Rating

Are you seriously quoting an "AI Overview"? Wow.

Those things written there have almost nothing to do with how chess.com really uses "accuracy". It doesn't mention the fact that chess.com modifies the accuracy score based on the players' rating, giving lower rated players higher scores no matter what.

Accuracy score has been changed a few years ago. It is usually significantly higher today. The most drastic examples are lower accuracy games a few years ago. I have some games in 20 range back then. When I do accuracy check today, they are around 50-60 for instance.

After the change, I had an unrated game against sub 1000 player that lasted around 10 moves where he blundered 3 times and got around 70 accuracy.

I play relatively longer games and I feel that the only time I get lower accuracy is when the game gets sharper.

The same goes for estimated rating. By its estimation, I am usually over 2 000 rated.

All of these are made to make us feel good about our game, even if the reality is a bit different. The point is of course to give us a better experience and to have more people with memberships. I don't like it, but it is understandable.

In practice, people are now a lot more suspicious.

Sometimes it is justified, cheating exists, it is undeniable, but the lower the rating, these people are easier to detect.

Chess masters are potentially much better cheaters because they know more about the game and they know better what seems more natural, which is why it takes longer to catch them.

Sub 500 player cheating is usually like a todler in a museum claiming he painted Mona Lisa. That is usually how obvious low level cheating is.

Yes.

The worse the cheater is at chess he is easier to detect.

It is simple logic. I will explain it.

Basically people that are not already good at chess, in many cases will uncover themselves because of how different their level of play is, not just from game to game, but from move to move.

Why? Because those that cheat on every move will be easy to detect, as that level of play is insane. So what will many try to do? They will try to cover their tracks. And who is better at covering their tracks, someone who knows the game inside and out, who spent 10 years getting to GM level, or some upstart that just knows how the pieces work?

Grandmaster will know what are more natural moves, and if they are cheating, they have the ability to make it less obvious by not playing a move that is very computer like. They will understand where in a game lies a critical moment and will do it 2-3 times a game (sometimes less), and it will be enough for them to improve their results significantly.

On the other hand, people who do not know what en passant is will destroy you the whole game in many funny ways.

One move would be as a masterful stroke from a painter, and then 5 moves down the line, it will look like a children's handiwork. They will have a suspicious time management where they take a second to calculate some long tactical line and then hesitate when they are about to take your queen. In some cases they will not know how to do en passant even with the engine and will get from like +10 to +2 as a consequence.

People will make ridiculous recaptures where they don't know why they do them and it takes you 30 minutes after the game to figure out why the engine wants it taken that way, and why it is better than the obvious way.

And when they want to cover themselves they will often choose a second or 3rd option. In many cases this move is much less obvious than the first option, and this will get them caught as well.

As with anything else, when you know a lot about the system, it is easier to game the system. They even catch a lot of the masters as well, although it usually takes longer, sometimes even years.

People without a significant knowledge of chess will simply not be able to last long as cheaters in most cases. 60 000+ of closed accounts in October is the proof how many people are caught (and it is always in tens of thousands).

Some small amount of them will last longer, sometimes it will take months for them to get caught, but that is more or less it. Those that do will rarely stick around 400 level for long in any case.

Basically, if someone is below 500 rating, the main reason is their own play, not cheating by others.

But of course, you have the right to your opinion.

Chess reviews are rigged. I was on 500 elo and I supposedly played like a 1550 elo rated player. I am currently on 600 elo. This is too weird.

The discussion of the accuracy of the game reviews is interesting. As an older player who tends too often to have concentration lapses and give away pieces, I have found it very useful when the engine shows me I've missed moves. I was really irritated to find one game where I'd actually set up a very elegant combination (winning a rook) and didn't even spot it — ended up losing the game. In a recent game, which I eventually won, I actually had a pawn that was free for the taking for several moves, but didn't observe that I had a pin on my opponent, enabling me to take the pawn. These elementary misses have cost me, but I think in the long run it will make me a better observer of the board.

Another thing I've noticed Iin admittedly a small sample), is the reluctance of my opponents to resign. I agree that when you're playing at a low level, which I am currently, you usually might as well play the game out and hope your opponent will make a stupid mistake to get you back into the game. But I had one game when I had taken every one of my opponent's pieces but the king and they still didn't give up. If there are only a couple of pieces on the board, you might try for stalemate, but I had overwhelming force and just used a simple queen-rook stepladder mate.

I played someone who was about a 400 in a daily game and the player was definitely cheating. I called him/her out on it during the game and then he made a series of obvious on purpose blunders to lose the game. Some people have low ratings on some timed games and much higher ratings in other timed games. I've played 900 daily game players with 1200 and above rapid ratings and even higher blitz ratings. So....... sandbagging is the word used.