Random people who started because of QG on Netflix, yeah maybe they'll stop, but people who play chess not just as a hobby but as something they're serious about will probably keep on playing for years and years.
Fake Accounts/Bots
Sort:
May 17, 2022
0
#23
I really don’t understand why people create these threads claiming that they have correct “theories” that chess.com implements bots. First of all, that is very expensive and would require extensive and sophisticated coding and programming for them, so they look like humans when there is no need because hundreds of thousands of players are active. Perhaps because some opponents want to stay anonymous and just play chess instead of chatting. Second of all, chess.com has a multiple account detection system or something. So what if these “bots” run into getting banned? I feel it’s very complicated and sort-of unpractical. Even if these conspiracies are true, your still getting a fair game at the end of the day, the develops cannot program them to cheat.
why does the op have 4 likes
Jun 30, 2022
0
#25
Lmao the site that has the most bot variations in all of online chess, including adaptive style bots, and you think its a stretch? I check into this site every few months while improving on other sites and after a few games just start trolling and blitzing games because I feel the same way.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#27
CooloutAC wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
....The fact an account more then a year old that still plays games is extermely rare on a 15 year old site.
It's not rare at all.
Maybe only rare on the forums. But nah, even when I check profiles from my matches.
What sort of checking are you doing on the profiles from your matches? Because when I look at your most recent games and colour code them by less than a year / more than year old, I see:
@MattMah - Dec 2016
@kicos61 - Dec 2019
@atomikey - Feb 2021
@ykk2002ykk - Mar 2021
@pablopoder - Dec 2021
@LePawnJames45 - Jun 2022
@gheebuttersnapz - Jun 2021 (technically just over a year old, but I'll give you that one)
@IvoryLogic - Nov 2020
@boogieman56 - Jan 2022
@mauri1234567 - Feb 2021
@lungrilakpou - Jul 2021
@maddamat - May 2017
@Alekseevrv10 - May 2022
@BobbyKasparsen - Nov 2020
@absolutezilch - Jul 2013
@alundracloud - Aug 2020
@Lashari7 - Feb 2022
@mateopaulic829201 - May 2022
@eierzwicker - Dec 2021
ie. 11 out of 18 of your last opponents - more than half - had accounts more than a year old. That's not "rare" and definitely not "extremely rare".
Sky0711 wrote:
Hi everyone. Does it sometimes seem to you like you are playing bots?? And I am not talking about people cheating. Rather to me it seems like Chess.com is pulling our noses, and instead of finding us real people to play against, we are instead given bots that pretend to be humans. More and more this seems to be the case as I find myself playing against "players" who refuse to chat, or accept a rematch. And I simply can't help but think I am being cheated here by the Chess.com itself. Hell, if I wanted to only play against damn bots I would have never installed this app in the first place!
I think more likely is that Chess.com substitutes better than average players for the poor ones with a lower elo score. It gives the better players practice and they get to sharpen their skills against someone decent and the better player gets surprised and beat. It keeps their ratings lower thus Chess.com can brag about a better quality of chump at the site. Plus then people make more accounts, which is really the only things that this trash capitalist platform craves.
B1ZMARK wrote:
How do you guys even know that they are "bot" accounts?
More likely they are just better players substituted in by Chess.com for people with low ratings.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#30
CooloutAC wrote:
Lets take your first example. Mattmah. That guy only has 5 games played on a 6 year old account? Are really looking at their profiles? Do I need to go further? lmao...
(a) It's not my example, it's your claim that's being tested here
(b) Your claim was "an account more then a year old that still plays games is extermely rare on a 15 year old site" - that's plainly not true. If you want to modify your claim, you are of course welcome to do so - that's actually how the scientific method works, you come up with a theory, you test it against the evidence, and then you modify the theory if required. You don't get to switch your claims and say your theory was correct all along.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#31
CooloutAC wrote:
David wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Lets take your first example. Mattmah. That guy only has 5 games played on a 6 year old account? Are really looking at their profiles? Do I need to go further? lmao...
(a) It's not my example, it's your claim that's being tested here
(b) Your claim was "an account more then a year old that still plays games is extermely rare on a 15 year old site" - that's plainly not true. If you want to modify your claim, you are of course welcome to do so - that's actually how the scientific method works, you come up with a theory, you test it against the evidence, and then you modify the theory if required. You don't get to switch your claims and say your theory was correct all along.
And you just proved my point with the very first name you listed. I'm not gonna waste my time going through all of them. They very first name is an account from 2016 with 5 games played. I believe my claim to Martin was, "any account more then 2 years old doesn't even play any games on the site anymore" Apparenlty the first name you came up with, NEVER played any games on the site at all. LMAO.
Again, thanks for the taking the time to prove my point. Look how easy it was. That should open some eyes. I want people to start checking profiles. And I want the people on such profiles to realize they are obvious and people will be noticing. I want people who keep making new accounts to realize, they are branding themselves as suspect and not as valued.
What world are you living in when you think your point is proven here? "The very first name listed" is @MattMah - the account is from 2016. He has more than 5 games played - I know you can't be bothered checking his game history, so I'll post a screen shot:
He's played a game or two on most days, which explains why he 's played 1.573 games on the site:
The real question has to be whether you are being disingenuous or just dumb. Or maybe both, I suppose that's also a strong possibility.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#32
CooloutAC wrote:
David wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
....The fact an account more then a year old that still plays games is extermely rare on a 15 year old site.
It's not rare at all.
Maybe only rare on the forums. But nah, even when I check profiles from my matches.
What sort of checking are you doing on the profiles from your matches? Because when I look at your most recent games and colour code them by less than a year / more than year old, I see:
@MattMah - Dec 2016
@kicos61 - Dec 2019
@atomikey - Feb 2021
@ykk2002ykk - Mar 2021
@pablopoder - Dec 2021
@LePawnJames45 - Jun 2022
@gheebuttersnapz - Jun 2021 (technically just over a year old, but I'll give you that one)
@IvoryLogic - Nov 2020
@boogieman56 - Jan 2022
@mauri1234567 - Feb 2021
@lungrilakpou - Jul 2021
@maddamat - May 2017
@Alekseevrv10 - May 2022
@BobbyKasparsen - Nov 2020
@absolutezilch - Jul 2013
@alundracloud - Aug 2020
@Lashari7 - Feb 2022
@mateopaulic829201 - May 2022
@eierzwicker - Dec 2021
ie. 11 out of 18 of your last opponents - more than half - had accounts more than a year old. That's not "rare" and definitely not "extremely rare".
Lets take your first example. Mattmah. That guy only has 5 games played on a 6 year old account? Are really looking at their profiles? Do I need to go further? lmao...
Its funny I just blocked someone messaging me last night begging me to delete all my replies to him in a forum thread. I look at the guys account, He stopped playing in May, has recently come back this week. and is winning all his matches with crazy accuracy. I look at his last games he played last May, all his opponents are banned for fair play violations. Suspect?
I questioned him on this, he tells me he is a verified player which means he is legit. LMAO.
I just looked at MattMah's game archive. He has 1,573 games played on this site, not five in six years as you claim. Where do you get your information?
Jul 1, 2022
0
#33
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
David wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
....The fact an account more then a year old that still plays games is extermely rare on a 15 year old site.
It's not rare at all.
Maybe only rare on the forums. But nah, even when I check profiles from my matches.
What sort of checking are you doing on the profiles from your matches? Because when I look at your most recent games and colour code them by less than a year / more than year old, I see:
@MattMah - Dec 2016
...
Lets take your first example. Mattmah. That guy only has 5 games played on a 6 year old account? Are really looking at their profiles? Do I need to go further? lmao...
I just looked at MattMah's game archive. He has 1,573 games played on this site, not five in six years as you claim. Where do you get your information?
Oops - independent fact checking. That's bad for any misinformation campaign 
Jul 1, 2022
0
#34
Didn't see your latest before I checked. I've seen Coolout make up lots of "facts" before and was just wondering.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#35
CooloutAC wrote:
haha I love it. So if you look at his blitz games he only has 5 games played. NOw if we look at his rapid account. Ya he stopped playing in May. And only has about 10 games in rapid since.
That's the first time you've mentioned blitz - you made it sound like here was a 6 year old account that had only played 5 games ever and was therefore somehow unhappy with the match ups. The truth is that he regularly plays 30 minutes, a game every day or so - if he has only a few blitz games, the much more likely explanation is that he's tried it and decided that it's not a time control that he enjoys.
But even this is being generous to you, because the game archive search doesn't let you filter by time control, so to come up with this figure of 5, you would have had to scroll through pages and pages of his archives, and we know you don't like to do this work. I've gone through the first 5 pages, and there's not 1 blitz game nor 1 rapid game there.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#36
CooloutAC wrote:
And just so noone accuses me of making things up. For example check out this guy. @Early_Ghost Here is one I just had to block so he wouldn't private message me. But if you look at his account. BLITZ in particular. Blitz is how I judge accounts not by bullet or rapid. This guy Stopped playing 3rd week of May. Started playing again second week of June. Whats up with that? And I mean he is going gun ho in June, massive amount of matches and winning most of them...lol
I don't want to start jumping to conclusions and break TOS, I'm just finding these coincidences among accounts very interesting.
There is no coincidence because you are just making things up to fit your narrative. "Let's dismiss everything except blitz" - why don't they count any more than blitz games? He's had a 2 week break from the site - why is that suspicious? He's PMed you - why is that even relevant?
This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled misinformation is characteristic of QAnon and Trump supporters.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#37
CooloutAC wrote:
I'm saying its rare on this site to have an active account more then one or two years old. And you just proved my point. Is something wrong with you? You don't think thats odd? I don't count people who only play dailies either lol.
All I've proved is that you only regard an account as "Active" if they play Blitz - that it doesn't matter if they're playing any other time control or how regularly. Thank you for finally clarifying that - it's obviously ridiculous, but that's pretty consistent for you.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#38
CooloutAC wrote:
The reason why I only count blitz is because that is the middle time control that I judge general chess strength. Its also the most popular. Its weird to me a 6 year old account doesn't play a blitz game.
I understand why someone like you won't play rapid and only play bullet and blitz though. You probably assume rapid is full of cheaters like most of the traditionalists who lie to themselves. They also tell themselves bullet is not real chess. lol
Some clarity at last. Your logic is super dodgy, but at least we can finally see the premises you're coming from.
It's not weird at all that any account doesn't play any particular time control - people have their own set of circumstances and they fit chess into their lives, they don't move things around to accommodate something they think they "should" be doing on a chess website. I play 1 minute bullet on a PC and 3 minute blitz on my mobile - I don't play bullet on my mobile because I can't move my pieces fast enough on the touch screen to avoid losing on time and I don't play longer time controls like rapid not because of any concerns about cheating but because frankly I get bored waiting around for the other person to move. I don't even play 5 minutes blitz and I definitely don't play blitz with any increments.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#39
CooloutAC wrote:
David wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
I'm saying its rare on this site to have an active account more then one or two years old. And you just proved my point. Is something wrong with you? You don't think thats odd? I don't count people who only play dailies either lol.
All I've proved is that you only regard an account as "Active" if they play Blitz - that it doesn't matter if they're playing any other time control or how regularly. Thank you for finally clarifying that - it's obviously ridiculous, but that's pretty consistent for you.
you call 7 games in the past 30 days regularly? only 5 blitz games in 6 years? And with a huge gap of almost 30 days from May to June? And I didn't even have to go past the first name on mpaetz list, that mind you, is a guy with NO GAMES AT ALL ON THIS SITE, who posted. Thanks again for proving my point. You're in denial.
And after finally getting some clarity, we're back to complete murkiness. Who on earth are you talking about in any of those instances? @MattMah? @Early_ghost? "The first name on Mpaetz's list" - who I thought was MattMah but maybe not.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#40
CooloutAC wrote:
David wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
The reason why I only count blitz is because that is the middle time control that I judge general chess strength. Its also the most popular. Its weird to me a 6 year old account doesn't play a blitz game.
I understand why someone like you won't play rapid and only play bullet and blitz though. You probably assume rapid is full of cheaters like most of the traditionalists who lie to themselves. They also tell themselves bullet is not real chess. lol
Some clarity at last. Your logic is super dodgy, but at least we can finally see the premises you're coming from.
It's not weird at all that any account doesn't play any particular time control - people have their own set of circumstances and they fit chess into their lives, they don't move things around to accommodate something they think they "should" be doing on a chess website. I play 1 minute bullet on a PC and 3 minute blitz on my mobile - I don't play bullet on my mobile because I can't move my pieces fast enough on the touch screen to avoid losing on time and I don't play longer time controls like rapid not because of any concerns about cheating but because frankly I get bored waiting around for the other person to move. I don't even play 5 minutes blitz and I definitely don't play blitz with any increments.
You have played tons of blitz my friend. What you dont' play is rapid. And it seems you didn't deny my assumptions as to why. Again do you think 7 games in 30 days? 5 games in 6 years? and a huge 30 day gap is an active account? It is not.
I didn't say I didn't play blitz - I said I didn't play 5 minute blitz or blitz with increments - I play 3 minute blitz on my mobile and yes, I play on my mobile a fair bit and therefore have a played a lot of blitz. I have no idea what you assume about why I don't play rapid - your posts make no logical point. If it was your contention that I think there's cheating in rapid, I posted before that I don't play rapid because it bores me, not because I think there's cheating. But then you go on about this 7 game 30 day stuff that I have no idea what you're going on about. Are you even talking abot the same person in those 3 instances?
Basically all done is throw tonnes of misinformation out and then claim that because there's so much confusion, we can't rely on the system or the site. Sounds familiar.
Yeah there are some people who are actually serious about chess...