Harpo,
I disagree. The joke/insinuation got old the 10th time. It's not getting any cleverer.
Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating
Sort:
May 19, 2009
0
#543
Well that's a real interesting point. I agree with you. It is all about the fundamental underlying perceived quality of the joke. I can watch The Rock many times, and really at this point it has plateaued but I love it every time. I can watch the Bill OReilly Dance Remix on youtube, and it is funny every time.
Then again, this type of everlasting humour is atypical. For me.
And for you, since we are the same person with different accounts.
You're right, I'm free not to read this thread just like you're free to choose what type of chess you play. The sheer hypocrisy in the idea that you can come in here and continually show Erik and his site this level of disrespect but that you yourselves shouldn't be subject to criticism is almost laughable.
Costelus' point was conceded long, long ago and his incessant pressing of the issue has long since transitioned from idealistic righteousness to being downright malicious.
The shtick is tired.
May 19, 2009
0
#546
Repetition, ascerbic comments and sarcasm do not a convincing argument make.
Picking holes in contributors' use of English does not make one's argument any stronger.
This thread is assigned to the discussion of cheating and, although some may be tired of the repetition, it is the right of the poster to repeat their point as much as they desire, no matter how well it has been previously argued or refuted.
I have wondered why those who do repeatedly air concerns about their perception of this website and its higher rated membership remain here. It is their right to do so, but I wonder why they willingly subject themselves to an environment with which they are discontent.
It is understandable that someone who has experience of playing 2300+ players who turned out to be cheaters would suspect everyone above 2300+. It is also a bit of a shame because it taints the playing experience for that person and for everyone else who believes what they say.
1. I strongly believe you cannot have FM strength and no ELO. This is simply insane! You invested so much time in chess but not to play a single rated OTB game? Then what was the effort for? To get an useless online chess rating?
2. I said this many times, in my opinion, chess.com should do much more to fight cheating. There is a site (ICC) much harsher to cyborgs, both in live chess and correspondence. I repeated my concerns because chess.com did almost nothing to fight "clever" cheaters.
3. I acknowledge that detecting cheaters is hard. I am OK if chess.com would not address this issue at all and allow "cyborg chess". But I *hate* to see chess.com saying "computer assistance is *not* allowed" and see the strange statistics Ozzie was talking about.
May 19, 2009
0
#548
LinwoodMike: unfortunately posting usernames is not allowed by us.
The staff has a separate thread where they post usernames of caught cheaters.
What is ELO? 
May 19, 2009
0
#550
"Repetition in defense of purity is no vice."
Or something like that, Barry Goldwater, 1964 
An apparently new method for doing dialectic known as ELO
!!
May 19, 2009
0
#552
Does intent constitute cheating? For example, sometimes I try to jump other pieces with the rook but it doesn't actually let me do so. However, the intent was there. At the very least, should I feel ashamed?
richie_and_oprah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
You're right, I'm free not to read this thread just like you're free to choose what type of chess you play. The sheer hypocrisy in the idea that you can come in here and continually show Erik and his site this level of disrespect but that you yourselves shouldn't be subject to criticism is almost laughable.
Costelus' point was conceded long, long ago and his incessant pressing of the issue has long since transitioned from idealistic righteousness to being downright malicious.
The shtick is tired.
Brother, in capitalism respect is shown with patronage.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
People are free to openly critique the products and services they buy and consume, especially when the supplier themselves has a policy of transparency and creates a forum to solicit opinions.
If you think that Costelus is malicious you really have never experienced true malice and now you are the one resorting to ad hominem attacks? Which actually, is less in the spirit of posting here than is his repetitiveness.
Generally critiques are constructive. To suggest that Costelus' statement:
I suggest a chess.com logo: "chess.com - where the grandmasters are defeated by amateurs at online chess".
was constructive really is disingenuous.
As for ad hominem attacks, I was characterizing his posts -- not attacking him personally. Let's try not to mis-characterize mine.
Karl: the answer is quite simple. An amateur simply does not have enough time to get above the master level. Assuming a job and a family, it is simply impossible to allocate so much time to study chess. Unless he has an exceptional talent, or started very early, like Judith Polgar.
GM level ... do you know what it means? There are active professional players who get the IM title and never make it to the GM's norms. It is unreasonable for an amateur to achieve it. Or, to be more exact, for that many amateurs as one can notice here.
When you are at the level of an FM, and you know that, well ... why not play OTB? Money is not a problem, being that good you will certainly win prizes.
TheGrobe: my "suggested" logo was based on a fact. There is at least one player here who proved to be better than a GM (Julio Becerra).
May 19, 2009
0
#556
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Eternal_Patzer wrote:
"Repetition in defense of purity is no vice."
Or something like that, Barry Goldwater, 1964
Repetition is one of the most basic learning techniques. Infants use it to learn to speak. Athletes use it to perfect athletic skills. Repetition is sometimes seen as boring or looked down upon as an attempt to simply memorize rather than understand. However, for many individuals with learning differences, repetition is essential. Knowing when huge amounts of repetition are needed is what ofter makes the difference between learning and forgetting and learning and remembering.
Made you yell! 
But seriously, folks...
Cheating is a real problem, but it's obvious that Eric and the staff are working hard to combat it. It's not like they are just ignoring it. I think they deserve a little more credit than they are getting on this thread.
I suspect that the really highly rated cheaters are going to take longer to weed out but the staff will gradually figure out how to get it done. It's easy to accuse and we could all look at the rating list and pick out the obvious candidates -- people who have never lost a game, and who have never made any meaningful contribution to any forum for example -- but you can't just ban people on suspicion. Joe McCarthy tried that and the cure was worse than the disease.
OK, I understand. Nobody can prove for sure that X (who was banned from chess.com and ICC) did cheat. Maybe X is indeed the next Bobby Fischer. For X, being banned from the online chess sites for cheating accusations might be in fact an acknowledgement of his talent. Basically he was told "if you are that good, it's really not worth wasting your talent with these patzers".
If you are a GM, then the travel expenses will be most likely covered by your appearence fee. And there is some money too ...
Common, if you are that good, and love chess so much, how to refuse to play real chess against players of your value? It makes no sense.
May 19, 2009
0
#558
Karl_ wrote:
Some of the greats, like Bobby, achieved GM level before the age of 20, right? So I would say that if someone keeps at it 16 hours a day for 10 years and has the raw talent of a Morphy or Fischer why can't they obtain GM level of play here? I'm not saying anyone can do it, but there are talented people being born every day who may equal or even surpass the past greats in potential. To say that with all the experience you can gain from a site like this that they can't become GM in playing strength is very narrow thinking.
This is a great site, but it won't make you a GM - no matter how many hours you put in. The gap between patzers, masters, and GM's is logarithmetic -- much much greater than it appears. A 2600 GM is not twice as good as a 1300 patzer -- he's (or she's) about a million times as good.
To think that we have over 50 legitimate self-made GM's is beyond clueless. There is clearly a problem.
That being said, they are working the problem. It's not a trivial problem.
To each his own.
OK, it might be possible, although nobody heard of such a GM-playing strength without any OTB experience. There is an example, Jorje Zamora, untitled player who won the Dos Hermanas 3 0 blitz tourney, defeating many GM's on the way. Yet, he had an USCF rating of 2400, although, admittedly, no official title. It is also possible that a player comes from nowhere and begins to play better than Kasparov, with absolutely no mistakes. Although, again, never heard of except online chess.
I don't mind people who have this opinion. But I do not like playing on a site which thinks that the statements above are true, while, at the same time, stating that it does not tolerate cheating. I might be wrong, OK, but that is my choice.
Just to clarify, I don't mean that EVERYBODY in the top ratings without a title is suspicious, I mean that the statistics themselves are suspicious and worth a further look.
I'll go read your blog entry now.