Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Why is it that again I am proven correct.
I have always felt that the 1st person to accuse another of cheating is usually the cheat himself [b]when he gets beaten and cannot understand why.[/b]
I don't see there being any basis at all to believe that. Many people who lose games, particularly when beaten by someone who's play seemed inhuman, wonder if perhaps their opponent
was inhuman. I'm not ng seeing how you make the leap from such suspicions to an assumption that the suspicious party is themselves a cheater.
In 13 years of playing chess online, probably due to my level and consequently the level of my opponents, the occasions where that type of suspicion has been aroused has been pretty rare, but its happened (not yet on RHP). When it did I saved the pgn and ran it through an engine or two to see which moves matched up and what the percentage was. Sometimes the results satisfied my suspicions and I put the matter to rest, with no ill will toward my opponent, simply accepting that he either played well, or at least well enough to beat me.
If the analysis was suspicious then I reported the game and the player to the site admins, added the player to my noplay list, and again put the matter to rest.
If more people acted on their suspicions there'd be fewer cheaters and with so many getting caught, the ones who'd be inclined to do so would at least not be able to convince themselves they can't get caught.
Instead too many people give their opponents the benefit of the doubt, and assume if they couldn't be a cheater because if they were they'd have been caught. But it doesn't work that way. A cheater can go on cheating indefinitely until someone finally reports the game as suspicious, because that's the only way the admin team will look at that person's games.