I think their definitions of cheating and abuse are warped and thats why this will always be seen as an infested site. Now of course online gaming in general is not respected for these reasons. But its stunning how chess.com feels like the worst in this regard in all of gaming history.
bull
Most normal people won't even lower themselves to post on these forums.
do you see many titled players posting here for example? very few and far in between. Its pretty much full of kids and real old crazy people. There is nothing in between lmao.
bull
You need to stop trying to piss on everyone, Murky. It's tiresome. Most people don't cheat. Period. Chess.com does what it can to discourage it. Period. Most of the people who play here are decent and just want to have fun. Period.
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.
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....
Listen to yourself. What a self-righteous little punk you are.
It's impossible to cheat at chess.
Hardly, but at Murky's level it doesn't really happen, else they're just as bad at cheating as they are at chess.
So in general, the lower rated player has the most inconsistent and least competitive matches not just because of their play, but because of the exceptions for that to take place by chess.com.
That's BS and you know it.
You're just full of wordy semi-literate nonsense and so much in the dark yourself that you assume no one else can see it for what it is.
Contrary to many players false beliefs otherwise. This is because when chess.com lets new accounts choose their starting rating, and players purposely choose a rating far below their level to smurf for sometimes over 200 games, the lower rated player matches are going to be the most lopsided because of them. And the sandbagging smurfers will be most prevalent in the lower rated players matches.
Complete nonsense, not worthy of discussion.
You aren't playing sandbaggers, you moron.
Your opponents are normal chess players, just like you.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
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.
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 said "Not even an excuse similar to why you have none for using multiple accounts in rated games or for picking your opponents ratings"
That sounds like you're accusing me of using multiple accounts and of picking my opponents ratings. Perhaps you did not word that the way you intended, but it is what you said. I welcome you to retract your statement if it was made in error.
You also just said this "But the fact is you want to argue with me for saying it is wrong to do which means you support others who do.", which is both untrue and a logical fallacy. I did not argue with you for saying it's wrong (feel free to find where I did and show it to me if you can; but I'll save you some time... you can't). And you use this false premise to make a logical fallacy in stating what my only intent could be based off your untruth.
I notice that SFLovett points out how many think you are a creep. When you constantly make things up and employ fallacies based on your own fabrications, people just really don't like that.
Haa!!!! I've been accused of cheating a couple times it's really hilarious!!!!! If you know how to play chess to the point of self analyze your game then you should know how to spot cheating!!!!! Unfortunately most of the accusers can't rub two braincells together so I just report them all. Peeves me off but the best revenge is living your life no drama and haters being mad at themselves
I'm sure for beginners and low rated players, it's a non issue since they will be spot easily, but I'm convinced the there are plenty smart cheaters among GM.
You just can't stop trashing people, those who disagree with you, your opponents, chess players and gamers as a whole, chess.com, etc. That only makes you look bad, not them.
And the idea that I'm arguing against fair play is just stupid. Quote even one thing I've said that shows that, and don't just say arguing against you proves it. My argument against you is about your exaggerated view of the cheating problem and your continuous self-righteous condemnation of others.
No my friend. What looks bad to everyone reading is when all you do is make personal attacks with no argument on the subject. No retort to points and none of your own. You must make the attempt to debate. Otherwise you just look like you are bitterly flailing and fraudulent. Its you conceding all my points before the world.
More ridiculous trash talk, just proving my point.
And the idea that I'm arguing against fair play is just stupid. Quote even one thing I've said that shows that, and don't just say arguing against you proves it. My argument is against you is about your exaggerated view of the cheating problem and your continuous self-righteous condemnation of others.
So that is your excuse for condoning the allowance of alt accounts in rated matches? That is the debate here. Are you now agreeing with me it should not be allowed? Or do you support it and want to continue arguing with me to that end while denying you are... You are only fooling yourself bud.
No one is advocating for alt accounts in tournaments. That has not been the issue here and I defy you to quote anything I've said on that subject. Again, my argument against you is about your exaggerated view of the cheating problem and your self-righteous condemnation of others, nothing else.
Do you want me to make a list. How bout we just start with allowing streamers to cheat for entertainment? You think they are setting a good example? Or are you one of those online nerds that doesn't even consider sandbagging/smurfing cheating... Do you call that "educational" and a good example for the kids who make dozens of alt accounts trying to be like them?
bull