Chess.Com getting sued.

[Roger Lancaster]

Roger - I think that 3000+ rating involves an online server where you also gain rating points based on the absolute number of games played rather than just on the results of the games.

On chess.com/lichess the blitz ratings correlate reasonably well with OTB strength (they might be out by a couple of hundred points, but the ordering is what you would expect.)

Thanks for the explanation. The practice of the online server in question is ridiculous but, more important, it's downright misleading for anyone who doesn't know better. A new player seeking a coach might think, "Wow, he's stronger than Magnus Carlsen", which isn't exactly the case.

[Brian Towers]

Speaking as someone who doesn't play online, this whole thing confuses me. I think we're all aware of someone [no need to identify him but he's not unfamiliar to members of this forum] whose FIDE ratings - standard, rapid and blitz - are all around the 2250 mark yet advertises himself as having a 3000+ online rating. I don't remotely suggest any impropriety on his part but, in that case, we're left with the situation that online and OTB ratings can genuinely be 700+ points apart. Go figure!

A 700 point difference is nothing. My FIDE rating is 1200 points higher than my ECF grading!

Shocking, isn't it?

Well, not really. They are different systems. If you can grasp that then you should also be able to grasp that, in general, different systems give different results.

FIDE ratings and the many different online rating systems are all different systems. The only consistency you could reasonably expect is that if two players of different playing strength play enough games in two systems at the same time control then the same player is higher rated in both. The ordering of the players should be roughly similar in both systems.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE ratings and the many different online rating systems are all different systems.

Elo based and similar 4 figure number systems such as Glicko purport to be on the same scale where 200 points is about equivalent to a 3-1 result over four games. They also try to be comparable at an absolute level, or would have done so in the past, so World Champion = 2800 etc.

There's a theory that rating systems spread over time in that the gap between the top players and average players widens over time. With the shear volume of rated games on Blitz servers, there's enough games for this effect, assuming it exists, to set in.

I wouldn't know how chess.com's one move a day rating compares to ICCF(International Correspondence Chess Federation), but in any event they may not be directly comparable given that ICCF rules don't prohibit the consultation of engines during play.

[Stewart Reuben]

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Roger - I think that 3000+ rating involves an online server where you also gain rating points based on the absolute number of games played rather than just on the results of the games.

For a period of time the USCF had a similar system. You gained rating points if you played more frequently. I have always assumed this was deliberately inflationary. A player's rating goes up. So he assume he is getting stronger and thus plays more. Thus the income of the federation increased. Whether everybody in charge realised what was going on is another matter.

I played no rated chess in the US between 1965 and 1991. When I left in 1965 my rating was about 2100. On my resuming my US chess career, my rating went up with very tournament I played to about 2250. It then stabilised. They had by now done away with the ridiculous gaining points the more you played. But, in my opinion, I wasn't as good a player in 1991 as in 1965.

[John Moore]

Speaking as someone who doesn't play online, this whole thing confuses me. I think we're all aware of someone [no need to identify him but he's not unfamiliar to members of this forum] whose FIDE ratings - standard, rapid and blitz - are all around the 2250 mark yet advertises himself as having a 3000+ online rating. I don't remotely suggest any impropriety on his part but, in that case, we're left with the situation that online and OTB ratings can genuinely be 700+ points apart. Go figure!

Roger, the particular individual has gone rather quiet since making 0.5 out of 9 in an all play all in Europe. Obviously, his concern was that Justin would ask him how many tournaments he'd come last in.

[Roger Lancaster]

Roger, the particular individual has gone rather quiet since making 0.5 out of 9 in an all play all in Europe. Obviously, his concern was that Justin would ask him how many tournaments he'd come last in.

Explicit identification of the individual in question, even though his identity would be apparent to most on this forum, seemed to me inappropriate since he has and had no connection, as far as I am aware, with any legal action against Chess.com. [And it was a GM norm event, rather similar to that currently under way in Hull, so not too easy!].

[JustinHorton]

An email:

Dear Chess.com

Until recently I operated an account "Justinpatzer" on your site. You disabled this account without warning, claiming, without explanation - and entirely incorrectly - that I was using "outside assistance".

It is my belief that you have applied some incorrect and unreasonable assumptions to a small set of data, quite likely including an underestimation of my level of play in server-based correspondence chess.

I have now received a report on the games I have played in the past twelve months, very kindly supplied - at the request of an independent person - by Professor Ken Regan, who, as you will be aware, is a leading authority in the field.

I believe his report raises serious doubts about the quality of your decision and that it should lead you to reconsider.

If you wish, I will provide you with a full copy of this report.

Yours

Justin Horton

(Justinpatzer)

[Paul McKeown]

Disgraceful treatment by chess.com of Justin Horton. Not just disgraceful, but also ridiculous, baffling and comical.

[Paul Cooksey]

I have been following the thread on chess.com.

The posters aren't quite as naive about correspondence chess as Roger suggested here. But still, I don't think they get it entirely. Some of the posts by the amateur cheat detectors are very unconvincing. Often a very weak player talking about the correlation of moves to top 3 engine choices, without any intelligence about whether that is a position where you would expect a human to play strongly or not.

Not all of it nonsense of course. But it does seem to be a matter of faith/ loyalty to to chess.com that they have more advanced methods and are doing a good job. There is a recognition there is a margin of error, although they do seem to be doing the Anchorman statistical approach to 100% certainty.

One of the arguments is it is better to ban a few innocent people than have cheaters on the site. Clearly people feel very strongly about cheating. But a site that does a poor job of protecting you from having to play cheaters and has a real risk of falsely accusing you is unattractive to say the least. A shame they are so flawed as a site to play on really, because a lot of their content is excellent.

[JustinHorton]

An email:

Dear Chess.com

Until recently I operated an account "Justinpatzer" on your site. You disabled this account without warning, claiming, without explanation - and entirely incorrectly - that I was using "outside assistance".

It is my belief that you have applied some incorrect and unreasonable assumptions to a small set of data, quite likely including an underestimation of my level of play in server-based correspondence chess.

I have now received a report on the games I have played in the past twelve months, very kindly supplied - at the request of an independent person - by Professor Ken Regan, who, as you will be aware, is a leading authority in the field.

I believe his report raises serious doubts about the quality of your decision and that it should lead you to reconsider.

If you wish, I will provide you with a full copy of this report.

Yours

Justin Horton

(Justinpatzer)

Here's Chess.com's insultiingly stupid reply:

Hello Justin!

We have received your message about the closing of your Chess.com account. We are dedicated to combating unfair play on our site and we never close accounts lightly - accounts are closed only when we are 100% certain of unfair play.

I understand that you want to dispute the evidence upon which your account was closed. However, to safeguard the effectiveness of our methods, we cannot reveal details about how we detect fair play. Please see the site Terms of Service if you have further questions about your account closure: http://www.chess.com/legal.html.

I fully understand your position and wish that I could grant you a second chance account. But according to chess.com policy, You cannot be approved without an admission of guilt. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

I am here for you and wish you the best in your chess adventures!

Best

[Alex Holowczak]

It's just a standard template that they've copied and pasted, isn't it?

[JustinHorton]

Yes, a form reply. (But not an autoreply.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

So if you apologise for cheating (even though you didn't) that would be ok?

I had an argument with Talk Talk, which went to 48 pages of emails (many of them equally as unhelpful as that one) - you might be able to beat that.

I'm sure Ken Regan will be interested to know that they know better than he does.

[Roger de Coverly]

So if you apologise for cheating (even though you didn't) that would be ok?

That does seem to be their somewhat bizarre position.

It's a warning to FIDE and national Federations who might be thinking of going into a partnership with chess.com. It's a warning to chess.com as well, since their position would seem unlikely to survive an encounter with FIDE's Ethics Commission who have form for censuring those who make dubious accusations.

For all anyone knows, they could just pick names out of a hat, or have a policy of banning those critical of the retiring chess correspondent of The Times.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"For all anyone knows, they could just pick names out of a hat, or have a policy of banning those critical of the retiring chess correspondent of The Times."

That thought had occurred to me.