Here's the list:
As to how it's determined, no one except certain staff know, for rather obvious reasons. Still, there has certainly been plenty of speculation and you can read all about it by joining this group:
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum
X
thx for your response. I will not be joining such a group to read the discussion. today I have been exploring the rise in accusations in the general discussions list .the thread is what annoys you most .... again I have not read anything from this group but I suspect that such a group like this has unintentionally given rise to what I call a witch hunt of sorts in looking for cheaters. a person falsely accused can take it as a compliment but this banned list is quite curious and a bit repulsive solely for the fact that I have been falsely accused several times.
Here's the list:
The list is gone, does anybody know where to find it?
One of my opponents misteriously disappeared and I want to verify if it is due to cheating.
That list is three years old, RJC, and the link at the bottom of it (presumably to more recent records) is broken.
I'm pretty sure there's no need to worry about banning folks who weren't actually cheating. It's generally pretty ovbious. Especially at the lower levels. They're experts.
I'm perfectly happy for Chess.com to screen my games for cheating any time they want - I know I'm not cheating and I don't have anything to hide. Personally, I think they're doing a good job and it's a shame cheating is so common that these measures are necessary.
If one of my opponents accuses me then tbh I'd take it as a compliment! 
I'm perfectly happy for Chess.com to screen my games for cheating any time they want - I know I'm not cheating and I don't have anything to hide. Personally, I think they're doing a good job and it's a shame cheating is so common that these measures are necessary.
If one of my opponents accuses me then tbh I'd take it as a compliment!
Agreed. As I understand it, they usually focus their screening efforts on 2000+ rated players. They represent most of the "risk".
Here's the list:
The list is gone, does anybody know where to find it?
One of my opponents misteriously disappeared and I want to verify if it is due to cheating.
Erik made a post yesterday that they decided to no longer publish the list. I forget the reason he gave, but I think Long IslandMark is correct and this is a "prophylactic" move to head off any more civil suits. No I don't have the link to Erik's post...
Erik posted this over in the Cheating forum, but I think folks here should read it too. Oh dear, this may get me in trouble...again.
We will soon be making some changes to how we display profiles for members whose accounts were closed for cheating. We will no longer place a "cheater" flag on their public profiles. Also, we will no longer have a page listing accounts closed by our anti-cheating system.
Why are we doing this? Because publicly exposing cheaters never became the deterrent we hoped for. And worse, the practice of calling out members has fostered too much negativity toward individual ex-members in general.
Our policies and other practices around closing the accounts of detected cheaters have not changed — we will continue diligently monitoring and closing accounts just as before. And we continue to invest in our cheat-detection system. In short, we will continue to do everything we can to combat cheating on Chess.com, we are just changing how we publicly handle those accounts accused of using outside assitance.
Thank you!
please tell me you folk haven't blacklisted people like a salem witch hunt because sore losers can't accept a loss. please tell me you have some other method to warrant sanctions. I am so miffed by this paranoia that i may just make it my calling to expose and bring attention to such absurdity. I can't think of anything more unbecoming and embarrassing as a modern day witch hunt due to soft egos.
Please tell me you didn't type that with your butt cheeks... I know it's ignorant, improbable, and immature of me, but I just can't stop thinking about it and the more I think about it the more I'm disgusted and outraged.
Here's the list:
The list is gone, does anybody know where to find it?
One of my opponents misteriously disappeared and I want to verify if it is due to cheating.
Erik made a post yesterday that they decided to no longer publish the list. I forget the reason he gave, but I think Long IslandMark is correct and this is a "prophylactic" move to head off any more civil suits. No I don't have the link to Erik's post...
Thank you, Alan!
It's on the first page under "Top Titled Players".
They were already sued once for banning someone for suspicion of cheating. They ended up reinstating his account.
I always thought publishing such a list was an invite to get a civil suit for slander or libel.
It did happen, and they caved in, faced with the prospect of tens of thousands of attorney fee plus having to explain to average Joe's jury how you can use statistics to assess probability of cheating.
How can you civil suit? 99.9% of members is anonymous, so have no reputation to destroy.
A pseudonym's reputation is a reputation.
If I write on those forums that you have eaten your mother and stole money, you can sue me, because I do harm your reputation, even if none knows who is "balente". (Assuming there are no territoriality tricks, considering where I am physically posting from...)
On the other hand, if I say that John Smith has eaten his mother and stole money, you have no case if none of the audience I reached knows that you are John Smith.
Plus "probability" vs. "proof" is different. We might all reasonable agree, but hard to "prove" unless you were in the room with them while they fed moves into an engine (or had spyware on thier computer).
If DNA is proof, so are computer match rates.
As the chess.com forums about Borislav Ivanov prove, however, people think DNA is foolproof (which it almost is) while "statistics" are never sure (which is true), hence meaningless (...). It is hard to educate the jury.
I always thought publishing such a list was an invite to get a civil suit for slander or libel.
It did happen, and they caved in, faced with the prospect of tens of thousands of attorney fee plus having to explain to average Joe's jury how you can use statistics to assess probability of cheating.
How can you civil suit? 99.9% of members is anonymous, so have no reputation to destroy.
A pseudonym's reputation is a reputation.
If I write on those forums that you have eaten your mother and stole money, you can sue me, because I do harm your reputation, even if none knows who is "balente". (Assuming there are no territoriality tricks, considering where I am physically posting from...)
On the other hand, if I say that John Smith has eaten his mother and stole money, you have no case if none of the audience I reached knows that you are John Smith.
The courts in the United States have held that screen name (anonymous) entities can not be defamed.
please tell me you folk haven't blacklisted people like a salem witch hunt because sore losers can't accept a loss. please tell me you have some other method to warrant sanctions. I am so miffed by this paranoia that i may just make it my calling to expose and bring attention to such absurdity. I can't think of anything more unbecoming and embarrassing as a modern day witch hunt due to soft egos.