Chess Money - online chess for cash

[R G Edwards]

Gnerally an About Us section lists some actual human beings, this isn't difficult

Limited companies do not generally list their personnel in the About Us section. Limited companies show their legal entity and registered address in About Us because that is who the customer's contract is with.

Sometimes there may be a separate page with a feelgood message along the lines of "Hi, my name is Jack Smith and I started Crafty Craft Ltd because I have a real passion for craft beer!" because Crafty Craft is trying to differentiate itself from big international breweries. But does learning the name of Jack Smith make it more likely the beer tastes good? No-one has heard of him. It's more important to learn the company's USP, its T&Cs, its return policy, contact details, etc.

In the case of Chess Money, we have a tech company. It stands or falls on how good the tech is. The tech was undoubtedly at least partly-outsourced. Often coding is outsourced to multiple companies so that no single company has all the source code, in order to protect IP. This is commercially sensitive information and Chess Money is not going to list out the subcontractors who coded it. This is why it is anonymized and they use hyperbole like "world class coders" etc. And most customers would not be interested to learn this information anyway.

[JustinHorton]

<shrug> lack of transparency and getting my money don't mix

[R G Edwards]

Do you buy goods or services online?

[JustinHorton]

What's it to you?

[R G Edwards]

If you've bought goods or services online, it's almost certain that you have contracted with companies that have the same level of transparency as Chess Money, as what I have described is standard practice.

[Roger de Coverly]

From the FAQ
https://www.chessmoney.com/cm/faq

ChessMoney uses patent-pending chess-specific, proprietary methods and algorithms to automatically identify when any player is likely to be cheating, regardless of how they may be doing so. The automated cheat-detection work constantly around the clock and examines game results of every game, and in some cases every move of suspicious games to determine if a user is performing well above or well below their expected level of play.

I'm a sceptic about the concept of being able to measure with any reliability at a game level of "performing well above or below their expected level of play", not least because expected level of play is in essence an unknown variable which rating systems attempt to measue.

Professor Elo and Sir Richard Clarke develeped theories about how to measure "expected level of play" seventy years ago or more. That we still argue to this day about the reliability or otherwise of the outcomes of rating systems suggests they were only partly successful. One point in their theories was that they considered a measurement set of thirty games or more was needed to get reasonably reliable results. Certainly individual moves didn't tell you much.

[JustinHorton]

If you've bought goods or services online, it's almost certain that you have contracted with companies that have the same level of transparency as Chess Money, as what I have described is standard practice.

I am fairly sure I never bought anything from anybody after being badgered to do so by someone dismissing my concerns about the entity involved.

[R G Edwards]

If you've bought goods or services online, it's almost certain that you have contracted with companies that have the same level of transparency as Chess Money, as what I have described is standard practice.

I am fairly sure I never bought anything from anybody after being badgered to do so by someone dismissing my concerns about the entity involved.

I'm sorry you feel badgered and dismissed; if that's how it came across I apologize. I have no connection with Chess Money. I thought people might be interested in it, that's all.

My intention from these posts is simply to point out that the levels of transparency on Chess Money's website are congruent with standard practice for commercial companies. There's nothing usual. But of course, each of us has our own separate risk tolerances.

[AlanLlewellyn]

i found something rather odd, in some games my opponent didnt take a piece or pawn and i could just march a pawn up the board plus in those games they played the same moves exactly in the game -i won 14/14 and only got 70 cents for it

[R G Edwards]

From the FAQ
https://www.chessmoney.com/cm/faq

ChessMoney uses patent-pending chess-specific, proprietary methods and algorithms to automatically identify when any player is likely to be cheating, regardless of how they may be doing so. The automated cheat-detection work constantly around the clock and examines game results of every game, and in some cases every move of suspicious games to determine if a user is performing well above or well below their expected level of play.

I'm a sceptic about the concept of being able to measure with any reliability at a game level of "performing well above or below their expected level of play", not least because expected level of play is in essence an unknown variable which rating systems attempt to measue.

Professor Elo and Sir Richard Clarke develeped theories about how to measure "expected level of play" seventy years ago or more. That we still argue to this day about the reliability or otherwise of the outcomes of rating systems suggests they were only partly successful. One point in their theories was that they considered a measurement set of thirty games or more was needed to get reasonably reliable results. Certainly individual moves didn't tell you much.

This is, of course the million dollar question. If the cheat detection doesn't work, the concept fails.

It's worth bearing in mind though that AI is moving at a fast pace, and therefore it is possible, or even likely, that cheat detection will become much more sophisticated, or even near perfect, in a closed system like chess.

[R G Edwards]

i found something rather odd, in some games my opponent didnt take a piece or pawn and i could just march a pawn up the board plus in those games they played the same moves exactly in the game -i won 14/14 and only got 70 cents for it

Haha, yes I don't think one is ever going to get rich with Chess Money!

But it adds an interesting dynamic.

When I first tried the platform a few months back, I found the interface a little clunky but they doubtless improved it since then. It's still in beta.

[JustinHorton]

It's worth bearing in mind though that AI is moving at a fast pace, and therefore it is possible, or even likely, that cheat detection will become much more sophisticated, or even near perfect

This strikes me as an ambitious claim

[Geoff Chandler]

i found something rather odd, in some games my opponent didnt take a piece or pawn and i could just march a pawn up the board plus in those games they played the same moves exactly in the game ...

If exactly the same weak moves are being played (Alan, please post the games)
that sounds a like low level computer. (or a human hustling.)

A nice hypothetical scam based on the same idea would be...

You do not actually play v a human but a computer set on a low level. You win a few times and pocket say, 70 cents.
Thinking you have found a sucker you up the stakes to $50.00 and up goes the computer level. Surprise-Surprise, you lose.

Furious you try to win your money back....months later and now homeless you appear as a black silhouette
on a day time chat show warning people about the dangers of playing chess online for money.

If by some fantastic chance you manage to beat the £50 dollar level then you are pointed to the R and R's and declared a cheat.

But that is just a hypothetical situation.

[AlanLlewellyn]

i found something rather odd, in some games my opponent didnt take a piece or pawn and i could just march a pawn up the board plus in those games they played the same moves exactly in the game ...

If exactly the same weak moves are being played (Alan, please post the games)
that sounds a like low level computer. (or a human hustling.)

A nice hypothetical scam based on the same idea would be...

You do not actually play v a human but a computer set on a low level. You win a few times and pocket say, 70 cents.
Thinking you have found a sucker you up the stakes to $50.00 and up goes the computer level. Surprise-Surprise, you lose.

Furious you try to win your money back....months later and now homeless you appear as a black silhouette
on a day time chat show warning people about the dangers of playing chess online for money.

If by some fantastic chance you manage to beat the £50 dollar level then you are pointed to the R and R's and declared a cheat.

But that is just a hypothetical situation.

LOL funny, you should write for a comedian I must admit.
one game went 1 c4 d6 2 Nc3 c6 3 e4 b6 4 d3 a6 5 f4 e6 6 Nf3 d5 7 cxd5 b5 8 dxc6 h6 9 Qa4 f6 10 d4 f5 11 c7+ Nc6 12 cxd8=Q+ Kf7 etc

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alan.

What a strange game, was this one of the exact same repeated games

1 c4 d6 2 Nc3 c6 3 e4 b6 4 d3 a6 5 f4 e6 6 Nf3 d5 7 cxd5 b5 8 dxc6 h6 9 Qa4 f6 10 d4 f5 11 c7+ Nc6 12 cxd8=Q+ Kf7