Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

its kinda shocking how many players cheat. i know its really not many compared to how many players there actually are on chess.com, but still.

LEX ROMANA

Interesting point - I can see arguments both ways.

If I were in charge, I would not share the detailed evidence, choosing to preserve the secrecy of the methodology over some notion of a "right to a fair trial". I guess I don't think that a cheater has a right to a fair trial - especially if the bar is set very high (chess.com only sanctions when they are VERY sure that it is a cheater).

If you already know they are cheaters there is no point to a trial. A trial is exactly to decide if they are cheaters or not. I guess this sounds a little like the "guilty until proven inocent" saying.

On the other hand I also know this is not a court of law and rules are not even meant to be fair (although they are in my opinion) and you are not even supposed to be guilty of cheating to be kicked out of here (although I am sure most of the people punished are guilty). But I am just wondering how the system works I guess.

LeX Romana Visigothorum

I personally think the cheater should have a right to "a fair trail" I think the user should have his arguements, but if EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence goes against him or he has a little screw-up in his story he should be banned. In fact, I think we could take this to the next level and get honest staff or maybe even members to decide on the verdict.

Still, I'm not sure if I am cheating by studing different sitation (NOT IN AN ENGINE) online to help me decide what my next move is. Can someone clarify this for me?

NOTE: I do not use an engine, I just look up some different chess strategys and decide whcih is best for the situation I am in. I rarely do this, but if it does break rules then I will stop imediatly.

I think the problems arises when you think of it as being analogous to the US or other democratic legal systems.  It simply doesn't function this way -- it's more like espionage and counter-intelligence.  The CIA certainly doesn't disclose any detection methodologies that they have to identify foreign agents, and for very good reasons.  In fact, the very same reasons that it would folly for chess.com to disclose their cheat detection methodologies.

Not only that, but if someone is willing to cheat, they mostlikely wouldn't have a problem with going through the trouble of creating a second account and they could use that to side step the detection system now that they know how they got caught. 

So, my personal opinion is, they aren't hurting you, they are taking care of it. They own the site so they should be able to run it how they want to. I should be glad that I am allowed on here for free and not complain about something that isn't my buisness. 

Thats my 2 cents.

It's not a democracy, the site is in charge of determining if you are cheating. I don't like at all the idea that it should be up for a vote, after presenting evidence...

That's just not how it works.

A libel suit based on the smearing of a fictional name?  Going to be very hard to prove what the damages are. 

 fictional money

 There are more than a few of those listed who have put their "real" name in their profile.  Either that or they've pretended to be someone else :-)

Yes, including pictures.

Even so they are going to have to prove what the damages are.  This means finding someone who is going to testify that they were going to give the "smeared" person money for some service then elected not to do so due to chess.com banning them.  In short the smeared has to prove that they had a good reputation that has been irrevocably harmed by false information that cost them a definable amount of money.

Point I'm making is that the libel suit argument is just not valid.

It really starts to appear that some people here support cheating and would like the ICCF model (humans push a wooden piece, the engine thinks for them).

What methods and evidence do you want? A video recording actually showing the cheating might be impossible to obtain. What else would be enough? It seems to you (and many others) perfectly plausible that an amateur with no ELO can play much better than ANY other player in the history. Any includes patzers like Kasparov or Fisher (who are indeed patzers compared to the cheaters banned here).

What chance do you want the cheaters to be given? I would understand such a measure if chess.com threshold would be lower (aka you can't play like a GM and have no ELO). But chess.com acts only when the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Costelus, how would you react if you got a message from chess.com saying you have been found cheating and your account has been closed?

How to react? After all it is a private website which might or might not allow my access. But I guess that, in order to ban me for cheating, chess.com should ban at least 1000 other members to be credible :)) 

 I believe you are accurate.  This is a private business.  They can make rules about who has access unless it violates some constitutional or statutory protection (race, creed, religion, etc.) 

In the U.S. you generally pay your own legal fees and costs.  Defamation is not the type of case that most, if any, attorneys would take on a contingency.  Pursuing a claim would cost several thousand dollars and damages are tough to prove.

Whenever I see someone suspected, or who seems to support suspect behavior, I check to see if they have an OTB rating.  This could be an offer:  the site thinks you are cheating, enter x tournaments in the next x weeks, and see if you perform at or near your rating on this site.  A 2000 should surely be able to have a OTB of 1500+.  If it nis inconvenient, too expensive, or you don't want to-- goodby. 

 I agree.