is there any chess site where there aren’t a ton of cheaters?

You should read the report issued by chess.com. https://www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating

Cheating is actually much less frequent than people think.

Chess.com reported that only 0.14% of its members had cheated. 

The actual percentage of cheaters here is probably no higher than three times what chess.com acknowledged.

Why do I think their number is low? Because I've reported many obvious cheats who play fair in 90% of their games. But, give them a 500 point rating gap in a tournament and they'll turn of the engine enough to keep the game level. If you err, they'll beat you. Sometimes I can beat them on time or lure them into stalemate.

0.14% is, practically by definition, a lower bound since any responsible cheat detection system will allow some cheaters to go free for the sake of minimizing false positives.

@Ziryab suggesting maybe around 1 in 250 cheat, sure, that seems reasonable to me based on  some basic estimates. Of course it will depend on the time control and rating. A 2400 player in 10|0 may be playing over 50% cheaters.

@markdingess claiming there are many cheaters is interesting to me. Somehow it's always low rated people thinking their opponents are cheating... but when you look at the games, there are many wild swings back and forth... it's so far from any type of cheating it's hard to know why they think this.

If you take the number of account closures in a given month (I struggle to find them, so I'm using August's numbers) for FPV, and divide by the total number of members:

25,449 closures / 97,877,250 members = 0.026%

More interestingly, if you use Wayback Machine to see how many members there were in August, you find it was 90,413,897 accounts, giving us a percentage of 0.02815%, almost exactly 1/5th of the claimed 0.14%. 

I have a feeling that chess.com is using number of closures and assuming that 20% of accounts are active in a given month to get to the 0.14% cheaters. If so, that means undiscovered cheats, sandbaggers, etc. are not included in that number.

It's difficult to get an accurate estimate that way. First of all not all members are checked for fair play violation... but even if they were, 1 person can open multiple accounts which will screw up the ratio.

You can do accounts checked vs accounts closed, but that's also tricky since some accounts will be checked only once, and others will be checked multiple times.

Correct. That fits into the way chess.com stated their numbers: "We estimate that fewer than 0.14% of players on Chess.com ever cheat"

They're claiming 0.14% of players is the upper bound - that language, to me, includes the possibility of players with multiple accounts. Like you pointed out though, not everyone is checked, so many cheaters probably fall under the radar.

Cheating is very common at low levels here. 

Also in b4 lock.

Bingo!

Chess.com's cheat detection is the industry standard. But, they miss plenty. The stat given is based on an assumption that their catch rate gives an accurate estimate.

I've had statistics classes. I was never told this. Maybe they were holding out on me

With technical subjects it's a bit like complaining "asprin is supposed to make headaches go away, but it didn't!"

Well, no, that's not technically what asprin does. Understanding the pharmacology of asprin in its entirety may require multiple college classes. It's just that "makes headaches go away" is good enough for laymen.

It's the same for statistics. "You are more likely to play a cheater on website 'A' than website 'B'" is good enough for laymen, but the real information is in the details, which may simultaneously suggest that, for some people, you're more likely to play a cheater on website B... the same way in some cases taking asprin is unlikely to make your headache go away. There's no contradiction, only ignorance.

It depends on the nature of the headache. Most of mine are treated with aspirin, caffeine, or both.

Tylenol, in my experience, is a well-advertised placebo. It does nothing.

You results may differ. Statistics can quantify how these results differ.

My worst headaches are always (lack of) caffeine related.

This isn't true. Too much tylenol can lead to liver failure, that's not nothing. 

Advil is ibuprofen and remarkably different than Tylenol, which is acetaminophen. They work in completely different ways and ibuprofen is not a danger to the large majority of the population's livers.

It is typically considered safe to take Tylenol at recommended doses over long periods of time without cause for worry. However, taking 14 of the 500mg in a 24 hour period can lead to overdosing, as can taking 8+ per day for an extended period of time. This of course varies by weight.

Any pain killer can have a negative effect on the liver over time. I would expect acetaminophen's impact to be less than ibuprofen's because it is less effective on pain, except that's not the equation for the damage. Acetaminophen seems to help some people manage pain. 

I took megadoses of ibuprofen for decades because of back pain (losing weight did more to reduce it than any pain killer). Now, I have prescription pain meds that are more effective and relatively less damaging to the liver. Happily, the expiration date usually comes before I empty the bottle.