Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

very interresting!

Richie_and_oprah said in the closed thread:

I think coming back in and arguing one's case makes one's position weaker, in the eyes of the law.

It demonstrates lack of respect for authority; the same lack of respect a person would have if they were indeed a cheater.

It is a tough position.  But, best play is to move on in life.  Enjoy your freedoms.

As a person that has been banned from various sundry sites (for me charming personality, no doubt, and lack of tact), it is not all that bad a thing.  Just move on, find another home, and live your life.

If you are truly innocent, it is the site's loss.  Take power and sustenance in that and use it for something positive instead of trying to undo the bell that has been rung.

i completely disagree simply coz i myself have been accused of cheating on a different site despite knowing i was innocent!!

If u dont come back and say something then people assume that the allegations r true which i cant say one way or another whether someone was cheating or not but fact is if u stay quiet then people automatically assume that "oh well they didnt come and fight their corner so it must be true"  and now if someone comes back and says something then they show a lack of respect???? this is preposterous ... a man cant do right for doing wrong here!! 

this is the part made by R&O

I think coming back in and arguing one's case makes one's position weaker, in the eyes of the law.

It demonstrates lack of respect for authority; the same lack of respect a person would have if they were indeed a cheater.

It is a tough position.  But, best play is to move on in life.  Enjoy your freedoms.

As a person that has been banned from various sundry sites (for me charming personality, no doubt, and lack of tact), it is not all that bad a thing.  Just move on, find another home, and live your life.

If you are truly innocent, it is the site's loss.  Take power and sustenance in that and use it for something positive instead of trying to undo the bell that has been rung.

Why do you guys care? just shut up and stop flaming on this forum, go do it on the phone or something..

Absolutely right.  That standard for getting kicked out of a private club is whatever the owner chooses to enforce.   Arguing for the burden of proof in criminal law here is just mistaken. 

Erik has voluntarily chosen to place the bar pretty high in these cases and we should respect that (but if we don't, it doesn't matter )

Since it's been announced in another topic that the "Cheating Detection System" for Chess.com was off for a few days and is now back on track and fully working again, can the staff please let us know how long it would normally take to investigate an account and get the final decision and also, if the player I reported is considered to be clean and not cheating, will you let me know at some point or we have no news from you?

Thank you and regards! 

SteveCollyer, what are your thoughts on cyborg databases, and how they relate to this algorithm?

SteveCollyer, a cyborg database is one where you run engines against each other from a certain position, and store the results in a database. Many top GMs prepare their favorite openings in this manner, iteratively guiding the analysis to those positions they deem appropriate.

I won't quote the whole SteveCollyer article above but I found the sentence he wrote "Fischer did remarkably well, but then I understand he was a reasonably strong player". If that isn't the understatement of all time!

The myth of a "cyborg" database persists.  Having a db filled with engine games is of little use against humans precisely for the reasons Steve lays out - humans make moves that fall outside the engines top choices so this "cyborg" database will be filled with moves that humans don't make.  It's simply not possible to have a db filled with engine games where the engines played the 5th best move and so on down the line.  Except for very small discrepancies on multi-core machines, engines are deterministic.  They'll play the best move they can find under the circumstances.  Under the same circumstances, they'll play that move again and again.  Varying the time control will of course find different moves but those moves will still be the best move the engine could find at the time.

A "cyborg" database will only be useful against engine users or other cyborg db users.  It would probably allow someone to avoid getting run over by a stupid engine user who always makes the best choice engine move.  Against a smart engine user they'd still be "out of book" very quickly just as they would against humans.

This is an imaginary problem.

Since db's are legal, the question becomes: How do you differentiate between someone using a db filled with engine games and someone using an engine?  The answer is simple.  You look at the games they played against players who are clearly not cheating (i.e. titled players, weaker players etc).

The point of the cyborg database is as an aid to win the opening battle. A secondary point is to prepare against other players who use cyborg databases.

@SteveCollyer So then a well-prepared player would expect to see a very high matchup rate if you filter based on opponents high match rate, and across multiple games. Meaning, a legitimate cyborg database user would have a very high fall off rate of engine matchups once the opponent makes a couple of inaccurate moves.

Because you can of course guide the engines. First off, different engines come up with different moves from the same position. So you might make Rybka play white having played the Fritz move choice, and you might make Fritz play white using the Rybka move choice. Also, you might wonder yourself why they didn't choose a third choice, so you can of course create (slowly) your own tree of variations. Maybe if you had some intelligent software, it could automate this entire process, and you could have the top 5 moves from either program put into the investigation list. Add in additional programs, along with some notion of when you are officially finished with a node, and you can begin to appreciate the opening analysis process.

I don't know how many GMs are competent programmers, but I don't think this would be technically difficult to accomplish.

I wonder, SteveCollyer, if you wouldn't be so kind as to perform a similar analysis for some CC games that predate engines (from the postal days) to shed some light on the difference between the OTB master games and a baseline for comparison that more closely matches the games in question here as a result of the ability to use reference resources and the much longer time controls.

I think that such a baseline would largely serve to quash any argument that states either longer time controls or the use of reference material could improve engine matching rates (an argument I've entertained as plausible in this very thread).  I believe the only remaining difference would be any advantage provided by computerized versus manually catalogued databases and opening advancements made since that time, both of which your process of discounting the opening should address.