Gestalt 
Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating
Sort:
streetfighter wrote:
Could someone please tell me where I can find an updated list of banned players? The original thread linked from page 1 of this one seems to have been locked
That other thread is going to remain locked, as we don't want any discussion to get in the way of the list. That said, the list has just been updated. ;-)
Apr 28, 2009
0
#344
Isn't this the original list? It popped up for me when I clicked the link in Eric's original post:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters
Eternal_Patzer wrote:
Isn't this the original list? It popped up for me when I clicked the link in Eric's original post:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters
Well, the "original" list was actually part of this thread, and we kept the list the same, but separated the list from the discussion thread a day or two after this thread was started so that the list wouldnt get lost in the chatter.
mschosting wrote:
ichabod801 wrote:
MM78 wrote:
well I think it's clear Mcshosting still doesn't understand using opening explorer/books and databases is legal and not cheating and so is different from using an engine or not :-) Books etc were always used in correspondence style chess.
I think it's clear that he just doesn't understand correspondence chess. If reading a book is cheating for correspondence chess, then you could never read a chess book while you had any correspondence games going on. You would have to stop reading chess books for months or years at a time to not be a cheater. Otherwise, those chess books could help you in the games you currently have going on.
Either that or he's a troll.
thats cheating... may be legal but cheating anyway
mschosting, that's like saying en passent is cheating...or castling is cheating. Consulting books is a traditional part of CC -- it's been around for decades. For example: bishops move diagonally -- that's a RULE in chess. Similarly, consulting books is allowed -- that's a RULE in CC chess. Can you blame your opponent of cheating if he moves his bishop diagonally?
Besides, when playing a CC game that lasts a year, "not cheating" by your definition requires that both players do the following:
1) not read ANYTHING during this one-year period (including ads, newspapers, billboards, etc.)
2) not talk to ANYONE for one year
3) not listen to ANYONE for one year
How is this practically achievable?
Apr 28, 2009
0
#347
Also probably why we have a "correspondence" world champion as separate from the world champion.
Apr 28, 2009
0
#348
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Well, these are reasons why CC chess is not really accepted as "real" chess by many non-CC players.
It is hardly mano-a-mano, is it?
And it is also why so many people feel the line is blurred between using all sorts of info just because it is in hard copy and someone has already done the calculating as opposed to using an engine to determine moves.
I suspect there are many engine users who do not feel as if they are cheating any more than the database users feel they are cheating.
Not condoning it, just making it clear that I think there are some lines that sometimes look arbitrary and other times just seem to fade completely into infinity......
Just sayin.
An engine calculates the best move according to the position, looking x moves into the future to determine the relative strength of each candidate move as it happens. A DB presents stats on the eventual outcome of the games that have contained the candidate moves, but the move in question may have had little or no impact on the eventual outcome.
There is a skill in choosing the correct move from a DB - in one of my recent games (From's defence in Bird's opening) I deliberately chose a move because I knew the most popular move listed in games explorer was weak and I had a prepared reply. Alas, my opponent spotted this and didn't blindly follow the DB option.
Similarly, some of the analysis presented in openings books has a more up-to-date refutation.
I agree it's not quite mano-a-mano, and I'm sure my growing collection of openings books has had some say in my increasing rating, but they have also contributed to a general improvement in my game, so who is to say?
Apr 28, 2009
0
#349
I've long argued that using books/opening db/analysis board helps your OTB chess. I've noticed it in my own game, as I'm sure have countless others.
Apr 28, 2009
0
#350
richie_and_oprah wrote:
There is also skill in guiding an engine. There are some excellent John Nunn pieces on this subject, so I hope people take time to read them before bashing me here for what has already been proven by a strong, well respected GM.
I'm sure there is skill in guiding an engine. I've never tried centaur chess because the thought of it bores me rigid, but I can understand why some people get pleasure from it.
My point is that DBs and books are a static resource. An engine isn't. Yes, they are an aid for the CC player that an OTB player wouldn't have, but the line is clear enough - I don't think its a shade of grey. DBs and books leave the player to calculate the best option and, if the opponent goes off line and the user doesn't understand the strategy of the position, they will lose quickly, but if they are using an engine then it continues to calculate the best move, even if the opponent goes off-line.
JG27Pyth wrote:
Also, one of the points you tirelessly flog is this one:
I personally have no doubts that 90% agreement with the first 3 choices of any reasonable engine, after the opening, not counting forced moves, is cheating. Why no doubts? Because no player in the history has achieved that!
Um, I personally have a lot of doubts about that... I don't think you got the full story on this... I believe your point holds true only when looking at master vs master games, when each player is setting tough problems for the other to solve. When a master plays a patzer, I think the master is often quite capable of finding and playing the strongest move on the board, time after time... to understand what I'm saying, consider: -- if I hang my queen, do you really need Rybka to tell you to take it?
At any rate: Hardcore engine cheating exists and will be caught... and I've known and said for a while now: Cheating-lite surely goes on too, and is IMO, uncatchable. Play chess according to your own conscience (or don't play chess if you can't find a way to be comfortable)... but don't let this stuff driver you crazy, and please, stop driving the rest of us crazy, too...
But in the game Costelus pointed out, it IS master vs master. The losing player is 2200+ ! It's not a master vs patzer like you thought.
We have to give some credit to Costelus though, because as it turns out, the guy he accused DID cheat. Chess.com has recently closed his account. Costelus was right all along. But looking back, his analysis did look logical and it's pretty convincing. I really don't think any human could produce 90-100% match with an engine.
Apr 28, 2009
0
#352
But, really, it was master vs (amateur + engine). And master lost :-(.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
There is also skill in guiding an engine. There are some excellent John Nunn pieces on this subject, so I hope people take time to read them before bashing me here for what has already been proven by a strong, well respected GM.
Experiment done: 2008 on ICCF using on Rybka 64 bit single core, Pentium IV 3.85 Ghz, 750 FSBus 100 games. Using only first move on 20 depth search.
It ended up with rating of 2345. Without human guidance, the machine gets lost in the middlegame.
The idea that the rating is 3100 is absolute horse hockey as this was not achieved in the same fashion you or I would get our ratings. It was mathematically derived without any real games being played.
Try playing on ICCF exclusively using just your engine. You will get beaten with no mercy by players 2400.
Can you please post links to your sources for this information. This is news to me but it sounds very interesting and I'd love to read the articles.
Apr 28, 2009
0
#354
Another question: I'm guessing that "players 2400" means a 2400-rated engine-assisted human? Or not...?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Another question: I'm guessing that "players 2400" means a 2400-rated engine-assisted human? Or not...?
I think so but Im not sure. I would also like to know.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
But, really, it was master vs (amateur + engine). And master lost :-(.
shame on you for losing to a patzer + engine ;)
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Chances are that the 2700's here that get banned are indeed decent players that have spent a lot of time and energy to get good but have probably plateaued in the low 2000 range and this does not sit right in view of all the work they have honestly done to get better at chess. Looking at the lists I see some people that were rated in the 1800 range when they were banned so it is clear it not isolated to the 2400's....
No compasion for such idiots! If they want to play with a computer, they can do it honestly, against an opponent who agrees with that. They can do it on ICCF againts strong competition. But no ... they come here to play against legitimate human players.
Maybe I also studied some chess and maybe I don't like that here there are like 2500 players stronger than me. Maybe I don't like that some amateurs play at some level I can only dream of (common, so many have the talent of Radjabov, to reach such a level without extensive study). Shall I use a computer myself?
Multiple accounts or possibly players on the ascent (or descent) could explain the banned users at the ~1800 rating range. I still believe strongly that if someone is using an engine that they will quickly find themselves rated amongst the top tier of players here and that most users really aren't likley to get matched up against them as a result. (I've not played a single player on the confirmed cheaters list for example)
It would be helpful to see under which clause each of the banned accounts was closed, but at least there's more transparency now then there had been.
Apr 28, 2009
0
#359
I don't really care where my rating is here, I have an OTB goal to get the FM title though. :-)
Apr 28, 2009
0
#360
I have played at least one confirmed cheater on here so far. Which is a shame really it was turning into a great contest. Got my highest rating from it though. 
Here it is here.
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=18133563
My point was that person should ALWAYS be reported, but if even after being reported, the account remains open (that is, after all evidence has been gathered, it is still open), then the admins of this site must have had VERY good evidence to support the player did not cheat.
I don't suppose they need strong evidence to prove someone is NOT cheating - if they still have a reasonable doubt (after initial investigation) then they won't ban someone. This is a good thing in my opinion. I'd imagine that if someone looks dubious, but didn't have enough evidence intially then the system will begin to track every game they play, so they will eventually be caught. After a while the reasonable doubt will evaporate and the account will be closed.