cheating on chess.com

maybe its because a 2500 rating at internet chess gets the chicks! lol....or maybe not :-)

---

 wait...you mean it doesn't?

i think the reason that tempers were flaring ,is because people in here were trying to justify cheating, defend it, and try to convince us that its ok mate.

Post of the month, Petershaby. Hammer + nail (the head of), hits = you.

I think in the end it is pretty simple. Regardless of what takes place anywhere else, or what is accepted in those places, here there are rules that users agree to when they sign up. If you break the rules and get caught doing so, then chess.com has every right to give you the boot.

grow up... it's internet chess

Correspondence chess has always allowed 'research', but let's be clear here - this does NOT include the use of chess engines/programs like Fritz, Rybka, and the like.  The kind of research that is acceptable in correspondence games includes reading chess books, theory, watching instructive videos, and so on.  Some players may also use an analysis board to aid visualization, and again this is fine as far as I understand it.  And, of course, though it is called an 'analysis board' it is just for playing through variations on your own - it does not include external help from other players or computer analysis.

Chess engines are strictly for post-mortem analysis only.  I agree that anyone found using them should be flagged as a cheat.

There's no way around cheating. All high profile players should have to prove themselves on a regular basis to help remove the stigma of cheating.

which engine were you using in 1981? and also , you have a turnbased rating of 1500, are you still using the 1981 program now???

It depends on the organization, but the official international organization for correspondence chess, ICCF, does not forbid their use. Others such as the USCF do.

---

I don't think that's at all the appropriate place for the burden of proof.  How about we give people the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically assuming that they're high rating means they're cheating unless they can demonstrate that they're not.  I'd hate to see good players discouraged from using this site because of a policy like this.

---

lol.... chess geeks =P you're being really nosy trigs if he cheats he is cheating himself you don't have to pms about it

lol!

 If its not your brain operating the pieces,why play. Chess is so personal to me, so internalized, my game is who I am, win or lose. I love this game so much that cheating is out of the question. I still prefer play one on one pushing wood. It is hard to cheat face to face.

---

No I'm pretty sure it was magic.

Achmatova so you've been playing chess with with the aid of a program since 1989 or around there?

lol... awful argument... but I like the conclusion :)

---

Just for your information 'Buddy' , i have been playing OTB chess for over 20 years in Tournemants , for my county, and for my club...i have an official OTB rating, that is 500 points higher than your online rating (i will provide a link to this if asked) , , i also own chess software that i use to analyse my OTB games after each one, and i am fully aware of how to use a program, i have owned several over the years.....if you want to dislike me because i choos to do most of my own thinking for myself , then go ahead, but if giving away a handicap (ie no assistance) to most of my opponents i can still acheive a much higher rating than you can using a program, i dont think you are really justified in calling me a weak player....i woulod love to play you OTB, i would smash you to pieces....

---

 i am not quite sure what i am being "nosy" about. could you please explain. am i being "nosy" about his cheating? that doesn't quite make sense to me.

I know a thing or two about correspondence chess. I should do, I have been playing correspondence chess for thirty years. There has always been debate about what should and should not be allowed whether it be book, databases or engines. The deciding factor has always been how to prove the use of a particular resource if it were banned.

Books have been allowed on that basis for longer than I have been playing the game. Databases have been allowed since they were first invented (the first databases were card files) and it was realised that it was not possible to prove their use in a game. Engines are still a matter of debate. Some are convinced that they can prove engine use in all cases, others are not so sure. Determining engine use depends on how the engine is used. If the player has become nothing more than a postman for his engine then engine use is relatively easy to prove. An experienced correspondence player using an engine or engines interactively in the same way that Ivar Bern (look him up) does is unlikely to be proved to be using an engine by any of the current means of proof.

On the basis that it is almost impossible to prove engine use in certain cases ICCF and certain other correspondence chess organisations take the view that banning their use is impractical. However, they do not explicitly allow the use of engines, they just do not mention them in their rules.

Anyone who wants to know how engines should be used in correspondence chess should read Modern Chess analysis by Robin Smith. A good correspondence chess player using an engine in that manner can defeat any number of engines that have no help from their human owners. This may be another reason why some places do not ban engine use, it is known that a good correspondence player using all the resources at his disposal can defeat silicon on a regular basis.

I have played correspondence chess with and without engines. Until about 1995 one might as well have consulted the neighbours cat rather than an engine but since then they have gained in strength and utility. Use of engines has not spoiled my enjoyment of the game nor decreased the effort I have to put in whether on engine ban sites such as this or engine use sites such as IECG. All that changes are the resources I use on each site.