Incidentally, you've suggested that you're comparing pre-computer age correspondence games to games here?
Perhaps another possible factor can be found in the size, accessibility and usability of game databases -- something that has also come about as a result of the computer age, and that are perfectly legal to use here. I can't say I'd be surprised to find that the quality of games has risen in relation to the quality of the tools.
What ignorance! Really frightening! Seriously. However, everybody refuses to provide any EVIDENCE.
Please, if it is possible to play a game without mistakes and without a computer, please find an example! Instead of stubbornly repeating the same things and refusing to accept others opinions. Put the game here, I have never found a game - OTB or human correspondence - without cheap mistakes in it.
How many past correspondence great players are there? Ha ha ha! Probably none, the correspondence chess was invented by chess.com, nobody has played seriously correspondence chess before :))
The only tools not available to the past correspondence players are engines and huge cyborg databases. Both of them I consider to be cheating.
What ignorance! Really frightening! Seriously. However, everybody refuses to provide any EVIDENCE.
Please, if it is possible to play a game without mistakes and without a computer, please find an example! Instead of stubbornly repeating the same things and refusing to accept others opinions. Put the game here, I have never found a game - OTB or human correspondence - without cheap mistakes in it.
How many past correspondence great players are there? Ha ha ha! Probably none, the correspondence chess was invented by chess.com, nobody has played seriously correspondence chess before :))
The only tools not available to the past correspondence players are engines and huge cyborg databases. Both of them I consider to be cheating.
I don't think its a matter of "general ignorance" here and only you can see the light...
Not many players here care about cheating the way you do and I'm sure most of the players are quite satisfied the way Erik and staff here deal with that and prefer to spend their time here enjoying this great site... 
The chess.com computer analyzes your moves, not those of your opponent. It will only tell you if your opponent makes a mistake or blunder.
About the proof of cheating and not being banned: maybe I will pick another idiot in the future. I did once, with Chessnut (which, for a long time was in the top 3).
Yes, I think that many top players do cheat. And the solution is simple: I will play on ICC :))
Chess.com computer does not give you information about the inacurracies of your opponent.
I finish my games here and stop playing correspondence chess. I think I would show a lack of respect to my opponents to resign my games. I did it once, a year ago :)
I never said this site is bad. On the contrary, I think that, in terms of chess instruction, it is the best. In terms of fighting against cheating, I think that ICC is by far the best.
Costelus: "How many past correspondence great players are there? Ha ha ha! Probably none, the correspondence chess was invented by chess.com, nobody has played seriously correspondence chess before :))"
I was playing correspondence, really correspondence, thirty years ago.
Chess.com computer does not give you information about the inacurracies of your opponent.
Sure it does. Here's a typical blunder filled game of mine in which the chess.com computer has plenty of comments on the errors of both my opponant and myself. (all annotations by the computer)
Chess.com computer does not give you information about the inacurracies of your opponent.
I finish my games here and stop playing correspondence chess. I think I would show a lack of respect to my opponents to resign my games. I did it once, a year ago :)
I never said this site is bad. On the contrary, I think that, in terms of chess instruction, it is the best. In terms of fighting against cheating, I think that ICC is by far the best.
I find it odd that you have such concern about disrespecting your opponents, but don't think twice before disrespecting Erik and his site.
Realistically, cheaters cheat themselves in the end, the rest of us should be grateful for this wonderful site these guys put together... Solets have fun, learn and play
Thanks Eric
Realistically, cheaters cheat themselves in the end, the rest of us should be grateful for this wonderful site these guys put together... Solets have fun, learn and play
Thanks Eric
I think much more of this sentiment is needed in here. This really is an amazing site, and I hate to see paranoiac and duplicitous posts that threaten to blow this problem so far out of proportion that it overshadows all of the incredible things that Erik and his staff have managed to bring to the table for all of us.
Well said tapout123.
What? Since when saying that I don't think this site fights enough against cheating is a lack of respect?? I HATE to play against an idiot cheater and that's all. The rest of the site is very good. This feature (live and correspondence chess) is so-so in my opinion.
Indeed, I agree with Gumpty, detecting cheaters is not that easy, especially in correspondence chess. Thus, a comparison with ICC (which has years of experience into this issue and much more resources) is unfair. In the end, all the cheaters will be banned, I am sure about that. The only issue is that chess.com waits too much before taking an action. While for a cheater, a new account is just several clicks away...
Yes, I think that many top players do cheat. And the solution is simple: I will play on ICC :))
Great! So no need to worry about what Erik is doing to catch cheaters here!
It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
If I only actually _knew_ someone at this high level, then I could vouch for them. But unfortunately I don't.
I disagree with the notion that you can "eliminate cheap mistakes" just by thinking longer - I thought that this was disproved awhile back. The idea was that if a player doesn't see a tactical element in the first bit of time then they are very likely to miss it altogether. Maybe sometimes you can. In fact, definitely you can sometimes, since I have. You know - a day into the 3 day thinking time, and you're off doing something else and then poof! WAIT A MINUTE, I can just play Qg5+ if he plays Ng6! But for sure - you cannot actually ELIMINATE cheap mistakes. I am sure of that. Eliminate is a very strong word and means reduce to zero. I do not believe that it is possible.
I can't believe you guys making these accusations actually think this way. Of course if you take more time studying your moves you can eliminate the cheap mistakes, especially if you have some talent. I am proof of that, my rating has climbed over 200 points in a very short time recently and the main reason is that I'm taking more time to move.
[Ozzie]: Yes, this is proof that spending time on chess helps you reduce mistakes. It's not proof if the statement "if you take more time studying ... you can eliminate the cheap mistakes." I see the key word as eliminate. I don't agree with everything costelus says, but I don't follow why chess.com's correspondence players should necessarily be better at seeing tactics than correspondence players of the past, or better than correspondence players of the present at other sites where the rules prohibit engine assistance.
And I'm not claiming to have great talent. But it has eliminated most of my blunders. Not all, as I still don't take as long as I could and at times I have too many games going and not enough time for all of them. And I don't have a great deal of patience sometimes. And also, when I take more time sometimes a great move "comes" to me after studying a position for a while.
[Ozzie]: Yes, this happens to me too.
This is totally different than an OTB time control. I bet if the best players today had no time control in their OTB games they would never make a blunder and the games would take forever. How many times have I heard them mention that time was short at the end of a game during analysis discussion? And have them use that as an excuse for both players not playing great because of it? Plenty. How many games at the top level were lost due to time pressure? Plenty.
The only way I know to be "sure" of something like this would be to do a SCIENTIFICALLY VALID study to make "sure". Even better more than one of them. This is how theories are taken to be valid in the modern science world. It takes many years to show "proof" for theories or concepts and even then they are usually just theories, not proofs. Even some popular theories, like the Big Bang, are not universally accepted by all the top scientists.
[Ozzie]: Agreed. One thing would be to measure occurances of various amounts of "blunders", "inaccuracies", "oversights" (whatever you want to call them, but more importantly, however you want to define them). It would be (in my opinion) a smoking gun if the absolute best players of the past and the best players on some other site plateaued at (for example) 90%, but the best players here were consistently at 97%. I'm making up the numbers but the idea is there. Also, I am not going to do such an analysis, since I don't have access to said programs, I don't have access to good enough hardware most likely, and I'd rather be an armchair quarterback! :-)
Thank goodness Erik and the staff like to take the American courtroom way of "everyone is innocent until proven guilty". They still seem to catch a lot of cheaters but they use more than just generalizing about assumptions like the ones I've seen in this topic to prove players are cheating. I still say that playing without making mistakes and playing like a computer can be two entirely different things.
[Ozzie]: Yes, two different things, I agree. But - wouldn't it be rather suspicious if you found some metric where people could only beat a certain level by using computers? If someone where you didn't know if they were using or not were higher than the threshold, especially over a larger number of games, one would have to admit it is very suspicous, and worthy of further study.
And comparisons made for players here to past correspondence champs is just nuts. How many past correspondence great players are there? How many people play here? And have tons of tools those past champs didn't have? As Stan Lee says: 'nuff said.
[Ozzie:] I don't think it's nuts at all. There are some things that are better today, but some of the correspondence champions of the past were excellent tacticians. It's not like they were 1900 rated A players. Also, remember that for the most part if you take a Grandmaster from early 20th century, they would do pretty darn well in today's chess scene. Purely a personal estimation of mine, I would think that if you plunk Lasker or Capablanca or Alekhine in today's USCF, they would play at perhaps a 2500 USCF level.
The problem with avoiding people is that when you enter for 2200+ tournaments you can't choose who you get in your group.
Try some of the games played by Hans Berliner from the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship. Nearly perfect chess, not an engine in sight back then and I think he was taking it very seriously indeed.
OK, I did. In fact I knew one game of this guy, after which I chose to reply b5 in two knights Ng5. I mean this game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224863
Indeed, almost perfect play, but the game is very sharp, so there are not many possibilities to choose from. In many cases there is only a single good move. Thus, it is not surprising that a strong human player finds that move. By the way, Berliner had the IM title for OTB play.
Other games of Berliner from the same event (I checked 2) did show inaccuracies and mistakes. Not blunders, of course.
Karl_ : "The staff has stated that the top players are under constant scrutiny and that is good enough for me."
That is what worries me a lot. When I played with MirceaH I was sure he was checked, but ... seems that 100% top move agreement with Rybka is not cheating (he achieved this in many games, not just against me). When I picked at random a player from the top 10 and I also checked his moves, I also found clear usage of artificial intelligence. How come can you have all the top players under constant scrutiny and still the cases above?
Try some of the games played by Hans Berliner from the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship. Nearly perfect chess, not an engine in sight back then and I think he was taking it very seriously indeed.
OK, I did. In fact I knew one game of this guy, after which I chose to reply b5 in two knights Ng5. I mean this game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224863
Indeed, almost perfect play, but the game is very sharp, so there are not many possibilities to choose from. In many cases there is only a single good move. Thus, it is not surprising that a strong human player finds that move. By the way, Berliner had the IM title for OTB play.
Other games of Berliner from the same event (I checked 2) did show inaccuracies and mistakes. Not blunders, of course.
Over the years I have read rumors that Berliner was good friends with Fischer during the time that he became postal WC and many believe that Fischer may have helped him in some games.
No, I argue because your incessant sarcastic indictments need a counterpoint.
I'm not contesting the data, so it would be a waste of my time to try to do so by performing in depth analysis of a sampling of games. Frankly I have far better uses for my time. It's clear that there are a large number of players here playing at incredibly strong levels, however, I reject the notion that the only possible explanation is that they are all cheating.
I'm simply offering some other reasons this might be the case. The burden of proof is not on me -- as I said, I'm not the one making the accusations.