British Blitz Championships

[Paul Cooksey]

Unfortunately you guys aren't the main core of chess.com customers.

Well no, and that's what enables them to be so professionally and ethically shoddy.

Justin - do I understand correctly that you think chess.com (or another site) should share the details of why someone was banned when requested? If so, how much detail do you think they should share?

[JustinHorton]

No, where are you getting that from?

[NickFaulks]

Justin - do I understand correctly that you think chess.com (or another site) should share the details of why someone was banned when requested?

I can't speak for Justin but with the player who has been banned, I could make a case for that.

[Paul Cooksey]

No, where are you getting that from?

RE: your case with chess.com Justin I think it's less that their detection methods are bad, and more of a case of them having an insufficient review process and poor customer service

I think you're probably mostly right, though do bear in mind the point about "excluding opening moves", where you don't have to have my chess library to think they're cutting off the opening phase too soon. But on top of that, the strong feeling I have is that the review process isn't just "insufficient", it serves to obscure and protect weaknesses in their detection methods. I may be entitled to suggest that there is less incentive to improve your detection methods if you're quite happy to throw people out and then ignore their complaints instead.

I inferred it from this post, seemingly wrongly.

I assumed a review process that said only; "We were happy to look at your case and have concluded that you did breach our fair play policy. The ban is upheld" would be unsatisfactory, and you wanted to see detail.

But intended as a straightforward question, because you have probably spent more time thinking about what a site should do that the rest of us.

[JustinHorton]

Ah, OK, I think I may have been misunderstanding you, in fact: I interpreted "share" as meaning "with anyone who asked", but I don't think that's what you meant, you meant share with the banned user. Apologies.

The rough answer, and I can't do better than rough, is that yes, I think the person being banned should be given a reasonable summary of the case against them, e.g. over a sample of X games, we found that Y per cent of your moves accorded with one of an engine's top three choices, but for a player of your strength we would expect it to be only around (Y minus twenty) per cent.

In truth I don't see how you can have any meaningful review procedure without saying something of the kind.

[Ian Thompson]

In truth I don't see how you can have any meaningful review procedure without saying something of the kind.

Someone who was recently banned claimed that chess.com wouldn't even give him any details on the reason he'd been banned for something other than using an engine, presumably something from this page - https://www.chess.com/community.

As an aside, I wonder if people get banned for violating point 2 of this, which would presumably include two people playing each other using different computers connected to chess.com via the same router?

[JustinHorton]

In truth I don't see how you can have any meaningful review procedure without saying something of the kind.

Someone who was recently banned claimed that chess.com wouldn't even give him any details on the reason he'd been banned for something other than using an engine

Yup, that would accord with my experience.

[John Swain]

The Finalists: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/finalis ... pionships/

[John Moore]

Anybody got an idea where the live games are on Chess.com. I may be being stupid but I can't find them.

[Nick Burrows]

Danny Gormally stream hre: https://www.twitch.tv/gingergm

[John Moore]

Thanks Nick.

[Nick Burrows]

https://www.chess.com/live#g=4865509218