List of cheaters gone

Sort:
Commander_Riker

Hmm I think this particular account may be an exception as I know Doyle is back under a different user name but he has his actual name on the account and from what I have heard from other members his cheaters icon disappeared. Maybe he has been given a reprieve after all everybody in this world has and will make mistake and moments of really bad judgement. We as a nation have always believed in 2nd chances. Now if you did not learn from your first brain fart and do it again then asking for a third chance is a bit much but I feel everybody is entitled to a second chance to do the right thing. I think that is what happened here :) Just saying

Admiral_Kirk

Hmm, I didn't know that was the case.  It probably was because it was his actual name, and e.g. an employer looking him up might find the cheater thing.  

wu1010
Admiral_Kirk wrote:

Hmm, I didn't know that was the case.  It probably was because it was his actual name, and e.g. an employer looking him up might find the cheater thing.  

Is that an actual concern? Do employers go to chess.com to find out who is cheating? On the other hand, I understand the nature of hyperlinked info on the webs, and the forums are publicly viewable, so I get that a list of cheaters could be "amplified." So answers my own question. Still, maybe the culture of employers and HRs treating employee screening like spycraft needs to be reexamined and given continuing legal restrictions. Dunno. I won't ask what statistical methods you are using, but some application of Benford's law or such to game move histories might be a satisfying way to automate catching and banning cheating. If it works for the IRS, it might work here. Counter-example: when I've visited the Chicago Board of Trade and the NYSE, I noticed that in both facilities there are clearly positioned postings of people caught cheating in the markets and guilty of SEC infractions. Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter works the argument against pilloring well, especially when it comes to invoking a public morality on an individual's privacy, but pilloring can serve an important function, even if it isn't effective in preventing further infractions, in at least strictly gamemanship scenarios (I'm thinking of game theory again). Maybe the in-game usefulness of that information outweighs an actual prophylatic or preventive aim here. Maybe not. I'm thinking at the moment: Pilloring Barry Bonds or Mark MacGuire for steroid use won't prevent steroid abuse thereafter (see A-Rod), but it was important for the game itself. I understand you've made the analysis that it wasn't effective. So it is then. All humble opinions and opinions only. Thanks for the site and efforts.

MSC157

Hah hah FireX :D

Crazychessplaya

Cool

Planetchess

I still believe cheaters should be listed for every members to see in chess.com. This is the rule of the game here. I know it is not a crime but in chess there is a rule to be followed. They don't deserve our sympathy and they should learn the hardest way. This is the lesson for every members who cheat and to give signal to others that cheating is unwelcome in chess.com.

greg556

Planetchess, you're forgetting about the conflict of interest on the part of chess.com.  Some of those cheaters might be paying members.

IMpatzer

Employers? I dont worry about that I get food stamps hehe

CedrHask

Kotarrak, a member of Burgas team, his Member Account was Closed

why? Was he a cheater?

Haskovec

VLaurenT
Whip_Kitten wrote:

Chess.com got sued for mistakenly listing a chess coach as a cheater.  That's why there's no cheaters' list any more.

If I remember correctly, the sequence of events was :

  • the guy was listed as a cheater
  • the guy threatened to sue
  • chess.com said it was a mistake, and the threat of suing was removed

My reading of the above events was that chess.com is afraid of being sued rather than the guy was flagged as a cheater by mistake.

MSC157

^Wow. What would 'the penalty' be for chess.com? If they have the proof...

kleelof
MSC157 wrote:

^ If they have the proof...

I'm sure, as many have suspected, they cannot guarantee, in most casses, that someone was cheating. They can probably only determine to a point that they feel is reasonable enough to close someones account.

And obviously the system can be fooled since they are not willing to share how it works.

johnrwebber
How many readers are familiar with ChessBase openings? Each move is given a success rating which comes from 1000's of games in its database. Now it is obvious to me that to use an engine to find the best move in a given position is cheating. How about using ChessBase which tells user the percentage success rate a particular move had in all historical games in its database? I think it is still cheating but only just!
GnrfFrtzl
johnrwebber írta:
How many readers are familiar with ChessBase openings? Each move is given a success rating which comes from 1000's of games in its database. Now it is obvious to me that to use an engine to find the best move in a given position is cheating. How about using ChessBase which tells user the percentage success rate a particular move had in all historical games in its database? I think it is still cheating but only just!

You have every tight to hit up books and games when you're playing correspondence chess.
Since a database is basically that, a book, it can be used.
The database doesn't tell you what move to make, it just tells you the popular moves that worked in the past. It's different. 

RG1951

        What does the icon look like?

Crazychessplaya
haskovec wrote:

Kotarrak, a member of Burgas team, his Member Account was Closed

why? Was he a cheater?

Haskovec

Hyrkanian steel tasted Kotarrak, for either cheating or for some triviality deemed insulting by the henchmen. Worry not! Many a fool will come and go, this is the way of the world.

CedrHask

Crazychessplaya I do not understand you. Simple unswer please. Was he or not a cheter?

thecentipede

he was a cheater. closed for engine use.

CedrHask

Thank you, thecentipede

IMpatzer

Question if I am sitting in my own house alone how can you prove I am cheating? I say one can only surmise.