12113 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hi, this is my suggestion for live chess to combat cheaters: hire strong players who understand the problems of cheating. A statistical model is far inferior to a statistical model + strong staff members.
Let these staff members carry out instant punishments in live chess, for obvious cases, e.g. people using an engine, or multiple accounts.
Be smart. The current best lists have so many fakes in them, its unbelievable. Strong players can spot this a mile away, so if the site is to retain credibility, these fakes need to be erased.
And now to promote real live chess:
Have a ratings differential (RD) like at other sites that measures inactivity. If a player is inactive (i.e. just sits in the live room looking cool with an inflated rating) apply sanctions. These can be like a) remove them from best lists until they become active again (according to the RD), b) delete small incremental rating points off them until they are active, or c) only apply them to best lists until they reach a certain activity (i.e. not just after 10 games for example). This way, players like camat would not sit on their inflated 2600 rating for long. I believe a certain NM also had a 4200 rating which was arbitrarily cut down to 2600 by staff because they were inactive. With this system in place, neither of those things would happen.
The point of a rating system is to measure chess strength, and it is more accurate for a player when more games are being played by that player. We should be here to play chess, not fake a number that is meaningless if you are not interested in playing.
Just think of what would happen:
1) players would play more chess, and enter more of the tournaments
2) fakes and cheats would be dissuaded from playing here
3) players at a lower level would get to know who really are good players (at lower levels people just look at ratings because they don't have the skills to judge yet).
Another suggestion is: don't rank titled players first in the live chess system. Rank them according to their level (i.e. rating). Top players hardly use the graph to find an opponent, they go straight to the list and challenge someone on their level directly. And it's frustrating when you see some NM with a 1600 blitz rating taking up a space where strong players should be when you could hammer them 100-0 in a series.
Speaking of the graph, give us the option to switch it on or off. Personally I don't use it and the extra space on the screen could be used for the player's list.
I hope that people seriously consider all of my four suggestions so far. Thanks.
i am new ! don't understand a lot on line games..and tricks.. I played on board for sometimes good enough.
No one has any further comments? Today I just played a cheat twice in live chess. It's common for us players over 2200 level. You either get cheats or you get other 2200+s just sitting there not playing at all, scared of losing their points to cheats.
I think the best way of getting rid of cheaters is to allow computer accounts to be registered like at ICC. when you find out someone's cheating put a (C) next to their name rather than banning. That way they will probably just keep playing on that account with people knowing that they use computer assistance, whereas as being banned often only results in them making a new account.
Although your suggestion is good and should be implemented too :)
Yes piphilologist that is a good suggestion. Any staff reading this thread?
Ok, I get it. Staff don't care about chess really. The site is just a "muse" to make extra cashflow for the week. Pity.
I like Piph's suggestion. Sounds very helpful
a. Is used in turn-based chess now in fact.
b. I don't agree with because you are creating a change in rating that had nothing to do with a game of chess and that seems dishonest to me.
c. I also think is dishonest because as long as 2001 is higher than 2000 it seems unfair not to put the former player on top of the list. They have a higher rating and deserve to be placed there.
b and c are just going to punish players that are playing fairly by forcing them to do more than should be necessary. If I was a player that was obsessed with getting on top of the charts then I would just quit and play only OTB games as you are basically asking for more than what FIDE and other legitimate associations ask for with no gains for me at all.
"I believe a certain NM also had a 4200 rating which was arbitrarily cut down to 2600 by staff because they were inactive."
This is incorrect, not factual.
However, I like that you are making suggestions. Input is good, I believe. I encourage you in that regard.
Well his rating was adjusted from his inflated 4200 to 2600, for whatever reason. The point I make is with this system, ratings will not get out of control and be more realistic.
Since I have written the post, I do notice that some sort of system is in place on the homepage that ranks the titled players in each category, which is a good idea.
Nice comments by sisu!
haven nice day
How does the site calculate "insufficient material draw on a timeout?
by Inexorable88 7 minutes ago
by SergeyShS 10 minutes ago
Partner to practice with?
by DrAwesomesauce 11 minutes ago
Learn how to convert positional advantages more efficiently and consistently?
by KevinLudwig 11 minutes ago
by RRaps3 20 minutes ago
by egoole 23 minutes ago
What Does "gg!!" Mean?
by BigKingBud 35 minutes ago
How i reached 2600 BLITZ
by dpnorman 43 minutes ago
Quick question for chess.com
by lofina_eidel_ismail 44 minutes ago
weak chess site. really weak.
by OnceUponaCheckmate 44 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!