Chess.Com getting sued.

[Stewart Reuben]

Several poker sites ban the use of pokerbots. They 'ferret' into the activity of th player to determine whether he/she is using a computer.
Wy not do that for chess?

You do not always need use a computer to cheat at chess online. Nigel Short told me he was playing in a tournament against a well-known GM online. He was told later it wasn't that opponent he was playing but another strong GM. Of course the two would have different openings and different ways of playing.

[NickFaulks]

I have found it impossible to make any contact with these people, even in my FIDE capacity.

It is disappointing that Peter Doggers, who was very approachable in his Chessvibes days, appears to have gone native.

[JustinHorton]

Also raised on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook.

[JustinHorton]

Hi Justin. I had a quick read through, and it is obvious that you've done nothing wrong here. I can see it is distressing for you, but when sites adopt policies of having 'black box' appeals, where those appealing don't have enough information about what they have been accused of, there is very little that can be done if those administering the site just keep blanking you and refuse to engage. It can be hard to accept that, and it may be that nothing changes even if you do win in the 'court of public opinion'. For the record, I fundamentally disagree with sites that operate these sorts of policies where they are not needed (sometimes they are needed, but not here).

Sure, and it's kind of you to say so. As far as Chess.com is concerned, I believe (but I don't know for sure) that after the Despres debacle, and a similar fiasco involving a Russian FM, they decided not to debate their decisions in public any more, and essentially to just shut up shop - unless, presumably, they got sued. So I'm not at all optimistic about anything good happening.

One thing I didn't say in any of the pieces - when the bar came through, I'd just begun a couple of team matches, one for a team called Team Aragón, one for Team Spain. These are not offical representative teams, of course, but they nevertheless involve the region and the country in which I live, and therefore I find myself being barred in full view of people in a position to know, or work out, who I am. So the question of reputational damage is pretty real.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wy not do that for chess?

I rather suspect the online servers have been attempting to monitor what else is happening on the computer for years. It wouldn't stop a player who wasn't being observed from using one computer, phone or tablet to play and another to analyse.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why? I have, literally, not the slightest idea, not least because they do not say.

They say "outside assistance". Noting that you were playing one move a day, do chess.com explicitly modify their OTB rules to allow books and databases to be consulted? Even more to the point, does their monitoring program know the difference? In correspondence play you might expect a higher match rate against previous games or published analysis.

FIDE's possible attempts to apply similar standards to over the board play seem to have gone into abeyance. Or have they, given the recent cooperation between chess.com and FIDE?

Assuming that the recent Grand Swiss in the Isle of Man was clean, how many false positives would anti cheating software flag?

[JustinHorton]

Why? I have, literally, not the slightest idea, not least because they do not say.

They say "outside assistance". Noting that you were playing one move a day, do chess.com explicitly modify their OTB rules to allow books and databases to be consulted?

Books yes, databases I don't know but I don't use them.

Even more to the point, does their monitoring program know the difference?

Who knows?

In correspondence play you might expect a higher match rate against previous games or published analysis.

Well yes - and I have a good library, and I used it, going far deeper into theory than I ever would OTB - in that respect at least they're very different ways of playing. Of course one of the reasons for playing CC is that you can play with the book and that way give a line that interests you a thorough workout.

[Brian Egdell]

Why? I have, literally, not the slightest idea, not least because they do not say.

They say "outside assistance". Noting that you were playing one move a day, do chess.com explicitly modify their OTB rules to allow books and databases to be consulted?

Books yes, databases I don't know but I don't use them.

[...]

Databases of openings and played games are permitted in daily (correspondence) play on chess.com.
The only databases not permitted are endgame tablebases.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

You have probably been gliched by a computer making 2+2 = 5.
It would not suprise me if the whole message was computer generated.

It's possible you triggered the system with the ratings.

19th November 2018 it was 1775 - 10th August 2019 it is 2210.

In the old days on RHP that would have attracted someone's attention.
Though it appears at chess.com they use an odd rating system, is that correct?

A few of the games you posted are miniatures. The old RHP hunting team
would ignore short games and a batch of 30 games at least was needed.
These days RHP don't seem to bother unless it is blatant.

I cannot see how they can judge anyone with such a short game list.
It looks like someone somewhere has it wrong. One lad gave the wrong
number of games - 'You played 34 games over the last year...'

You replied: "34? I only have records of 22, any chance of forwarding me the scores of the other 12?"

They could have you mixed up with another player. The other lad seemed to have 34 games.

Ask your team mates or any other members you know to put in an appeal on your behalf.

[Adam Ashton]

Anybody remember this?

Well, now Chess.com have picked on me.

Why? I have, literally, not the slightest idea, not least because they do not say.

I am really very angry about it. Do read about it, here. (And here, here, here and here.)

All questions are welcomed. A pgn file is available on request.

I'd def look into legal action. What happened to the Despres case in the end?

[JustinHorton]

I don't know precisely, except that I do know he has an account on chess.com. I searched around some time ago to try and find out what happened and came across this.

One poster writes:

If you're talking about who I think you are, he's not a silly fool. It turned out he was innocent and he's been cleared. End of story. That's probably what I'd have done in his situation. There's a great big thread about it in the cheating forum.

I'd love to see that thread, but obviously I can't. However, another poster appears to quote from that thread:

We have to accept the explanation given to us by Erik. As a result, a lot of us including myself owe the victim an apology. However, the explanation as given raises some serious questions about how appeals are handled and why it took so long to get this resolved according to what chess.com claims happened. I've lost a lot of trust and faith in them being able to handle cases professionally and conclusively.

One lad gave the wrong number of games - 'You played 34 games over the last year...'

You replied: "34? I only have records of 22, any chance of forwarding me the scores of the other 12?"

They could have you mixed up with another player. .

Not if you look, though. There are 34 games, but not over the last year. They had the right person.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I don't always agree with Justin (or anybody else really), but I cannot believe for a moment he would cheat.

The trouble is that these big organizations know that they are difficult to sue so they can use bullying tactics.

[David Sedgwick]

I don't always agree with Justin (or anybody else really), but I cannot believe for a moment he would cheat.

The trouble is that these big organizations know that they are difficult to sue so they can use bullying tactics.

That's true enough, but I won't send this thread off topic .

[JustinHorton]

I don't always agree with Justin (or anybody else really), but I cannot believe for a moment he would cheat.

It's kind of you to say so, but of course that shouldn't be a consideration.

[Joey Stewart]

It does make your forum signature kind of ironic though, he he. Dont worry too much about it, I get banned for "cheating" all the time in 1-3 min blitz! Most sites just ban as soon as anyone make a report of any kind against a player, I just make new usernames and am right back into playing chess.