It's been my experience that mods never ban except for the most obvious cheating. Ok, fair enough, better to let a cheater slip than to false positive and ban someone innocent. As such, I only bother reporting the most obvious cheaters. But now, even the most obvious cheaters don't get banned. If you don't have enough resources to catch even the obvious cheaters, at least be a man about it and let the community know, that way people who don't want to play on a cheater infested site know to go elsewhere. I bookmark all the obvious cheaters I play on my profile. Out of 8, only 3 are banned. And of the 3, I had to report over and over again before anything was done.
You're gonna made one topic per day about this ?
In your last bookmark, it's not a cheater, you're just a drama queen who can't play correctly
If I can't play correctly, what does that make you at 1400? I can't believe cheater apologists are still trying the sour grapes ad hominem. Regarding my last game, tell me, how does one play an irregular opening with no mistakes and use so little time that the 8 second increment had them finishing the game with more time on the clock than they started? Either it's a sandbagging GM or a cheater. I know you're clueless about chess but it should be obvious which one it is.
Are you referring to this game?: http://en.lichess.org/B3XsqSh8/black
Your opponent made 6 inaccuracies and 2 blunders, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they made "no mistakes." The same is true for most of the other games you have bookmarked. As you said, it requires real evidence to mark a player as a cheater: what is your evidence?
I see that you exclusively seek opponents who are lower-rated than you, and that you exclusively play with classical time controls. You may find that if you try some faster games, or opponents of similar rating to your own, you will encounter fewer "cheaters."
Your opponent made 6 inaccuracies and 2 blunders, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they made "no mistakes." The same is true for most of the other games you have bookmarked. As you said, it requires real evidence to mark a player as a cheater: what is your evidence?
I see that you exclusively seek opponents who are lower-rated than you, and that you exclusively play with classical time controls. You may find that if you try some faster games, or opponents of similar rating to your own, you will encounter fewer "cheaters."
You are completely clueless.
1. The shamelessness of cheater apologists never ceases to amaze me. I exclusively seek out white hosted games. I take the disadvantage. Yet you try to frame it as me being the one trying to be unfair. Take a look at the white hosted games in the lobby at any given time and tell me how often you see a game over 2000. Didn't find any did you? The people who only host as white are indeed scumbags and because that's who I play, that population probably does have more cheaters. If you had wanted to try make your argument based on that kind of odds, that would have been valid. But that's not what you tried to make it based on, you went with the baseless rating accusation which says something about you.
2. That game you linked is the worst example you can come up with. The 2 "blunders" actually undermines your point. If you had bothered to look at the game, the "blunders" were after he was 2 pieces up and his king was no longer in danger. If you run the game before the blunders, the centipawn loss goes even lower. I wish there was a feature to allow viewers to see the game time. His clock is at 5:27. He played an ultra low centipawn game while using so little time that the increment made him gain. I usually say either cheating or sandbagging GM but in this case I'm not even going to humor the sandbagging GM idea. Go download the PGNs for the world rapid chess championships, any year should be fine. Run them through a computer and see what the super GM centipawn loss looks like. You'll see it average 20-30. The time controls are 15/10. This guy did that kind of performance with a 5/8 time control and using so little of his time that he gained.
1. The shamelessness of cheater apologists never ceases to amaze me. I exclusively seek out white hosted games. I take the disadvantage. Yet you try to frame it as me being the one trying to be unfair. Take a look at the white hosted games in the lobby at any given time and tell me how often you see a game over 2000. Didn't find any did you? The people who only host as white are indeed scumbags and because that's who I play, that population probably does have more cheaters. If you had wanted to try make your argument based on that kind of odds, that would have been valid. But that's not what you tried to make it based on, you went with the baseless rating accusation which says something about you.
2. That game you linked is the worst example you can come up with. The 2 "blunders" actually undermines your point. If you had bothered to look at the game, the "blunders" were after he was 2 pieces up and his king was no longer in danger. If you run the game before the blunders, the centipawn loss goes even lower. I wish there was a feature to allow viewers to see the game time. His clock is at 5:27. He played an ultra low centipawn game while using so little time that the increment made him gain. I usually say either cheating or sandbagging GM but in this case I'm not even going to humor the sandbagging GM idea. Go download the PGNs for the world rapid chess championships, any year should be fine. Run them through a computer and see what the super GM centipawn loss looks like. You'll see it average 20-30. The time controls are 15/10. This guy did that kind of performance with a 5/8 time control and using so little of his time that he gained.
Well have you tried, you know... NOT only playing against white-only seeks?
You are saying that a guy who missed a free rook w/ check is a cheater.... check your facts.
There are more variables than just the centipawn loss. Take a look at for example the move time graph in those games. They are very irregular, and also similar to yours, which means it's a really human-like move time graph.
I agree, yesterday I ran into a cheater. He had a provisional rating and in 40 moves done 0 mistakes. Eventually he ended up with 14-3 score, 3 wins of which are resignations on second move. I followed him for 3 hours, every single game he had done 0 mistakes. And his isn't banned still.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.