Forums

Accused of cheating

Sort:
brandonvmoore
brandonvmoore
Show your flair!
Dec 13, 2022
0
#41
GlutesChess wrote:

It was removed because naming people who you suspect are cheating, but are not banned, is against forum rules.

As is, technically, talking about cheating outside of the Club.

I wonder is there a convenient way to copy the game and paste it here so that people can see the moves but it has not link to the actual game so the names aren't revealed? I'm not going to bother to do it here even if there is because it's not that big of a deal, but I just had the thought and wondered so figured I would ask.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 13, 2022
0
#42
brandonvmoore wrote:
GlutesChess wrote:

It was removed because naming people who you suspect are cheating, but are not banned, is against forum rules.

As is, technically, talking about cheating outside of the Club.

I wonder is there a convenient way to copy the game and paste it here so that people can see the moves but it has not link to the actual game so the names aren't revealed? I'm not going to bother to do it here even if there is because it's not that big of a deal, but I just had the thought and wondered so figured I would ask.

Just download it as a PGN file and edit it. Easy.

edit: if you have Windows, use Wordpad, not Word... or Jarte (free) if you have it

eric0022
eric0022
Dec 13, 2022
0
#43
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).

brandonvmoore
brandonvmoore
Show your flair!
Dec 14, 2022
0
#44
GraveMurky wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).


I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted.  There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com.  You are simply doing a check on an account.     Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story.  That should not be allowed.    But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them.   turn off chat if you don't like it on.  simple solutions.


You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.

"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."

"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"

And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).

Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Azulclaro26
Azulclaro26
Closed: Inactive
Dec 14, 2022
0
#45
brandonvmoore escreveu:
GraveMurky wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).


I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted.  There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com.  You are simply doing a check on an account.     Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story.  That should not be allowed.    But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them.   turn off chat if you don't like it on.  simple solutions.


You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.

"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."

"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"

And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).

Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?

Absolutely ridiculous.



This site doesn't really care about cheating, they are more concerned about protecting cheaters, so don't worry.

 

GlutesChess
GlutesChess
Show your flair!
Dec 14, 2022
0
#46
brandonvmoore wrote:
GlutesChess wrote:

It was removed because naming people who you suspect are cheating, but are not banned, is against forum rules.

As is, technically, talking about cheating outside of the Club.

 

Strange... I get not posting a name and game of someone else who is accused of cheating. But when you're talking about yourself? Seems like that ought to be permissible, but very well.

My bad, I forgot which post I was reading and that YOU were accused of cheating and it is your own game. You're right, that seems weird that wouldn't be allowed.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 14, 2022
0
#47

You're full of opinions, Murky, mostly negative ones about chess.com, chess players in general, gaming and even about people who post in this forum, but you never do much at all to prove them reasonable. And when you meet objections, your normal response is an insult.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 14, 2022
0
#48

I have refuted your points many times, often with clear evidence. There are several examples of that on display in the "is chess.com membership worth it" thread. You aren't interested.

brandonvmoore
brandonvmoore
Show your flair!
Dec 14, 2022
0
#49
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).


I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted.  There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com.  You are simply doing a check on an account.     Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story.  That should not be allowed.    But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them.   turn off chat if you don't like it on.  simple solutions.


You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.

"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."

"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"

And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).

Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you not really understand the difference and why?    The only people who should be worried about getting banned wrongfully for cheating  are people who play at a professional super GM level,  or CHEATERS!  Period.    

Reporting someone to chess.com cause you think they are cheating is you asking a question.    Publicly shaming someone is you making a possible false statement of fact and possibly wrongfully ruining someone elses reputation,  or simply because you just want to be spiteful after losing a game.    Very very different actions.  And one is shameful and why the OP is not allowed to post the persons name.

In fact when someone does that like Magnus did to Hans Neiman,   it usually makes them look like the cheater which is the only way they can know the other person is 100% without a doubt cheating.   Its the mentality of everyone cheats so I might as well too that is so prevalent amongst gamers.

 

I understand what you're trying to say... it's just wrong because you're biased, and because of that you don't even understand why it's wrong.

brandonvmoore
brandonvmoore
Show your flair!
Dec 15, 2022
0
#50
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).


I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted.  There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com.  You are simply doing a check on an account.     Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story.  That should not be allowed.    But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them.   turn off chat if you don't like it on.  simple solutions.


You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.

"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."

"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"

And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).

Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you not really understand the difference and why?    The only people who should be worried about getting banned wrongfully for cheating  are people who play at a professional super GM level,  or CHEATERS!  Period.    

Reporting someone to chess.com cause you think they are cheating is you asking a question.    Publicly shaming someone is you making a possible false statement of fact and possibly wrongfully ruining someone elses reputation,  or simply because you just want to be spiteful after losing a game.    Very very different actions.  And one is shameful and why the OP is not allowed to post the persons name.

In fact when someone does that like Magnus did to Hans Neiman,   it usually makes them look like the cheater which is the only way they can know the other person is 100% without a doubt cheating.   Its the mentality of everyone cheats so I might as well too that is so prevalent amongst gamers.

 

I understand what you're trying to say... it's just wrong because you're biased, and because of that you don't even understand why it's wrong.

 

So like SFLovett you can't explain how or why?    ...

 

Would you listen if I did? I mean, you'll say yes and then I'll explain and then you'll come back with some response that shows me you still don't get it and you'll still think I don't get it and in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You really wanna go through all that or you want to just agree to disagree now?

brandonvmoore
brandonvmoore
Show your flair!
Dec 15, 2022
0
#51
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
brandonvmoore wrote: (Post #1)

1) Why would anyone think someone with a rating consistently under 1400 cheats? Why not look at your opponents history?

2) While I consider the 1300 range to still be "beginner", it's still high enough that most people at this level have embarked on some bit of studying and can easily beat most of their family and friends who aren't professional chess players. So how did *he* get to this level without realizing how ridiculous his assessment was?

3) Why would you accuse someone like this AND report them without even looking at their history? Up until he made a really terrible move with his queen, every one of my moves was a book move I have played in multiple games before. After he moved his queen to that terrible position, the choice for me was suuuuuuper obvious. Then it was the very next move he accuses me.

Not really expecting any fruitful conversation from this... it just makes me feel better to write it all down, lol.

 

You could have been banned for the 12 days since your first post, but the ban never came. So, it's pretty much obvious that you did not cheat in any way, and it's your opponent who is just unaccepting of a loss.

 

That said, for every user who accuses me of cheating, I take a snapshot of the chat (just in case) and send in a report to Chess.com. It's more likely that their account, rather than my account, will be banned (or at least muted).


I don't agree that the accuser should be banned or muted.  There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of cheating to chess.com.  You are simply doing a check on an account.     Publicly shaming them without proof or and admittance from them Like Magnus Carlsen did to Hans Neiman is another story.  That should not be allowed.    But even if they were verbally harassing you just block them.   turn off chat if you don't like it on.  simple solutions.


You could probably win an award for the greatest double speak in the shortest paragraph.

"Oh, it's totally okay to accuse people just to keep them in check."

"Wait, it's not cool to publicly shame someone who obviously cheated you in a major tournament if you don't have a smoking gun even if they have had a history of cheating that can be verified by the biggest online company in the business who just happens to have state of the art technology to identify cheating AND, you know, an actual admission of cheating!"

And no, just turning off my chat is *not* a "simple" solution. You're suggesting that if I don't like being accused of cheating, then I shouldn't enjoy chatting with others (which I do enjoy).

Metaphorically speaking, you seem like an advocate for the devil. That is, when the devil puts his foot on someone's neck and they protest, the devil will actually find a way to twist the situation into one where the person who's on the ground is really the one at fault. You know, if they would just shut up then he wouldn't have to press his foot down so hard, after all. Or if I would just turn off my chat, then there wouldn't be any problem, right?

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Do you not really understand the difference and why?    The only people who should be worried about getting banned wrongfully for cheating  are people who play at a professional super GM level,  or CHEATERS!  Period.    

Reporting someone to chess.com cause you think they are cheating is you asking a question.    Publicly shaming someone is you making a possible false statement of fact and possibly wrongfully ruining someone elses reputation,  or simply because you just want to be spiteful after losing a game.    Very very different actions.  And one is shameful and why the OP is not allowed to post the persons name.

In fact when someone does that like Magnus did to Hans Neiman,   it usually makes them look like the cheater which is the only way they can know the other person is 100% without a doubt cheating.   Its the mentality of everyone cheats so I might as well too that is so prevalent amongst gamers.

 

I understand what you're trying to say... it's just wrong because you're biased, and because of that you don't even understand why it's wrong.

 

So like SFLovett you can't explain how or why?    ...

 

Would you listen if I did? I mean, you'll say yes and then I'll explain and then you'll come back with some response that shows me you still don't get it and you'll still think I don't get it and in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You really wanna go through all that or you want to just agree to disagree now?

 

poor excuse.  Not even an excuse similar to why you have none for using multiple accounts in rated games or for picking your opponents ratings,   or for why you are so afraid and scared of being accused a cheater to chess.com....

 

What other account am I using? At this point you are just making up baseless accusations. Like I said, you are convinced in your own mind and all we can do is agree to disagree. Well, that's all I can do. You can, of course, continue to make baseless accusations against the innocent while defending the guilty if that's your pleasure.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#52
GraveMurky wrote:



I didn't accuse you of using one.  But the fact is you want to argue with me for saying it is wrong to do which means you support others who do.  Shame on you and Shame on chess.com for allowing it.

You just can't stop wagging that finger of yours. It's your MO. Pathetic. 

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#53
GraveMurky wrote:

 

So like SFLovett you can't explain how or why?    ...

There hasn't been anything I couldn't explain. You just don't listen. If you don't like the evidence, you ignore it. My only interest in you now is negative. Most people think you're a creep. Pay attention. No one needs your opinions.

VirtualBobbyFisher
VirtualBobbyFisher
Dec 15, 2022
0
#54
ShrekChess69420 wrote:

If you are accused of cheating, you will be banned. If you are banned, you have been accused of cheating. 

If a pawn reaches the end of the board, then it promotes. If a pawn promotes, it reaches the end of the board.

there should be a section reserved to cheaters, where cheating is allowed. The goal is beating the anti-cheat system as a proof of concept, in order to promote cheating detection and development of better tools. I'm sure cheaters are ahead.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#55

“The Chess.com fair play system is a very conservative and well-tested system. The threshold … to flag a player requires a level of certainty such that the chance of falsely accusing a player is less than one in one thousand. The system is based on sound statistical techniques and their large database of online games allows them to thoroughly test any changes to the algorithm. [Chess.com is] now on the sixth generation of the algorithm and they devote significant resources to both enhancing the system and reviewing the results. We are confident the system is able to eventually detect players using computer assistance and with very little likelihood of falsely accusing a player."

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#56

php8a9f7j.jpeg

GM Eric Hansen:

The agreement I signed for Chess.com prevents me from writing on the specifics, but I can say that I was more than impressed (and pleasantly surprised) with some of the things Chess.com's fair-play team showed me. They are as capable of keeping the game clean as anything I've ever seen."

phpxUoRef.jpeg

GM Hikaru Nakamura:

Having seen Chess.com's system in great detail, both the algorithms used and the 'team at work' (when I was on-site at the Chess.com Meetups), I can attest fully that Chess.com's approach is advanced and far ahead of what I know other websites use to catch cheaters.

phpyaKHX8.jpeg

GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave:

I was more than pleased with both the standards held, the investment applied, and the approach taken by Chess.com towards its cheat detection systems. The quality and integrity of fair play has never been measured more accurately than in the hands of Roland, Gerard and the entire crew!

phpPS091p.jpeg

GM Georg Meier:

Having some insight into how other servers deal with cheating, I must say that I am very impressed with how Chess.com goes about it. Their use of scientific tools is thought-out and strikes me as extremely reliable.

phpWGjQEy.jpeg

IM John Bartholomew:

The cheating-detection methods that Roland and Danny demonstrated to me during a two-hour presentation are the most thorough and sophisticated I have ever seen. The Chess.com team has gone above and beyond to ensure fair play on their site, and this is reflected in the time and seriousness they have dedicated to testing and refining these methods. I have full confidence in Chess.com's ability to accurately identify cheaters.

phpsTHqST.jpeg

GM Robert Hess:
Even before becoming involved with Chess.com's cheat detection system, I was impressed by the site's dedication to upholding fair play. I can personally attest to the diligence and prowess of Roland and his team; they have spent countless hours innovating and fine-tuning their algorithms to categorically prevent misconduct, and have successfully implemented an objective system that reduces human speculation.

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#57
GraveMurky wrote:

did you really just post people that "signed agreements with chess.com"  and who they pay money to to vouch for how good their anti cheat system is?   The same website that would make exceptions for them to smurf.  

bull... you just prefer your own idiotic paranoid opinions to the truth

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#58
GraveMurky wrote:

Fair Play stats for November:

35,883 Fair Play closures (including 4 titled players)
77,905 mute actions
66,734 accounts muted
67,994 abuse closures
 

that 70,000 close for abuse  and only  35,000 closed for fair play really goes to his point.   Why is abuse closure even a category?    Why not just mute people like lichess does?  What you are literally showing is you prefer the cheaters be allowed to compete on a gaming site to those who offend others with their words and opinions.  

bull

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#59
GraveMurky wrote:
I'm wondering they will actually get around to making people download client side servers.   Oh but wait,   they only care about the amount of inflated accounts for their investors and advertisers.  Actual "fair play"  is a low priority.

bull

SFLovett
SFLovett
Dec 15, 2022
0
#60
GraveMurky wrote:
They don't do nearly enough to try and ensure it.  In fact they do many things to encourage the opposite,  and I believe for the reasons I stated.  I can't see any other reason why.    

bull