Good Friend on Chess.com Account Closed for Cheating

My good friend's Chess.com account has been closed for cheating.  He is in the top 100 on the United States Chess Federation Correspondence Chess list.  He happens to be an exceptionally strong correspondence player.  I've known him for years, and I know he is not the type to cheat.  He wouldn't have anything to gain by cheating here on Chess.com anyway.  He was only playing online chess here to pass the time while he was awaiting his USCF Correspondence Finals Group. 

The cheating detection software here on Chess.com obviously isn't always accurate.  I wouldn't think his live chess ratings here on Chess.com were taken into account, as I think it is quite common to have a much higher online than live chess rating here, but in case it did here are some numbers.  He didn't have many games, but his live chess ratings were much lower than his online chess rating of 2092.  I believe his online record was 36-0, and his average opponent rating was steadily rising.  It is similar to the disparity between his USCF over the board rating and his USCF correspondence rating,  which is approximately 500 points.  He is not nearly as strong when having to "rush" moves, but when given time he plays exceptional chess. 

Chess.com really blew it with this one.  My friend has been labeled as a cheater, which is completely unwarranted, and that is a shame.

chess.com takes cheating very seriously

They don't ban people frivolously. Your friend is welcome to email the staff to dispute the claim. Posting here is a waste of time and this thread will be locked.

As they should, but unfortunately their methods aren't foolproof.  They messed up with this one.

Long story short: your appeal will fail. You migut be right, or wrong. But you're not changing the minds of the people at chess.com.

I don't think he cares enough to dispute it at this point, but it really bothers me because when I was actively playing online chess here, and having success, I was always concerned I would get erroneously banned for cheating.  I was never labeled a cheater by Chess.com though so I guess my moves never quite reached that level of suspicion.

And it would not surprise me in the least if this thread is locked or deleted.  I just wanted to get my frustration off my chest while it is fresh on my mind.

Yes.  I am inclined to agree with you.

By cheetah. If they close account then there is 10 times more than enough proof.

Yes.  10 x 0 does equal 0.

I don't really understand it either.  Despite my friend's credentials I don't think there's any doubt the top online chess players on this site would clean his clock.  Yet no cheating bans come their way.  That's because they're not cheating, just like him.  So why him and not them?  What is the criteria?  After all computer software (cheating detection) doesn't show any bias.

You're not banned for playing very strong moves, you're banned for playing like an engine. There's a difference.

I had an account here with close to 50 wins and zero losses in correspondence (many lower rated players too, which I'm sure helped many of my moves match the engine) and I wasn't banned.

There are guys who have records of 300 wins and 6 loses and they are not banned. There are other with records like 45-0 or 50-0 and they are still here. 

I don't think they just banned him without any proof. I believe they analyzed many of his games and in all those games the coincidence with an engine was too high. 

But anyway you can write them privately, they will explain you why your friend was kicked out. 

For starters, as a base line they use engine match % for pre computer era world champion matches. Not just the first engine move, but also #2, #3, #4 (maybe more). So it shouldn't be a surprise you didn't out preform people like Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, etc.

You cannot possibly know this.

Chess.com won't reveal its detection method but my understanding is that it's pretty robust and relies on statistical methods which are known to be reliable. Put it this way: the method will involve analysing at least twenty games and if someone is achieving accuracy levels that improve on those of elite GMs it's perfectly safe and reasonable to assume that person is using an engine.

^
Also this. 

True, but I'm not questioning the decision. You need a good reason to do that, and "He's my mate" doesn't qualify.

I'm agreeing. I'm saying you said it very well.

Ok, my apologies.

Thanks.  And I am planning on writing them.