining time effort and technical resources away from the chess itself.  I choose to see them as fallible humans who care about the problems but choose not to spend more than X time and resources on this to the neglect of other projects and concerns.  If I am wrong then I am wrong.

That does seem more than a little odd.

Jg27Pyth: I am ALWAYS ready to accept that I was wrong. In fact, this is what I would like: please provide an analysis of the game I'm talking about in which the matching percentage to be significantly different from what I got. I am not an expert in chess engines, and definitely not a good chess player. Therefore, it should be quite easy for you (or chess.com staff, or anybody else) to demonstrate that I made a mistake. Please do it! Prove, not just say "you are probably wrong."

Mauerblum: have you checked if that player won those games on the board and not because the accounts of his opponents were closed?

I love how cheating becomes a lecture on citizenship and governments...that's classic

I do not understand the mentality of someone who would cheat, and really have no desire to.  These types of people are not the rule, but are common enough that they need to be dealt with, I appreciate your efforts Eric and those of the rest of the C.C staff to deal with them.  Thank you!

I have deleted my last both posts.- Not because I think they were wrong, but perhaps they are not my "business"!?

Hilarious.

On the topic of cheating, could it perhaps be possible to find a punishment beyond a slap of the wrist or the loss of one's account? Cheating is clearly a large problem to the internet chess community and needs to be treated as such. I am thinking of something along the lines of charging the user's credit card account a significant fee, like a traffic ticket. This would not work on Chess.com since many are not paying members, but perhaps on a site like ICC, this could be added to the user agreement? After all it costs money to catch these cheaters and they might as well be the ones footing the bill. This might perhaps deter potential customers, but precisely the kind you didn't want to begin with. After all, if you are not cheating, you have nothing to worry about.

I have been in 

chess site  and  they don't even talk about. happy to be here