if that is a word
RIP :(
Sort:
his account says "Closed: Fairplay"
he was banned for cheating, plain and simple
Soniasthetics wrote:
his account says "Closed: Fairplay"
he was banned for cheating, plain and simple
That doesn't mean he actually cheated. Chess.com may have made a mistake.
yeah
2021betteryear wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
his account says "Closed: Fairplay"
he was banned for cheating, plain and simple
That doesn't mean he actually cheated. Chess.com may have made a mistake.
In terms of it being "possible" sure, but practically, no.
Chess.com's cheating detection has become very strong, and they NEVER, ban someone unless they are 100% sure. Daniel Rensch has literally said with every single Cheating ban, the guideline is they have to be prepared to defend their decision in a court case.
So yeah, he was definitely cheating.
DoubtfulLullaby wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
2021betteryear wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
his account says "Closed: Fairplay"
he was banned for cheating, plain and simple
That doesn't mean he actually cheated. Chess.com may have made a mistake.
In terms of it being "possible" sure, but practically, no.
Chess.com's cheating detection has become very strong, and they NEVER, ban someone unless they are 100% sure. Daniel Rensch has literally said with every single Cheating ban, the guideline is they have to be prepared to defend their decision in a court case.
So yeah, he was definitely cheating.
uhh, what do you mean 100%? there was this person who got banned for fair pair because of winning 15 games in a row in a 1sec arena
it means exactly what i said.
I think u misunderstood I said they are 100% SURE, not that they are 100% ACCURATE.
Soniasthetics wrote:
DoubtfulLullaby wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
2021betteryear wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
his account says "Closed: Fairplay"
he was banned for cheating, plain and simple
That doesn't mean he actually cheated. Chess.com may have made a mistake.
In terms of it being "possible" sure, but practically, no.
Chess.com's cheating detection has become very strong, and they NEVER, ban someone unless they are 100% sure. Daniel Rensch has literally said with every single Cheating ban, the guideline is they have to be prepared to defend their decision in a court case.
So yeah, he was definitely cheating.
uhh, what do you mean 100%? there was this person who got banned for fair pair because of winning 15 games in a row in a 1sec arena
it means exactly what i said.
I think u misunderstood I said they are 100% SURE, not that they are 100% ACCURATE.
Lol they are never 100 percent accurate.
If they are always 100 percent accurate then why do they have a ban appeal?
Of course not, which is why i never said they are 100% accurate. humans aren't perfect.
They have the option of appeal just in case they made a mistake.
2021betteryear wrote:
If they are always 100 percent accurate then why do they have a ban appeal?
I didnt say they are 100% accurate.
ok but still I don't think @Destined4Victory cheated. He almost beat a GM on stream.
And he is a very strong player over the board
Soniasthetics wrote:
2021betteryear wrote:
If they are always 100 percent accurate then why do they have a ban appeal?
I didnt say they are 100% accurate.
You dont know so stop acting like you know, you dont work for chess.com so shut your mouth
royalknight101 wrote:
why are we still on this? its over guys just get over it already
Ask @Soniasthetics
2021betteryear wrote:
Soniasthetics wrote:
2021betteryear wrote:
If they are always 100 percent accurate then why do they have a ban appeal?
I didnt say they are 100% accurate.
You dont know so stop acting like you know, you dont work for chess.com so shut your mouth
ur not mentally ok. if u don't know the difference between "100% sure" and 100% accurate" then no one can save u.
ur needless aggression also shows ur inadequacy
royalknight101 wrote:
omg guys just shut up already this stupid argument is over and he is gone no stop continuing this
@Soniasthetics started it 
they get permission, im not sure just theorizing