@JadeCleanMaid, my friend, online chess harms people not only due to cheating. I mean yes you can encounter a cheater, it happens, you would think "who cares". But there are more points:
- - since it is so easy to cheat, no one can be trusted, everyone is under suspicion
- - YOU, if you play online chess, you are a suspect too. You have probably never thought about that. But when you win, people do suspect you. People report you. Chess.com WILL suspect you too if your performance is too good. Chess.com cannot catch all cheaters. If you cheat, chess.com might never catch you.
- - false accusations. This is the worst issue of online chess. It happened with OTB too but only online chess has made this possible in such great amount and frequency! False accusations harm reputation, they harm physical and emotional health of an honest player.
- - bad sportsmanship. Stalling, abandoning, cursing in chat.
- - inconsistent strength. Online, players can relax or do deliberate sandbagging
- - and also very important: only popular online chess formats are Blitz and Rapid. And Bullet. All 3 are useless for development of a chess player. While it is risky and pointless to invest time into a long classical game online because of the previous two points. It's more useful to play with bot and do takebacks when needed, why finish game if you know that next time you will play better? Bring this next time closer and save time. You will improve much faster.
As you can see, too many bad things, no benefits at all. Must be banned once and forever.
This is a stupid argument.
1- Okay? Most people trust that most people online are not cheating because they are not cheating, and the few cheaters are the exception rather than the norm.
2- Okay, but I don't cheat? I fail to see how this is relevant to your point of banning online chess.
3- Most people aren't notable enough to get a significant amonut of false accusations, and of those that do, they don't take it seriously enough (especially if they do not actually cheat) to abandon the convenience of online chess.
4- Those people are in the minority. If you don't want to occasionally see stuff like that, disable chat. If someone stalls, report them and move on. No need to ban the entirity of online chess for this.
5- Because in real life all people are exactly how strong their ratings suggest they are? Real-life rating could be as inconsistent as online games. Regarding sandbaggers, again, they are the minority rather than the norm.
6- This is just incorrect. Rapid games (especially 10 minutes games) are arguably the most useful format for the improvement of low-rated players who do not know enough to make use of the classical-length game times - Rapid games allow even players who don't know how to calculate to still play and have some semblance of improvement. I will admit that blitz and bullet is less influential towards improvement, but saying Rapid is "useless for development" is just incorrect.
ALSO, not everybody plays to improve - some people play just for fun, and the existance of online chess sites like these allow a low entry barrier (requiring low amounts of investments of time) for the population at large which was one of the factors which popularised chess.
I hope that I have addressed every point you made and made it clear that your argument is incorrect.
Please avoid such words as stupid when talking about my posts. This is not nice.
1) You don't know if it is few. But potentially could be everyone, you can't argue here.
2) I don't know if you don't cheat. You might be a cheater, who knows? Only you, but there's no reason to trust your words.
3) You don't know when you will become notable. See at Hans's situation how it hit back. Yes he admitted two cases but the rest is just accusations and this damages his reputation, affects his contracts, finances etc. This is a big thing. Next, this your point is dismissive and discriminating. You are basically telling that there are some people who can be accused and we should not care about their feelings. What? Shame on you.
4) You can't disable chat in variants by default. Reporting stalls/abandons does nothing. Those people keep playing and face no consequences. Come on even if cheaters get second chance. Plus anyone can make a new account here, no one cares.
5) Yes.
6) This is just correct. Any serious chess coach, any GM would tell you that. For low-rated players 10 minute rapid is useless, just as useless as Blitz. I mean with Rapid you can go past the opening phase but then the time ends anyway. I'm not saying low-rated should spend hours per game, no. But 10 minute is just crazy fast. My argument is correct, your arguments are wrong. Because chess coaches and Grandmasters are on my side. Good bye.
"Please avoid such words as stupid when talking about my posts. This is not nice." Nice or not, the argument is stupid if it is "not true" or "incorrect" in an obvious way.
1- You don't know if it was many either. My empirical evidence (of the games I've played on this site) has encountered no or little amounts of cheaters on this site, which while I do not claim is representative means personally that cheaters is not a big problem to me, and I am willing to believe that it would be for the vast majority of players on this site.
2- You can analyse my games. If you have the time to bother to do so, you could go through every one of my games and see if any of them had suspiciously high accuracy rates.
3- This entire paragraph could not be understood well. Hans Niemann is one person out of several tens of millions of people playing on chess.com, and a Grandmaster at that, so naturally an accusation against him (especially considering the fact that the accuser was someone credible - Magnus Carlsen) would be much more impactful. My original comment's point was that of the people who do get an amount of criticism, the convenience of online chess outweigh the potential ramifications of these false accusations and criticism. My point was not that we should not care about their feelings.
4- Regarding the chat situation in variants, I suppose that is something that chess.com can improve on. I do believe that chess.com could be better on moderation.
5- Sorry, I could not interpret this response. If you mean that the ratings of real life players are all exactly indicative of their skill level, then that is incorrect - presumptive ratings exist for players who have only played a few games. The ratings are accurate for people who have played hundreds of over-the-board games and had time for the ratings to adjust and stabilise, but quite a lot of people have little amounts of games which leads to their rating not being indicative of their true skill level.
6- could you link a video or other source in which somebody of repute claims that Rapid is useless for improvement? I have only seen videos and articles persuading low rated players to avoid blitz and bullet, never rapid (10-minute chess). Also, in the vast majority of rapid games you do not flag if you have fast playing, which from my observations are more prevalent in low rated players than playing too slow. Also, there is my anecdotal evidence, going from roughly 500-rated to 1400-rated only playing Rapid chess on this platform.
Regarding the last part of your message, I am interested in holding an honest discussion in good will, and I would appreciate if you could refrain from being dismissive in your tone.
No, it's not "clear" that I spent none, that's just your opinion.
Perhaps you did, then, but I saw no sign of it in our discussion, just opinion of your own that I know I have no chance of influencing. You also said nothing I can learn from, so those things together make debate with you pointless. There's no useful point in it for you either, I would think. As for the rest of what you wrote, I left it unread.
I understand, I just don't like to brag too much about deep my knowledge. I'll be happy to teach you a thing or two, what do you want to learn first?
I've learned all I need to know from you, which is the kind of person you are and what you offer. Everything you say, including this last message, confirms it further.
What do you mean? I'm ready to help genuinely.
Sure. I believe you. I'll get back to you when I have time.