There is that, but there is the argument for the opposite case as well. Cheaters are usually low effort people. It takes more time to win 60|0 games. Now put yourself in shoes of someone who is basically not playing the game, but just sits there and decides which computer move he will choose, perhaps only adding some of his moves to try to fool the system. He could be waiting for some time until that win is achieved. That must be very boring.
That's a good point; I hadn't considered that.
Though I believe there's a good possibility that a player might play most of the moves in a long game ... but then find himself stumped on one particular move, and might then take a moment to "blunder check" with an engine, just to be sure that his idea works ... "I'm not copying the engine," he might say, "I just wanted to glance at it to make sure I'm not losing ..."
Which is still 100% cheating, either way (whether its many moves or even just one) ... but I could also see it happening quite easily, unfortunately.
Maybe joining one of the online chess clubs and playing against fellow members there would be a smart idea. I'm sure there are a lot of players who are looking for others to play longer games with.
Of course it is cheating. What you said can happen, but that can happen in any time control. It is not limited to long games. Even in blitz a cheater might do it (there it might even be more devastating, as if you spend a minute on something and cheater spends a few seconds, a third of your time is gone, and that is an even bigger advantage in such a short game).
That being said, I feel they catch those smarter cheater as well, perhaps somewhat later. It is not easy for them to know what seems natural what doesn't, unless it is a very strong player who is cheating.
Imagine some 800 (realistical rating) rated person trying to pick a moment to cheat. That would be someone playing badly then suddenly find something insane, and he wouldn't understand how crazy that was. It would be as if a toddler is trying to prove to you that he invented a telephone or something.
And the longer they do this, I feel that adds up and they get banned. Plus ego betrays everyone, even strong GMs. Just take that bathroom scandal that happened recently. The guy is top 100 player and cheated in a laughable way. Or Petrosian online a few years ago. If they catch 2 600 OTB GMs who actually knows a lot about chess, only a small minority goes through cracks.
Some will, it is inevitable, but if we are too afraid of cheaters, we can kiss online chess goodbye. Maybe I am naïve but I don't think we are there yet.
Apparently, the site only investigates people who have been reported by other players (there isn't a system analyzing every game at all times), so if the other player is not aware of what cheating looks like (like me, a 700 player), they would never get banned. I don't think it is worth worrying about - if the other person wants to waste their time playing against me using stockfish bot, that's their life wasted not mine
It would be really difficult for them to analyze every game on their servers. There are just too many people for such a thing, so it is understandable.
Exactly, long story short, you shouldn't worry too much, it will happen, but not in a significant enough way to stop your improvement if that is what you seek.
As for you not reporting, it is still fine, someone eventually will. Some people report even when everything is fine, and it is enough for one person to report a person, for them to investigate that profile.
There is that, but there is the argument for the opposite case as well. Cheaters are usually low effort people. It takes more time to win 60|0 games. Now put yourself in shoes of someone who is basically not playing the game, but just sits there and decides which computer move he will choose, perhaps only adding some of his moves to try to fool the system. He could be waiting for some time until that win is achieved. That must be very boring.
That's a good point; I hadn't considered that.
Though I believe there's a good possibility that a player might play most of the moves in a long game ... but then find himself stumped on one particular move, and might then take a moment to "blunder check" with an engine, just to be sure that his idea works ... "I'm not copying the engine," he might say, "I just wanted to glance at it to make sure I'm not losing ..."
Which is still 100% cheating, either way (whether its many moves or even just one) ... but I could also see it happening quite easily, unfortunately.
Maybe joining one of the online chess clubs and playing against fellow members there would be a smart idea. I'm sure there are a lot of players who are looking for others to play longer games with.
Of course it is cheating. What you said can happen, but that can happen in any time control. It is not limited to long games. Even in blitz a cheater might do it (there it might even be more devastating, as if you spend a minute on something and cheater spends a few seconds, a third of your time is gone, and that is an even bigger advantage in such a short game).
That being said, I feel they catch those smarter cheaters as well, somewhat later on average. It is not easy for them to know what seems natural what doesn't, unless it is a very strong player who is cheating.
Imagine some 800 (realistical rating) rated person trying to pick a moment to cheat. That would be someone playing badly then suddenly find something insane, and he wouldn't understand how crazy that was. It would be as if a toddler is trying to prove to you that he invented a telephone or something.
And the longer they do this, I feel that adds up and they get banned. Plus ego betrays everyone, even strong GMs. Just take that bathroom scandal that happened recently. The guy is top 100 player and cheated in a laughable way. Or Petrosian online a few years ago. If they catch 2 600 OTB GMs who actually knows a lot about chess, only a small minority goes through cracks.
Some will, it is inevitable, but if we are too afraid of cheaters, we can kiss online chess goodbye. Maybe I am naïve but I don't think we are there yet.