Fake Accounts/Bots

Where did I say this isn't happening?!? Of course it happens - the key thing is the speed and efficiency with which Chess.com detects it and actions it. The Cheating forum experts will tell you that they've stopped reporting obvious cases to Chess.com any more, because the automated systems are now so quick and efficient that these experts are confident that those type of cheaters will be banned very soon.

The Report button adds the person you're reporting the the Fair Play report that is being refreshed and generated constantly. Obvious cheaters get auto banned. Everyone else gets prioritised according to likelihood of cheating for human review. Multiple reports will send that person closer to the top of the queue. The fair play team reviews the report and makes a determination. It is not ignored. It is not in the site's interest to ignore it. It is in the site's interest to demonstrate how good its systems are, which it has done to FIDE and to various people who have signed NDAs, and empirically to the Cheating forum experts. There are interviews where Gerard Le-Marechal (@monitor), the head of Chess.com Fair Play team, gives insight into the process. Learn about it. Don't assume.

2500 blitz games? OH NO THE HORROR, I actually put effort into these so I don't play for hours a day???

Everyone knows that if you are looking to improve you must play at least 10,000 blitz and 20,000 bullet games each day! 😉

     Hello again, surprised to see my name mentioned so often when I'm not even saying anything here. A few observations:

     Someone here can't even count. The MattMah account has twice as many games played as Big Blowhard rails about. Perhaps there is some sort of vision problem that accounts for the many things he fails to see.

     Yes, ratings make a difference in the reasons people resign. When stronger players get into known losing positions vs other strong players, they know their opponent will be able to cash in so, unless severe time trouble is looming, a gracious resignation is perfectly reasonable.

     There are a lot of young people on this site. School years finishing up in late May/early June with term papers and/or final project deadlines, final exams, unfinished work needing to be turned in before the deadline, etc., may account for some accounts being less active at that time.

     I logged on today to use the opening database and the analysis function to look over the USCF-rated otb clasical game I played last night, something I do thrice/week. That's the reason I have a membership here. That's the kind of chess I like to play. During the pandemic I had a lot of free time and checked out the forums feature, and I still look in when on the site.

     I find Mr. Cool's disparagement of everyone not playing online blitz, saying we don't have any right to talk about something in which we do not participate particularly laughable in light of his innumerable put-downs of otb classical games and players while admitting to having never played in such events himself. 

I think there's a delicious irony in the fact that on-line chess sites use engines, bots and algorithms to detect players using engines, bots and algorithms.

Well thats the same as being surprised that police use guns when criminals use them too...

LOL Checking EVERYTHING is what you demand of your opponents. And we've actually done that and disproved every single one of your arguments -  saying that they don't helps you maintain your delusion, which is why you say that about us :-) Anyone can look and read through the thread and see how completely you've been demolished and how desperately you've tried to switch from one argument to another and just ignore the facts. You got owned, kid

Really? Sometimes it may just be your opponent...yesterday someone chat with me and I mis-clicked and clicked deny chat oops

You make sweeping generalisations that people present actual data to refute. You change the thing you're saying to try and distract people from the fact that you've lost your first argument.

You were saying that it's rare for an active account to be more than 1 or 2 years old. The lists I posted demonstrate that it's not rare at all. I fully expect that you did look at the rest of the list, say that it didn't support your premise, and then claimed to stop at the first. Either that or you're just lazy, which I suppose is also a strong possibility.

Now you're claiming that it's a problem that new members can join a tournament after only playing a few games, when encouraging people to play chess is the whole point here. You want to raise barriers to make harder for people to just play the game; Chess.com is trying to attract new people to the game. Yes, that makes it easier for cheaters to create accounts and cheat. But it's not like Chess.com just lets them  run wild: they've invested heaps in cheat detection to identify and ban those people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Sure, it's not instant but it's not more than a few days for the obvious ones.

LOL 90% of the "negative perceptions" are from you only with exactly zero people agreeing with you, so we all know how worthwhile that is.

Yes, I'm in denial that Chess.com is continuining to grow and employ more people and becoming an even better site than it has been before. After all, the people who hate the site are leaving in droves and definitely not still engaging with it by posting in the forums. Constantly posting in the forums. Not truthful or quality content, but even lower than the usual 1 word dreck, which is actually really saying something...

You dont 

Oh yea thier are definitely bots... And for those who don't believe it.... Keep living your mind might change 

reasoning?

Anything free is .... Well free for a reason 

No need for a reason... You either know or you don't 

Alright.

The CEO has stated there are no site bots in the random pools. There's no reason to have any, though if someone believes there are, there's nothing anyone can do or say to prove it to them.

I'm playing myself

( stupid me )

And they get banned within a few days. Doesn't change the tournament result, unfortunately, but the only way to prevent it altogether is to impose some sort of up front cost, which is going to raise the barrier to entry for real people too. Maybe if you had more tournaments for people in higher leagues or for premium only players.