What about the ratings of those who lose? They have to lose rating points 'for the good of the many'? Essentially you are stopping cheating by cheating, this doesn't seem like it would work too well.
If the people who lose don't lose rating points, than that fact can be used to expose who they are. Additionally, what will stop people from data mining games and noticing a rating different from the anti-cheater squad if you do this?
Personally, I think this medicine is worse than the disease.
First, people who are cheating will have a rating above 2000 and therefore not likely to want to play someone who is rated at 1500. Someone 1500 is not likely to be cheating and therefore not in need of monitoring, so these moderators who are rated at 1500 will not catch anyone.
Second, many medium level people can beat fritz in blitz and moderately long games. Actually if you look it up, the people who do best against computers are usually rated 2200 or so. Case in point~~>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=91647
Third, if a person is cheating, and knows about these "killers" and notices that they're playing someone who is making every move on target with their computer program, they will suspect them of being a cheater and therefore throw the game by making inaccurate moves so as to not arise suspicion.
Fourth, I don't see the point in going through all this trouble. Cheating is bad, yes we all know it ruins the fun. The problem is that if you're playing people who have many losses or who are rated within your rating range, the likelihood of cheating is low. The only people who really need to worry about cheaters are people who are in the upper echelon of the ratings since that's where the cheaters would be too. Just because a person had a good game against you doesn't mean their cheating, it might be that they're better than their rating indicates or they had a moment of brilliance.
Play chess, have fun and don't worry so much about what other people are doing, worry more about what you are doing.
What about the ratings of those who lose? They have to lose rating points 'for the good of the many'? Essentially you are stopping cheating by cheating, this doesn't seem like it would work too well.
If the people who lose don't lose rating points, than that fact can be used to expose who they are. Additionally, what will stop people from data mining games and noticing a rating different from the anti-cheater squad if you do this?
Personally, I think this medicine is worse than the disease.
I already responded to this point about losing points.
If someone wanted to go through such lengths to cheat, they can get around any system. The fact is most people who cheat are not going to data mine games, because it wastes to much time and they are in it for the quick fix of winning.
I can only see cheaters being opposed to this system.
First, people who are cheating will have a rating above 2000 and therefore not likely to want to play someone who is rated at 1500. Someone 1500 is not likely to be cheating and therefore not in need of monitoring, so these moderators who are rated at 1500 will not catch anyone.
Second, many medium level people can beat fritz in blitz and moderately long games. Actually if you look it up, the people who do best against computers are usually rated 2200 or so. Case in point~~>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=91647
Third, if a person is cheating, and knows about these "killers" and notices that they're playing someone who is making every move on target with their computer program, they will suspect them of being a cheater and therefore throw the game by making inaccurate moves so as to not arise suspicion.
Fourth, I don't see the point in going through all this trouble. Cheating is bad, yes we all know it ruins the fun. The problem is that if you're playing people who have many losses or who are rated within your rating range, the likelihood of cheating is low. The only people who really need to worry about cheaters are people who are in the upper echelon of the ratings since that's where the cheaters would be too. Just because a person had a good game against you doesn't mean their cheating, it might be that they're better than their rating indicates or they had a moment of brilliance.
Play chess, have fun and don't worry so much about what other people are doing, worry more about what you are doing.
I completely agree with this. I think this alone is enough reason not to implement this idea.
I think the passive analysis method is better. This solution has 0 advantages over that approach, and many disadvantages.
First, people who are cheating will have a rating above 2000 and therefore not likely to want to play someone who is rated at 1500. Someone 1500 is not likely to be cheating and therefore not in need of monitoring, so these moderators who are rated at 1500 will not catch anyone.
Second, many medium level people can beat fritz in blitz and moderately long games. Actually if you look it up, the people who do best against computers are usually rated 2200 or so. Case in point~~>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=91647
Third, if a person is cheating, and knows about these "killers" and notices that they're playing someone who is making every move on target with their computer program, they will suspect them of being a cheater and therefore throw the game by making inaccurate moves so as to not arise suspicion.
Fourth, I don't see the point in going through all this trouble. Cheating is bad, yes we all know it ruins the fun. The problem is that if you're playing people who have many losses or who are rated within your rating range, the likelihood of cheating is low. The only people who really need to worry about cheaters are people who are in the upper echelon of the ratings since that's where the cheaters would be too. Just because a person had a good game against you doesn't mean their cheating, it might be that they're better than their rating indicates or they had a moment of brilliance.
Play chess, have fun and don't worry so much about what other people are doing, worry more about what you are doing.
Your first paragraph is an assumption of someone cheating each and everytime they play.
Second paragraph is not true. There are no takebacks in live chess.
Third. You sound like you think like a cheater yourself.
Fourth. You don't see the point because it might really affect your playing days on chess.com
I can only see cheaters being opposed to this system.
I don't cheat but i don't Liek this idea. I don't want a bunch of 'ringers' wandering the site. Besides, don't you think they have better things to do?
I'm sorry, but if this idea is meant seriously it appears totally paranoid to me.
Although I am ready to admit there are certainly cheaters in life chess (and not only there), imo even now the bigger problem is everyone thinking to have been cheated only if their opponent plays a good game. Let's face it: There are many players who don't need an engine to beat most of us.
I have no idea which the estimated percentage of people using programs on live chess is, but to implement your idea you would have to increase that number significantly, so in effect everyone is likely to play much more engines than before. Now how is that supposed to raise the quality of live chess?
Let me say first of all that I think this is a pretty good idea. I used to play Live Chess quite a bit, but stopped playing after I kept running into overwhelming amounts of 1300-1400 players there who would play better than me while I was rated 1600-1800.
The person who said that he would probably end up reporting a member of the Death Squad if he played against them makes a good point. If I played a random guy with ratings something like 1300-1700 and he just smashed my face like I can't play chess, I'd report him as a cheater.
I think the idea deserves at least a trial run by Chess.com staff. The job looks too time consuming for regular staff members to take up in addition to their normal responsibilities. But it'd be great if one of them would publish a Dateline-style article where he and some of the staff posed as regular members and each played a dozen or so games, and reported back how many cheaters they came across.
Of course, while this is a great idea, I doubt the staff would ever do it. I think the temptation to sell out is far greater than the motivation to maintain solid integrity in a chess site =/
Ok, using the bot this way is not a good idea, but using it in a slightly different way would be better. Add all of the people that beat or tie the bot to a list. Then have one of the GMs that work with chess.com challenge the players and ask for an explanation on the moves ingame, ban if they decline or produce flawed logic. This way the botters get banned, and the beastly players dont. This handles the situation of really really good players beating the bots, and also gets the botters kicked efficently.
I've always wondered whether or not it's the actual cheaters on this site who keep trying to perpetuate the myth that only players rated 2000+ cheat, and that anyone with a "normal" rating never cheats . . .
Well, certainly people with a low rating can occasionally cheat, or cheat on one or two moves, but if they cheat with great regularity, their rating will increase quite rapidly.
I can only see cheaters being opposed to this system.
I don't cheat but i don't Liek this idea. I don't want a bunch of 'ringers' wandering the site. Besides, don't you think they have better things to do?
I don't cheat as well and I can see some good points in the idea but I think it would be very difficult to put in practice, as it would demand a lot of human resources that Chess.com might not have available...
Why people worry so much about cheaters, if they are only fooling themselves using a chess engine to play for them?
I'm telling you it would make for a better live chess area.
If a chess.com cheat squad member recognizes that the person is not cheating they can just resign the game :)...that way no one gets hurt.
You still haven't said why it's better than passive analysis, which is the approach the better live chess sites use.
First, people who are cheating will have a rating above 2000 and therefore not likely to want to play someone who is rated at 1500. Someone 1500 is not likely to be cheating and therefore not in need of monitoring, so these moderators who are rated at 1500 will not catch anyone.
Second, many medium level people can beat fritz in blitz and moderately long games. Actually if you look it up, the people who do best against computers are usually rated 2200 or so. Case in point~~>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=91647
Third, if a person is cheating, and knows about these "killers" and notices that they're playing someone who is making every move on target with their computer program, they will suspect them of being a cheater and therefore throw the game by making inaccurate moves so as to not arise suspicion.
Fourth, I don't see the point in going through all this trouble. Cheating is bad, yes we all know it ruins the fun. The problem is that if you're playing people who have many losses or who are rated within your rating range, the likelihood of cheating is low. The only people who really need to worry about cheaters are people who are in the upper echelon of the ratings since that's where the cheaters would be too. Just because a person had a good game against you doesn't mean their cheating, it might be that they're better than their rating indicates or they had a moment of brilliance.
Play chess, have fun and don't worry so much about what other people are doing, worry more about what you are doing.
Your first paragraph is an assumption of someone cheating each and everytime they play.
Second paragraph is not true. There are no takebacks in live chess.
Third. You sound like you think like a cheater yourself.
Fourth. You don't see the point because it might really affect your playing days on chess.com
Wow, I expected more from your response than this.
First, If someone's not cheating often enough to raise his/her rating to a high rating, there's a good chance they won't be cheating in this ONE game against the detector.
Second, the point he's making is that a 2200 rated player COULD defeat an engine and subsequently be banned unfairly.
Third, you did nothing to refute his argument, you just insulted him.
Fourth, again you attack his character without doing anything to support your argument.
You still haven't said why it's better than passive analysis, which is the approach the better live chess sites use.
you are joking right? ICC uses a system called speed timer (proactive not passive).
First, people who are cheating will have a rating above 2000 and therefore not likely to want to play someone who is rated at 1500. Someone 1500 is not likely to be cheating and therefore not in need of monitoring, so these moderators who are rated at 1500 will not catch anyone.
Second, many medium level people can beat fritz in blitz and moderately long games. Actually if you look it up, the people who do best against computers are usually rated 2200 or so. Case in point~~>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=91647
Third, if a person is cheating, and knows about these "killers" and notices that they're playing someone who is making every move on target with their computer program, they will suspect them of being a cheater and therefore throw the game by making inaccurate moves so as to not arise suspicion.
Fourth, I don't see the point in going through all this trouble. Cheating is bad, yes we all know it ruins the fun. The problem is that if you're playing people who have many losses or who are rated within your rating range, the likelihood of cheating is low. The only people who really need to worry about cheaters are people who are in the upper echelon of the ratings since that's where the cheaters would be too. Just because a person had a good game against you doesn't mean their cheating, it might be that they're better than their rating indicates or they had a moment of brilliance.
Play chess, have fun and don't worry so much about what other people are doing, worry more about what you are doing.
Your first paragraph is an assumption of someone cheating each and everytime they play.
Second paragraph is not true. There are no takebacks in live chess.
Third. You sound like you think like a cheater yourself.
Fourth. You don't see the point because it might really affect your playing days on chess.com
Wow, I expected more from your response than this.
First, If someone's not cheating often enough to raise his/her rating to a high rating, there's a good chance they won't be cheating in this ONE game against the detector.
Second, the point he's making is that a 2200 rated player COULD defeat an engine and subsequently be banned unfairly.
Third, you did nothing to refute his argument, you just insulted him.
Fourth, again you attack his character without doing anything to support your argument.
Yeah...I guess I did a bit. But pisses me off when people argue for cheating and talk about unfair wins against Fritz! LOL
Also I did in previous answers to the same questions make my argument. I rest my case.
I've been playing chess for about 7 years now and there are a lot of cheaters who play online...and something needs to be done, because they destroy chess sites.
HAVE A GREAT DAY
I don't see how it can be overkill. Cheating is pervasive through online chess from Yahoo, pogo, ICC, gameknot...They are problems everywhere.
It would actually raise the value of being a member of chess.com to know how actively chess.com goes after cheats!