Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

Sort:
dragon27

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

TheGrobe
costelus wrote:

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?


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

LATITUDE

Advance chess is everything goes. NO RULES.

gumpty
why hasnt the list of caught cheaters been updated for so long?
BlueBishop
LATITUDE wrote:

Advance chess is everything goes. NO RULES.


Swords allowed.

ozzie_c_cobblepot
Karl_ wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Karl_ wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

 

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.



I can see where it can be suspicious.  But not proof.  And if you suspect someone of cheating you can just avoid them.  Then there is no problem for you.

The staff has stated that the top players are under constant scrutiny and that is good enough for me.  They are the experts, at least at chess.com, at catching cheaters and have the tools to do so.  One worry I have is that someone will have their account closed for cheating when in fact they never do cheat.  I feel that is a bigger danger than not closing accounts when not having enough or the right proof to label someone a cheater.  Once someone's account is closed that is it, while on the other hand, it is easy to avoid someone you suspect is cheating.  I have avoided some players on occasion myself that I suspect.  If I see someone with 70 or so completed games without a loss I avoid them.  But I don't accuse them of anything.  I don't even report them as it is just not a big deal to me if I don't have to interact with them.


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.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

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.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

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

wormrose

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.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

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%.

MM78

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.

costelus

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. 

melee

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.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

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

iknownothing
I wish costelus to report him!
ozzie_c_cobblepot

@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.

TheGrobe

It's the quiet moves that kill me.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

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

47.Ng2!!

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

Eternal_Patzer

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

u9700011525

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

This forum topic has been locked