Kramnik Hates Chess.com

I mean they don't ban just accusation topics, topics where topic starter wants to discuss cheating issue get removed. They might even lock this topic for such discussion.

But that would mean he has almost nobody to hate.

a) it is legal to have a second account if you fill out the form for it, which I have done. While you presume to enforce the rules you're completely ignorant as to what they are - Can I have multiple accounts? | Chess.com Help Center

b) It is trivially easy to bypass an IP ban, gateway router IPs change periodically, and in public places you may have one gateway router serving large numbers of people - in this case an IP ban will ban the entire group of people. And with IP6 IP addresses change even more frequently, like once every few days. IP bans weren't an effective strategy in the old days of the internet, but now they've very outdated and ineffective, people who think IP bans are a serious option have no idea what they're doing.

c) your suggestion of having random fair play audits of random players, checking their government identification / homes / desk setups, is draconian and patently absurd... it wouldn't surprise me if it violates dsome legal rights regarding searches of private property... I'm not even sure what the goal here would be - it wouldn't even be effective at catching cheating in the act since straightforward cheating isn't really the problem, it's subtle cheating and a random audit observing one game isn't going to distinguish that... if you wanted ID verification you could just do that on account registration... a policy like you suggest would probably sink this website if implemented due to the blowback. Horrible idea

d) hiding tournament awards will do nothing to stop cheating, the reward titled tuesday cheaters are after is money. Another bad idea.

e) reducing rating visibility is probably something you want to happen because your rating is terrible (360 elo), but for the vast majority of people who work hard for their rating and achieve a good rating... this would just undermine the entire user experience of the site for the vast majority of players in hope of some weak, indirect hypothetical effect, horrible idea

f) not everyone has a cellphone, many people who play on this site are kids and don't have phones

Just a very long list of bad ideas that will not work.

a) lol doxxing would be me finding your home (and publishing this info), while your accounts are both public already, it's not illegal for me to tag every your account

why do you need two accounts by the way? speed run? that's sus

b) precise IP ban alone isn't enough but paired with browser fingerprinting and other factors like activity by time graph it can be done still, dynamic IPs often start with same numbers anyway. for smartphone apps there are ways to identify same smartphone

c) why, that would be very effective measure and honest player will pass it easily. would you agree for such fair play call or you have something to hide?

d) there are regular tournaments and for some cheaters ability to win in a tournament and get a visible award is a motivation

e) that's not my real rating, for some people who care about rating too much, there's a big temptation to "fix" it by using external help. to remove cheating you must remove at least some motivations to cheat

f) kids should not be allowed here. there's chesskid.com

Just a very long list of bad ideas that will not work.

Propose better ideas instead of just calling my ideas bad

Btw, you are one of the reasons why kids should not be allowed here, because it seems like it takes nothing for you to abuse people verbally, who knows what you would say in game chats.

Sir you are 500 elo. There are very little cheaters at that level.

@sqjs, "sir"? Did you just assume my gender? It's not about me or my rating or my experience. I don't even play online.

The other account is for opening experimentation / to avoid being distracted by notifications, which is a valid use of it according to the rules.

The beginning part of the IP4 address denotes a region of users. The second and third part get more local, but even the 3rd part encompasses 65K some odd unique addresses... not very specific. For an IP6 address - the first portion denotes just the ISP, and the second portion is completely randomized. The local addresses are changed daily and the gateway router address changes every 3-4 days or so. There are about 340 undecillion possible IP6 addresses (340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456). The most use you could get out of IP addresses for banning purposes is using specifically IP4, the beginning portions of the addresses, as part of a broader browser fingerprinting effort... this would just be one data point combined with like 70 others for this purpose, and only if it's IP4. Really this is trivial and practically nothing.

Now, browser fingerprinting is device-specific and browser specific. i.e. I'm if I'm banned in one browser I can open up another, or I can open it up on another PC - maybe a library PC, or I can access from my phone... it can also be bypassed by changing settings. And there's also software that can help you get around this as well - for example, you can access this site from a VM. The best use of browser-fingerprinting is in positively identifying returning users, not in screening out or banning users. There could be some statistical benefit to augmenting existing banning techniques in this manner, bit it's not a hard solution.

They're terrible ideas and I've already demonstrated why. Your defense? "Kids shouldn't be allowed here anyway". So ban all kids (who committed no violation) from the platform is your proposal. Now that is a duncey idea.

Ban kids not to punish but to protect. Chesskid.com is a safe space for kids where you cannot set username (it's randomized), cannot set profile picture and cannot chat. It is created by chess.com if you didn't know. Here you can put disturbing images into profile pics, set offensive nicknames, kids don't need to see that.

By your logic kids should be banned from the internet in its entirety. That's up to parents to enforce, not this website. Besides - kid safety has nothing to do with your core argument which is that we should do this to combat cheating.

Just because some action can be bypassed doesn't mean this action should not take place as it will prevent at least someone from creating a new account after a ban. Making new account should not be that easy. These actions should work together with authorization through SIM card and everything else.

Sure that will help with cheating too. Because:

- Kids are natural cheaters. They cheat in games, they cheat on exams.

- It's unethical and illegal to force them to go through fair play calls. Easier to just ban.

As I said, it's not a hard solution but could lead to some statistical benefit. But your idea of making auth SIM-card based - that's also a horrible idea since not everyone has a smartphone, so you're effectively banning everyone who doesn't own a smartphone.

Everyone has a smartphone except for kids and elderly. I understand in some regions this might be rare but then there's no internet and PC availability.

also a player must not be allowed to play rated games until ID video call was made with player showing his ID, answering questions

the team must run his face through face detection software to find doubles

Most people in the US have smartphones, but not everyone. But furthermore - this site operates in 60 different countries, and many other countries don't have the cellphone adoption rates the US has. There is not a 1:1 correlation between not owning a smartphone & not having any way to access the internet... There are people from all over the world on this site... your proposal would not be doable. Besides, nowdays cellphones are going to virtual SIM cards, and you can even switch between using different virtual SIMs.

Virtual SIM still will cost you money. Besides we can enforce real SIMs only and require a bill from your mobile service provider that states your name, cell number and address. Listen, everyone must be identified for anti-cheating purposes and if it's really about lack of smartphone, other means should be used, but still there must be an identification. A video call must happen and a person must explain why they have no smartphone. A cheater must know that this is his only chance, next time they will see that it's him again. To fight disguise and fake ID they would run voice profiling etc. If no video call is possible, then good bye, this is not for you or you can play but not in rated games. Because we respect our players and can't let random unidentified accounts (potentially bots) to interfere with them anyhow. Like you can't make a Whatsapp account without a cell number, that's not a discrimination.

Also randomly ID calls must repeat upon login. Staff cannot check everyone everytime but randomly - yes. You want to login but oops - please accept identifying video call through our mobile app, staff member will compare your face to the previously stored pictures of you. Refuse to accept call - suspend from playing rated games until you schedule and pass that call again.

This is an absurd suggestion since the site interrogator would have absolutely no way of corroborating anything the person says to them.

There are 100 million people who use this site. Given the scale of the operation you're describing your proposal is not even financially viable. And this site is not an authoritarian government entity, they are a private for-profit business, all they stand to achieve by interrogating / alienating large chunks of their userbase / violating their privacy in a vain attempt to track 100 million users activities... is destroying their reputation / driving their customers away to lichess. This would be a horrible idea.