15 Sep 09
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSKepler on January 19, 2009: chess.com seems to have an interesting variant on RHP's system. From what I can see the same match up analysis is done (if not the same, very similar) but if the suspect fails those in charge ask the suspect to explain their apparent abilities. If the suspect can hold a conversation about chess in which they can (a) make sense and (b) explain plausibly and/or verifiably their better-than-master ability they are allowed to remain, otherwise they get the chop. The banning process seems to be more ruthless as well.
I don't trust chess.com though, they leave known cheaters alone and ban others with flimsy evidence.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=106865&page=1#post_1995214
It would be fascinating to hear his side of the story.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe process you have quoted is what I was told when first joining chess.com. I believe that standards have slipped somewhat since then. As is usual on any internet chess site there is a great deal of paranoia about cheating and some members spend all their time comlaining about the speed of the process, the accuracy etc. In January and through until about June-ish there was a steady trickle of bannings but some vocal members were constantly complaining about the lack of speed etc. At this point there was a short hiatus in the bannings but when the process recommenced it was faster and seemed less rigorous. Certainly the enquiries about ability seem to have ceased at that point or possibly earlier. I suspect that the site admins listened to the complaints and relaxed the requirements.
Kepler on January 19, 2009: chess.com seems to have an interesting variant on RHP's system. From what I can see the same match up analysis is done (if not the same, very similar) but if the suspect fails those in charge ask the suspect to explain their apparent abilities. If the suspect can hold a conversation about chess in which they can (a) make sense ...[text shortened]... 6865&page=1#post_1995214
It would be fascinating to hear his side of the story.
There are players on chess.com who make some of the suspected cheats here look like angels but who are not touched, and there are others who must be getting advice from their cat but still get banned. It is notable that two of those banned from RHP, cludi and ih8sens are playing on chess.com. ih8sens has apparently advised on chess.com's cheat detection system!
So much for chess.com's systems. I do not know why I was banned. I only discovered the fact when trying to log in when I was informed my account was closed, not that I had been banned. I asked and was told I was banned for cheating but not what form of cheating. I speculate that it was related to a heap of other bannings for multiple accounting that happened about the same time. Most of those banned were new members and seemed to be banned on the say so of one particular member who is held in high esteem for some reason. I know I had upset that person just before being banned so it is possible that is the reason. I don't know, and to be honest don't care an awful lot. When all is said and done, chess.com is just another tuppeny ha'penny internet chess site.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by KeplerInteresting. Thanks for the info.
The process you have quoted is what I was told when first joining chess.com. I believe that standards have slipped somewhat since then. As is usual on any internet chess site there is a great deal of paranoia about cheating and some members spend all their time comlaining about the speed of the process, the accuracy etc. In January and through until about Jun ...[text shortened]... When all is said and done, chess.com is just another tuppeny ha'penny internet chess site.