Chess.Com getting sued.

[Geoff Chandler]

This has been brought to my attention.

the link is:

http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/chess-coac ... a-cheater/

To save you going there it reads:

'A Long Island man claims he was kicked off Chess.com and slapped with a scarlet “C” — for chess cheat.

I was put on a cheater list,” chess teacher Henry Despres claims in a lawsuit.
“Everyone on the site could see this. I, of course, never cheated.”

Despres is claiming in a Brooklyn federal court suit that he is owed an apology,
along with $200,000 damages because of defamation, libel and the loss of chess lessons and book sales.

Chess.com did not return a message seeking comment.'

The New York Post.

[Gordon Cadden]

Certainly very damaging for a chess teacher, and he would be entitled to compensation if the serious allegation was false.
Not certain how anyone could cheat playing chess online; could someone please advise ?

[Greg Breed]

...Not certain how anyone could cheat playing chess online; could someone please advise ?

Are you serious? By using a chess engine of course.

[Gordon Cadden]

For most correspondence matches, it is accepted that chess engines can be used.
Are you seriously saying that online chess players do not use chess engines, when given the opportunity ?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you seriously saying that online chess players do not use chess engines, when given the opportunity ?

Online blitz is played under the same conditions as face to face Blitz. No use of outside sources of information.

FIDE seem to think they can offer titles and ratings for on-line play. In the absence of the physical supervision of an arbiter, they are unlikely to be able to guarantee that play is 100% clean.

It's far easier to make justifiable allegations based on statistical analysis with on-line play. So when a player with no past playing record starts reproducing the suggestions of chess engines, the accusations are easier to make than when it's a titled OTB player.

[Jonathan Bryant]

For most correspondence matches, it is accepted that chess engines can be used.
Are you seriously saying that online chess players do not use chess engines, when given the opportunity ?

THere are some sites where computer use is allowed - or at least not explicitly prohibited. There are others - Red Hot Pawn used to be one when I played there, Chess.com used to be another and I assume still is - where computer (engine) used was banned.

I know of one obvious cheat who was banned from both sites. Red Hot Pawn pretty much gave up and seemed to stop banning anybody and just let it go on. One of the reasons I no longer play there.

For any serious competition, of course, banning computers can't be enforced so you shouldn't bother. There are many players, who will abide by the honour system and agree not to use an engine during games. Most of the people I played on RHP were clearly not engine users. I only had suspicions about one or two.

[PeterTurland]

Many many years ago, my dad hit me for telling lies.

Being young and ignorant of my own ignorance, this upset me greatly.

It was not 'till many years later, after becoming a parent myself, that I worked out why my dad hit me.

Simply put, when between a rock and a hard place, one takes the lesser of two evils, if this means telling a lie, so be it.

The thing that is wrong with telling a lie is, it is a very very bad habit, the biggest problem is with the habit of telling lies, is one ends up lying to oneself, once this happens, we have completely lost the plot.

Basically using an engine online, is lying, one is pretending to be better at chess, than one really is.

I have played many many games online and have never used an engine immorally, I once had a computer account on ICC but people knew they were playing my engine (Crafty).

My experience in life, makes me wonder how on earth some people can like themselves, the only answer I can come up with is, they must be lying to themselves.

Since ancient times we have known of the 'golden rule', treat others as you would like to be treated, or as we say in Leicester 'Do as you would be done by', this does not mean, you will have to go through, what I went through, this phenomena can be seen in private schools with the practice of 'fagging', in American institutions with the practice of 'hazing' or incidentally, with such ancient practices such as Chinese foot binding.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Gordon.

"Are you seriously saying that online chess players do not use chess engines, when given the opportunity ?"

I'm thoroughly enjoying myself exposing all the blunders made at online chess.
The vast majority at RHP do not use them. The proof is there.

Yes there are players using computers, most get exposed because they are stupid.
They get massive grades and stray onto a chess forum to answer a question.
(Cheats should post no profile and never post in any forum - they soon trip themsleves up)

There are other methods, match up's, blunder-checking etc...
But I can tell you and show you that clearly most do not use a box.
(If they are then it is being run on valves and pre-dates the ZX81.)

[Greg Breed]

For most correspondence matches, it is accepted that chess engines can be used.
Are you seriously saying that online chess players do not use chess engines, when given the opportunity ?

Sorry Gordon if I sounded a bit harsh, I didn't know it was correspondence chess (I thought it was just another game server) and I also didn't know that you could use engines in correspondence chess. Who came up with that idea?!
Anyway, when I play online (not so much these days) its is usually blitz or rapid play and never with any form of assistance. I hate cheating and I couldn't live with myself if I did!

[Roger de Coverly]

(I thought it was just another game server) and I also didn't know that you could use engines in correspondence chess. Who came up with that idea?!

I believe chess.com offers both Blitz and turn-based chess and the newspaper report doesn't suggest why the (C) was added. On many servers, you play under a handle, so being labelled a computer user wouldn't affect, as the complainant suggests, the day job.

The ICCF allows engine use, in the sense that it doesn't ban it. At the highest levels of Correspondence Chess, it's believed that players use engines for tactical calculations and blunder checking, rather than automatically following engine advice.

[Clive Blackburn]

THere are some sites where computer use is allowed - or at least not explicitly prohibited. There are others - Red Hot Pawn used to be one when I played there, Chess.com used to be another and I assume still is - where computer (engine) used was banned.

I play on Chess.com all the time and I can confirm that engines are definitely banned, which is why I use the site.

People are regularly banned for cheating on there but I am not sure how good their detection method is.

[Clive Blackburn]

On many servers, you play under a handle, so being labelled a computer user wouldn't affect, as the complainant suggests, the day job.

Yes that's true but you can also put your real name on your player profile should you wish to.
It would make sense for him to do that and also mention that he is a chess teacher, if he was looking for new students.

[Angus French]

Presumably the litigant wrote to chess.com and challenged their decision before deciding to go legal and announcing to the world that he had been banned for cheating.

[Ray Sayers]

Last time I was on chess.com the rules said no computers and if you are caught you get banned and named.

So if they have reasonable cause to think this guy is using a computer, they are just fulfilling their promise.

It will be interesting to know what the evidence was.

[Clive Blackburn]

It will be interesting to know what the evidence was.

If it ever does get to court then Chess.com might be forced to divulge their anti-cheating measures, which they would understandably be reluctant to do.