Rapid moves from opponents who are not "online" -- cheating

Sort:
Doggy_Style
SkepticGuy wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
Please furnish us with your evidence that correspondence playing bots exist.

I'm not going to post links in the public forum. (@@)

If an admin would like the links, and mitigation possibilities, I'm happy to share.

Send it to me privately then.

SocialPanda
Trag55 wrote:

 I'm sceptical of all these cheating allegations. I always keep 70 games on the go and am only reading this because I'm waiting for a someone to move, and then I'll react instantly.

 I use my galaxy sometimes and that phone doesn't show me as on-line. Incidentially I get accused of cheating quite regularly, I just put it down to sour-grapes, when I'm losing no one accuses me of cheating!

when you lose you are only "exchanging points" between your accounts, and then they also accuse of cheating (check this thread, they said that).

Of course, your explanation is much better, your phone doesn´t register you as online, and you move instantly, what´s so hard to believe about that? not everybody takes hours for a move. 

SocialPanda
Doggy_Style wrote:
SkepticGuy wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
Please furnish us with your evidence that correspondence playing bots exist.

I'm not going to post links in the public forum. (@@)

If an admin would like the links, and mitigation possibilities, I'm happy to share.

Send it to me privately then.

Do you want to cheat with a 1500 engine? Tongue Out

Doggy_Style
SocialPanda wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
SkepticGuy wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
Please furnish us with your evidence that correspondence playing bots exist.

I'm not going to post links in the public forum. (@@)

If an admin would like the links, and mitigation possibilities, I'm happy to share.

Send it to me privately then.

Do you want to cheat with a 1500 engine? 

No. I'm trying to get him to admit that has nothing. To prolong the lie makes him look like a real plonker.

SocialPanda
Doggy_Style wrote:
SocialPanda wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
SkepticGuy wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
Please furnish us with your evidence that correspondence playing bots exist.

I'm not going to post links in the public forum. (@@)

If an admin would like the links, and mitigation possibilities, I'm happy to share.

Send it to me privately then.

Do you want to cheat with a 1500 engine? 

No. I'm trying to get him to admit that has nothing. To prolong the lie makes him look like a real plonker.

I was expecting that his answer will be:

"I can´t send you the link, since I don´t want to facilitate cheating among our members, I´m not accusing you of anything, but the temptation would be great", or something along those lines.

Doggy_Style
SocialPanda wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
SocialPanda wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
SkepticGuy wrote:
Doggy_Style wrote:
Please furnish us with your evidence that correspondence playing bots exist.

I'm not going to post links in the public forum. (@@)

If an admin would like the links, and mitigation possibilities, I'm happy to share.

Send it to me privately then.

Do you want to cheat with a 1500 engine? 

No. I'm trying to get him to admit that has nothing. To prolong the lie makes him look like a real plonker.

I was expecting that his answer will be:

"I can´t send you the link, since I don´t to facilitate cheating among our members, I´m not accusing you of anything, but the temptation would be great", or something along those lines.

Exactly, prolonging the lie.

General-Mayhem

I'm pretty sure the app doesn't show you as 'online'. And the fast responding makes sense because when it's your move you get a notification (like if you got a text message), so people can respond immediately rather than having to be on a computer, especially if they don't take correspondence games seriously.

Sred

While I admit that it would be easy to write such a bot, I seriously doubt that anyone would use it to achieve a 1500 rating.

Btw: The classic Android app doesn't show you as online (confirmed by staff). 

computo200

I wonder if there is gonna be an answer from the chess.com stuff

SkepticGuy
Sred wrote:

While I admit that it would be easy to write such a bot, I seriously doubt that anyone would use it to achieve a 1500 rating. 

I can't find the dicussion on the StackOverflow site now (community for programmers). I'll check the history on my home computer tonight. They were using a chess.com bot library in combination with Rybka to simulate any level of play. 

TheGrobe
SkepticGuy wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

This seems like a lot of wild conclusions for a purported skeptic.

Dunno... seems like the conclusion is rather simple -- rapid moves in correspondence/online chess, combined with the existence of bots in the wild that facilitate such activity.

I threw a barbecue where more burgers than I'd expect for the size of the guest list got consumed.

There are bears in the wild in and around the area.

Bears must have eaten the extra burgers.

ilikeflags

a 1500 rating you say? that's a cheat for sure. especially since your rating is 1300.

ilikeflags

yep, it was the bears.

SkepticGuy
ilikeflags wrote:

a 1500 rating you say? that's a cheat for sure. especially since your rating is 1300.

Appologies for having a humble rank after playing for a few months while maintaining a busy career.

kleelof

It's ineresting with the several reasons they my not be showing as online, you chose the least likely reason.

Seems your name fits you.Laughing

kleelof

Also, you should not worry so much about cheaters. Most cheaters cheat for ratings. They will quickly work their way past your current rating range.

Besides, if you learn from your games, then, if you lose to a computer, you will still learn something and become a little better. The person using the computer will still be a weakass piece of crap chess player.

ilikeflags

worry about cheaters for sure. with such a humble rating, you're easy prey. cheaters be like -- 1300?! better turn on that magic bot.

null-cipher

I think ilikeflags is trolling.

MSC157

Yep.

SkepticGuy
kleelof wrote:

It's ineresting with the several reasons they my not be showing as online, you chose the least likely reason.

I never "chose" any reason. Merely presented a suspicious scenario in the opening post, expressed disatisfaction that it might be possibe, and asked if others expereinced it. A few did.

 

Trollery need not reply.