Chess.com FAQs and Discussion on Cheating

No, it's better to leave the account visible but closed.

Cheating is against the rules, and permitting it while simply hanging a scarlet C is not in the spirit of fair play.

I said this many times ... even 95-100% agreement in a short tactical game, when there is a clear move way better than the alternatives, is not an indication of cheating. However, if in a slow, positional game, when there are 7-8 good candidate moves, consistently picking one of the top 3 choices of an engine, well that is dubious.

I never said that everybody with a high rating is cheating. In fact, I am convinced that this is false. Given the fact that one can select his opponents, I do think that a player rated ~2000 ELO can reach to let's say 2400 in online chess here. Maybe more, I don't know and it does not matter.

I also do not think that cheating is rampant here. In my games (probably I have ~1500 games played in live chess), I think I encountered about 10-15 players which I suspected of cheating. The percentage is very low, I would say it's almost INSIGNIFICANT. The rest of my defeats were largely due to my own mistakes. Some of them I made under the pressure of my opponents, while some of them are unbelievable for a person who does not consider himself a beginner...

In the end, I want to say that I do love this site and I care about it. Had I not cared about it, well, I could have left to play somewhere else. I only hope that all this cheating discussion will improve this site. I am sure that the concerns I expressed here are not only mine, these are the concerns of many others. For instance, here is a long-forgotten thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-me-and-playing-internet-chess-are-finished?page=1

Please, don't use offensive words. This place is for positive socializing, not offensive language. My latest suggestion:a filter that screens bad words, censors them, and then presses charges against the speaker.

huh

exactly my thoughts

 Thanks.

I have a similar request, but instead of screening "bad" words I'd like one that censors ridiculous ideas, and instead of filing charges I'd settle for mild electro-shock via the keyboard of the poster.

It is a sensible theme and I want  be careful with my comment. But I am convinced, that here is much more cheating than it can be proved

Especially that, what I would call "Intelligent cheating". I mean people, that try to wipe out their traces by using engines  sometimes or/and using  older programs..

So one thing should be clear. It is as doping on tour de france. The "cheaters" are always looking for better methods to hide their doings. And the controllers are always at least one step behind

My suggestion: Everyone about 2200 should prove his national ranking and ratings in OTB-games. I am convinced, that many things would become clearer

I wonder what a lawyerwouldsayaboutallofthis.....

An interesting idea!  Of course chess.com would be asking for roughly 1000 pieces of identification... which is way too much.  But if you were to bring that number up to 2500 or such... not a bad idea.  I know it would take me 2 seconds to send a link to my CFC rating page.  Maybe a little longer to prove that it's me...

If that would ever go into action, yeah, it would have to be much higher than 2200... my rating has almost inflated to that high (been playing too many lower rated players) and I don't even have an official otb rating.

A national rating or a rating from 10 years ago would not say too much. Also, maybe there are people who cannot play otb. My case for instance ... there is a chess club, 2-3 hours away. It's open on Tuesday and Thursday 7-11 pm. Well, I just don't want to return home at about 1 am and then get up the next day to go to work. And maybe I can't afford tournament fees...

What would prove an OTB rating to you? If a person is let's say 2200 (probably the upper limit an amateur player can reach), do you think that this is enough to justify why that person consistently produces games at super-GM quality?

A serious site would not be afraid to accuse a GM of cheating (remember the story of the "smart" Kosteniuk on ICC). Yes, even GMs cheat, if given the opportunity. Even a super-gm, Naiditcsh (2700+) admitted to cheat on internet (and probably he will always be remembered as the first GM cheater).

Chess.com can not bann you if you are a paying member, unless they give you your money back. Why? Because you can not prove that somebody is cheating on the Internet. Thats a fact. All that blaablabla is just that blablablaa.

Remember that guys..... peace

not true :) read the Terms of Service

I guess the player named I Learned In Jail didn't really learn there.

Just read the comment about matching ratings by mauerblume. I'm not a 2,000 player, let alone a 2,200 one. I did hit 1,890 after a highly rated plater withdrew from a tournament and I got two wins against him that way which jumped my rating up. I think I am a solid 1,625-1,725 in on-line chess. But I haven't played a serious OTB game in over 30 years and I stink in live Chess because I'm just not ready for it. I need time to make a move. I give myself 2 minutes a move and then move in 2 seconds. Comparing my live rating and on-line ratings would not be fair. Maybe such does not happen as drastically in the 2,000+ realm but I bet it happens to some degree with some players.

This seems like a bad move from a PR stand point Erik.  Why not just let him think what he thinks?

i don't want people to think that by becoming a premium member we then allow you to cheat. :)

Databases and books are ok to use in turn-based chess already. You just can't use an engine.

Hmm... that could be a real money-maker, you know.  A new "Plutonium" membership that allows one engine consultation per 20 moves or something.  Additional consultations could be paid for on a pay-as-you-cheat basis.  You could use a little computer for the membership-type icon - mostly as a warning to the rest of us.