Yes, I know.
I just wonder if maybe the Admins should change the policy and maybe only award...say, half the full points for those games...or adjudicate them in some form or fashion.
It used to be that it was understood to be realistic to say that a 2200 rated player was a master and a 2000 rated player an expert in over the board play. However, those days are long gone.
With all the ratings systems out there now, with wildly different starting points, those numbers no longer mean much. Since ratings can't be compared between systems (USCF and FIDE or chess.com and its competitors), it really doesn't matter if there is inflation within a population of chess players. What matters is how you stand in relation to the rest of the rated population. If 2300 still puts you in the top 0.1%, that is all that really matters. If there is inflation and 2300 only puts you in top 10%, that would reflect a new ratings distribution and the conclusion would be justified that your skills aren't as sharp.
Fortunately, it looks like 2300 still puts you in the upper reaches of the ratings for daily chess. According to your stats, you are #105 out of 654,546. That is pretty high up in the pecking order.
I think rating inflation could be a real problem if 5/7 of all daily players get disqualified for cheating. On the other hand, most of us would be happy to know that most cheaters are being quickly caught and eliminated.
It would be very interesting to know what percentage of each rating class are disqualified.
I think the admins policy to award full rating points against a cheater is not adequate because the rating of the opponent is not based on playing fair. In consequence the awarded points to the declared "winner" are not based on a fair rating and are in tendency to high. Although I assume the upheaval of the rating points for the declared "winner" will normalise to a lower and realistic level after a certain amounts of games against stronger opponents which will occur in the match making, I agree that there is a temporarily existing distortion in the actual rating level of declared "winners".
I cannot see a reason why the declared "winner" should receive any points. This handling may be due to the fact that on the other hand chess.com has decided not to unwind all played matches of cheaters. The unwinding of all played matches would be much more disturbing for all players with a cascading effect back in time (think of participating in matches for a certain ranking e.g. <1800).
It's easier to give the declared "winner" the full points and kick the cheater.
It's a difficult situation to deal with. I am currently playing someone in a tournament with a daily record of W165 D2 L0 + 100% wins in 25 odd 960 games. The guy also sent me an unrated custom position challenge which I lost with no suspicions but then I got a message from a random guy who said he saw I had lost to him and wanted to let me know he had analysed his games and found 90+% match with Stockfish top 2 choices and he had reported his suspicions. This is when I looked at his profile and saw his record. I am playing slowly and perhaps he will be banned before the game finishes. Perhaps by that time this guy will have bumped 'his' rating up somewhere round 2300 (It was 1900ish when our game started) and I will receive many unearned points or he will not be banned in time and I will lose points for nothing.
There are many good points laid out here on both sides. But I have to believe you are entitled to the points from those that are in "Violation." The problem is that there are so many players that have learned to "game" the system in one way or another that it makes the whole of chess.com pretty much worthless in the sense of ratings.
Things like the pre-move settings are absurd. If a game against a machine was wanted, wouldn't we just play fritz or chessmaster or some other damn dumb rule violating piece of equipment? Years ago, someone had written, wisely, an article for chess life (I believe) in which they stated that "all games against computers are illegally played because the machine by it's very nature violates the rules. As all computer programs create a "chessboard" to the side of the game and check out each possible move series against the game board before choosing a move." It is illegal for play to have a side board. So until a machine becomes "organic" they can never play a legal game.
So, if someone is using a book, or a computer, or able to jack with the clock in some way: all of which we have all seen, there is no way to have valid ratings against cheats of any kind.
So, I say, "Take the points. Screw 'em."
My daily turn games rating just went over 2300. My OTB has been as high as 2170, 20 yrs ago my ICCF was 2399, so one could argue that is about right - with turn based games, there is really no time pressure, you get to consult opening books which might mean a lot of the game you play has been played by others better than you perhaps years ago, you get to use the 'analysis' feature where you can move pieces around for both sides as long as you want (and save them) before deciding on a move- a feature I love...these must surely count for 2-300 rating points or more for a competent OTB players, right?
BUT of my last SEVEN finished games, FIVE...I received full rating point wins due to opponents accounts being closed due to violation of the Fair Play rules. That is about an extra 100 rating points, all due to the violation. And there were several more before that whose accounts have been closed for the same reason.
Does this seem...fair? I mean, you can think about this in all sorts of different ways. One being that if they had not been caught until an hour after possibly beating me...not only would I have not got all these points, I would have lost some (not all, I wasn't necessarily losing all the games...some had not even got too far along). Now, these points are just numbers...monopoly money compared to OTB ratings, but I seriously don't know if I am playing anyone really good or not due to the obvious inflation I see in my own games.
Thoughts? I mean, maybe there is no problem here...the site has to do something when a game is stopped. But it all just seems a little weird. It is not something that could ever happen in the OTB world.