chess.com doesn't do itself credit

Seems you're stuck in a live game guy (even though it's an hour later :p) good luck!

Nope, just got back here :) Sorry it took that long!

Go ahead and challenge me in Live! (I'll say something awkward to make my username pop up)

"strong engine"? Sounds like an amazingly bad engine to me. Why would anyone use an engine so abysmal as to score 4.5/31 against any type of player. Is it plausible that any type of player (human, engine, centaur, psychic) almost whitewash a top engine engine? If so, is the human input more significant than the engine. Or could it be explained by one engine using a lot more CPU time? If 50 points is roughly a doubling in speed, 500 points (guess at rating difference of those results) is about 1000 times as much CPU time. Sounds implausibly high.

An alternative theory (don't sneer) is that there is an (honest) human who is that much stronger than a dumb engine at turn-based chess (the type of chess which suits humans best compared to computers). Anyhow, that score is extraordinary, whatever the explanation. [Is there any possibility that it was achieved before Mortzy started cheating? I suppose he would have had to have already achieved a high rating though - surely they can't have been several hundred points different all the time?].

The games have already been checked for both players . Both had very high matchup rates yet the one banned has a less condemning matchup rate. Just isnt consistent... 

Isn't that clear evidence that the superiority of the winner was due to human choices, not computer ones? Whose choice of "critical" range was it? Clearly any player that has not been banned has not met chess.com's criteria. I would be very pleased if the results were due to good human choices in situations where engines get it wrong. They do happen! [Either that, or the comparison was with poorly chosen engines].

Top players can achieve very high agreement with strong engines even over the board, and it is certainly easier to play accurately (without cheating) in turn-based chess, due to the very different playing conditions. The role that the differences from engine choices have in the games is critical - what do you conclude if the differences turn out to be improvements?

That would be a religious belief?

(1) The game was a draw

(2) The game was a team of human players against a computer

(3) As the opponent was a computer, it obviously had the better perfect match-up with computer moves.

So, three crucial errors in your statement. Impressive level of precision. Some of us have higher standards.

Concerning that game, adequate knowledge of statistics would tell you that good agreement with computer moves in one game is not strong evidence of anything. Or perhaps those who make accusations are right, and those who run chess.com are fools? (That's a rhetorical question, in case you're not familiar with the concept)

Also, I resent the fact that you misrepresented my views by suggesting you were agreeing with me that the top players on chess.com are all centaurs. I did not state that or anything similar - I simply do not know how many of the top players are entirely honest, and I am careful not to jump to conclusions like more emotional people. I feel sorry for those who cheat, but I also feel sorry for those who are obsessed with the idea that all strong players cheat. It seems clear that the motivation of both is to prop up their weak egos.

   Well Jason, addressing your OP, not sure how it lead to cheating etc?  I appreciate your enthusiasm toward chess.com, just wondering why you have never purchased a premium membership package, since this is your #1 chess site?  You do not need to address that question, It just entered my mind. I was only here for three weeks and I was committed to join when I see a great thing!

    Anyways, to me  what makes this a great site has nothing to do with the number of high ranked chess player dwell here, but rather all the activities that are available here and the ease of operation, learning and so forth. You should see how affective the learning tools available here are, that would improve even a good chess playing record like yours.  Not to forget to mention all the world chess players to play against regardless of there rating, and I do not have to purchase an airline ticket$$$    Oh and do not forget the forum when nothing else is happening this is a good stop off for a laugh or two, or healthy debate.

spam

I lose respect for those who are sloppy with the facts, sloppy with logic, who insult other people without very solid reasons. Please do not mistake this for a lack of politeness. Being precise about facts and logic matters a lot in many areas including chess.

Of course chess.com would not claim everyone who hasn't been banned is necessarily honest. Neither would I. But where chess.com, other decent people and I agree is that a lack of knowledge about someone's honesty is not an adequate basis for an accusation. I know I am a far from perfect (but honest) player and infer from my reading and my (off Internet) experience that there are many honest players who are much better than I am. Somehow, from your position as a club-level chess player with apparently zero experience of turn-based chess (this seems to be a common attribute of mud-slingers), you take the position that either all better players are cheats, or perhaps that players who are only 800 points stronger than you may be honest, but 1100 points stronger must be cheats. Myself, I realise that I don't have enough information to know how many of the high-rated players are cheats, and am not very concerned about it since it has no impact on me (and rather limited impact on anyone). It's up to chess.com to deal with those who do cheat, and they give every impression of doing a good job, based on the regular  lists of banned cheats.

Incidentally, I am amazed this discussion has not be locked. I believe it has been breaching forum rules since post #18.

At first glance I assumed your 18xx rating was for turn-based chess and corrected my post when I realised. It is quite likely (but not certain) that you could get a good turn-based rating if you played the game. It is very different to blitz chess and requires some different skills, which need to be developed. [A good example of what happens if a good OTB and blitz player plays turn-based chess as if it was blitz is Kacparov]  It would be a mistake to directly compare turn-based ratings with FIDE or USCF ratings - there is no direct relationship (some are relatively much better at turn-based chess, some relatively much better at OTB chess), but on average people have higher turn-based ratings.

[EDIT - I see you have added a comment to your last post about having played turn-based chess. Do you use two accounts? The account I see has no turn-based chess]

ok, clearly fast chess suits you better. It's interesting how much difference there is in people's results - perhaps a bit like marathons and sprints.

Ah, the old "rating by estimation" method. Never fails to overshoot by a few hundred points :)

It's a relative thing. The average player has a larger difference between their turn-based rating and their blitz rating.

 I've never overestimated myself thus far (to my knowledge). In any case, I played against wafflle, so I guess you could ask him whether I was correct. :)

Or you could play a significant number of USCF rated games, and we can all find out for real :)