In my eyes Chess.com has no idea how to deal with cheaters

Sort:
Daybreak57

First off, they don't catch a lot of them, second off, they close accounts because they think these people cheated when they didn't.  I know someone that this happened to.  Chess.com is 0 for 2.  They don't catch enough cheaters, and they convict innocent people of cheating and ban their account.  Now he created a new account and purposely throws games because he doesn't care anymore he tried to work his way up to a good rating and chess.com said he was cheating when he was just using the Analysis board along with a little help from opening explorer from time to time.

 

Has this happened to anyone?  

 

I think their chess software to catch cheaters is a bunch of crap.  It is not 100%.  Sometimes they hurt innocent people who have just been playing good chess, especially in correspondence.  It's not cheating to use the analysis board and use opening explorer from time to time, but he was considered a cheater by chess.coms alleged full proof program to catch cheaters.  It's not full proof.  Sometimes it makes mistakes, which means all that program is a waste of bandwidth in my book.  The next time someone tries to post a wall of shame of cheaters, just know, that in reality, there is no full proof way to tell if someone is cheating, even if you have chess.com's super secret alleged full proof program to catch cheaters because apparently, it is wrong sometimes.  So I'm blowing the lid on this.  Chess.com doesn't have a good way to stop cheaters, and they even hurt innocent people who aren't cheating sometimes by saying their alleged full proof program called them a cheater so they closed their account.

wanmokewan

*sigh* Another one?  What's your basis on the first one?  As far as we lowly members know, they use a combination of software and human judgement.  If someone you're convinced is cheating still has their account open, it's because the process takes time.  They analyze over several days.

VladimirHerceg91

You do realize that chess.com takes cheating very seriously, and this thread will be locked soon with links to where you can discuss it.

Nambiarsg

Thanks for sharing. I don't know anybody who has personally suffered. However, have a friend who did mention about some 'erroneous' decision taken by Chess.Com.. Due to which they lost a genuine player. I guess there is always a 'flip' side when we use an 'automated program' for such detection. However, if it is able to detect even 90% cheats, it's still serves the purpose! Broadly speaking happy.png

VLaurenT

Having fought cheaters for many years here, I very much doubt there is any false positive : chess.com's system is ultra-conservative, and it takes an awful lot of cheating to get banned.

solskytz

<Hicetnunc> +1 - including for caring enough to actually fight cheaters for those many years. 

Xybb
Daybreak57 wrote:

[...] chess.com said he was cheating when he was just using the Analysis board along with a little help from opening explorer from time to time.

 

[...]

 

Using the analysis board and the opening explorer is cheating (using the opening explorer is only prohibited in daily chess).

Former_mod_david
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:

You do realize that chess.com takes cheating very seriously, and this thread will be locked soon with links to where you can discuss it.

Indeed, yes we do - see https://support.chess.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1444879-fair-play-on-chess-com-what-you-need-to-know and https://www.chess.com/blog/DanielRensch/cheating-on-chesscom.
Please report any suspected cheating to the Support team via https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/emails/new.

@hicetnunc is correct in that Chess.com only acts when we are certain about cheating - we do not do the whole "false positive" thing. Unfortunately, that means that we don't act as quickly as some people would like, but every genuine report helps, whereas every false one does not.
To learn more about cheat detection, please join the Cheat Detection Club at https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum rather than discussing it in the public forums - I am now locking this thread.
Thanks,
David ~ Chess.com moderator

This forum topic has been locked