CHEATING

I understand that it helps people feel better about it, but it's just feelings - it doesn't affect the accuracy of your rating, which is why I said it's a placebo. I'm sorry that you're so emotionally invested in your rating that you can't seem to understand that.

I'm not a moderator, I'm not paid by the site in any way. It's why I am perfectly comfortable pointing out stupid opinions like yours, unlike the mods who have to be polite and courteous and massage your poor wounded ego rather than recommending you get therapy for your anger issues.

David further diminishes the impact of chess.com's ability to properly administrate rating points which leads en aggregate to distortions in ratings on chess.com. There is a big trend here with David's bias and omission of important considerations. Again, it all falls back to "You suck, chess.com isn't the problem"

He never said you sucked he never even mentioned your skill level while trying to dissing it he's dissing your ego your misenterperating it

But yes your correct you suck

Now David has resorted to insulting and bullying because he has run out of intellectual tactics to skew information to fit his narrative. This is the point where you know you are talking with (A) Someone who does not have a strong comprehension of what they are talking about (B) A paid shill for chess.com who hides their affiliation (C) A chatbot employed by chess.com to counter cheating discussion. Possibly a combination.

That's what you did to the other poster c can be crossed out obviously he's not a bot just because he disagree with you doesn't mean anything to opinion isn't the only one that matters and b he's not paid at all and isn't a staff

A)he does have qualifications for what he's talking about he literally was inside chess.com at one point you have absolutely no qualifications for what your talking about you seem to not understand how cheating effects the pool at all

No you're wrong, he says effectively the distrortion this causes in rating points doesn't matter because it's low elo and my rating will even out within a few games. However, the massive amount of cheating creates immense distortions when rating points aren't returned, hence why 1000 rated players for example are in the top ~80% on chess.com in most time formats which doesn't fall into a bell distribution.

@Martin_Stahl posts plenty of evidence almost every time he locks a thread for discussing cheating - he posts the videos where Chess.com talks about cheating and links to the reports where Chess.com gives statistics about how many accounts were closed for Fair Play violations. CEO Erik Allebest has given multiple interviews this year to business consultants where he discusses the issue of cheating on the platforms - I've even compiled them into a thread here at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general-chess-discussion/erik-allebest-interview-on-scaling-to-100m-revenue-150m-members-and-700-people-99989457, although I haven't gone through and given timestamps when the discussions take place.

Nice to see you acknowledge that Chess.com gets the obvious cheaters - they do so quickly and automatically nowadays, which is one of the reasons why the Cheating forum has become more confident in Chess.com's overall cheat detection ability - they've seen it go from situations where they had to report people for the Fair Play team to review and action to those same sort of cases just being handled before they even get a chance to report them.

Low elo could mean under 800 or under 2000 he just sqid low elo that wasn't a insult

You'll note that the link in of Martin Stahl by David is the attempt to lock down a thread that David, the paid chess.com shill has lost control of. Everything else in that post is non sequitur. This is how the paid shills on chess.com sew propaganda and authoritarian control over the cheating epidemic on this site. It's really quite awful that chess.com chooses to use such oppressive tactics.

Faustino is a good example of that not being true how could he rise to 800-3200 with so many cheaters how come you aren't cheating is not a good reason at why they are stuck at their level (even if it's a problem )

Moderators are not paid

You'll note that the link in of Martin Stahl by David is the attempt to lock down a thread that David, the paid chess.com shill has lost control of. Everything else in that post is non sequitur. This is how the paid shills on chess.com sew propaganda and authoritarian control over the cheating epidemic on this site. It's really quite awful that chess.com chooses to use such oppressive tactics.

You won't win an argument by repeating yourself over and over again all this shows is you don't actually care about other people opinions you just want to prove yourself right

You shield yourself behind the technicality of "I didn't say Chess.com didn't close accounts for cheating, but was saying that I didn't get points back" to saying that I am "effectively" saying something you think I'm saying when I didn't.

The rating points don't matter not because of the Elo level but because of the nature of the rating system, which is to set your rating at the correct level for the games you play. If your rating is lower than it should be because you've lost to a cheater, when you win your next game, you gain more points because your rating is lower; even if you lose, you don't lose as many rating points - again because your rating is lower than what it would have been. So over time the effect of any one game is heavily diluted.

It wouldn't get diluted if theere were a lot of "incorrect" results, but that's where we disagree about the amount of cheating happening - you claim there's "massive" amounts, and I think that's simply not true.

I do not insult people for their chess rating, I insult people when they say and believe stupid things.

You thinking that this wouldn't have a deflationary effect on low elo player's ratings means either you do not understand mathematics or you really are a paid shill for chess.com. I'm certain of 1 or both of those options.

Actually it's true

If you lose to a cheater you gain more points the next game or your opponents get easier to play and it evens out anyway the mathmaucs has already been done on it you just don't understand it

That's been pretty obvious from the very first posts that he's made. I engage to demonstrate to the impartial onlookers whose arguments have more merit. Unfortunately, that tends to leave folks like Real-Rain feeling even more isolated and more paranoid that everyone is out to get them.

What is the point of arguing with an obnoxious troll like Real-Rain?

Just report (if you wanna) and move on. Let it be the moderators' problem. Which they will solve by closing this thread and doing nothing.

It's honestly kinda funny to sometimes (not trolling them) but it's nice to refresh your arguments against people to make them better in the future

Sometimes they need to be told off even if they don't listen