Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

Personally I think it is impossible to improve playing against human players. They make too many mistakes, and what is much worse - they do not see your errors, so you don't even know, if the move was ok, or the opponent lacked the skill to exploit your error.

You end up spending 3 or 4 times the time, you spend training with engine. It is especially true for low rated players, like me, as we mount error on error. The whole game becomes a fest of wrong moves in a wrong variation.

I began training against a computer, and I see that my results on chess.com improved significantly, especially in the fast play, where knowledge of correct moves wins the time.

Ok - I know Ibrought this up before - please someone tell me how a player has a live chess rating for long of around 1300 and a correspondence rating of 2300. I have heard the argument that people don't play as strong during there fast games, but I highly doubt that your playing strength goes from novice to master when you have 36 hours to make a move versus 1 min.

chess.com says cheating isn't a real problem, then posts a rather long list of names of those who cheaters...to make all the salem queen hangers feel better they come up with "super secret" cheat detection devices/methods etc...it's all rather laughable...I've even fell for this discussion a few times, then thought better of it and decided it's really not worth my time worring about it...seriously, this site has one black eye...it's the subject of cheating and all the fanfare that surrounds it...

Excellent point edwaxx. Cheers!

gyrow32> please someone tell me how a player has a live chess rating for long of around 1300 and a correspondence rating of 2300.

In correspondence, they may spend 30min/move while their opponent only spends 30sec/move, they may use opening and endgame books, and they may use an analysis board. In live chess they have no more time than their opponent and can't use outside resources. Also, in "Live", time management becomes an important skill.

They are different games, so it doesn't seem that strange to me.

My Correspondence rating is 500 points higher than my Long rating, and I don't even take advantage of all the correspondence tools I listed above. I also know someone with a 1200 FIDE rating but a 2300 correspondence rating who isn't cheating.

edwaxx: "chess.com says cheating isn't a real problem, then posts a rather long list of names of those who cheaters"

Long is a relative term. There are tens of thousands of players at chess.com and they posted a list of a few hundred cheaters. So it's a pretty short list when you consider that it's a tiny fraction of the player pool. And most importantly, these players aren't here cheating anymore.

i agree. the only reason we do it is to calm the paranoia that many players have. i wish it would fade away...

Many people have asked repeatedly "What is cheating and what is not cheating?" The whole petition for MirceaH had this purpose.

Well, here is an example of what chess.com do not consider to be cheating (player "B" in the game below).

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/computer-game-analysis

I reported player B (as suggested in the above thread) and it seems he is "clean".

I'm thinking of making the name of B public. I don't think there is something wrong with this, I am convinced that B will become shortly a super-GM and maybe the World Champion. Or maybe he already is, in which case we all should be proud we have the opportunity to play for free with such a strong player.

I must say that I am impressed with the chess.com cheater detection.

I have only ever really suspected 2 of my opponents of having cheated and only one of these I was really sure had cheated after checking the analysis of the game and looking at his history, tactics trainer rating etc. I didn't report him in the end - he was in one of my groups and I wanted him to realise that I knew he was cheating and then hoped he might stop, so I asked him to post an analysis of the game in our group (which he didn't do), and gave him the good old 'precise calculation' trophy AKA I think you used a computer to beat me, but the leopard didn't change his spots and chess.com found him.

Well done, Erik and co. So far I have no reason to doubt your methods, so keep it up!

Johnyjupiter, the large majority of your opponents have a very small rating. Of course that none of them is cheating! But why don't you try to play higher-rated players (like >2500)? Because playing over and over with guys rated 1000 below you ... well, I guess you learn nothing.

I have also no reason to doubt the methods of chess.com. In the sense that, I am 100% convinced that, all those banned did indeed cheat. Maybe this is the whole issue: Erik wants to be 100% sure before closing an account. While I perfectly understand (and agree with this), I also think that it leaves a small gate for some cheaters to avoid detection.

That's why my rating has gone up so high!

I've only played opponents with a much lower rating than me because I like playing in themed tournaments to explore different openings. There are always a percentage of players with a much lower rating in these tournaments. As the second and third rounds get played then my average opponent rating will rise. Also, I play a lot of unrated tournaments with lower rated players in my openings skills group, so they don't actually impact on any of the stats - it's just a learning experience for us all rather than a truly competitive thing. Ironically, this was where I played my match against the guy caught cheating - he was using a computer in an unrated match, and his rating was 1666 when our games began (rising to 2200 in one month)!

Anyway, I don't particularly enjoy playing people rated 1000 points less - it certainly doesn't do my game any good, but if I can help them with some areas of their game then I'll continue to do so.

If I may ask: why making such a big fuzz around Player B? You reported him (if I understand correctly, not even for a game he played with you!), he was found "clean", and you are still there bashing on him? Why don't you just put him on your ignore list, if you are so concerned, and forget him?

Here are the facts:

1. I picked "B" after having a discussion with another chess.com member, who said that I always claim that there is cheating here without providing any proof. No, I haven't played with B and I will never play. I would have absolutely no chance.

2. B plays better than Kasparov. Constantly, not just in a single game. If you say that "Well, Kasparov played OTB, not correspondence" then I tell you that B plays MUCH better than any correspondence World Champion from before the computer era.

3. Here is the really bad part: I think that many other players, seeing that B is not banned, will look at his games and say: "If he is allowed to play like that, it means that I can also use my engine a little bit". And we have the result: I simply refuse to believe that there are more than 200 players here having roughly FM strength (>2500).

lol

Why my forum topic is closed? If anything misunderstood?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-the-hell-they-catch-the-cheaters

Oh i really missed it. Sorry and one forum is enough. So from now on no new thread if cheating is your topic.

why all this fuss about cheating.

we are all here to play chess at all levels

i have not been a member here for long and have not got a good-enough grade to come into the cheating one (or maby yes i am playing against a member of lower grade than me and he beat a much higher graded player and was accused of cheating i don't think so   it is posted in one of the forums)

i enjoy this site the first one i came across and will never move.

we all can enjoy our chess and make a living at a job of work we will never earn money here.

if you cheat well the best of luck to you i don't mind  you will come unstuck some day

Can somebody get banned for cheating if many people report them for cheating, even if the moderators didn't detect?

For example: (No real usernames should be used here)

Messages to moderators:

Chess_Knight_76265: Hd2gbn42 was cheating.

Lina26: I think Hd2gbn42 was cheating.

Queen_Lover_NKM789: Hd2gbn42 cheated.

Queenmate_38: Hd2gbn42 was cheating with ChessMaster.

There might not have been a computer detecting cheating, but many users report Hd2gbn42 for cheating. Can Hd2gbn42's account still get banned?

Why don't we all relax, let the staff handle the problem the way they want, and just focus upon playing chess?

I personally blunder a lot during fast play, and also get disconnected from time to time in Live chess.  I really have a tendency to use most of my time in turn based, and really, really analyze each position (although I blunder more than I care to admit there too...).  This is why I keep my turn based game load pretty low.  Live chess, to me, is just a nice light snack.  Turn based games I savour.