Yeah, I got the automatic message too, its nothing personal. Cheating though wrecks lives - if your wife finds out she will leave you; the new girlfriend probably won't be a keeper anyway; if there are kids...major fallout. All round, better to be faithful.
Implication of cheating.
Sort:
Haha, thanks anyhow. It turns out I was losing BOTH games when my 2200 plus rated opponent resigned them. It's THAT kind of gamesmanship or bad sportsmanship I don't like.
If one blunders as frequently as I do, at least you have the luxury of never encountering cheating accusations.
Those messages are sent out automatically to everybody, when their rating hits 2000. They're not officially accusing you. Chess.com would have nothing to gain by banning that woman for cheating, if she wasn't.
The message is automatic & nothing to worry about. Your opponent's games were auto-resigned because he was banned by the site & this took your rating above 2000.
nac_ (2202)
A touch ironic, to get the anti cheating message because of the points awarded for victories over someone...er...banned.
Banned? I guess I only vaguely thought of that possibility. I did notice though that he was playing ultra-safe moves and was subtly and insidiously getting good positions but I had one of those games computer analysed and it turned out I made a blunder which he missed. Anyway thanks everybody for setting my mind at rest. I think I've reached my limit here. A few years ago I was 2200 or so on Chess World but I simply can't give it the concentration needed these days. Also I think the ratings there were inflated.
Btw a lot of people were commenting on the female who was banned. I've forgotten her name now but she writes openings books, I think. Again, it would be ironic if she were playing sequences of moves that the software recognised simply because she was the one who publicised the theory. It would mean that she knew the combinations and wasn't cheating and I imagine that could be the case. Some people play well in patches anyway. I imagine I can play over the board way over my strength but two months later I'm rubbish. It averages out but who is to say that the software won't be misled when someone hits a purple patch?
Logically there surely can't be any way to definitely distinguish this from computer-generated moves? If not, the anti-cheating software can only go on probabilities. This is like telling each of half a dozen people who were in the area where a murder was commited that compared with the general population, the chances are far higher that each one of them may have done it: therefore they're all condemned to death.
[The site's policy is to limit discussion about cheating to the Cheating Forum.
More information in the FAQ .
Moderator]
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum
There's a separate forum here for discussions of cheating, the policy of the site is that it is best only discussed there. A lot of information can also be found there about how chess.com catches cheaters.
I think you refer to WGM Dembo, who was banned a while ago. Whilst she does publish opening theory, the banning process has mostly to do with analysing non-book, unclear positions where there were many good moves with similar evaluations. Players are only banned if statistical analysis proves, over a large sample, that the player performs far better in those kind of positions than any world champion or pre-computer correspondence champion ever.
My tournament online rating just went above 2000 for the first time and I got a nice message from Chess.com effectively implying that I may be cheating. My opponent in the final two games resigned them both to send my grade over 2000. One was somewhat better for me although not necessarily winning and the other was probably won for him. One wonders why he did that.
In blitz chess I mainly play 5 minutes and although my rating was about 1750, it's now hovering around the 1550 mark, partly as a result of the fact that no-one seems to want to play me when I'm on form, whereas I'm usually happy to keep playing even if I'm losing. Also I pretty well never play just to win on time.
Given that Chess.com deleted the account of a female master class player for cheating and there is probably no way she would cheat because as a chess professional she has too much to lose, one wonders exactly where one is with this site. Is it necessary to deliberately play bad openings and bad moves here, so their software doesn't claim you're playing too accurately for your strength?