Just play here Chess.com favourites the gms
In any competition with prizes there will be cheating: there is even cheating in tournaments without prizes.
Video surveillance is fine, but there will be ways around it.
Any cheat detection system will cause false positives and false negatives; both are regrettable.
Video surveillance is fine, but there will be ways around it.
Any cheat detection system will cause false positives and false negatives; both are regrettable.
@adarshwick the colors are very important of course, because who choose the opening will be the white.
About this case in my personal opinion you are doing a mix of things. You posted a conversation with the arbiter and in your opinion he was not professional. In that conversation I don´ t see where he was unprofessional;
you are always talking abou chess.com issues. That in my opinion is a different problem and the arbiter don´ t should have nothing to do with chess.com.
You are waitting for organization answer to be refund? Did you sent a email to them ?
About be banned by Abuse, did you made something of this: www.chess.com/community ?
When you reply you add some information more, so I can´ t trust in your history
About this case in my personal opinion you are doing a mix of things. You posted a conversation with the arbiter and in your opinion he was not professional. In that conversation I don´ t see where he was unprofessional;
you are always talking abou chess.com issues. That in my opinion is a different problem and the arbiter don´ t should have nothing to do with chess.com.
You are waitting for organization answer to be refund? Did you sent a email to them ?
About be banned by Abuse, did you made something of this: www.chess.com/community ?
When you reply you add some information more, so I can´ t trust in your history
Regarding (e)doping the conventional wisdom is reversed (presumption of innocence).
We have rather the opposite, this means in practice there’s hardly any chance to appeal even going to court. The agency is always right.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
We have rather the opposite, this means in practice there’s hardly any chance to appeal even going to court. The agency is always right.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
COVID-19 tests have 30% of false negatives.
So a false positive or false negative on online chess cheating is relatively unimportant.
Get over it.
So a false positive or false negative on online chess cheating is relatively unimportant.
Get over it.
For what it's worth, I personally believe that there was no cheating here (I know, it doesn't count for anything). The opening (knight maneuver via c7, queenside b-pawn thrust, etc) are typical plans for that opening. The middlegame was misplayed with the queen journey for some pawns while white built up a kingside attack (this part I only can say myself as a result of the engine analysis). The alleged cheater in question was basically slowly getting outplayed. Then after only a couple moves (that were actually not cryptic at all), suddenly the GM blundered a pawn. Just because he didn't use much time doesn't mean anything; we all know that 15 year olds don't use all their time (sorry for generalizing so much in an otherwise very serious post), and what would you expect if the GM was using even less time? There is definitely a psychological experience of trying to match your opponent's time usage for just about anyone, and I'm sure that's only exacerbated for classical in an online setting.
Just because there are Harvard researchers with PhD's and GM titles who have together created an automated system doesn't mean that there won't be false positives arising from that automated system. Based on my amateur judgment (with also experience in data science), it seems like there is no conclusive evidence. I will await an IM/GM coming on this thread and letting us know which moves are the so-called "computer moves" that there was no way to find for a human. For such an automated cheating detection system, there should always be a system of arbitration to settle false positives. It looks like that ball is being dropped. Chess.com seems to be losing the thread.
Just because there are Harvard researchers with PhD's and GM titles who have together created an automated system doesn't mean that there won't be false positives arising from that automated system. Based on my amateur judgment (with also experience in data science), it seems like there is no conclusive evidence. I will await an IM/GM coming on this thread and letting us know which moves are the so-called "computer moves" that there was no way to find for a human. For such an automated cheating detection system, there should always be a system of arbitration to settle false positives. It looks like that ball is being dropped. Chess.com seems to be losing the thread.
It was a trash tournament. I can't know if you cheated or not, but I am glad a strong gm lost a classical game for playing like it's blitz. Deserved it.
I don't think the game was cheating, it was a very good game though and you should be proud assuming you didn't use any assistance. I know that chess.com can't ban you for only one game, either they were biased because of money or some other factor or you did indeed show suspicious games before this one. If you believe that your previous games aren't too suspicious you should appeal the ban and you may be rewarded. They switched the ban to abuse, leading me to believe they think/know that someone was playing on your account from another place. I had an opponent in this tournament that seemed to do the same thing, and he was banned for abuse (although I still beat him). You could ask if they monitored multiple IPs on your account at the same time, if they didn't then I think this ban is unjust.
@wannabe2700 this comment coming from you...it´´ s "curious :)
I looked at the account. He played 2 games 90+30 against GMs and won both. The previous one he had a 99 score on their system though the game had some inaccuracies too.
There were a bunch of blitz games against titled players many of which were won, and some bullet.
Is there an assumption that, if you're that good that you consistently beat titled players, you should be one? So if you're not, you must be cheating?
Makes sense, except that there are probably lots of talented young players and maybe even some older ones who could be masters or grandmasters because they have the skill but simply are not able to. For one, it isn't something that pays well unless perhaps you're right at the top. And there may be other reasons why someone can't go out and play in rated events to get an IM or GM title.
Of course they have to eliminate cheats and I haven't analysed the games enough, but you can't simply base it on the assumption that anyone who is good enough to be a titled player must be one or must be cheating.
There were a bunch of blitz games against titled players many of which were won, and some bullet.
Is there an assumption that, if you're that good that you consistently beat titled players, you should be one? So if you're not, you must be cheating?
Makes sense, except that there are probably lots of talented young players and maybe even some older ones who could be masters or grandmasters because they have the skill but simply are not able to. For one, it isn't something that pays well unless perhaps you're right at the top. And there may be other reasons why someone can't go out and play in rated events to get an IM or GM title.
Of course they have to eliminate cheats and I haven't analysed the games enough, but you can't simply base it on the assumption that anyone who is good enough to be a titled player must be one or must be cheating.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.