RainbowRising wrote:
A and B class players making 2400 CC + ? Someone been fishing today?
E.g. excellent CC players from the past who stopped playing because of Rybka?
Major Proposed Change: Ratings Cap Above 2400 for Unverified Players
Sort:
ACEChess wrote:
Something everyone should remember that makes our site (Chess.com) different from other playing sites like ICC: On ICC you CAN'T even play full time (meaning the amount of games we allow free members to play on our site) without a paying membership. Same on PlayChess.com! So, to make the statement that "we --chess.com -- can't control cheating" simply isn't fair.
We have over 3 million members and because of that number, we naturally have many repeat-cheaters being banned regularly. But because we offer such a great service that the other sites don't (namely that free non-paying members can play UNLIMITED games) there has to be SOME KIND of limitation.
I am not saying that there aren't some strong experts out there who can't play at a 2400+ level and be clean, but another thing to remember is that those players would likely soon be masters in over the board chess -- AND AGAIN, unlike OTHER sites, we give free DIAMOND level memebrships to anyone 2200+, while ICC and other sties don't offer this unlimited free access to everything to anyone but IM level+, which is a significantly smaller portion of the population.
Point being, even if there is a rare number of players who meet all the following criteria: wish to stay at a basic level; CAN play at a 2400+ level; and aren't cheating -- those people within that rare group have the opportunity to become lifetime Diamond members if they only gain a few more "official" (either USCF or FIDE rating points).
We love our members and want EVERYONE on our site, but the abuse and amount of people taking advantage of our "basic level access" -- that no other major site provides please remember -- is simply too high to not implement some kind of cap.
Danny
Why don't we implement ideas from Chesscube, about the changing tab rule? They seem to be doing fine when it comes to cheaters.
May 19, 2011
0
#124
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
To be frank, cheating in CC is a lost cause.
Well, I don't think so. Computer-free CC is the main product I buy here. But, to tell the truth, I have been very disappointed with its quality last year. IMO Chess.com could and should do much more. The same tournament directors and group admins.
woodshover wrote:
thekibitzer wrote:
Just out of interest, what would happen to the guys who are hovering around 2200 otb, or who did not want to pay fide for their lowest title? Would we still be capped?
How much do those titles cost, anyway? I hear a lot of griping about it.
Its 50 euros for CM, which OK doesn't sound much, but for a lot of players it is the principle of paying fide for a title that cynics would argue is only there to serve as a money spinner. Personally speaking, fide won't be getting my money anytime soon.
With regards to the overall idea, I like the motivation behind it, however I feel it is not something that really applies to bullet (1min) chess, which is the main reason I play on here. The opperchunity to cheat at that time control must be so small, and the ratings pool is quite inflated compared to other sites as it is, that 2400 is very achievable to non titled players. Perhaps this form of chess could be exempt from the cap? I get that chess.com has to look after its paying members first and foremost, but surely there is a better way to do it. After all, despite being a small number, you don't want to start seeing legitamate strong players moving to competing sites.
May 19, 2011
0
#126
RainbowRising wrote:
What should they do Polar BeaR?
First, a quiz for you:
When an unknown anonymous player, never-heard-about, shows surprisingly strong and tactically brilliant play and his/her moves match with computer under strict circumstances higher than pre-computer CC GMs and IMs, it can be:
A) Supernatural being (god, devil, nymph, specter, vampire, UFO-alien, Sith-lord) who decided to create account, play a few games, teach and tease us, humble humans, and has no human's bio to share with us
B) Young chess prodigy with mentat training, who never played OTB and is shy/afraid to share his/her bio with us
C) Lazy cheater, who uses chess software instead of his brain and has good reasons not to disclose his/her identity
Well, it is difficult quiz, I don't expect you know the answer straight, thus i tell you: C is right.
No surprise, staff members don't know the answer. They know, of course, such play was never observed in the pre-computer era, but they tolerate these "players" for whole year or more in CC and let them spoil many tournaments.
Tournament directors and group admins aren't expected to perform anti-cheating tests, but they are expected not to allow unknown untrustworthy newcomers to enter and participate, especially not in prestigious events like top rated tournaments and World League of teams.
A good start would be to investigate players here with A and B class ratings OTB that have CC ratings here 1000 points higher than their OTB ratings. Sorry , but I simply dont believe such a rating gap is possible WITHOUT using an engine ! Start with the members who arent paying first and let it be known that paying members are next, give them a chance to " clean up their act" ? 
ok, so i looked up a basic statistic for those who are worried about the effect this would have. i looked at online chess, how many players are rated over 2400. it looks like about 600. of that 600, over 50% are premium members. so we are talking of something that will potentially change the ratings of less than 300 people. of those 300, i suspect more than half are cheating. we don't feel sorry for them. so that leaves maybe 100 strong chess players without otb titles who will have to choose between paying a very modest membership fee of 29$/yr or having their rating reduced on a site where they play for free. this is a tiny tiny negative impact.
this would also be a good place for anyone who thinks this is about money to do a little calculation about how much chess.com could potentially earn off this new policy, and ask yourself if there's any chance that will pay for the time we are putting into it. obviously our goal is to improve the moral quality and integrity of the community.
polar_bear makes an interesting claim that cheaters will be just as happy to have ratings of 2300ish, and will carry on cheating. i know he spends a lot of time on cheating issues, so maybe he understands what cheaters are after better than i do. but i think there's a good chance this will dissuade them. at least seems worth finding out, doesn't it?
if we can reduce the number of people cheating, then we can in turn check the remaining players more effectively. getting rid of cheaters (if this policy is successful) will also encourage titled players to play on the site, which will ultimately have a lot of benefits for our community.
May 19, 2011
0
#129
The Kibitzer has a point about bullet though - my OTB is 1650 but my bullet goes above 2400 fairly frequently (peaked at 2500 a few months ago).
Britneyfan wrote:
The Kibitzer has a point about bullet though - my OTB is 1650 but my bullet goes above 2400 fairly frequently (peaked at 2500 a few months ago).
So, now it will peak at 2400. Is that an issue?
dpruess wrote:
ok, so i looked up a basic statistic for those who are worried about the effect this would have. i looked at online chess, how many players are rated over 2400. it looks like about 600. of that 600, over 50% are premium members. so we are talking of something that will potentially change the ratings of less than 300 people. of those 300, i suspect more than half are cheating. we don't feel sorry for them. so that leaves maybe 100 strong chess players without otb titles who will have to choose between paying a very modest membership fee of 29$/yr or having their rating reduced on a site where they play for free. this is a tiny tiny negative impact.
this would also be a good place for anyone who thinks this is about money to do a little calculation about how much chess.com could potentially earn off this new policy, and ask yourself if there's any chance that will pay for the time we are putting into it. obviously our goal is to improve the moral quality and integrity of the community.
polar_bear makes an interesting claim that cheaters will be just as happy to have ratings of 2300ish, and will carry on cheating. i know he spends a lot of time on cheating issues, so maybe he understands what cheaters are after better than i do. but i think there's a good chance this will dissuade them. at least seems worth finding out, doesn't it?
if we can reduce the number of people cheating, then we can in turn check the remaining players more effectively. getting rid of cheaters (if this policy is successful) will also encourage titled players to play on the site, which will ultimately have a lot of benefits for our community.
+1
I don't know who will still be against this measure after this very insightful reasoning.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
@dunce, Toiletgate wasn't cheating, it was a stroke of brilliancy on the part of Kramnik. For chess players that strong, they can think of moves almost just as well as they can over the board without looking at it (they have the board in their head). Kramnik knew that Topalov is really paranoid about cheating, so what better way to beat him than to continually go to the bathroom so that he is continually thinking about cheating instead of the game?
Stroke of brilliancy? I'd say stroke of immorality. As everybody playing in tournament games knows, you're not supposed to disturb your opponent with your actions (such as draw offers, numerous "j'adoube" calls etc). It seems that there must be put a "toilet usage" clause too.
Krammnik: Keeps up with the tradition of treacherous Russian GMs of the past. The man is a shame for the game.
May 19, 2011
0
#133
rooperi wrote:
Britneyfan wrote:
The Kibitzer has a point about bullet though - my OTB is 1650 but my bullet goes above 2400 fairly frequently (peaked at 2500 a few months ago).
So, now it will peak at 2400. Is that an issue?
two problems - what about people in a similar boat as me but slightly better - they can't make any progress and what happens if I get a bit better (70 - 80 points for a junior is hardly massive improvement) and that's all it would take to be peaked out and not noticing any changes, although maybe it would just deflate the system which wouldn't be too bad.
bondocel wrote:
I thought that chess.com does not have any cheaters. That is the official position, no cheating is mentioned anywhere. It does not exist! When I wrote once that, in my opinion, ICC has fewer cheaters, my post was deleted. There are no cheaters on chess.com, all the cheaters play on ICC.
So, why bother?
Your post was deleted because it advertised ICC. Advertising competitors is forbidden by the TOS.
May 19, 2011
0
#135
dpruess wrote:
ok, so i looked up a basic statistic for those who are worried about the effect this would have. i looked at online chess, how many players are rated over 2400. it looks like about 600. of that 600, over 50% are premium members. so we are talking of something that will potentially change the ratings of less than 300 people. of those 300, i suspect more than half are cheating. we don't feel sorry for them. so that leaves maybe 100 strong chess players without otb titles who will have to choose between paying a very modest membership fee of 29$/yr or having their rating reduced on a site where they play for free. this is a tiny tiny negative impact.
this would also be a good place for anyone who thinks this is about money to do a little calculation about how much chess.com could potentially earn off this new policy, and ask yourself if there's any chance that will pay for the time we are putting into it. obviously our goal is to improve the moral quality and integrity of the community.
polar_bear makes an interesting claim that cheaters will be just as happy to have ratings of 2300ish, and will carry on cheating. i know he spends a lot of time on cheating issues, so maybe he understands what cheaters are after better than i do. but i think there's a good chance this will dissuade them. at least seems worth finding out, doesn't it?
if we can reduce the number of people cheating, then we can in turn check the remaining players more effectively. getting rid of cheaters (if this policy is successful) will also encourage titled players to play on the site, which will ultimately have a lot of benefits for our community.
The main questions are:
1) Are you finally going to ban cheaters, either premium or non-premium, at all rating levels?
(my comment: after the Dembo's scandal you seemed to slow it down and prefer Live Chess)
2) How will you protect chess enthusiasts against (renewed) cheaters?
(my comment: because either tournament directors still don't care enough and they have no powers to kick unfair players out once tournament starts, invert results and assign trophies by themselves anyway, which should be indeed common)
IMHO, don't expect much. Cheaters will cheat and when they reach the cap, they will decide either to play less, select only prestigious events, move to other sites/disciplines (e.g. Online CC <-> Live) or cough up a few bucks. Maybe, just maybe, they will run their own tournaments or matches for premium membership at the stake.
What about the following: First two weeks and first twenty games in both, Live and CC, new players wouldn't have access to rated games, team matches and vote chess, unless they prove title or buy premium? IMHO this wouldn't discourage enthusiasts and would discourage a lot of eager cheaters. These first 20 games would be auto-analyzed then by a bot and suspected players would be either banned straight or monitored further.
ACEChess wrote:
But because we offer such a great service that the other sites don't (namely that free non-paying members can play UNLIMITED games) there has to be SOME KIND of limitation.
I agree, but I think a rating cap simply looks ugly and will not discourage cheaters. It will just move the cheating pool somewhat down the rating list. But not too much, as some cheaters will buy membership. My solution:
1. require all new accounts to be validated using a downloaded program, which tracks the machine ID of the computer. Until this validation occurs, no new accounts can play rated games.
2. use volunteers to perform statistical analysis of suspect games. The analysis can be performed automatically without revealing sensitive information like the name of the suspect.
I agree that item 1 is more restricitive than the proposal discussed here. But it looks better.
Item 2 I think is a must. Chess.com simply cannot dedicate so much of its resources to perform game analysis.
Polar_Bear wrote:
What about the following: First two weeks and first twenty games in both, Live and CC, new players wouldn't have access to rated games, team matches and vote chess, unless they prove title or buy premium? IMHO this wouldn't discourage enthusiasts and would discourage a lot of eager cheaters. These first 20 games would be auto-analyzed then by a bot and suspected players would be either banned straight or monitored further.
Common, 20 games in CC is a lot. For me it would be 4 months. It's totally unfair and not realistic. Not to say that cheaters might play badly in these first 20 games.
Speaking about the rating caps and so on, I have a question. I asked it before, but nobody seemed to care. Why MULTIPLE premoves are allowed in bullet? This changes the game completely from what one can find on other servers. It often increases the duration of a game with about 20 moves. It also gives a chance to some weak, but extremely fast players, to get a high rating.
May 19, 2011
0
#139
To solve the problem of cheats returning perhaps the Glicko system should be replaced, the idea of hopping up by starting with a 1800, taking the base rating to 1800, then picking a 2200, etc etc until you are a 3 week GM might also be one attraction :/
I say no.
The solution to such a problem is very simple: IP bans.
There is no reason to do something like this. I will give you two examples:
1. Imagine this player is fairly paranoid online and does not trust anyone with anything. Why force such a player to give away their personal details?
2. Imagine this player has NO official chess rating and ONLY plays chess online. I understand that this type is extremely rare, but it DOES happen.
Let's take me for example: I'm not a premium member and I have NO official OTB rating, but my bullet rating has passed the 2200 mark. Does that mean that once I hit 2400, I have to quit this site and join another site, such as chesscube or FICS?