Don't be a Kramnik.
There is no "cheating" problem on chess.com.
Of my 3,000+ games on this site, only a handful of times have I come across a "cheater".
Chess.com can't hold up.
Sort:
23 hrs ago
0
#23
Ethanchock7 wrote:
Don't be a Kramnik.
There is no "cheating" problem on chess.com.
Of my 3,000+ games on this site, only a handful of times have I come across a "cheater".
Oh, here we go again. Just ignore all the evidence around you and whatever the tops say is true must be true! Right?... Moron. Go back to school, kid.
17 hrs ago
0
#24
Creeper_7223 wrote:
David wrote:
Creeper_7223 wrote:
Out of thousands of players?! Someone didn't study statistics growing up. 95% is WAY more than enough to ban someone for cheating.
Something that is 95% effective has a failure rate of 1 in 20. That's definitely not "WAY" more than enough to ban someone, especially a titled player. Although clearly you're more than happy to ban innocent people just to get rid of the cheaters as well.
Anyways, you already know that this type of discussion isn't allowed in the public forums so this thread is going to get locked as soon as a moderator sees it.
LOL dude go take a stat class
That makes no sense at all. While there are some counterintuitive instances in probability - such as, the chance of tossing a heads after tossing 10 heads in a row is still 50/50 - this is not one of them. You want to ban 1 innocent person in every 20 people ban for cheating, that's up to you - that's not the standard that Chess.com uses.
17 hrs ago
0
#25
Creeper_7223 wrote:
And logistics. That would help you think better, too.
I think you might mean logic there, my man. Unless you really think that the movement and management of goods somehow applies to a service as not just goods and resources.
17 hrs ago
0
#26
Creeper_7223 wrote:
Ethanchock7 wrote:
Don't be a Kramnik.
There is no "cheating" problem on chess.com.
Of my 3,000+ games on this site, only a handful of times have I come across a "cheater".
Oh, here we go again. Just ignore all the evidence around you and whatever the tops say is true must be true! Right?... Moron. Go back to school, kid.
Your only problem with that is that there is no such "evidence". You lost a game: that's not "evidence", that your personal experience and an anecdote. Kramnik presented what he believed was evidence that on closer examination demonstrated that he did indeed need to take a statistics class. You've got nothing.
16 hrs ago
0
#27
David wrote:
Creeper_7223 wrote:
Ethanchock7 wrote:
Don't be a Kramnik.
There is no "cheating" problem on chess.com.
Of my 3,000+ games on this site, only a handful of times have I come across a "cheater".
Oh, here we go again. Just ignore all the evidence around you and whatever the tops say is true must be true! Right?... Moron. Go back to school, kid.
Your only problem with that is that there is no such "evidence". You lost a game: that's not "evidence", that your personal experience and an anecdote. Kramnik presented what he believed was evidence that on closer examination demonstrated that he did indeed need to take a statistics class. You've got nothing.
Wow. Sorry dude, I don't have time for blind squirrels. Good luck in life.
16 hrs ago
0
#28
Every single forum this guy has made was about cheating lol
And if you say lichess is better, close your account here or just don't use it and just go there!! Why is that so hard?
15 hrs ago
0
#30
Creeper_7223 wrote:
David wrote:
Creeper_7223 wrote:
Ethanchock7 wrote:
Don't be a Kramnik.
There is no "cheating" problem on chess.com.
Of my 3,000+ games on this site, only a handful of times have I come across a "cheater".
Oh, here we go again. Just ignore all the evidence around you and whatever the tops say is true must be true! Right?... Moron. Go back to school, kid.
Your only problem with that is that there is no such "evidence". You lost a game: that's not "evidence", that your personal experience and an anecdote. Kramnik presented what he believed was evidence that on closer examination demonstrated that he did indeed need to take a statistics class. You've got nothing.
Wow. Sorry dude, I don't have time for blind squirrels. Good luck in life.
lol - I understand that just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you, but the rest of us don't have to buy into your delusions.
And people wonder how the orange guy got re-elected.
14 hrs ago
0
#31
Lol!
It’s funny how much you overestimate cheating.
It’s also funny how you think chess.com isn’t trying to get rid of cheaters.
It’s funny how much you overestimate cheating.
It’s also funny how you think chess.com isn’t trying to get rid of cheaters.
14 hrs ago
0
#32
“The perception levels of cheating are orders of magnitude higher than the actual amount.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2hBrVsJ9_k
That said, cheating is not allowed on the general forums. If you would like to discuss cheating, join this club
https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum“
—a moderator
How accurate was that? The second paragraph might not be word-for-word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2hBrVsJ9_k
That said, cheating is not allowed on the general forums. If you would like to discuss cheating, join this club
https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum“
—a moderator
How accurate was that? The second paragraph might not be word-for-word.
And logistics. That would help you think better, too.