Give us the option to opt out of playing against new accounts

Think this through...if you are correct about the majority of brand new accounts being cheaters/bots, then your proposed filter will accomplish what, exactly? The cheaters will still come out the other end and you will end of playing them anyway once they are not "new", but all the actual brand new chess players will be stuck playing only cheaters and bots and getting massacred as their very first experience (because everybody will use this filter, why wouldn't they?). The new players will then quit, and chess.com will first stagnate and then start to actually shrink its userbase.

They will then need to do something about that revenue shortfall, and if no new users are joining, how do you think they will make up that revenue shortfall...? Yes, more ads and membership price increases.

The answer is not a filter.

Meanwhile, if you bump this often enough, you will get muted eventually.

>Think this through...if you are correct about the majority of brand new accounts being cheaters/bots, then your proposed filter will accomplish what, exactly?

Never made any comment about bots. Did you actually read my post?

>The cheaters will still come out the other end and you will end of playing them anyway once they are not "new"

The longer they play, the more likely they are to be automatically banned by the sites preventative measures. This is untrue.

>but all the actual brand new chess players will be stuck playing only cheaters and bots and getting massacred as their very first experience (because everybody will use this filter, why wouldn't they?)

This is already true. Everyone would not use this, only the people who play enough to be aware and care about this feature would AKA the people it effects the most.

>The new players will then quit, and chess.com will first stagnate and then start to actually shrink its userbase.

This is a gigantic leap in logic and assumption.

The only reason for your negative reply is because you are more than likely exactly who I'm talking about, considering you have played 1 game on this account in the last 10 years. So unless you're just a loser who spends his time scouring the chess forum on a site he doesn't actively play on, you more than likely play multiple accounts.

No, I play on Lichess when I play online.

You don't have to accept my logic, but chess.com does and so you will never get your filter.

So you're just a loser who spends his time scouring the chess forum on a site he doesn't actively play on got it.

If you want to filter out players who've play a low number of games play daily chess. You can include that filter there.

Personally I don't bother though.

By definition, the loser would be the person not getting their way after whining...that would be you, I'm afraid. Enjoy.

Bump

100% agree. Should be a minimum amount of games in arenas also.

You should need to opt in. Out should be default.

DiogenesDue is correct - the cheaters will evolve their behaviour to make them harder to detect.

Chess.com and all online games sites are ecosystems - they need the experience for new players to be a good one so that a larger percentage mature into regular players.

I could see an argument for a setting avoid non-paying accounts with less than 10 games, or to not allow non-paying accounts to participate in arenas until they had played 20 games.
This assumes that 10 or 20 games is enough to detect a large proportion of cheaters, of course.

I agree, I don't think it should be by default. Again, this is a feature that benefits the players who it most effects, not a site-wide necessary condition for those that it doesn't.

I can only assume that chess.com has the data about the mean game count it takes for their system to reliably detect cheating. But yes, some proposed option to filter out new accounts based on play-time is preferable. 
This obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility of running into cheaters/smurfs but it will significantly raise the barrier to entry to doing both for the players whom it will most impact.

Bump

bump

Absolutely needed.

As a 2000 elo 30min rapid player, 80% of my games are now against new accounts. That would be fine if you had an abort button but they removed mine few days ago, unplayable since then. Probably have to try another website

Rofl there are 4 cheaters in your recent match history

It takes time to detect cheaters.

That means that unsophisticated-but-not-down-right-stupid cheaters have usually a few games before they are caught. If existing users avoid playing new accounts, they are less likely to play cheaters.

The problem is that in that case, players who do not avoid new players will play more new players with unreliable ratings and higher probability for cheating.

That isn't a new problem because it's already the current reality.

Someone boots up a new account that they use to quickly climb while cheating. It can take quite a few games before the cheating is detected by the site, especially if they are a bit smart about it. Which means most encounters for players above an average rating, running into a "new account" almost always means that this player is either cheating or smurfing. Both are really irritating experiences that should be being considered by the site, as they are situations that are considered in most other competitive online games.