Frustration with Turn-Based Games

I've been trying to play turn-based games to better my slow play, and to take a decent amount of time to think about each position, but I think a lot of people might be cheating in turn-based play.  I don't think all of the games I am losing are games in which people cheated, but I have played two people, in particular, who seem to consistently make devastating moves against me, and play very accurately.  I examined one game afterward with my coach, a GM, and he said, "well, that was a waste of time.  Ahhhhhh, I usually don't claim people are cheating, but given his USCF rating, this person played super strong."  One of these players, plays very different quality games against me than against other opponents.  This person has a blitz rating under 1400 on chess.com, a TT rating hundreds of point lower than mine, a USCF rating hundreds of points lower than mine, yet this person is working me (in particular) over like I am a complete bum.

This has me sitting here and thinking, wow, is there even a reason to play turn-based games on chess.com?  I mean, the only people chess.com will say are cheating are people who consistently use computers (every move in a game or multiple games), so what is the point?  I can beat Fritz set on 2000 and 2100, but I can't beat a USCF player rated under 1300 on chess.com's turn-based play.  If I weren't so dedicated to imporving my game (and not wasting time!!!), I would retaliate.  It's no wonder the ratings on here are so screwed up.

Is this basically the same experience that others are having?

Are you sure they are cheating? Maybe they are just following the opening database to the letter and thereby playing like a GM until move 9 or so. Using databases, books of opening theory, etc., are not cheating in turn based play.

And a good scholar would also be reading up on middle game and end game theory for each situation he faces. I recently spent an hour or so reading a chapter on the bishop sacrifice before making one move. I convinced myself it was a "shoe in", and it did pan out as the book said it would. So that guy was not just playing me, he was playing me & John Nunn & Graham Burgess .

If you feel someone is cheating, report them.

Are there cheaters at that level? Sure. However, I think you'll find that most don't. I have a few people I've played that ended up having their accounts closed for cheating, though I really don't know if they cheated in games against me or not.

Don't allow yourself to fall in to this trap of thinking that just because someone appears to be playing outside of their rating that they are cheating. There are many much more likely reasons why this could be other than cheating.

Really, that type of thinking is a disease. Once it starts, you are going to start seeing cheaters around every corner.

I've played about 3 times as many games as you and I've never encountered a cheater.

Unfotunately, there are cheaters on chess.com, and as you rightly say, if they only use their engines selectively, they'll probably won't get banned before a very long time.

I don't know who you were playing against, so I can't say if your feeling is right, but I understand how painful it is to even think this can happen. However, some people actually play much better in correspondence than OTB, for various reasons (nerves, stamina, opening references, time to think, moving the pieces on the analysis board, etc.)

However, I'm not sure correspondence chess is the best training for OTB long games, as your chain of thoughts is broken, and you don't have to focus for a couple hours long on the game at hand. Maybe you could try playing in an organized league such as this one, or if you want to stick with correspondence, I believe lichess has a better anti-cheating detection system than chess.com.

"cheaters"

I have a simple solution.  I normally play only turn-based with opponents who are 200-300 rating points above me, and don't worry about cheating.  Losing a game only costs me 3-5 rating points.  No big deal.

Higher rated players teach me how to play superior chess.

I am switching to live chess in a bit.  I simply wanted to get away from blitz and make patient moves.  i definitely hear what you are saying about the benefits of correspondence that can help players play better.  That actually doesn't surprise me at all.  What surprises me is the degree to which the play has improved.

This is maybe a good suggestion.  I have sent out a few challenges to higher rated players, but I didn't get a response.

It is certain the chance of cheaters is low enough that you might consider not worrying about them.

Even in a game where your opponent cheated, you can learn something.

You gain far more than they do. 

let me relate a true story...

There is a guy in Sacramento that is rated roughly 2000+ USCF.  At one time he was here on chess.com, with a rating of over 2700.  His account was closed due to cheating accusations.  I can guarantee you that he was not cheating.  He would only play turn based games at 14 days per move, due to family/work, etc.  You give any really decent player 14 days to analyze a position and they will find really good moves. 

My point is, dont always assume its cheating. 

That's assuming the person is using 14 days.  The on opponent, who is USCF rated under 1400, is making these moves almost instantly after I make the move.  We basically were playing blitz in our turn-based game.  I believe that if I devoted myself, or anyone, to analysis for quite a long time, the quality of moves would increase drastically.  Being worked over by someone who is, in every respect and by every other metric available, significantly weaker than I, is simply absurd. 

Just a note, accounts are not closed due to accusations.

I understand that, all i can say is that he wasnt cheating.

I think that's the positive-thinking approach I am going to have to take.  I am trying to give myself arbitrarily long times to think, so as to improve the quality of my analysis and position assessment.  I'd just like the rating to use as a way to show that I am improving.  I am just finished 2 games against people I know are 2000+ FIDE rated, and playing a third (CM), and I thought it very bizarre that they are rated 1800-1900.  I guess I just have to assume the ratings are meaningless. 

I get throttled by a guy on here that is rated 100.  He is still here playing and so am i.  let it go and move on :-)

I believe if you improve, your ratings will show it. Even here at Chess.com.

I really don't believe one will encounter enough cheaters that it would greatly affect your rating.

Another idea is to challenge people who are friends or whose stats indicate they may be a fair player.

Ratings are relative

People play correspondence differently and that can impact ratings pretty significantly. I played an FM with a rating here in the 1700's and based on the games, it wasn't that far off being right, for the way he plays correspondence here (which is probably nothing like he would play an OTB serious game).

I realize that, but it's simply difficult to believe that a CM, who plays moves at a glance, would be "relatively as good" as  1200 USCF player.  I mean, the difference in tactical knowledge would make for an overwhelming difference, in itself.  I've played against an IM in a large simul with that kind of difference, and I had good long thinks, yet could not win --nobody did, not even the Experts.  That knowledge disparity is so much, I just find it all to unbelievable that I can draw against someone on here with an ECF rating equivalent to about 2084, yet get obliterated against someone with a USCF rating of well below 1400.  It's simply unbelievable.  It really is.

When I do my graphical analysis, I'm sure it will indicate that I was the only party making inaccuracies and mistakes.  In my game with abovementioned ECF player, both sides made plenty of inaccurate moves, which is to be expected at ratings below 2300.

there is a reason some people don't do turn based, apart from the geriatric time controls of course.

Not saying you are wrong. Just report if you still think it.