What is it with the rampant cheating in Rapid games?

It's funny how I can close in on 2000 in blitz, yet when I play rapid, 900-level blitz players are playing like masters. Last one I faced played perfect book moves and obvious recaptures all with the same cadence of 4 to 7 seconds per move. They were flawless the entire game and knew book all the way out in my pet line. Then I check their rapid: 27 wins ZERO losses. I can't get a fair gauge of my rapid level with so many cheaters in that time control that it's not even worth playing any more.

I reported this one. Their match ratio was 90% (would be 100% but the chess.com computer didn't know all the book theory). When I confronted them about cheating and taking the same amount of time per move and being invincible, they trolled me and spammed my inbox with taunts. So yeah, I expect this person will definitely get the ban hammer.

I will say this, unless I'm playing a trusted friend, I will NEVER play rapid on this site again. Half the people I played were CLEARLY using engine help, with the last one just being blatant about it. Have to stick to 3-min blitz and under to get a fair game on here. Ridiculous!

There's a forum strictly for cheating topics. You can't blame chess.com for not wanting people to see cheat topics all over its site. That's beside the point though. What I was going to say was to put some parameters up for when you create a challenge. If you think it's better to play against a certain rating then put it to what rating that may be. I totally agree with you though, it's a big problem with not so many good solutions.

It's just I wish I could delete my rapid rating. It looks like I'm a noob, when actually I got waxed by engine users.

It is not only in rapid, now they use bots which are able to beat you in any time control, even in bullet games.  So, you might as well not stop playing rapid because of it. 

I wouldn't put much emphasis or even care really about a rating they give as well. It's just a number from a flawed system and shouldn't define a person. If you can play well and have been around and played enough, other good players will respect your ability despite the rating.

Another thing is that sometimes we think people are using engines when they are not, nowadays with so many resources available to study chess many people play like masters, at least in the opening and the fist part of the middlegame, you usually have to make it farther than that in the game to be able to outplay them.  I am an example, I have over 150 hours of chess videos in my PC, which I got for under 5 bucks an hour of video on average, mostly on openings and tactics, plus a membership at chesslecture (4000 videos), and the videos I watch on youtube, that, regular books, and .cbv books from everymanchess for chessbase reader, that's why I sometimes can play like a GM (not most of the time)    

Very true! I've had people in blitz and bullet games question me before because my ratings in those two are terrible. Then when I play a game with them, their automatically suspicious because they're assuming they're going to have a cake walk win. I see everyone starting out with 1800 ratings now days. All mine were either 1200 or 800 ratings when I signed up a couple years ago.

If any of your opponents are banned for cheating chess.com will (eventually, it can take a few days) give you back some rating points to compensate for it.

I played a cheater on Saturday, and I just got a message today that gave me back some points.

But I know what you mean... that's why I'll never play a long game online unless it's with a friend or unrated.

On Saturday I was playing this 800 rated guy. And he played so well I was annoyed and checked his profile during the game to see if his highest rating was more like 1600. Nope, it was always something under 1000.

Oh well, I go back to the game, and now we're out of the opening, and in 5 moves he blunders 3 pieces and a queen (or something ridiculous like this) and I'm thinking, ok, that's more like 800.

My last Daily chess game was it for me as far as online play.  While my online rating doesn't mean anything, I'm just done with online play and the ones that...well..don't play "fair"  As Stiggling said:  It gets annoying.

The engines and CAPS score are a bit misleading. Some openings simply play themselves, and while thats true, it almost universally true for both sides (if its easy to play and get a high CAPS score, low deviation as white it is almost certainly true for the black side also). I have had a number of those games, both played well, usually small errors decide the game.  Now where doubt is when my opponent gets a high CAPS score and low deviation in a complicated or fluid game like a classical french, kalashnikov, tarrasch etc. At my level in tougher positions we both should be making mistakes and plenty of them. 

What are you talking about? You haven't even played anyone over 1100. 

lol, I'm always down for a game if you feel up to it.

You're not a healthy person.

I'm not the one running my mouth, calling people out, trying to prove anything. This is why I said if you feel up to it. 

For those playing Devil's advocate: The person that cheated in my game was in fact banned and my rating points refunded. Does anyone have a counter to my complaint now?

would it help to limit games to people with similar ratings or are there cheaters at all rating levels ?

There will always be at any level but I read somewhere that in between 1200-1400 and 1600-1700 have the majority on chess.com anyways. That's probably just due to the amount of people at those ratings are higher than 1700+ players though. Personally, it always seems to be the people that are sub 600 ratings that I see playing a live tournament and winning going 12/12. Its always possible to do so but just highly unlikely. I think setting the parameters will definitely help though

Both players I reported for cheating got busted. I instantly gained 100 rating points on the spot. So much for me being 'too low rated to know when someone is cheating'. It's a catch-22 argument because the only reason I was so low rated is I kept facing engines!