Isn't it against the rules to accuse people of cheating in the forums? Hasn't the OP done this to people who disagree with him? He wants the staff to read his stuff. I agree. Then they can ban him from the forums for making totally unfounded accusations of cheating. Perhaps he can be fined. What's your credit card number?
+1
Better detection algorithms can be used. One immediate way is to analyse the traces that engines leave on the host computer, and see if the game under consideration has been crunched. This can be circumvented by using two computers, but at least it is a start which does not require changing the (successful) economic structure.
all of you idiots with your credit card company nonsense comments, who are calling me uneducated are forgetting one very important thing.. Any member who is being charged the fine has already agreed to a terms of use for chess.com, and subsequently assumed the burden of proof by way of that agreement. shows how much you idiots know about how to phrase a user agreement
Now you're calling us names?
User agreements would not even come in to play with the CC company until court. And trust me, user agreements like at this site are useless in court.
To wasted youth; post #55; In court, your exagerating the legal term,"beyond a resonable doubt". That's used in a murder case. Chess.com would only have to show a propencity for patterns to cheat. And to contest the charge from the card company, the burden of proff would fall on the user to prove the charge is not legitimate. Your confusing criminal, and civil.
Ok, fair point; but it would only take one good attorney to successfully cast doubt upon the ability of chess.com to prove that someone's been cheating, and you've got a precedent; I think that would be too much of a risk for the site, considering that they could have hundreds of cases each month.
To wasted youth; post #55; In court, your exagerating the legal term,"beyond a resonable doubt". That's used in a murder case. Chess.com would only have to show a propencity for patterns to cheat. And to contest the charge from the card company, the burden of proff would fall on the user to prove the charge is not legitimate. Your confusing criminal, and civil.
Ok, fair point; but it would only take one good attorney to successfully cast doubt upon the ability of chess.com to prove that someone's been cheating, and you've got a precedent; I think that would be too much of a risk for the site, considering that they could have hundreds of cases each month.
+1, there is not enough money created by these fines to make the upkeep of a court battle.
Isn't it against the rules to accuse people of cheating in the forums? Hasn't the OP done this to people who disagree with him? He wants the staff to read his stuff. I agree. Then they can ban him from the forums for making totally unfounded accusations of cheating. Perhaps he can be fined. What's your credit card number?
Thank you Burke.
Heh, there needs to be a report thread button, if there are 3 people that report the thread, it gets temporarily blocked and reviewed by staff.
Rsava; the company can prove its legit with the terms of use clause. On a side note, let me say thank you to everyone in this thread. We're posting 80 post in 80 minutes. The mod board must be lighting up like a christmas tree. One more opinion. there's about 7 million people on this site. HOW MANY are actually cheating a lot??
Also, note the use of databases are not restricted in online chess games, can you actually prove that they were using an engine and not a database? Often times, up to moves in the double digits, databases contain the best move.
Eric has posted in the past, a list of banned members for a number of reasons;(cheating,lying,insulting,etc.). This thread was started as an economic insentive to reduce the cheating. How about this?? Every month, the staff post a list of names of, "suspected cheaters". You check the list, and decide if you want to play them. A wall of shame.
How does one find this list of suspected cheaters?
chess.com can decide where to post it.
Keep in mind, even though I have criticised many of the details, I do like this idea in general. Perhaps it should be given more thought.
I like the idea of requiring a new user to put up a sizeable bond to guarantee his good behaviour on this site. Perhaps Chess.com could charge a new user £300 initially, then return this amount in six months. If the client has broken any rules, the £300 is forfeit.
But 300 dollars (or pounds) now is worth less than 300 dollars/ pounds 6 months later, due to factors such as the interest one would have earned by keeping that 300 dollars in the bank, inflation, and that fact that people generally prioritize having money now vs having money later.
And of course, there's also the issue I've raised of complicating the process of creating an account.
Eric has posted in the past, a list of banned members for a number of reasons;(cheating,lying,insulting,etc.). This thread was started as an economic insentive to reduce the cheating. How about this?? Every month, the staff post a list of names of, "suspected cheaters". You check the list, and decide if you want to play them. A wall of shame.
Posting a list of "suspected cheaters" goes against chess.com's policy against naming and shaming. Someone either is a cheater - in which case he is banned immediately, or he's not. There's no reason to put up a list of people who might be cheaters, because people on the list who are innocent will obviously be framed, while people who are actually cheating will be alerted that chess.com suspects them, and will take action accordingly to prevent themselves from getting banned.
Precedents aren't used for trials, Precedents are used for appeals. That's our legal system's contribution to the world: English Common Law, stare decisis and all that...
I should google the term "stare decisis" if you're not sure of it. If an appeal court has made a certain ruling, then lower courts must abide by that. As I said - a good attorney (= solicitor) who wins a case in an appeal court against chess.com could really put the cat amongst the financial pigeons. And since i was obviously unclear: yes, I do mean "precedent" in the legal term.
Funny how often people assume, because of my name here, that I'm kind of dim. I've never yet been dim enough to pretend that I'm a baronet though.
Chess.com is smarter at CSI, then all of us. Innocent people cannot be framed. Either the're cheating or the're not. Its like pregnancy. What actions could actual cheaters take to prevent banning. You wouldn't get on the list for one accusation.
no no no... there is no posting of a fee upon registry in my plan. the account you make is still 100% free, provided you dont abuse the facility chess.com has provided for the comunity's entertainment. you only get charged and have your account deleted if you have been caught cheating.
Yes, it's still free, but your solution makes it much more complicated for someone to create an account on chess.com. Every day there are people who just heard about chess.com, and create a free account just to try it out. If they were in the process of creating an account, and were asked for their credit card information, you can imagine how many people would just quit, and maybe go find another chess site that doesn't ask for credit card information.
So anyway, my point is, it makes chess.com lose potential customers, and so I doubt that chess.com would implement something like it.
I would leave this site asap if it required this, asking them to please delete my account. I don't like sites that take your credit card information to charge your credit card without your permission, and while this isn't charging without my permission I don't feel safe giving them my credit card information without prior experience with their customer service from myself or those I know.
In fact, I don't know of the experiences of customer service here but I don't need to atm. I have friends that enjoy the site, some paying, some not. We all have a good time when we play. What it really boils down to is that credit card information will lose players like:
What does this actually mean? It means that overall we will lose:
Chess.com is smarter at CSI, then all of us. Innocent people cannot be framed. Either the're cheating or the're not. Its like pregnancy. What actions could actual cheaters take to prevent banning. You wouldn't get on the list for one accusation.
Ok, lets be clear here: the list of "suspected cheaters" that you're talking about... do u mean a list of people that have already been convicted of cheating, and are banned, in which case we have that already? Or do u mean a list of people that chess.com thinks could be cheating but isn't completely sure, in which case the questions I raised are totally valid?
Crooked. It is EXTREMELY obvious you do not care about our opinions, so just leave the thread, submit a ticket, and see their response. However, with the majority of us, we believe that the idea will become a major cash pit for Chess.com. You have no clue how much a server, able to withstand over ten-thousand members at once costs.