FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Everytime a cheater is cought on chess.com, he looses all of his current games on time, benefitting all of his opponents. These "dirty points" directly affect all of Us -chess.com users- by diminishing the value of "normal points".
Don´t everybody think when a cheater is cought, he should be completely erased form the site, incluiding his current and past games, and their effect on chess.com points and ranking?
that's like trying to extract a few of the cards out of the middle of this:
Plus the fact that a lot of members are removed for having multiple accounts rather than using an engine. So just because a person was removed for "cheating" doesn't mean that the game you played with them was invalid. I don't believe that any points gained or lost by timeouts are "dirty points" or "diminish the value of normal points." Essentially, it will all balance out in the end.
And anyways, it'd be impossible to erase the effect of cheaters. They cause ripple effects. Every who plays them has their points affected, and everybody who plays those people has their points affected in a different way that would happen w/o the cheater, and so on...
It does create some rating inflation though(which is a problem here). Maybe winning positions should be wins but losses vs the cheat could be just null and void. I know one person who challenges people who have zillions of games in progress. Often, these people simple stop making moves, allowing one to win many many games on time. He won 35 games vs the same person, on time, gaining some 200 points, I believe. I don't think those points ever leave the system.
I don't see how that's relevant to cheatin ... if a person accepts a challenge it's up to that person to respect the challenge and play the games, regardless of the zillion games he or shee may be playing.
Rating inflation is a topic that deserves discussion : a very simple way to fight it in the long run, is to remove a couple of points to everybody (maybe 2-3, I don't know) every month or so.
Should do the trick, so that we don't end with top players at 3300 elo or something like that...
(+ it gives a bonus to active players over inactive ones)
Did you have that picture prepared, just waiting for someone to post this suggestion?
Seriously, where did THAT come from?