Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

I don't believe in cheating! It is for losers who don't want to show themselfs!

Was MicreaH's account not closed for cheating?  I don't suppose the second player is Chessnut, is it?

Advance chess is everything goes. NO RULES.

Swords allowed.

Karl_: Yes, I think we are on the same page with respect to "proof" or "suspicious". I also agree that we should put our trust and faith in the chess.com management, which has all the proper elements in place. I also agree with one of the previous posters, that it's reasonable to think that the detection algorithm here is not as mature as the one at a competing site which has been around for far longer.

Another point, Karl_: I was once over 2400, and I would be very happy for the site to put my account in the queue to be reviewed. I have complete confidence that I will not register as a cheater.

Though, truth be told, I would sort of be happy if at least one of my games registered high on their cheat-o-meter. But my understanding is that they use several games, not just one. And I know I make all sorts of mistakes, all the time. My opponents are generous enough to point these out over the board, if you know what I'm saying.

You'll be ok as long as you keep it constructive.

I am really glad to see this! Glad that the discussion will be confined to a single thread or a group of threads under a common topic. I fully agree that the methods employed by the website for detecting cheaters should not be known to the members. But I must say that I don't care much for the practice of publishing a list of cheaters to be viewed by the public. In American justice we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is, we would rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person be punished. I submit that even at best, the methods used to detect cheaters constitutes circumstantial evidence. That there is always going to be a reasonable doubt because there is no smoking gun. Therefore I feel that the punishment is excessive and exceeds the certainty with which it can be determined that a crime has been committed and that having the account closed and banishment from the site is punishment enough. Of course hardly anyone here uses their real names and so it is unlikely that there would be any repercussions due to slander. I say this in the interest of a general policy of fairness and even forgiveness in this and other matters.

Hey wait - I use some of those when I'm trying to take money off a street hustler.

Edit: Except I never achieve 100% technical precision, usually I achieve only 80%.

I have seen GM Mickey Adams use a version of that in a friendly blitz game.  His opponent remarked that Mickey's pieces were on all the best squares, his reply was "I know, I seem to get lucky like that sometimes."

My favourite here was the guy who hadn't heard of the opposition principle in the ending but was and still is over 2600 on this site.  We went round and round for 20 odd moves in a K v K and P ending with himn trying to win, when he finally asked me if it could be won?

I guess he doesn't use the

 "Endgames are easy for me."

phrase so often.

The guys over 2600 or more in Vote chess that just give one move comments like Nf4! or a string of moves but can't explain why it's better than another line.

Chess.com certainly bans SOME cheaters, while many are not banned and allowed to cheat on. I should add that chess.com bans IDIOT cheaters, those who achieve 100% or so agreement. "Smart" cheaters, who will play a weaker move every 5-6 moves will never be banned on chess.com. 

Surely there's a difference between calculating 10+ moves in your head, and doing so on the analysis board... don't you think this makes a huge difference for endgame precision in the correspondence format? Also, with the slower pace, people can be more accurate than in a live, otb game.

GMs don't need a ton of time in rook endings, since they are all draws.

@Karl_ I'm probably not the right person to ask. I have a degree in math, and I am a chess master. I've known people great at math who are terrible at chess, and vice versa. If I had to guess, I would say that a lot of the same types of logical thinking would apply to chess and to math, and not particularly in endgames. I don't think spatial recognition helps. Sorry this is probably not the answer you were looking for!

@iknownothing Please don't make public accusations of cheating anywhere, and specifically in this forum topic. Use the Report Abuse link at the bottom of every page.

It's the quiet moves that kill me.

Here's a good example of missing a move in an endgame.

47.Ng2!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067121

And this was missed, not OTB, but by a group of GM seconds in an adjourned game with hours to analyze it.  

People have numerous understanding over things to them it's not cheating but to the other party it becomes cheating - could also be vice-versa lol