chess.com, Online Cheating

[Aris Marghetis]

I wonder if anyone has completed a psychological study of what makes chess cheaters tick? It's hard to imagine someone putting their integrity on the line for such a small return.

I read somewhere it may be more likely with people who tend to blame others for their lot in life. For example, a cheating long-distance runner rationalizes that if it hadn't been for certain people pulling him down in life, thus impacting his training, that he WOULD have been as fast as he's cheating to be. It seems a cheater may feel he's "making things fair to himself again", vs. cheating.

[Alex Starks]

I doubt that any IM or GM would register at chess.com and omit to disclose their title so they can start playing at 1200 level.
Probably I didn't say it right when I mentioned 100% accuracy. What I wanted to say was that player was actually making 100% of moves recommended by chess engine after the first 3-4 moves.

[Vlad Drkulec]

I doubt that any IM or GM would register at chess.com and omit to disclose their title so they can start playing at 1200 level.
Probably I didn't say it right when I mentioned 100% accuracy. What I wanted to say was that player was actually making 100% of moves recommended by chess engine after the first 3-4 moves.

Actually, I registered as an NM and got a free premium membership and I still started at 1200 so I suspect that the same applies to other titled players.

Again 3-4 moves of accuracy according to chess.com is not that impressive. I have had 98.4% accuracy in a game (that I lost) according to chess.com though komodo gave much lower accuracy numbers. I did play about 30 moves of theory as did my NM opponent after we played the same variation about fifty times over the last two years.

Most players know how to play the openings that they play to the extent that they have studied GM games. I would be more interested in the moves that they played once they entered a middlegame. Being accurate is not necessarily a sign of cheating.

[Neil Frarey]

ChessBotX: Real-time next chess move calculator

Chess bot is the program for chess, which helps you to play on websites like chess.com, lichess.org, flyordie.com and many others.

https://chess-bot.com/

[Hugh Brodie]

Would people pay $17 per month for a program that helps them cheat?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Would people pay $17 per month for a program that helps them cheat?

Probably, but why? Who is that worried about their online rating?

I had a friend who used to play in online engine tournaments using his fairly state of the art computer. I never understood the attraction of the practice.

[Peter McKillop]

Fundamentally we live in a simple world, where no-body likes to lose, and playing chess on-line isn't really that important.

Yes but that doesn't explain why some cheat and others don't. It's that explanation, whatever it may be, which interests me.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello again, back to the main line of this thread, I am having a very challenging time with chess.com closing down one of my students, but they can't give me any real clues as to what the actual cheating behaviour was. The student and his family are adamant there's been no cheating, so I feel stuck here. From those of you with teaching experience using chess.com, any ideas for me?!

[Bob Gillanders]

Hello again, back to the main line of this thread, I am having a very challenging time with chess.com closing down one of my students, but they can't give me any real clues as to what the actual cheating behaviour was. The student and his family are adamant there's been no cheating, so I feel stuck here. From those of you with teaching experience using chess.com, any ideas for me?!

Aris, give me a call at your convenience. I have had some correspondence with chess dot com, would love to compare notes.

[Fred Harvey]

Yes but that doesn't explain why some cheat and others don't. It's that explanation, whatever it may be, which interests me.

We're all on a behavioral spectrum! Depends on how averse you are to defeat, and, for want of a better word, your sense of righteousness! Where this discussion goes, heaven knows, but there will be thousands of pseudo,psychologists to help you on your way! Thank you for your reply, and good luck.....

[Alex Starks]

If you registered as NM and started at 1200 rating you still have options in settings to choose rating range of your opponents that is closer to your actual rating when you issue or receive game challenge. That way you would not need to win 100+ games against weak opponents to reach your actual NM rating.
If you read my post more carefully you would realize that player was making 100% of moves recommended by chess engine. Only the first 3-4 opening moves in each game (they played 2 games) did not match 100% what chess engine recommended so we are not talking about 3-4 moves accuracy. More like in a 50 moves game, moves from 4-50 were 100% match with chess engine recommendations.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

European Chess Union organizes the online tournament. Yesterday they had a test one. They had this text posted on the announcement:

"It is not allowed also to open a second window of the platform while playing. You will be forfeited according to Fair Play regulations."

A forfeit does not mean an account closure but if that generates a lot of triggers, maybe it moves to a closure. That my assumptions.

[David Ottosen]

Hello again, back to the main line of this thread, I am having a very challenging time with chess.com closing down one of my students, but they can't give me any real clues as to what the actual cheating behaviour was. The student and his family are adamant there's been no cheating, so I feel stuck here. From those of you with teaching experience using chess.com, any ideas for me?!

Everyone who cheats is always adamant that there has been no cheating. There's no benefit to them to admit it.

Why don't you ask him to send you the last 50 games he played before he was shut down and see what you think? Alternatively, your student will just have to play elsewhere. There's plenty of sites.

[Serge Archambault]

Everyone who cheats is always adamant that there has been no cheating. There's no benefit to them to admit it.

David, you've been repeating that for ages, without providing any evidence of anything. Seemingly based on the fact you have done volunteer work very likely for some random internet game. I think that attitude will never solve anything. The same way you say that, the non-cheaters will always be "adamant" that they are not cheating. And those "strange ones" do exist. In fact, it's really what Aris has been trying to discuss here. As Egidijus correctly pointed out, it can also happened that some break the Fair Play rules without even knowing. The question, then, becomes should they be treated as if they were cheaters ? I know I will be repeating myself here but sites like Chess.com seem to be proud of giving "cheaters" a second chance. I think it's one of the worst ideas out there. Willingly admitting that you allow admitted cheaters to play on your site can never be the right way to gain credibility or sponsorship. Also, as Aris (and others) have mentioned many times, bad customer service (not even telling players what they did wrong, and closing accounts without any discussion) should never be promoted (with cheaters or non-cheaters). If you still don't get it, try to create fake accounts on all major chess sites and then try "cheating" on all of them, you'll see what we mean.

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris, give me a call at your convenience. I have had some correspondence with chess dot com, would love to compare notes.

Will do in a few minutes, thank you!