caveat emptor.
Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating
Sort:
Jun 16, 2009
0
#883
Where did you grow up, so I can make sure I'm never within 100 miles... :-)
Jun 16, 2009
0
#884
"I suspect that they use volunteer plants in the forums."
Is there an opening for a nice ficus?
Jun 16, 2009
0
#885
I spent Spring Break in Niagara once, it was awesome. Didn't see a lot of crime. Maybe it's just me, but isn't there a river nearby the town of Niagara where you could easily dump someone?
richie_and_oprah wrote:
IT'S THE MONEY.
I understand what you're saying, but what do you intend to achieve by saying this?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
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.
Don't worry richie -- I can read the irony in the thinly veiled, self referential commentary on your own "interference" which is to attack ozzie's credibility in order to make it the focus instead of the fact that there is actual fruitful discussion being had. Your cleverness is not wasted.
I also don't have any difficulty understanding your motivation, which is that there is actually fruitful discussion occurring -- even among members that have traditionally been at odds and prone to inflammatory tone towards each other in this thread -- and it rubs you the wrong way that the sheer drama is giving way to some productive ideas. As you alluded to earlier it is anticlimactic and you don't like it.
So what does it call for? Baseless accusations and attempts to undermine other users' credibility -- not because you don't care for their position, although that's an ancillary benefit, but because it sows the seeds of doubt back into the minds of those that have traditionally taken the opposing position. Maybe, just maybe the fight will break out anew.
You're a good troll richie, but this is transparent and beneath you and in the end, the real irony is that it only serves to hurt your credibility.
If I use a low rated program, I'll never get caught and still beat 99% of players on this site.
I Chessmaster 5000 (2200 ELO) in a 1 move/min game against itself. Then Fritz 11 analyzed it.
Top 1: 56.7%
Top 2: 63.3%
Top 3: 66.7%
Well below the GM level so I can just pretend I'm an expert.
Jun 16, 2009
0
#889
I thoroughly enjoy R&O's postings. I also like theGrobe's, Ozzie's and, of course, Reb's. I'm not so familiar with Karl or Kepler, but both seem to write intelligently and passionately.
The forums, to disagree with Karl, are a form of interactive entertainment as much as a learning environment, maybe more so. This one, particularly so. While there have been some peculiar accusations flying around, I have to disagree again with Karl (I'm sorry, really!), in that I don't see any flame war or inappropriateness - just stronger-than-usual confrontations.
Cheating, let's face it, abounds. While the possibility exists, what is the probability that there is a throng of better-than-expert players non-tournament players milling about?? But I do feel the great majority of people play fair. Why? Because most people play for enjoyment and the greatest enjoyment in chess is in pitting yourself, win or lose, against an equal or better opponent. "Why else play?" would be most peoples' response.
I also feel, contrary to some of what I've read here, that most computer cheaters could be caught by analyzing games if there were an economical (time-wise) method to accomplish this. I'm not sure this is feasible, but I do feel the admin is always on the prowl, hoping to keep such cheating under control. Here I disagree with R&O in that allowing cheaters to co-exist is NOT beneficial, nor does the admin feel it is (my opinion... I'm not a plant!!).
Well, that's my spiel. Please leave something in my hat on your way out...
As a matter of fact, richie, we were just in the process of discussing cheat detection methodologies when you came in guns a-blazing. This is the fruitful discussion I was referring to, you know -- the one you seem intent to quash? It was a constructive and frankly enlightening thanks to SteveCollyer and I don't recall shooting it down other than to say that a proper representative statistical sample would almost certainly consist of more than a single game.
If you'll recall, my position has always been one of zero tolerance: Detect and eject. Included in that has been a recognition that Chess.com, as a relatively young site, likely has room to improve in their cheat detection abilities and that this was something deserving of attention.
What I've also argued for is patience, balance and even toned constructive discussion. Not because these things have any bearing on the immediate issue of cheating, but because the lack thereof is toxic to the community -- esepcially on this topic. This is the basis for my contention with yours and Costelus' approaches. It is not your position I take issue with, but rather your lack of respect. Costelus, at least, seems to have come around and contributed to a constructive discussion.
Karl: However, banning members can cause excessive irritation to other members and could cause chess.com to lose money from those members as well. It's kind of like a domino effect.
Also, wouldn't it be possible to just take away online chess for those cheaters for a certain period of time? I mean, if their entire motivation was cheating, they could walk away. At the same time, if a cheater really cares about the community and wants to get better, he will keep his account and use it to manage groups and stuff like that.
Jun 16, 2009
0
#893
I also was enjoying the fruitful discussion, and especially SteveC's input. Lots of data, with some conclusions, questions going around, getting answered, getting re-asked sometimes.
KillaBeez: I don't know if a cheater would want that -- if they aren't a cheater, they'd be pretty angry with the site, and if they are a cheater then they'd presumably be pretty embarassed to remain here. It's a lot more likely that they'd create a new account, or just leave the site entirely.
I'm mainly referring to premium members. But what's stopping the cheaters from making a new account anyways? This would eliminate griping from other members about people being banned. After all, they could still continue the group activity.
Jun 16, 2009
0
#895
I guess nothing's really stopping them, but if I were to predict the most common result it would be that they leave and don't come back.
Yeah, but if they were going to leave, they could do that anyways. I just figure it would save chess.com a few bucks. They don't have to refund the money and the banning of a cheater wouldn't disgruntle another member.
It looks like it just got caught up in a cut and paste from a locked thread that MirceaH started. I'm assuming you pasted the name into your post?
erik wrote:
Cheating in chess is an issue that Chess.com takes seriously. That said, it has minimal impact on the site and shouldn't be a concern for 99.9% of players. Unfortunately, there is much more paranoia about the topic than it actually deserves. In an effort to give more transparency to our anti-cheating measures, but to also curb the negative effects of continuously discussing cheating, we are instituting 2 new policies:
#1 - Keep cheating discussions limited to this one thread - We have posted FAQs below that should address most questions on the topic. We also provide tools to report cheating to our staff. But having several constant and redundant threads on the topic that circulate with the same questions and comments over and over again isn't helpful, and instead causes people to worry more than they need to. If you want to discuss cheating, please do it in this thread (or via private messages).
#2 - We are now going to post the names of players caught cheating. We are doing this for two reasons: transparency and social shame. We want you to know that we are constantly working to keep chess clean. And for those who cheat, we want everyone to know that you were a trying to ruin chess for others on the site. See this post for the continuously updated list of cheaters -> http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters .
Below are the main questions and answers we get about cheating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is are the rules about cheating?
You can NEVER use chess programs or engines (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, agreed upon unrated game, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Correspondence-style Chess and Vote Chess, Chess.com Opening Explorer, chess books, and an analysis board. You cannot use ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.Fixing games results (through intentional loss or multiple accounts) is also cheating.
How do I report someone I think is cheating?
If you are suspicious about somebody cheating, please use the Report Abuse link found at the bottom of any Chess.com page and include all relevant info (name, reason for suspicion, etc). We investigate all reports and keep them confidential. Do not discuss possible cheaters in the forums - just submit their names to Chess.com for analysis.
How does Chess.com detect cheating?
One part of our analysis involves comparing human moves to computer moves and looking at statistical significance. The other parts are not public knowledge. We will never disclose our exact methods for catching cheaters (to prevent cheaters from adapting their methods), but it involves both cutting-edge technology and human judgment.
How often does Chess.com catch cheaters?
In the past we did not make huge public statements about catching cheaters even though we close many accounts for cheating. Now we are going to start listing cheaters that we catch in this forum. See the next post for a list of known cheaters. We close many accounts each week for cheating, including accounts for paying Premium Members who are cheating. We are constantly going through our top players and submitting them to our cheat detection process. Still, very few people cheat. Most people are good people here to enjoy the game. If you are playing people rated under 2200 it is extremely unlikely that you are playing someone who is cheating - if they were they would be rated much higher. If you are playing someone higher rated then the chances are slightly higher, but there are only a few hundred players on the site in that category and out of those we know that the vast majority are playing legitimate chess without computer help.
What happens to a player who is found to be cheating on Chess.com?
We close the account and add a cheater icon that will appear next to their name. We also post an explanatory notice is posted on their homepage. Finally, we add them to the list in this forum. Any pending games of cheaters will eventually timeout and result in a loss. But we cannot roll back results of games or tournaments, nor do we restore ratings. Ratings are not cumulative, they are a reflection of chess ability, so losing a few points to a cheater does not impact your rating whatsoever in the long-term. Don't worry - just keep on playing!
How long does someone cheat before chess.com finds out?
It depends. But unfortunately it generally takes a little time to build up history to be submitted to the detection process.
What should I do if my opponent accuses me of cheating?
If your opponent accuses you then you can just disable chat and continue your game with a clear conscience (assuming you are not cheating!). Don't worry about accusations, just play your game. If you want you can add them to your blocked player list so they cannot contact you again.
If I reported someone for cheating, why hasn't their account been closed?
We appreciate you reporting the suspected cheating, but ultimately we will decide on if they were cheating or not. If we have not closed their account then the evidence was not conclusive.
You closed the account of someone I know - I'm sure they weren't cheating!
Sorry that you are upset. Unfortunately, people do cheat - sometimes even really nice people. Again, we only close accounts when we are absolutely certain, not because of suspicion.
Can someone appeal if their account is closed?
Sure, we're happy to listen to anyone. But it's generally the same old story: "I didn't cheat! Prove it to me!!" to which we respond: "You did. But we can't tell you exactly how we know, but we know." Generally cheaters who are caught make threats because they are embarrassed and upset they were caught. But we don't mind - we're here to protect players, not cheaters.
Why do people cheat?
It's not our specialty to psychoanalyze people and their reasons for cheating, but people like to win, want to feel important, and occasionally disregard the thoughts and feelings of others. Cheaters aren't necessarily horrible people - maybe just someone with low self-esteem who doesn't think that winning a game unfairly is a big deal (even though it is to the person being cheated).
What does Chess.com think about cheating?
We think cheating is a terrible disease in online chess in general (on all sites). We have a very strict no-cheating policy and we enforce it with maximum effect whenever we are confident we have found cheating. We feel that we are extremely effective in identifying and dealing with most cheaters.
What do we recommend that you do/think about cheating?
Forget about it! We are here to worry about the issue for you so that you can focus on enjoying chess. If you are under 2200 then you should never even think about it - it shouldn't affect you. If you are a top player then you should know that we are constantly checking top players, always getting better at detection, are always responsive to your reports, and are closing accounts daily. In general, life is too short to worry about what a very small number of people are doing. There are bad people in all areas of life and that shouldn't stop you from enjoying life. We are here deal with them so you don't have to.
The main point is,
Get out there and enjoy your chess!
If you have any questions or comments please contact us!
Right
Hansel: congratulations! You began to write! After posting hundreds of comments in Tactics Trainer consisting of just one point ".", it looks like you made a huge step forward and learnt how to write a full word. It would be though excellent to practice your writing skills in other threads as well.
Reb wrote:
I know at least one GM who quit playing cyber chess due to his frustration over cheating ( on ICC ). This GM was also a candidate for the WC in the mid 80s so I doubt it was just paranoia on his part. ICC has caught even strong GMs cheating in their money events , like Dos Hermanas, some of the GMs caught are famous. Why would such GMs cheat ?! Well, because even they know that they cannot beat those people who are using the strongest programs against them. I think the problem is only growing worse and I have been playing net chess since 1996. The people who dont want/need to cheat are eventually faced with either fighting fire with fire, quitting cyber chess, or just accepting losing to someone who doesnt even know what co-ordinate squares are and cant answer simple questions about the position yet play like a GM.
Well, but ICC has many GM's playing there. At any moment, there are about 20-30 GM's actually playing. I guess that, if cheating would be so rampant, nobody will waste the time. Agreed, there is always the possibility of playing against an idiot cheater, but this is something one must accept. The convenience of playing online vs. the risk of encountering a cyborg. The problem with chess.com is the much bigger tolerance they have for cheaters than ICC.
My advice to posters out there: The best way to respond to someone wanting to start a flame war is not to respond at all. Eventually they will just go away.
Is asking a direct question starting a flame war? Don't think so...
He might decline to answer though...his prerogative...
It all depends on the question and how it is asked. If someone asked you "You committed that murder, didn't you? I know you did." that is an example of an accusing question that is only trying to provoke a response in order to start a flame war.
These types of things only happen frequently in places like online sites where the posters are not known to each other. If some of these posters accused others of things like this to peoples' real faces all the time they would not live long. Sooner or later they piss off the wrong person and then "where did Jonny go? I haven't seen him lately."
Where I come from Johnny would be gator bait I fear ...