Do you have a copy of the chess.com letter that you can share here/
That’s the link.
The letter doesn’t mention Chess.com’s new algorithm. I’m not on the cheating forum (like what’s a guy around 1400 bother going to cheat for). I was on the Cheating forum for a few days out of curiousity, but then left it. This all blew up a few days after I’d un-followed the cheating forum.
But yes, Chess.com did recently institute a new anti-cheating thing. It might be talked about in this link.
I have limited data, so I wasn’t going to watch the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRihGdvT20s&feature=emb_logo
What “letter” are you referencing?
and possible the algorithm is mentioned in this video, which I haven’t watched. The letter does mention the new algorithm. Perhaps the video goes into more depth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRihGdvT20s&feature=emb_logo
Someone should copy that image and save it. I have no idea if chess.com might scrub it off their server in the future. At a bare minimum, it will eventually fall so far in the stacks of threads, that for all intents and purposes, it’s gone without someone actively looking for that specific thread.
As far as I know, it’s a form letter, but it was only sent to players that Chess.com thinks was cheating. I don’t know for sure though, just the little bit that is on the regular forums. -The hidden cheating forum is probably still getting a lot of chatter over the letter. The cheating forum isn’t that hard to join, especially if you’ve already been playing on chess.com for a while. I joined it for a few days, then unsubscribed from it after a few days. Mostly it’s people on the forum that are really active in how cheating goes on, like a tech forum, although on the cheating forum, you can talk about specific players that have ALREADY been banned. Chess.com doesn’t want people being accused of cheating on the forums unless chess.com already banned the person for the fair play policy.
For the most part, there are only so many ways to cheat, so it doesn’t take long on the cheating forum to get bored of it, unless your just into the statistical angle of it, and how how anti-cheating software works.
Regarding Chess.com suspending US Chess members, I see two distinct issues depending on the facts presented.
-
The results of a tournament were changed after the fact, i.e. a suspect was forfeited and that person’s results were annulled or reversed.
-
The suspect was suspended from all future online play at Chess.com, including US Chess tournaments.
I doubt, but do not know for sure, that the former actually happens. Since Chess.com does not release the specific games that were allegedly cheated, they cannot alter specific tournament results. Indeed, it is possible that the suspect did not actually cheat in US Chess rated play, but only in other games.
Most likely, the suspect was barred from being a Chess.com member. As such, he cannot access the US Chess tournaments hosted by Chess.com. This would be akin to a brick and mortar club banning a player for any of a variety of reasons. No doubt the Ethics Committee has already established precedents for when a club may bar a US Chess member and when not.
Note that ICC requires a paid membership to play in their tournaments (after the 1 month trial has expired). Chess.com does not.
Michael Aigner
P.S. That letter has been posted in so many places that Chess.com cannot magically make it disappear anymore. The first place that I saw it was on a foreign GM’s Facebook page.
Regarding Chess.com suspending US Chess members,
This statement could be ambiguous. If you mean chess.com closing accounts of US Chess membders that is one thing. The other reading is suspending a US Chess member’s membership for cheating - chess.com has no such authority.
Most likely, the suspect was barred from being a Chess.com member. As such, he cannot access the US Chess tournaments hosted by Chess.com. This would be akin to a brick and mortar club banning a player for any of a variety of reasons. No doubt the Ethics Committee has already established precedents for when a club may bar a US Chess member and when not.
From the US Chess Code of Ethics violation of the following provision would be a violation:
“(h) Attempting to interfere with the rights of any US Chess member, such as by barring someone from entering a US Chess-sanctioned event for personal reasons. Generally, no individual should be barred from a US Chess-sanctioned event for which he or she meets the advertised qualifications, without appropriate due process, and then only for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess. If a ban on future participation is imposed, the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.”
Dave Hater
Thanks for the link. I was obviously wrong when I said online cheating is chess is no big deal.Pretty amazing
This may just be dotting i’s and crossing t’s, but how can US Chess (or any affiliate) demand that chess.com permit a player who has banned from the chess.com site be permitted to play? Any player seeking to play in such an event should have to be in good standing for both organizations, should they not?
While the particular phrase “(even a few moves)” isn’t as clear as it could be, I very much doubt that the intent is that their algorithm can tell in just a few moves if someone is cheating. Instead, I suspect they mean that even a few moves might be enough be considered dispositive. There are certainly situations in which there is a technically correct move which no competent human chess player would ever play—a computer faced with the option of a straightforward mate threat which can be stopped by giving up a whole Queen and a forced mate in eight requiring a Rook sac will choose the latter; that’s computer chess, not human chess.
This may just be dotting i’s and crossing t’s, but how can US Chess (or any affiliate) demand that chess.com permit a player who has banned from the chess.com site be permitted to play? Any player seeking to play in such an event should have to be in good standing for both organizations, should they not?
[/quote]
Michael
You are certainly correct that you have to be a member in good standing in order to play in an event. However, I think your question slightly misses the point. It is the original banning if it is done without due process that would be problematic.
Try this analogy that might not be exact, but could be illustrative. Suppose you need to be a member of a chess club to play in a club event. A player shows up prepared to pay his dues. The club says we will not let you join because we think you cheat. The player says what do you mean, I don’t cheat. And the club president says well we think you have in past events and you are banned. That banning would be very problematic for the club to defend.
I want to be very clear: affiliates can and have banned players. However, the US Chess Code of Ethics provides that “no individual should be barred from a US Chess-sanctioned event for which he or she meets the advertised qualifications, without appropriate due process, and then only for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess. If a ban on future participation is imposed, the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.”
If you cannot know the specific facts that led to the cheating allegation or challenge your banning to an independent third party, that seems problematic to me.
Again, if all this is done in non- US Chess related activities then a private organization can do as it pleases. But when a US Chess member is accused of wrong doing in a US Chess online rated event and their US Chess membership is at risk, then the stakes are higher.
Dave Hater
Michael
You are certainly correct that you have to be a member in good standing in order to play in an event. However, I think your question slightly misses the point. It is the original banning if it is done without due process that would be problematic.
Try this analogy that might not be exact, but could be illustrative. Suppose you need to be a member of a chess club to play in a club event. A player shows up prepared to pay his dues. The club says we will not let you join because we think you cheat. The player says what do you mean, I don’t cheat. And the club president says well we think you have in past events and you are banned. That banning would be very problematic for the club to defend.
I want to be very clear: affiliates can and have banned players. However, the US Chess Code of Ethics provides that “no individual should be barred from a US Chess-sanctioned event for which he or she meets the advertised qualifications, without appropriate due process, and then only for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess. If a ban on future participation is imposed, the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.”
If you cannot know the specific facts that led to the cheating allegation or challenge your banning to an independent third party, that seems problematic to me.
Again, if all this is done in non- US Chess related activities then a private organization can do as it pleases. But when a US Chess member is accused of wrong doing in a US Chess online rated event and their US Chess membership is at risk, then the stakes are higher.
Dave Hater
[/quote]
If the USCF is concerned with what chess.com is doing then why is the USCF having rated events on chess.com? Seems to me you folks have everything mixed up-either accept what they are doing or stop having rated events on their site
An affiliate can run rated events. When an affiliate takes actions that are in violation of US Chess rules then the affiliate risks getting decertified and losing the ability to run rated events, but doing so is a serious step that also requires due process.
PS fixed the quotes so the comments are attributed to the correct people.
Thank you for the link. the commentator on the thread sums up a core problem thusly,
"In the context of some other cheat-related events that have happened recently, I find this extremely concerning. While I understand the chess.com team’s commitment to finding and closing cheaters on chess.com, as well as the grave threat that cheaters pose to the online chess community, chess.com is going too far in their attempts to catch any and all cheating on their site. The number of false positives is alarmingly high, and chess.com needs to pay close attention to the negative atmosphere and stigma they are creating.
Two things in the Rensch’s letter were particularly concerning. First, Rensch’s claim that a recent algorithmic breakthrough has led to chess.com’s ability to detect cheating within a few moves. This is clearly impossible, and it will create many, many false positives. Purely by random chance, any human player, especially a strong one, is perfectly capable of replicating a short series of computer moves under any circumstances. Take this blitz game that I watched, for example, played over the board: (I’m not naming the players for fear of chess.com accusing them for “cheating”).
[example snipped]
Whether it was by luck or an extremely precise and accurate calculation, a human player of 2224 FIDE strength was able to find the entire sequence and perfectly capitalize on a winning advantage in less than 3 minutes. Yet I’m sure that chess.com’s algorithm, given its capabilities to “identify cheating within a few moves” would flag this as cheating. Chess.com has gone too far in its attempts to catch cheaters, which has resulted in too many false positives and the slandering of those who were completely innocent.
To make matters worse, the chess.com fair play team refuses to share a single detail about their cheat detection algorithm. While this seems necessary to secure it from cheaters, it also prevents the innocent from challenging their findings and having a chance to defend themselves. Chess.com refuses to bear any responsibility for the mistakes made by its cheating algorithm, preferring to destroy the reputation of innocent players without looking back.
What kind of damage has this caused? Clearly, the people whose accounts were unfairly closed by chess.com have had their reputations ruined. Instead of simply closing the accounts, chess.com humiliates the account holder by placing a cheater label next to the account and keeping it there forever. This would work if their cheating algorithm were 100% accurate, but it isn’t, and to risk the unjust slander of a person’s reputation is unacceptable. Among Titled Players, the damage is even worse. These are people, who, according to chess.com itself, “have dedicated their lives to the game and bring a tremendous benefit to the chess community.” Yet the same people are being victimized by chess.com’s faulty cheat detection algorithm.
To give a few examples, there was Akshat Chandra, a GM who was banned after a win against Hikaru (game link:Chess: GM Hikaru vs GM AkshatChandra - Chess.com). All of Chandra’s “Komodo Moves” in the game were well-known theory. Chandra is now widely regarded as innocent, but his reputation will always be tainted by the shadow of cheating accusations.
As a second example, there is chess.com user truly_adarsh (FIDE 2115), who was unfairly accused of cheating after defeating a 2600 GM (game link: chess.com/live/game/47433471 … uly_adarsh). If you look at the game, black clearly wasn’t cheating: he won off a blunder by the 2600 GM in a winning position. Black was on a video call the entire game and didn’t even leave to go to the bathroom. To date, chess.com has not admitted to their wrongs and continues to smear this man’s reputation. I encourage everyone to look at this link: which goes into detail about the incident.
Chess.com needs to seriously consider the atmosphere they are creating, not only on their website, but in the global online chess community. I used to analyze my online blitz games with CAPS, and I would be happy when I scored above 98, as it meant I played a great game. Now, I only hope that it doesn’t get flagged by chess.com’s algorithm for cheating. When I defeat strong players, especially IMs and GMs, my happiness is reserved - I’m proud of myself for beating a very strong player, but this is overshadowed by my fear of a cheating accusation. By tackling cheating in such an irresponsible way, chess.com destroys the community feel and the celebration of chess that online sites are supposed to create. Instead, the atmosphere is toxic: if I beat you, I cheated, especially if I played an amazing game and/or you were a very strong player. I really hope chess.com takes a few steps back, recognizes the problems that they are creating, and strives to find a better, less damaging solution to the plague that is online cheating."
[emphasis added]
Poor use of the quote function obscured some of David Hater’s comments a bit. But the gist of what I’m getting is that US Chess should be concerned if chess.com has dubious practices. I don’t disagree that we should be concerned. But we don’t get to unilaterally demand they change those dubious practices after we hook up with them. Either those practices are so dubious we shouldn’t work through them or they aren’t. If they bother us, we try to get them to change and we don’t link up with them until they do.
I watched most of the chess.com youtube link, above, including all of the segment on cheating. It doesn’t seem to me that Rensch is claiming they can definitively identify cheating from a few moves in a single game – as I interpret it, a few moves in a single game may flag the account for deeper review, which I assume would factor in many of the suspect’s other games. Rensch claims their methodology (based on probability, not certainty) has been audited by Harvard, among others, and that they don’t close an account unless they are ready to defend that action in court. He also admits mistakes, which have been reversed. In the cited examples, it appears Chandra’s account has been reinstated, while truly_adarsh’s is still out.
I’m conflicted by the star chamber aspect of this, but see the alternatives as having even greater downsides. Yes, I might feel differently if I had been unjustly bounced for unfair play. Right now, I interpret the issue as analogous to “employment at will” in business, even though we’re chess.com’s customers, not employees.
Just today someone posted they got a letter from chess.com accusing them of cheating, even though the guy was several hundred points higher than the opponent.
The moderator locked the thread, but mentioned that if he wasn’t cheating, he had nothing to worry about. I don’t know what letter the OP got, but I surmise that Chess.com might be sending an automated letter to people accusing them of cheating before a human being actually reviews the suspected cheating.
If that’s the case, then Chess.com is going to eventually lose a lot of players, and most certainly a lot of titled players. I hope it’s just a process thing that Chess.com didn’t anticipate, and will fix, and not something they deliberately wanted to do.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/did-i-cheat-according-to-chess-com-cheat-detector
FWIW, two weeks ago I opened a new, free account on chess.com for the sole purpose of playing simul games against my IM coach. I played a total of two games, TWO GAMES, losing the first and drawing the second. Those were the only games I played with that account, period. I got an email from the fair play team telling me that my account was closed because I used outside assistance (I did not), but that if I would admit to having done what I did not do, they would help me to open another account with them. I think not. The AUG prevents me from expressing the depth of my disgust for Danny Rensch.
See my post above. My interpretation of the words in Rensch’s letter is that he is clearly stating that they have a new algorithm that can detect cheating in just a few moves in one game. I’m not sure just what is going on at chess.com, but it’s beginning to look a bit self-destructive.
I wonder what would even trigger such an email under the circumstances Brian cited. I highly doubt his own coach would have filed a complaint.