List of cheaters gone

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.

Hah hah FireX :D

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.

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

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

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

why? Was he a cheater?

Haskovec

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.

^Wow. What would 'the penalty' be for chess.com? 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.

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. 

        What does the icon look like?

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.

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

he was a cheater. closed for engine use.

Thank you, thecentipede

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