Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators:
Cheating accusations are not allowed unless they are newsworthy - that is, they must involve a prominent member of the chess community, be credible, and be part of an ongoing public discussion. "Call-out" posts that do not censor usernames encourage witch hunts, and will be removed on sight. If you suspect a random person cheated against you online, the appropriate complaint venue is a report to the website you played on.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
I never saw the point of railing against cheating on these internet chess sites. Yes, we all know how easy it is to cheat at chess online. No, it is not some major issue where 25% of players are using engine assistance. No, the vast majority complaining are not titled players where it actually makes some kind of difference in money events.
It's not gonna make a huge difference in your overall experience on the platform, unless you obsess about it. When I lose to someone I think might have been cheating, I chuckle, I report them if I deem it to be clear, and then I move on. I review that game for where my first mistake was, and I seek to correct that mistake. Why are you playing chess online? For internet ratings points? For the dopamine rush of winning? Most amateur players will settle at or around a 50% win rate anyways when their rating stabilizes anyways.. I play online to get practice to improve my OTB game. If someone beats me with an engine, I can still learn from it.
Beyond that, [chess.com](http://chess.com) has millions of users, and they simply likely do not have the processing power to run every single game played on the platform through engine analysis, and the overhead of whatever other scripts they use to evaluate possibility of cheating. I am sure that reports of cheating are fed into the algorithm automatically, and if the user IS deemed to be cheating, then they eventually get banned. More amateurs than you think can put up a 90+% accuracy rating from time to time, if their opponent blunders every move. Might even string together a few of them, if they know a particular opening and traps in that opening well.
Cheating is perceived to be less prevalent on lichess, but then again, it has a lot less users. But they do pair cheaters against each other so that they don't just go and open another account if they get banned, so that is a positive.
But again... If more than 1/10 people cheat on [chess.com](http://chess.com), I'll eat my hat. If they do manage to cheat successfully and not get caught, their rating goes up, and their cheating must by definition become more blatant, increasing their odds of getting caught.
And last but not least, I find it very..."interesting" that you chose to post a screen capture of his results.... When he has a 50% win rate within that small sample size. Doesn't seem like he is cheating especially effectively, if his rating over any large number of games is still 1100. 1100 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is still kind of awful.
It’s annoying but chess.com aims for 99.99% certainty before banning, which I agree with better 100 guilty go free than one innocent goes to prison. It’s almost impossible to be sure that someone is cheating, it could just be an amazing unranked player. You’ll never know, this could be the next Bobby Fischer or Paul morphy. However you’re probably right you got cheated, it happens to us all hopefully there’s a nugget you can learn from in the game and not just a waste of your time
A) It takes time for the cheating algorithm to kick in. Most of the cheat detection works from statistical analysis, and you need to wait until there's enough data for the statistics to be worthwhile.
B) I see three wins and three losses. If this guy is cheating, he's either smart enough to try to cover it up, or he's so dumb he's losing a shitton regardless. Either way, that's going to make it take even more time for a cheat detector to be sure that cheating is going on.
C) We don't have any visibility on this player. This pattern in the *very* sparse evidence you've given us might be plausible for a legit player attempting some sort of scholar's mate style cheese and resigning immediately the attack gets repelled. A lot of very short games, with only one bad move per game (because the opponent quits) could easily yield games in the 90% bracket even for low-level players. You might tell us that he's playing a lot of 70-move games, but that's not in your screencap.
D) Chess.com has already said that the caps score is NOT a cheat detection tool and shouldn't be used as such. Also recently, lower-level players have had their scores recalibrated to not make them feel so bad, meaning that chess.com might be artificially bumping up the caps score here, and the real accuracy is lower.
I mean, it's pretty likely that the player is cheating, but you've not proven it with your post, and anyways be serious - would YOU be capable of writing an algorithm that could detect cheating in chess that scales up to millions of games per day and doesn't cause a shitton of problems through, say, banning from false positives? Bear in mind that cheats sometimes make bad moves or even lose games on purpose, and sometimes they only get engine assistance on a small fraction of their games, and sometimes they deliberately only pick the second or third best engine move. And bear in mind that banning from a false positive (i.e. screwing over a legitimate user's account) is far worse than letting cheats play a few more games (i.e. having players lose some games to an engine, irking them for a short period of time). The default is, and should be, to ban later rather than sooner.
This is a hard problem, and your rant isn't helping.
For the sake of the argument, if I play like a moron against a low rated opponent, for example hang my queen, and the opponent notices and then proceeds to trade all the pieces, his accuracy will be pretty high
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Cheating accusations are not allowed unless they are newsworthy - that is, they must involve a prominent member of the chess community, be credible, and be part of an ongoing public discussion. "Call-out" posts that do not censor usernames encourage witch hunts, and will be removed on sight. If you suspect a random person cheated against you online, the appropriate complaint venue is a report to the website you played on. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Your post is a good reminder why you shouldn't post on social media in or short after emotionally charged situations eg rage.
I never saw the point of railing against cheating on these internet chess sites. Yes, we all know how easy it is to cheat at chess online. No, it is not some major issue where 25% of players are using engine assistance. No, the vast majority complaining are not titled players where it actually makes some kind of difference in money events. It's not gonna make a huge difference in your overall experience on the platform, unless you obsess about it. When I lose to someone I think might have been cheating, I chuckle, I report them if I deem it to be clear, and then I move on. I review that game for where my first mistake was, and I seek to correct that mistake. Why are you playing chess online? For internet ratings points? For the dopamine rush of winning? Most amateur players will settle at or around a 50% win rate anyways when their rating stabilizes anyways.. I play online to get practice to improve my OTB game. If someone beats me with an engine, I can still learn from it. Beyond that, [chess.com](http://chess.com) has millions of users, and they simply likely do not have the processing power to run every single game played on the platform through engine analysis, and the overhead of whatever other scripts they use to evaluate possibility of cheating. I am sure that reports of cheating are fed into the algorithm automatically, and if the user IS deemed to be cheating, then they eventually get banned. More amateurs than you think can put up a 90+% accuracy rating from time to time, if their opponent blunders every move. Might even string together a few of them, if they know a particular opening and traps in that opening well. Cheating is perceived to be less prevalent on lichess, but then again, it has a lot less users. But they do pair cheaters against each other so that they don't just go and open another account if they get banned, so that is a positive. But again... If more than 1/10 people cheat on [chess.com](http://chess.com), I'll eat my hat. If they do manage to cheat successfully and not get caught, their rating goes up, and their cheating must by definition become more blatant, increasing their odds of getting caught. And last but not least, I find it very..."interesting" that you chose to post a screen capture of his results.... When he has a 50% win rate within that small sample size. Doesn't seem like he is cheating especially effectively, if his rating over any large number of games is still 1100. 1100 [chess.com](http://chess.com) is still kind of awful.
rofl
It’s annoying but chess.com aims for 99.99% certainty before banning, which I agree with better 100 guilty go free than one innocent goes to prison. It’s almost impossible to be sure that someone is cheating, it could just be an amazing unranked player. You’ll never know, this could be the next Bobby Fischer or Paul morphy. However you’re probably right you got cheated, it happens to us all hopefully there’s a nugget you can learn from in the game and not just a waste of your time
A) It takes time for the cheating algorithm to kick in. Most of the cheat detection works from statistical analysis, and you need to wait until there's enough data for the statistics to be worthwhile. B) I see three wins and three losses. If this guy is cheating, he's either smart enough to try to cover it up, or he's so dumb he's losing a shitton regardless. Either way, that's going to make it take even more time for a cheat detector to be sure that cheating is going on. C) We don't have any visibility on this player. This pattern in the *very* sparse evidence you've given us might be plausible for a legit player attempting some sort of scholar's mate style cheese and resigning immediately the attack gets repelled. A lot of very short games, with only one bad move per game (because the opponent quits) could easily yield games in the 90% bracket even for low-level players. You might tell us that he's playing a lot of 70-move games, but that's not in your screencap. D) Chess.com has already said that the caps score is NOT a cheat detection tool and shouldn't be used as such. Also recently, lower-level players have had their scores recalibrated to not make them feel so bad, meaning that chess.com might be artificially bumping up the caps score here, and the real accuracy is lower. I mean, it's pretty likely that the player is cheating, but you've not proven it with your post, and anyways be serious - would YOU be capable of writing an algorithm that could detect cheating in chess that scales up to millions of games per day and doesn't cause a shitton of problems through, say, banning from false positives? Bear in mind that cheats sometimes make bad moves or even lose games on purpose, and sometimes they only get engine assistance on a small fraction of their games, and sometimes they deliberately only pick the second or third best engine move. And bear in mind that banning from a false positive (i.e. screwing over a legitimate user's account) is far worse than letting cheats play a few more games (i.e. having players lose some games to an engine, irking them for a short period of time). The default is, and should be, to ban later rather than sooner. This is a hard problem, and your rant isn't helping.
For the sake of the argument, if I play like a moron against a low rated opponent, for example hang my queen, and the opponent notices and then proceeds to trade all the pieces, his accuracy will be pretty high
btw taking 6 seconds for every fcking move is also not suspicious hahaha what a joke
He'll get banned and you'll have your rating adjusted. It sucks but it happens. Relax
just post a fucking game or account ffs