By planting buggy information in Wikipedia. (I probably shouldn't be revealing this).
how is it cheating when your just gaining knowledge about tactics etc... by reading articles
It would be pretty hard to read the theory behind the Najdorf (Wikipedia probably isn't the best place to hone your opening repertoire btw) and play a Blitz game simultaneously.
how is it cheating when your just gaining knowledge about tactics etc... by reading articles
I agree with you. If I made up the rules, I'd encourage consulting sources "live," except in tournament games. But according to chess.com rules, use of books/articles/other people/any resources during live chess equals cheating. So I'm just curious as to how they detect this kind of cheating. I guess this rule wasn't meant to be enforced.
It would be pretty hard to read the theory behind the Najdorf (Wikipedia probably isn't the best place to hone your opening repertoire btw) and play a Blitz game simultaneously.
I actually find certain wikipedia chess articles to be quite good. Check out the article on the Budapest. That's pretty in-depth theory, enough for an entire chapter in a book. At worst, wiki articles are lacking in details, but the contents are quite accurate.
how is it cheating when your just gaining knowledge about tactics etc... by reading articles
Couldn't Agree more....
Oh no, ANOTHER topic about possible cheating! Why can't we do the correct procedure - report the "suspect" and let Erik and the Chess.com team deal with that... Simple!
By the other topics in the forum, they have a cheating detection method already in place and always investigate a reported player!
Why are so many people worried about online rating points anyway?
They are worthless! 
Oh no, ANOTHER topic about possible cheating! Why can't we do the correct procedure - report the "suspect" and let Erik and the Chess.com team deal with that... Simple!
By the other topics in the forum, they have a cheating detection method already in place and always investigate a reported player!
Why are so many people worried about online rating points anyway?
They are worthless!
TonicoTinoco, my post is meant to be sarcastic. I'm sure everyone realizes how ridiculous I sound in my original post -- that's the point.
I would like to read chess.com articles posted by fellow members while I'm playing, but apparently that's classified as cheating.
If you don't want to read in between the lines, here's the translation: I do not believe that consulting articles/books should be considered cheating in live chess.
:: sigh ::
There is only one way to catch a cheat. Invit him to play against his last six opponents in a competion envoirment that is in a room where only he and his opponent are and a referee. If he is a cheat he will start sweating blood after the first five moves. Of course he would be made to pay for all the expenses incurred
It would be pretty hard to read the theory behind the Najdorf (Wikipedia probably isn't the best place to hone your opening repertoire btw) and play a Blitz game simultaneously.
What if you were playing a longer game? 30 minutes to two hours?
Oh no, ANOTHER topic about possible cheating! Why can't we do the correct procedure - report the "suspect" and let Erik and the Chess.com team deal with that... Simple!
By the other topics in the forum, they have a cheating detection method already in place and always investigate a reported player!
Why are so many people worried about online rating points anyway?
They are worthless!
TonicoTinoco, my post is meant to be sarcastic. I'm sure everyone realizes how ridiculous I sound in my original post -- that's the point.
I would like to read chess.com articles posted by fellow members while I'm playing, but apparently that's classified as cheating.
If you don't want to read in between the lines, here's the translation: I do not believe that consulting articles/books should be considered cheating in live chess.
Sarcastic or not its still about cheating!
Apologies for not reading in between the lines!
Have you realized that English is not the first language for many people here?
I wouldn't consider learning opening theory whilst playing is cheating on anywhere near the same scale as using chess engines - inevitably a move will be made that will take the game off the main lines and then it is down to the ability of the players.
suck it up. your here at chess.com to play and learn chess! not to complain if you get beat! so what if they look at the theory, then you learn from your loss and beat them next time! stop worrying about cheating its just a game! do you really care about your rating on the internet that much? there is alot more to worry about cheating if its in the real world playing ,chess games in person, than playing online.
suck it up.
Exactly. If you lose, you lose. Move on, play another game, and smile at the fact that you're actually gaining something from the experience.
how is it cheating when your just gaining knowledge about tactics etc... by reading articles
The same way it would be cheating in an exam? You can't read up on tactics because it gives you an unfair advantage! Anwyay it probably wouldn't help anyone stupid enough to do so :p
Would you be allowed to play an OTB game with a chess opening book beside you? This is exactly the same as reading opening theory from wikipedia while playing a chess game. It comes down to morals at the end of the day. If you really want to improve opening theory you should learn the theory in your own time, and then play a game. If you can't remember it midgame, then you know what to practise during your next training session. The fact that show many people think it is ok to cheat, be it mild or extreme, just goes to show the fewer morals that are enforced in todays upbringings. In the words of RJ Dio 'If you listen to fools, the mob rules'.
Yes, but I think one of the main points here is that reading books (or wikipedia) would be allowed in the CORRESPONDANCE games on-site (i.e. 1 day per move or more) but not on live.
suck it up. your here at chess.com to play and learn chess! not to complain if you get beat! so what if they look at the theory, then you learn from your loss and beat them next time! stop worrying about cheating its just a game! do you really care about your rating on the internet that much? there is alot more to worry about cheating if its in the real world playing ,chess games in person, than playing online.
You missed my point completely... don't worry, I agree exactly with what you are saying.
I posted this under the General Discussion, but it was deleted because I guess it was off-topic. So I'm reposting this here, under the correct forum section.
In live chess, consulting internet articles is considered cheating. But how would you know if your opponent is reading articles? For example, maybe he's reading the wikipedia article about the Sicilian Najdorf, and uses one of the ideas from there.
Sure, if a 600-rated player goes 20 moves into theory, then he's probably cheating. But if a 1500-rated player follows theory, it could be 1) he knows the opening, or 2) he's cheating by consulting some wikipedia article on that opening.
I'm just curious, because this way of cheating seems very hard to detect. What does chess.com do to enforce this?