Fake Accounts/Bots

You didn't ask any "simple question" - even that's not a simple question, because on the one hand you say that blitz is the only time control that counts and on the other you say "whatever time control you prefer". So I guess your definition for someone to be "active" is that they need to have played games here? That it doesn't matter if they're posting in the forums and participating in the community, whether they are paying for premium membership and just doing puzzles, that it doesn't matter how long they've had that account - that if they don't play any games, it doesn't count?

I guess that makes sense - Chess.com started off as a social site before you could even play a game of chess here, and it's the area where it absolutely smashes lichess, so of course you have to disparage and discount it.

I find it interesting that there are people who are participating here even if they don't play chess here, but may prefer to play chess elsewhere. Yet they're still here and participating. Mostly usefully, which is where you're the marked exception. It puts the lie to the claim in your profile that "Chess.com is an authoritarian regime", because if they were, you'd be gone. If you behaved this way in the lichess forums, they'd ban you. It's why the Chess.com forums are as popular as they are, despite the various frustrations that arise in any large community.

Only 7 games in 30 days?

Would you consider my account inactive then, since I have 2 rated rapid games in that time of about?

What's wrong with NOT playing chess every day for a time?

Haha I have over 6,700 games on here. It's currently summer so I'm doing other things but my account is in the diamond league currently.

That means I PLAY quite a bit more than many other people... And when every rapid game is draining I'm not going to be doing multiple in a row...

I have over 30,000 posts on here. I can say I'm more active than YOU are lol...

Yeah, just because you participate in the forums doesn't mean you're "active" - you don't count, so nyah nyah nyah.

Others would probably say that @ninjaswat is far more valuable than other members who do nothing but tell lies about this site & about its main competition. Chess.com almost certainly agrees, and are all about encouraging people to participate as much as they do or do not want to, despite what other may want to harangue them into.

Remember, only blitz games count and disregard facts!

I didn't understand it because you weren't able to articulate it properly, just as you're not able to understand basic math or comprehension.

7 games in 30 days whether 30 mins or not - so 1 game every 4 days or thereabouts: if someone is coming back to this site to play a game every 4 days, that sounds like someone who is pretty active to me. 

5 blitz games in 6 years - if that's all they've done on the site, then no. But you've not presented a single example of ANYONE who's done JUST that - every single person has participated in some other way that DOES indicate that they're active on the site.

30 day gap from May to June - they're back and engaged again, so of course they're active. And the one example you cited wasn't a 30 day gap but a 2 week one. People go on holidays; they have other things in their life. Just because they're not on the site every. single. day. or change it up doesn't mean they're not active. Maybe not as active as they used to be but also, importantly, not as active as they will be either. 

Here's a freebie - even though @MPaetz has never played a game here, he's been a Gold member since January 2018 when he joined. He's made a far more valuable contribution to this site through that alone than you with all your drivel. Maybe he plays chess on lichess because he enjoys it more over there - that's cool. But he still values Chess.com enough to keep paying the admittedly low cost of Gold membership and enjoys it enough to participate in the forums. Of course he's "active". The opposite is also true: although you're paying for Diamond for features you don't even use, I can only imagine that you're hoping that shields you from the consequences of constantly posting lies and misinformation here. It's going to catch up with you eventually, though.

You are mistaking yourself for a "normal" person - normal people can see how someone can be active on Chess.com even if they don't fit into the box you want to create saying "Only these type of people are active!"

"Show me an account that is active! No, that doesn't count! That doesn't count either! Nor that one! Only THIS definition counts!" "Answer my questions, but only with answers that are acceptable to me!"

I saw @MPaetz's calling out of your BS in the other thread - you think that's "defending dishonesty and promoting anything that discredits chess to the public", or am I missing some other comment he's made somewhere else that I am unaware of? 

We demonstrated in the other thread how @MattMah is definitely active even though he doesn't play blitz here because he's played a 30 minute game almost every day for month and months now. You're citing him as an example of someone who doesn't really count? That Orwellian doublespeak right there.

You keep saying this too. Take the 5 minute blitz tournament that is currently taking place. It will have changed by the time anyone else looks at it, but they will have all met your deifnition of "active" in that they've played at least 1 blitz game here today. Probably more than 1, and colour coded by more than 1 or 2 years old / less than that:

@Mr_Chimpanzee - Jun 2022
@Sarvamonam2007 - Nov 2021
@carlos021286 - Sep 2019
@UlisesC - Sep 2012
@zeljko07 - Jan 2020
@mminkov - May 2009
@Chelsea2012Eldar - Dec 2017
@Erik_JK1 - May 2022
@biobrolykiller - Jun 2022
@bozzo2008 - Oct 2019
@The_Apprentice23 - Jun 2014
@VusaniJack - Apr 2014
@LifeofLifes - Jul 2022
@JCILLIERS - Feb 2021
@manuelrubio17 - Jun 2022
@RAJA327 - Apr 2020

OMG 9 out of 16 of those accounts are more than 1 or 2 years old!!! What sort of crazy luck must I have that such rare accounts would make up more than 50% of the leaderboard of the blitz tournament I just looked at?

Just checking on that tournament again: some of the same names at the top of the leaderboard, but lots of new ones too:

@bitrer - Jun 2022
@ezequielmartinezvelazquez - Feb 2022
@rickygn11 - Mar 2021
@Taangpi - Nov 2017
@ARGHYA1234 - Jan 2015
@Lord_Beckut - Jun 2022
@thomaskiss - Sep 2019
@gaspol76 - Apr 2022
@RamZomKem - Nov 2008 - Wow! Almost 14 years on the site and still playing games here!
@hacizade_iman_96 - May 2017
@Sheroff - Dec 2012

6 out 11 of those accounts also "more than 1 or 2 years old". Yeah, that's pretty rare.

Only by your skewed definition.

And now you change the definition because the facts don't fit any more :-) You're saying your own personal experience is all that counts, and that it applies to everyone.

You know, I've just realised what your problem may be - it's that at your rating level, yeah, you may not see accounts more than 1 or 2 years old - most people will have either become discouraged by their lack of progress and quit or actually become better at the game and risen above that by that time. I guess you're just trying to find reasons to justify your own ineptitude, which now makes me feel bad for thinking you were being malicious. You're just not very good at chess - I'm sorry about that. I wouldn't pay for the learning tools here either if that was the end result.

That's why I highlighted him in yellow. 

Typical cherry picking of facts to fit your narrative and ignopring the rest that don't. Because you were arguing that it's rare to see an active account more than 1 or 2 years old, whereas you really mean "I don't see many accounts more than 1 or 2 years old who play blitz games". You've generalized from your specific experience, and your inability to recognise that just destroys your credibility on pretty much everything else. People can't take you seriously.

They need bots because many "people" left the site long ago due to the fact they do little to almost nothing about cheaters.  Oh now we have to go the sketch "cheat forum" to discuss anything related to that.  There are people here still, but definitely not as many as they say.  Also, it's not hard to load up a bunch of javascript bots playing stockfish at a reduced elo strength.  It only takes a few lines of code to make it.  Then a random name generator, with a random country.  They do this in video games all the time tossing bots into multiplayer games.  Idk why people on this site think that is such a hard and tedious thing to do.  They obviously don't know anything about computers and it shows. 

Oh, please, not this again: you're conflating cheating by people with bots, which is bad enough. Chess.com does plenty to fight cheating, which FIDE endorses, and which the Cheating forum is clear on - maybe that's not banning everyone you lose to, but that's not because they're bots or using an engine.

Oh yeah that's right.  I suck at chess, and that is why I lose games.  My moves are obvious, and it makes sense that 20 or so people I reported who played with 99% accuracy in difficult closed positions found the only right move in a complicated position each and every single time in the middle game all while taking 5 seconds per move from opening to obvious captures, to the endgame.  Thanks for showing me that kind of activity is completely and totally human, and I am just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.  

You've reported them to Chess.com using the specified channels, yes? Then Chess.com will close the ones that are cheating and the ones that aren't will be left alone. The ones that they need more evidence will also be left alone, for the time being. You'll get a notification if such an account is closed. If nothing happens in what you feel is an obvious case, let the Cheating forum know - they'll tell you whether it's really obvious or - perhaps just a little more likely - you are imagining cheating where there is none. That happens to be the same characteristic of "paranoid conspiracy theorists", but that doesn't mean you are one. Are you?

I'm with you Grievious. far too many cheaters are getting away with it.  The lamebrained comment I always see is, you lose therefore you accuse your opponent of cheating. It is not like that whatsoever. Like you, I report people who find multiple spectacular moves in a few seconds. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME IN MY 1000'S OF OTB GAMES.  These same people trot out the best/second best  move in every opening they play, very suspicious.

No they won't.  They won't close them.  The site is not perfect.  The people who run it are not Gods.  That report button is just a pacifier.  You have to be one smooth brained person to believe that no cheating or botting is going on here.  It happens in every game, in every sport, in every country, all over the world, yet you want me to believe that this is the only place on the planet where this does not happen?  Ha! 

They are insulting our intelligence denying this absolute fact.  Plus they should know it is human nature to be upset about unfair things, and we want to complain to vent.  I know when I lose a game because I played poorly versus when I got owned by someone's chess engine.  

You're redirecting. You checked the first person only, even though I pointed out that it was a new account. You didn't look at any of the rest, the majority of which were accounts more than 1 or 2 years old who were happily playing blitz games on this site, which demonstrates that you're experience isn't typical on the site.

Relatively new members can play in tournaments, yes. Those who cheat will get caught and banned like they always do - do they have more incentive to cheat in a tournament than in an "ordinary" 1:1 game? I suppose so. Is it an issue? Only if you're attaching some importance to the regular tournament other than getting games in that format. Lichess also has a very low floor for people to enter a tournament - something like 20 games, isn't it? Not really any different.

In terms of your personal match history, I DID go through it earlier and showed how pretty much everyone there is active on the site - you went "but it's not blitz so they don't count". In terms of this thread, there still seem to be plenty of people with accounts more than 1 or 2 years old participating, even on the first page - like the second responder @b1zmark, the third responder @Martin_Stahl (but he's a mod, so of course), @Shanksamillion, @neatgreatfire, @Karlabos, @BadZen - the facts don't support your opinions, just saying that they do ad nauseum doesn't change them.

A chunk of the money people pay to be verified will go towards the cash prize for the tournament that only verified members will be able to enter - not sure what %, but presumably some will also go into the cheat detection processes and checks for that tournament. But Chess.com management has zero incentive to do stuff that will damage their site. Sadly, they tolerate all sorts of stupid conspiracy theories because they're super tolerant, which is something you've just ignored from me as well.