Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

No, sometimes conclusions must be drawn after a single game.

Out of 45 moves made by Kramnik after the known theory, 25 were forced. He had the choice to either make those moves or to resign. That's why forced moves must not be counted as matches. And this implies that blind (automatic) engine analysis is not very useful.

Also, in a game in which both players missed a mate in 3 (besides other blunders), well - it is clear that there is no cheating involved. Again, the automatic analysis shown above did not point out this crucial aspect. It just said "non-match". 

 impossible because he has been banned from this site because of cheating

Well, it implies that blind engine analysis is not very useful for a single game anyway -- and I agree.  The same data you cite about this single game could also be used to make the case for the requirement that a larger data-set must be analyzed before a conclusive result can be reached in order to dampen the effect of anomalous games such as this one and to obtain a true representative reading.

I would argue that you should track the % both with and without the forcing moves. As previously pointed out, the subjective aspect necessitates that you define what "forcing" means. Obviously a single legal move to get out of check is forcing, as would typically be a queen recapture, unless there is an in-between move.

I tend to think that the number of forcing moves will even themselves out over time. But it's also possible that some players may have different styles, where one style may lend itself to forcing moves more often. So I think this is the reason I would want to track it separately.

Forced move: a move which is evaluated cleatly well above other moves in the given position. For instance, you have one move starting a tactics winning a decisive pawn in an endgame (so it would be evaluated at least +2.00 let's say) and many other moves evaluated in the range -0.5 -- +0.4. I think that forcing moves depend on the game, not on the style of the player. Kramnik for instance is not the guy to prefer wild, Tal-like positions.

It's still subjective. The definition of forcing is open to various interpretation, and each one may be useful for different types of analysis.

What does "well above other moves" mean? Why one threshold and not another?
What if the move which is "well above other moves" is difficult to find? What does "difficult to find" even mean, and how would one program that?

It is easy to say "hey the guy is in check and has only 2 moves to get out of check, and one loses the queen" so let's not count this as a move -- nobody is disputing that a C player and Kasparov would make the same move there. But since it is a gray area, it becomes difficult to draw the line subjectively somewhere.

Which is precisely why a larger data-set is needed.  A single game cannot be considered conclusive.  As long as your baseline is taken using the same methodology, and your test data sample is large enough, the inclusion or exclusion of so-called "forced" moves shouldn't matter and doesn't warrant special treatment.  In fact, given the subjectivity of choosing which moves to exclude, the potential for an inconsistent application of the criteria between your baseline and your test data sample actually has more potential to introduce uncertainty into the result than simply leaving them in.

 why did you post this comment. this thread is ment to be about cheating on chess.com and not what you have just posted

@littlehotpot Don't pay too much attention to Richie, he often posts stuff like that.

@Richie I have followed from the beginning, as you well know, and it seems as though we are actually getting somewhere now.

 which other threads has he posted stuff like that in 

We can take this offline perhaps

They only employ IMs and GMs, I've got a ways to go.

I'm not sure I understand what you understand to be my position.

It is against policy to make a public accusation.

I have a vision for what the cheating detection system should look like. It's important to recognize that it is an iterative process, i.e. the first cut will not be the final version. This is both because of a "bang for the buck" type of mentality, and because the problem itself changes with time. Fraud trends come and go.

I'm sympathetic to the scope of the problem and how important it is compared with other priorities of the site. I'm a believer that the armchair solutions nine times out of ten don't contain anything that the site operators haven't already thought about. It's their day job. You're just a forum poster. There's a big difference. I compare it to people who try to outsmart the stock market with fleeting thoughts, when several entire industries of very hard working and smart people are working on the exact same problem.

Clever:

"Why are you being so disagreeable"

"Me?  I am not!"

"See, that's exactly what I'm talking about!"

Richie, you should reread my post.

Cant we all just get along ?

Is asking a direct question starting a flame war? Don't think so...

He might decline to answer though...his prerogative...

The point I was making was that you are just a user, and the site operators have put more thought into this than you, me, or any of the other forum posters here have. There's this notion in this forum that "I have the solution, it's plainly obvious I'm right, it's trivial to implement, therefore the site must not care about the problem". Real world engineering problems are not that simple. Solutions developed in the vacuum of this forum topic don't recognize that.

I myself don't have any programs, I don't have any capability of running any detection software. I, like you, am just a regular user who cares about the problem, which is why I post in this topic and read it on a regular basis.

I am a big believer that the site realizes the severity of the problem, and has the first cut of an iterative solution currently implemented. I think it does a good job in catching some people, maybe it doesn't do a good job in catching others. I think it's great that it incorporates a user-reporting functionality into the process; after all, nobody cares about the game more than the person playing it.

I don't know how I can be more clear about this. It's good to discuss the subject in this single forum topic. I can't really speak to whether progress is being made, but at least knowledge is being shared. Many of the posters are experts in some aspect of the problem. But, the problem is so big and has so many angles that it is impossible to be an expert in all of them.

Richie wrote: "He knows this but continues to spin fallacious reasonings and red herrings and sketipticisms because they then become the flash point instead of the site solving the cheating issue.

If he is is running 'interference'  then the site's claims have less teeth and cannot bite so hard as they make us believe."

I have no idea what you're talking about.