If I wanted to play a computer all I have to do is open a chess program and get crushed, I don't know about other people in the website, but I'm sure there are some who will second my idea that I didin't get on chess.com to play with a computer. I came to play humans, share thoughts with humans, and learn with humans. So I find the zero tolerance thing excellent.
Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating
Sort:
The guys who play "advanced" chess here do so because they have the chance to play against people who don't use engines. Therefore, they can show everybody how smart they are. If they want to play against other cyborgs, they would go to ICCF or other sites which allow engine usage.
Do you say that talented players get falsely accused of cheating?? Please provide a name! Common, when X, with no OTB rating whatsoever, walks in and starts to play at a level which professional super-gm's like Topalov never dream to achieve, do you believe he is just "talented"? Why don't he gets out and become world champion?
LindaDane wrote:
...
You said that you would leave if chess.com adopted approach 3 with tacit approval of engine use, but I take it that means you would stay if chess.com adopts policies 1 or 2 with seperate ratings or a (C) mark in front of user's names. Am I right?
Yes, I think I'd be disappointed, but not to the point of leaving this site.
With respect to your speculation that some players caught cheating just want to practice centaur chess, then as you've pointed out, there are other sites out there that support that so there's no need to surreptitiously do it here. Additionally, if that was their desire, wouldn't they want to play against other centaurs so that they could actually hone their skills, rather than to simply run over human players here? No, I think that the few folks who choose to use engines here in blatant defiance of the rules have entirely other motivations.
LindaDane wrote:
As all the experts at ICCF and IECG have acknowledged, at correspondence speeds, it really isn't possible to identify engine use just by looking at the moves of games. I believe that ICC and playchess.com include in their software a feature that notifies the server if the program loses focus in the middle of a game. Playchess.com deletes the rating of the player caught this way, while I believe ICC asks the user to write an apology in their finger notes, or else accept a (C) in front of their name.
Some things are wrong in your argument.
1. Why, if you look at the games played by correspondence players before the computer age (even if they were world champions at that time) and compare to the games played let's say now on ICCF, the difference is huge? What is the explanation?
2. Playchess does this indeed. If you switch a task 5 times during a game, this is cheating :) Haha! Still, nobody cares about the "professional" cheaters, with two computers :)) Right now, the live chess here is much above playchess.
3. What you said about ICC is completely false. Yes, they monitor task-switching, but you will never get (C)-ed for watching a film let's say while playing. All the persons with an apology note or a (C) mark got this because they used engine assistance! And one more thing: if you get an apology note or a (C) mark, many people will add you their noplay lists and will notify their friends to the same. So, an apology note or a (C) means that you will mostly play against other cyborgs :))
LindaDane wrote:
costelus, I would prefer not to provide names for obvious reasons, but I am sure Erik and the other staff have run into many examples where they have asked a player with an FIDE rating to close their account because of suspected cheating, but found that the player refused to comply because they knew that they were not cheating. I would say it would be very difficult for Topalov or whoever to establish an account here anonymously because he would almost certainly be suspected of cheating.
Why don't you provide the handle of the account? After all, the account is now closed. We would all like to see how evil and unjust is Erik :))
It is easy to make general assertions without any evidence. Please provide facts!
Thats a lot of names listed 
are you talking about cheating,because I'm to lazy to read everything you guys typed!
richie_and_oprah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
No, I think that the few folks who choose to use engines here in blatant defiance of the rules have entirely other motivations.
Like what? Winning trophies>?
Or, are there cash prizes I am not aware of?
It is clear to me anyone that is doing it is doing so to either cover their own lack of ability and gain some falsified status or to perhaps learn ? What other nefarious gain is there to be had?
The point I was making is that I really doubt that their motivation is to play "freestyle chess" as there are other places where one do that without risk of ejection, and I'd have to think that if that is truly what one was interested in, they'd likely prefer to play against other centaurs.
I think the folks that use engines here, against human players, are more driven by some false sense of progress, and have probably deluded themselves into thinking that their ever-increasing rating as a result of their engine dependence is in fact their progress.
LindaDane wrote:
...
I disagree. I've met, and played with many freestylers, and like most chessplayers, they just want to play, and talk about chess in a relaxed environment.
And, of course, to not get caught.
Why think they all do it for the same reason? Why do people play at all? Not the same rewards for all.
Apr 13, 2009
0
#92
now that I know that player A was ozzie, his (Ozzie's) remarks in that original locked thread gain new meaning lol. (player A will be flattered to hear he played like a computer)
Costelus, naming and shaming is really not appropriate. You said that you'd brought this game to the attention of the chess.com staff via the Report Abuse link, but only very recently -- you should really give the process an opportunity to work before throwing your hands up in frustration.
While I fully support the zero tolerance policy on cheating, I think it's also very important Chess.com is not overly trigger happy when it comes to ejecting suspected cheaters, and that there be a process to build a compelling case against someone before making the final decision to close their account.
The Grobe: the game and the player were brought to the attention of chess.com staff. I made them public only after receiving their definite, clear answer: player B in that thread is *NOT* cheating. So I will never express any doubts about him.
Therefore, Chessnut23 must be praised and congratulated. Who knows his real identity... He might be Carlsen or Svidler or some other top grandmaster. I guess that many people would be happy to have the opportunity to play with such a strong player.
Apr 13, 2009
0
#95
costelus wrote:
The Grobe: the game and the player were brought to the attention of chess.com staff. I made them public only after receiving their definite, clear answer: player B in that thread is *NOT* cheating. So I will never express any doubts about him.
Therefore, Chessnut23 must be praised and congratulated. Who knows his real identity... He might be Carlsen or Svidler or some other top grandmaster. I guess that many people would be happy to have the opportunity to play with such a strong player.
He gives his real name in his profile so we know he is not carlsen or svidler or anyone else, he is real guy with a lot of chess experience. Far from being a shaming issue Grobe, Costelus is saying that he fully accepts that this is just a great chess player. End of story and great play Gary.
That is really strange! I see that the staff removed my post above because they think I accuse somebody of cheating. It makes me laugh, seriously. In the locked thread:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/computer-game-analysis
I never said directly that I am convinced that player B used engine assistance. I just said that he played extremely well, probably at a level corresponding to at least 2700 ELO. Now, after receiving the staff confirmation, I am convinced that player B is not cheating. And that is exactly what I said in the post which was deleted. Shall I use a bigger font or red letters?
So, what's the problem? We are allowed only to post bad games? If so, then why the games are public? Please clarify this. Thank you!
costelus wrote:
The Grobe: the game and the player were brought to the attention of chess.com staff. I made them public only after receiving their definite, clear answer: player B in that thread is *NOT* cheating. So I will never express any doubts about him.
Therefore, Chessnut23 must be praised and congratulated. Who knows his real identity... He might be Carlsen or Svidler or some other top grandmaster. I guess that many people would be happy to have the opportunity to play with such a strong player.
I didn't think chess.com disclosed the results of these reports -- you got a definite, clear answer from them?
And I offer that you definitely need to double check the definition of definite.
Sorry -- missed your edit.
One other option is that the case is still under evaluation.
While I cannot possibly know the content of the reports chess.com made for this case, I was told by one of the staff members that "there is not enough evidence to consider that this player is cheating". The evaluation of this case has been completed.
Obviously, I would not have said anything if chess.com would have still worked on this case. Also, in the same discussion with the staff member I told him "then it is clear that there is nothing wrong with making public the name of the person."
I think there are basically four ways that a web site can accomodate the freestyle community.
1. Set up three types of tournaments: Human, Advanced and Computer, or set up a seperate Engine Room. Players who wish to play without an engine can play in the Human League. Players who want to analyze with the help of a engine can play in the Advanced League, and people who want to participate in engine tournaments can play in the Computer League. New members choose which kind of account they want when they first register. This is the approach used by the casual German correspondence site, playchess.de, and by Chessbase's playchess.com.
2. add an acronym like (C) to the names of users who wish to play with engine assistance. This can have the effect of alienating freestyle players who see their contribution as much more than a mere operator, but appeases players who want to avoid playing against those using engines. This is the approach used at ICC and FICS.
3. tacitly allow engine use. Sites in this school tend to maintain that there is no practical way to detect engine use. The two most prestigious correspondence organizations ICCF and IECG adopt this approach as do many of the casual servers like Yahoo, GameKnot or FICGS.
4. close the accounts of players suspected of cheating. In many ways, this approach has the most negative effects. It cuts into the revenue stream of the site, and creates ill will from the person whose account is closed and all of their friends, playing partners and group mates. Often talented players who don't use engines get falsely accused, while engine users skilled in avoiding detection continue to play. Vengeful mods end up banning people just because they lost a game to them. I think this option also breeds the most controversy, because both those who are banned and those who think they are being cheated suspect that the detection system is not working.
With so many other options available, I am not sure why chess.com has chosen the fourth approach. What is the upside?
I'm think that you've really oversimplified the problem, and that your portrayals are not at all balanced (where are the pros for #4 and the cons for the other three options?).
First of all, I don't see how the same challenges that you've cited for #4 aren't still there for #'s 1 and 2. You'd need to police the bleed-over of engine users into the non-engine sub-community just like you would for outright cheater detection in #4, so . I am also an example of one user who would find somewhere else to play if #3 was chosen, so it too would cut into chess.com's revenue -- I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I personally fully support the zero tolerance approach, and I think that Erik and chess.com are absolutely on the right path when it comes to a cheating policy for chess.com. I'd hate to see it any other way.