I don't get it. How does one cheat? Computer program or Opening book on Chess?
Why do people make such a big deal about cheating?
Sort:
Jul 21, 2008
0
#3
Excactly, why become paraniod just because there are cheaters. Just treat it like a loss against a non-cheater. Learn from it and forget about it. Look at the bright side; playing a machine is also going to make you a better player. 
Totally agreed
You can cheat by using computer chess engines, in response to the one writer who asked how can you cheat...It is usually obvious when someone is cheating
lanceuppercut_239 wrote:
Especially given that: 1. Most people don't cheat.
Lanceuppercut_239,
What evidence do you have to support this statement?
An effective, proactive detection system would benefit everyone - the victims of cheaters as well as those wrongly accused of cheating.
The continued discussion and debate over cheating is, in my opinion, a result of the tremendous complexity of establishing such a detection system coupled with the uncertainty of exactly how and what Chess.com is doing to counter any potential cheating.
In no way should this be considered a criticism of the site (a bigger fan more than I you will not find) but to simply say "Hey, let us know if you suspect someone is cheating" leaves a lot to be desired. Does this mean that a cheater can cruise through game after game unpunished merely due to the lazyness of his victims not bothering to report him? Conversely, if you get reported after a particularly brilliant game what exactly happens?
None of the current situation detracts from my pleasure in the game, or this fantastic site for that matter. But I do think a proactive, transparent detection system is something that Erik et al would eventually want to put in place.
Babyferatu
PS. And yes, unfortunately I'm only of novice ranking, so if in your opinion that disqualifies me from rational discussion on the matter (weak players "assume that their opponent must be cheating") then may I politely suggest you dial back a bit on the ole' Elite-o-Meter.
Please tell me how it is obvious gerry123?
Or anyone?
Babyferatu wrote:
PS. And yes, unfortunately I'm only of novice ranking, so if in your opinion that disqualifies me from rational discussion on the matter (weak players "assume that their opponent must be cheating") then may I politely suggest you dial back a bit on the ole' Elite-o-Meter.
I'm not trying to sound elitist here. I recognize that I have a lot left to learn about the game of chess. Based on the rankings, there are about 2500-3000 chess.com members who are better players than myself. Clearly, I'm far from being the best.
I am by no means suggesting that the opinions of lower rated players don't count. I'm just making the observation that, with the exception of a couple of individuals, higher rated players on this website almost never make allegations of cheating. This seems counterintuitive - the worst cheaters should have high ratings, right? Cheating should be much more rampant at the 2000+ level than the <1500 level, right?
What evidence do you have to support this statement?
For starters, I've completed 56 games on this site. I've won 39 of them. If cheating were "rampant, especially at the lower levels" (as a forum member suggested in another thread) then how have I managed to defeat Chessmaster's hardest level so often?
The continued discussion and debate over cheating is, in my opinion, a result of the tremendous complexity of establishing such a detection system
There would only be a point in establishing such a system if cheating were a major problem in the first place. If 99.99% of people don't cheat, what's the point in devoting tremendous resources to a witchhunt for that other 0.01% ?
coupled with the uncertainty of exactly how and what Chess.com is doing to counter any potential cheating.
If they catch you cheating, you're banned from the site. They've made that very explicit. As to how they catch people - they're reluctant to divulge their methods. The reason being: telling people how they do it would give cheaters ideas on how to avoid detection.
lanceuppercut_239 wrote:
I'm just making the observation that, with the exception of a couple of individuals, higher rated players on this website almost never make allegations of cheating. This seems counterintuitive - the worst cheaters should have high ratings, right? Cheating should be much more rampant at the 2000+ level than the <1500 level, right?
I would hesitate to draw any conclusions based on the frequency or ratings of the accusers. Maybe higher level players are much more cautious to throw around an accusation for fear that they might tarnish their reputation/ego if it turned out to be false. Additionally, you're talking about forum postings and/or chat it seems... that says nothing to what the actual reporting statistics look like.
Rather than your quote
Most people don't cheat.
I would more agree with "Many people do not cheat, or are very bad at it" or even better "We have no idea about the frequency of cheating".
If 99.99% of people don't cheat, what's the point in devoting tremendous resources to a witchhunt for that other 0.01%?
Even if the frequency of cheating were known AND low, I think it would still be a valuable asset to the site's popularity and attractiveness. Think about Pogo.com and the rampant cheating rumors that plague it. How many serious players are ponying up premium fees to play there? I can't speak for others but in my own search for a chess home all it took were to read a string of bad experiences to steer me away and to Chess.com instead.
If they catch you cheating, you're banned from the site. They've made that very explicit. As to how they catch people - they're reluctant to divulge their methods. The reason being: telling people how they do it would give cheaters ideas on how to avoid detection.
Security by obscurity. It could equally be true that they have NO measures in place and instead do a manual, subjective check if and when a cheating-report is issued. Without at least some visible process we would never know.
...
I believe that we should not have such a great focus on the fact that some people cheat.
First of all, the cheaters are just loosers and do not deserve this kind of attention.
Secondly, I think that there wont be less cheaters if people talk about them all the time, maybe there will actually be more!
Thirdly, I dont think the number of cheating is very high, so we should not create a bad environment within this site by highlighting the few peoplee that maybe actually cheat.
Moon..;)
Moon,
If folks weren't as passionate and enthused by this site (myself included 
) then we wouldn't be having these open and frank discussions.
Healthy discourse does not reflect a bad environment.
Oh wait... does the winky-face in your signature mean that you were being sarcastic?
BF ;)
I must be missing something here...... Are there financial rewards obtainable based on one's ranking? Now I make the assumption that most cheaters do so for financial incentives, which I am just unaware of here...... However addressing the small group who would cheat "just because they can", it seems they are only hurting themself......
While I want to acheive the highest rating i can just due to my competitive nature; I need it to be accurate in order to guage my progress. That said, my primary 2 reasons for playing chess on line are 1) because I enjoy playing and playing on line gives me the convenience of playing whenever I can carve out some time..... and 2) because I want to learn and improve my game.
For those reasons I would prefer to play against players with much higher rankings. if it does turn out to be a "cheater" it has no effect on me. I still get to play and learn. if I lose to anyone - man or machine, it is due to my own shortcomings. Whether it is lack of recognition or dumb mistakes, I did not get the perfection I was striving for.... but they are "my mistakes". I will congatulate the winner, but crtique myself.
BTW, I still play those of lower rankings. Though mainly when challenged or players I have previously played who I just enjoy as friends and are on my list. The reason I accept the challenges of lower ranking players is because I respect that they too wish to learn and test their skills against higher ranked players. I have found that many higher ranked players refuse to play me when I challenge them, and it can get frustrating. I don't want to be one of those doing that to others.
Zombywoof,
Agreed - it doesn't make a lot of sense why people would cheat when there's no obvious financial reward, but there are still other factors such as ego and self-esteem (or in this case lack-thereof).
If, as you're suggesting, it doesn't really matter whether your opponent was man-or-machine then consider this question:
Given the choice between two equally ranked opponents, but one flat out states "By the way, I'm going to be using Fritz throughout the game to help me make all my moves", which one would you choose?
If it makes no difference, or (even more saucy) you'd play the augmented-player just for the challenge then I salute you, but partially wonder why you don't just play computers all the time then. I mean, why learn bad habits from all these sub-par 2600 players when you can learn from the white-hot intensity of an engine's 2700+ purity? 
It is wholly justifiable for individuals to utilize Chess.com to gauge themselves, directly compared to the other players herein. In that manner, being rated and challenged authentically would matter. Concern for being cheated, evidenced or supposed could plague or dampen the experience for those individuals.
So, depending on the type of experience a member is seeking, it can matter greater or not at all. In my case, it matters none. However, the constant suppositional accusations and whining is far more irritating than the possibility of being cheated, for me.
I do hope we will all come to understand the legitimacy of the concern, even if we disagree with how often and/or in what manner the concern is audienced.
Jul 21, 2008
0
#16
I never called anyone a cheater and in some games I would swear to God that they were.
It's very unpleasant when your winning, all the sudden your opponent calls you a cheater and leaves the board with a long period of time to wait.
Some people should really consider their bad behavior. If you think someone is doing it then report it. But please stop the childish attitudes.
Intellexual wrote:
It is wholly justifiable for individuals to utilize Chess.com to gauge themselves, directly compared to the other players herein. In that manner, being rated and challenged authentically would matter. Concern for being cheated, evidenced or supposed could plague or dampen the experience for those individuals. So, depending on the type of experience a member is seeking, it can matter greater or not at all. In my case, it matters none. However, the constant suppositional accusations and whining is far more irritating than the possibility of being cheated, for me. I do hope we will all come to understand the legitimacy of the concern, even if we disagree with how often and/or in what manner the concern is audienced.
Well put sir... unless I read that wrong and didn't realize that you were calling me a whiner (in that case, pistols at dawn)
I only play turn-based games on here, so I'll limit my comments to that.
Generally I would assume that if anyone were using a strong program like Rybka or Fritz to make all their moves, they would have a very high rating. If I ever happen to play someone rated 2000+, I can't imagine it would make any practical difference to me whether that person was using a program to decide how to move; I would have essentially no chance.
It would also be possible, of course, for a lower rated player to be mostly playing the moves by him or herself but when faced with a difficult problem -- like a disadvantageous endgame position -- to use a strong program to find a saving move or a draw. In that situation I would be "cheated" by not being able to "cash in" on my having obtained the advantage, but at my level of skill, I doubt I would even be able to guess what had been done.
That second type of cheating, however, might be practically significant to a player with a high rating who gets cheated by a much lower rated player using a program. Even if one doesn't have an unhealthy obsession with one's rating, everyone must at least want his or her rating to reflect something like an objective reality. That being said, I don't know if there are any high rated players here who think low rated cheaters are a problem.
Babyferatu wrote:
Well put sir... unless I read that wrong and didn't realize that you were calling me a whiner (in that case, pistols at dawn)
Awww. Thanks and, indeed, I was not regarding any whining that may be perceived in this thread or your own post. heh It hadn't even crossed my mind. That was so gentlemanly and cute, though. I greatly appreciate your lighter note.
Especially given that:
1. Most people don't cheat.
2. The chess.com staff has methods in place to catch cheaters. If you suspect someone of cheating you can report it.
It's like trying to catch drivers who speed. Most people obey the speed limits. Those who don't will eventually be caught, ticketed, and in the worst cases, punished through the courts or have their driver's licence revoked. Does this prevent speeding? Not entirely, but it deters most people and keeps the system functioning reasonably well.
Furthermore it seems most accusations of cheating come from weak players who don't understand why they lost a game - so they assume that their opponent must be cheating (heaven forbid we'd ever admit we were simply outclassed!).