Ratings:high,higher,highest!

You don't need to use the exact same engine that a cheater used to detect that they used one. Even the same engine will give different results depending on how it's set up (and testing every configuration possibility of every engine just isn't viable), and on multi-core or multi-processor machines even the exact same configurations can give different results.

In reality, it's best to just use one engine with one configuration for all such tests, since the first step is to establish a baseline against known human vs. human games to determine what the upper threshold of engine-like play is for humans playing at the top of their game. If you then go and use a different engine or even a different configuration of the same engine to test a suspected engine user you won't be able to reliably compare to your baseline because some of your key control variables are now different.

I think ratings on chess websites are higher than OTB simply because a lot of people play more carelessly or impulsively (really one and the same) on websites than OTB. Not everyone, but a lot. But if the rating difference is 500, I'd be suspicious

The representation here from top level players is far more thin than OTB, and from rank amateurs it's much more robust here than OTB. It should be no surprise, then, that ratings here are generally higher than OTB.

Yep.  If you look at a large sample of games then all the major engines yield very similar results on the same system.  Maybe a % out here or there, but that's nothing if someone if playing 10% above thresholds!

As has been mentioned before, stockfish seems to be the only 3000+ elo engine that gives slightly off-kilter results when batches are analysed with other engines, but many anaylsts are also aware of that useful fact

I was less a comment about those who play both here and OTB, and more of one on the set of players who only play one or the other. More to the point, it's not an issue that's rooted in the individual level, but one based on the differences between the pools of players.

Those are valid points. Considering my limited resources, I would try my different engines and see what happens. If I keep getting a match, move after move by an engine, against every move I chose, I won't play that person again and I probably would report my findings. For me this is a common sense match, without getting overly technical.

I still think if using the method you described,it would be harder if the cheater used multiple engines with no pattern to when, as compared to just one. It is difficult to discern the difference between the best human and engine play, especially if we are talking GM's. Even at 2000-2499, I still think this isn't without its challenges due to some moves being obvious.

Seems as if this forum has magically come back to life.

cheating at chess is like cheating your freshman year in college, it will do you no good.

Why this thread, about cheaters, was not locked?

In before the lock!

Because it is considered somewhat informational.

What criteria do you use to make your judgement?

...seems a bit pointless suggesting it if you don't want to share the methodology.

Anyone who cheats should be banned from chess.com. If you play someone that you can hint is using an engine, you can always report them and see if chess.com agrees.  Some people on this forum are saying "oh well my opponents are using engines so I should be able to", yet that is wrong because if everyone thought that way, we would all be cheaters and we wouldn't be able to play true chess. Instead you should say to yourself "They are cheating so I'll be doing chess.com a favor by reporting them." Anyone who thinks different should be playing somewhere else, or if you do want engine vs. engine, do an engine match on your own computer in a GUI.

You misunderstood the thread, this is not about cheaters, but about the information on how to do it, and how to detect it. For this reason is not locked, because they consider it informational.

yeah, i dint see the point in cheating. You really dont feel the mental satisfaction from cheating. I think your very right. Ive always wondered about how non titled players get so high. The other day I saw a player rated around 1100 and he/she was beating CM pretty badly. It just dosnt make any sense. In my opinion, titled players should be the highest 

the reason their rating is so high is that they play the same bums and so they keep winning 

Lol bunch of fools saying cheating. Yeah that is a possibility but you might find one or two out of 100, that every can clearly detect. Just because someone is a good chess player, doesn't mean they HAVE to be titled. I consider myself a good chess player and have beaten many titled players but will rarely ever play OTB. Maybe once a year or so. Not everyone enjoys chess OTB, and not everyone cares to go for titles, or compete in that sense. Doesn't mean there aren't amazing chess players even better than titled players out there ;) because there are... MANY!

@ XxRamishxX

I suppose that is true, but it seems that most people, if they thought they were good enough for titles, would not only go pursue them, but they would want to know if they were truly as good or better than those who have titles. Our human nature tends to cause us to want all of the accolades we can get for our better qualities or what we enjoy.

I agree that I will probably play higher quality chess here in correspondence than I would over the board, but it stands to reason so would others. I am more understanding of someone preferring to play correspondence because, they want the time to learn and see themselves make the best moves, while playing against higher quality moves also.

I can also understand not having the time and economic means to utilize one's talents in OTB settings to play high quality competition and resorting to the internet. However, if I finally reached a point in which I was a CM level or above, I would most likely find a way to go play the best I could, to get better and enjoy playing them, instead of who knows what riff raff one might encounter on the web.

I can see why some would also prefer to play on the web to appear better than they would be if the played over the board. It stands to reason most of us would probably drop 200-300 points or more, if we were to start playing FIDE or USCF rated games everytime instead, without all of the crutches the web and Chess.com have to offer.

So in summary, I think it would be fairer to say, some players would rather appear to be as good as titled players....even though they aren't...

One's personal game archive ( or some other really good player's on chess.com), the game explorer, openings encyclopedia and analysis board are all fair game in correspondence chess.

Also, under cover of the web, no one knows what sort of notes, charts, books, engines, etc...people maybe using to aid them, regardless of the chess type. None of those are really a viable option OTB. Besides, it is a type of boost to one's "apparent" chess aptitude while playing others using these things, or people who are more lackadaisical here than they would be OTB.  Relying on any of these things to appear perhaps more skilled than truly are are like using a "crutch" unavailable OTB.

Before bragging about beating titled players one should beat them in what they earned their title in : OTB classical chess . There are plenty of titled players that dont play blitz/bullet well and thats not what they earned titles in . To beat them in 1 0 and then brag about it is ridiculous since 1 0 is ridiculous anyway . The majority of players that brag on the internet about beating titled players have never beaten one in otb classical chess, which is what they earn their titles in . Some of these braggarts have never even faced a titled player otb .