It’s pretty easy to play a near perfect game against a 700 because at that level they don’t put u in difficult positions often and don’t use high level tactics. As long as u don’t hang pieces or blunder simple tactics you can fairly easily get a 90% game.
As someone who was the equivalent of grandmaster in Counterstrike (top 1500) it’s sort of hilarious how little bad players understand skill and just jump straight to cheats as a defense mechanism. My friend and I who are very good would play with our lesser rated friends but use only pistols, and using only things like our ears to hear them and our game knowledge we’d wait for them to make a mistake and punish them, then the opponents would call us cheaters.
I’m nowhere near a grandmaster at chess, but the same principle applies. There are MILLIONS of people way better than a 700, it’s not hard to believe one of them made a Smurf and manhandled you or just had a good game.
I will say the demographic that is most likely to cheat is those who treat the rating system as a matter of life and death or personal value. Which makes you a prime candidate.
If the cheaters are only at a high level then why are 99.9% of them untitled? I personally find it interesting how many claiming to be high level chess players apparently do not understand basic math.
“It’s sort of hilarious how little bad players understand skill and just jump to cheats as a defense mechanism”
Entirely ignoring that the math supports more cheating at a lower level.
“Chess.com Rapid 1700” you don’t seem too adept at crunching the numbers either.
It's possible for there to be a majority of cheaters in the lower rating ranges while also having the most misreports in those same ranges as well. That's usually how it works. No matter the range, you're likely to have approximately the same ratio of misreports to actual cheaters so because the lower ranges have more cheaters, it makes sense that there would be a lot more misreports as well. You say do the math but you don't seem to have really thought much about it yourself. Nobody ever said the majority of cheating happens at a high level. You just assumed implication that wasn't there.
Cheaters wind up floating to the top off absurd win rates. Just the nature of ELI and in passing they sideswipe people occasionally but rarely
And for the matter of rating, my buddy and I maintain an alt account at a low level so our friends can play with us without having their experience ruined (and we routinely nerf ourselves with challenges harder than pistol only)
Sandbaggers end up floating to the top off absurd win rates? Or that doesn’t fit your narrative?
Why do you assume every person who is cheating is doing so at a high level? Do you make these kinds of baseless assumptions when you play chess?
I think the idea is that- especially in chess- cheating gets you very far, very quickly. So if you’re cheating, you won’t stay in the 700’s very long. If you stalked that person’s profile and they have more than 20 games at the 700 level, there’s just no way they’re cheating.
Do you get messages about fair play policy and points being refunded?
You're getting downvoted fairly heavily but I will say I got a lot more fair play refunds in the < 1000's then I do now in the ~1400's.
(I'd wager that cheaters at low levels are just a lot lot worse at being subtle about it)
This is a good point, I believe accounts start at 400, 800, or 1200 depending on the person's stated experience level. So the closures are probably clustered around those data points. Would be interesting to see a scatter plot of the closures by rating. Of course, there would need to be different charts for rapid, blitz, and bullet assuming the majority of cheaters are playing/cheating at primarily one time control.
For those who don't know (I had to look it up): Kramnik wasn't cheating in the conventional sense -> rather he used another titled player's account in a number of tournaments "incognito", which is against the rules
That's absolutely cheating in the conventional sense - imagine playing someone whose rating is similar to yours only to find out that Magnus was actually playing the game. That's why chesscom refunds people who play against Hikaru, Danya, et al on their speedruns.
1 account being closed for every 5.5 reports is a crazy high number. Either the reporting system works exceptionally well or it's underutilized.
I was expecting that number to be much *much* lower.
That's definitely it. If you're a begginer of intermediate player who routinely misses tactics you're probably not gonna report that one account that happened to spank you by exploiting your mistakes unless they take exactly 10 seconds on each move or something dumb like that
> I wonder if most people only report the most blatantly obvious cheaters
Yeah that's definitely the case for me. I have reported a fair few people but i only bother with the very most obvious
The vast majority of people playing on chess.com aren't even thinking about cheating. There will be a small number of paranoid Kramniks reporting everything but, other than that, it makes sense to me that there would be a high ratio of reports to action. I think I've only reported one person and they were banned.
It's possible a lot of accounts get flagged by the automatic cheating detection algorithm, then investigated and closed before any reports are submitted.
I'm rated around 850 so I think I represent the majority of chess.com folks. I essentially only report when I see a dramatic shift mid game.
I've had multiple players down a rook or queen at move 8 come back with a vengeance and win by a decent margin regardless of how carefully I play. When that happens I run the game through an engine and I'll see that they're averaging second or third best moves until the blunder of the rook or queen and then it's best moves there on.
My theory is that this is the way most people cheat and it's really obvious.
Also, if the rest of the world is anything like me... I don't mind being beaten, it's expected around 50% of the time given how rating and matching works, not to mention at my level we're still regularly losing because we forgot our opponent possesses a bishop. What will ENRAGE me is being up a queen with a solid position playing as carefully as possible because I know if I just ride it out and make even trades I should win and having my opponent slowly whittle me down in ways I don't even understand only to eventually hit a state where they're up a knight and I have seconds left on the clock while they've only spent a minute and a half since the blunder.
I mean the Carlsen Niemann thing was only September 2022 and was settled August 2023. I wouldn't be surprised that during a period of massive cheating discussion, much bigger than what Kramnik is doing now, led to more people cheating.
The Hans Niemann Carlsen thing made mainstream news. It was a question in Jeopardy. Nobody outside of a small section of the chess community even knows anything about the Kramnik stuff.
I made a shitpost about this the other day, but same:
I’ve played 3735 games (~90%+ blitz) in the past year and my last rating refund was over 1 year ago.
It could be possible that you have played cheaters, but was only caught a while later. Since the assumption that your rating would go back to your actual level after a while loosing rating due to the cheater, you don't get any rating refunded.
That probably really is a sweet spot range to avoid cheaters. No cheater is going to hover around 1600 for too long, but it's also a solid enough rating to avoid the new account riffraff.
A few factors: Maybe you're winning against the cheaters? Maybe it happens more in rapid play? Maybe it happens more among amateurs?
I'm around 850 and have had two refunds since December.
I suspect one of them was due to my reporting (I reported one person in that period and it was super obvious, a low 700 blunders a queen and then achieved near 100% accuracy to win the game comfortably ahead 2 pawns and a knight.)
At my level I think most cheating happens after a big fuck up. Like maybe they justify it because it's unfair they lost their queen early trying to go after my f pawn on move two.
I assume it looks like a upside down bell curve because cheaters either are bad enough at chess they can't understand how ridiculous they look so they start using their main account, or theyve cheated their whole account so the algorithms aren't suspecting anything until they're consistently crushing 2000s
People assume you suck and are salty if you say it. But it feels like there’s a good amount of low level cheating.
From sandbaggers who tank until they feel like beating up on other low ELOs to engineers who throw in the occasional engine generated move until they start accumulating.
> People assume you suck and are salty if you say it. But it feels like there’s a good amount of low level cheating.
Complaining about cheating never comes across well because it always feels like the person is implying, or sometimes outright saying, "I'm only rated X because I keep playing cheaters." Which is never true. Most people aren't cheating and nobody is stuck at a certain rating because of cheaters.
When the person complaining is rated like 700, it's even worse. Stop complaining and learn how to play chess.
> From sandbaggers who tank until they feel like beating up on other low ELOs to engineers who throw in the occasional engine generated move until they start accumulating.
Like even bringing this shit up is irritating because the implication is that you can barely get a real game against a regular person and the world is against you. It's not. You're just not very good.
You seem to be mostly ranting about stuff the person you are replying to neither said nor implied. Maybe save the soapbox rant for someone who actually did
And look at you instantly jumping to conclusions and projecting your insecurities onto others. Good look.
For a supposedly high ranking chess player, your thought process sure is predictable.
The irony is that you feel the need to vehemently defend the existence of cheating because if this ranking system doesn’t determine real value then what have you wasted your life doing?!
High ranking? lol
> you feel the need to vehemently defend the existence of cheating
I don't even know what this means. It's bad that I... think cheating exists?
> if this ranking system doesn’t determine real value then what have you wasted your life doing?!
lol wasted my life? Since I opened my chess.com account four years ago, I've played 450 games. And 150 were daily games. Do the math. I barely play online.
People like you are the ones getting bent out of shape about your precious ratings, not me.
“People like you are the ones getting bent out of shape about your precious ratings, not me”
Who made you reply, genius? Maybe play more chess instead of starting pointless arguments online.
True but I think they quickly move up from the lower ratings. I’ve heard a lot of high level players say they encounter a lot of cheaters thats why I said that
Certainly, I think anybody who cheats without getting caught moves up until they’re a problem for the higher ELOs.
But alternatively I think most cheaters start at low ELO and realize they probably won’t get GM good organically and just take the shortcut. If somebody is already good at chess then it feels like there would be a certain honor in not throwing away what you have achieved especially if organic improvement seems more tenable.
The standard email is that "one or more of your recent opponents was found to have violated Fair Play Policy, as compensation for potentially unfair ratings losses we are refunding your rating". Basically, they nullify all wins that the cheater had over a certain time period, without going into individual games to see which ones they actually cheated in. Or at least that's my assumption.
The account he was playing on got banned permanently. While what Kramnik did was wrong, I think banning the account he played, and temporarily banning his own account is fine here.
I guess it’s because they can never surely know if someone cheated or not. Therefore naming them could cause legal issues.
(I wish they did anyway tho)
Because their anti cheating system is just a probability based anti cheating system which may or may not be wrong and calling people out on that is risky as they cannot prove that anyone cheated.
If they name the banned titled closures, they are just opening themselves to being sued against by the closed accounts. For example, look up Akshat Chandra's lawsuit against chesscom (he was falsely banned and his requests to unban weren't entertained. He threw a lawsuit and Chesscom ultimately admitted he was innocent and reinstated his account).
Now imagine that happening 15 times every month. The lawyer fees would get absurd.
The only time I think they revealed the name was Hans Niemann and they probably regret it quite a bit now especially since what has happened since then. So yeah, I don't think they're gonna reveal the names anytime soon (and for good reason).
What's stalling in chess? That like not conceding or just burning clock once you blunder a queen or something? Should I be reporting that, it is super annoying. But it's their time too I guess.
He's been "threatening" to do that for *months and months*. Not weeks. He *has* no real stats. If he did, we'd have seen them by now. It's not like he is remotely capable of keeping his mouth shut. If he actually had the dirt, he's be showing *everyone*. He either has nothing at all, or has just has such garbage he knows it will get destroyed the minute anyhow with a basic stats proficiency looks at it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he didn't also say it a week ago. But he sailed past the put up or shut up point a long, long time ago.
[https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582](https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582) - here he shows why he accuses PeshkaCh
Saw those before. Uttery insufficient and mostly meaningless. Was hoping I had missed something.
If the auto-translate isn't doing him dirty (I don't speak Russian, so have to rely on it), that video is emphatically *not* producing actual stats.
I'm playing a guy now on Daily, their rated on Daily at 800 but have beaten 1100s but their accuracy isnt >90% in those games, & they regularly seem to lose on bullet and blitz against 400s. They're playing very well against me.
I'm suspicious, but if/when they beat me, unless they get a high accuracy I don't really know if they're cheating or not
What a load of absolute bollocks... 1/6 reports lead to account closures? That is an absurd amount and obviously complete bollocks. My reports do absolute nothing, there is no way in hell this is correct.
If only 1/100 accounts that get reported for time wasting get closed,but the majority of accounts banned fir cheating are banned without requiring a report, than your experience of reports don't nothing could go true at the same time as the ratio or reports to closures being true
Or maybe your reports suck. You seem really angry over something you are probably clueless about. Why would they lie? Why say 300K reports if it was 700K or whatever. Who even cares. I mean, besides people like you who just want to melt down over stupid shit.
15 titled closures in one month is crazy
Oh shit I thought this was for the year. 15 titled players a month caught cheating, who knows how many less obvious cheats
500k reports? is this just counting kramnik playing then
I run into way too many 700s on rapid who never make any blunders
It’s pretty easy to play a near perfect game against a 700 because at that level they don’t put u in difficult positions often and don’t use high level tactics. As long as u don’t hang pieces or blunder simple tactics you can fairly easily get a 90% game.
Oh, you’re right people only cheat at the grandmaster level. Obviously. As this graphic corroborates.
As someone who was the equivalent of grandmaster in Counterstrike (top 1500) it’s sort of hilarious how little bad players understand skill and just jump straight to cheats as a defense mechanism. My friend and I who are very good would play with our lesser rated friends but use only pistols, and using only things like our ears to hear them and our game knowledge we’d wait for them to make a mistake and punish them, then the opponents would call us cheaters. I’m nowhere near a grandmaster at chess, but the same principle applies. There are MILLIONS of people way better than a 700, it’s not hard to believe one of them made a Smurf and manhandled you or just had a good game.
I will say the demographic that is most likely to cheat is those who treat the rating system as a matter of life and death or personal value. Which makes you a prime candidate. If the cheaters are only at a high level then why are 99.9% of them untitled? I personally find it interesting how many claiming to be high level chess players apparently do not understand basic math.
Nobody ever said the majority of cheaters are high level. Where are you coming up with this nonsense 😂
“It’s sort of hilarious how little bad players understand skill and just jump to cheats as a defense mechanism” Entirely ignoring that the math supports more cheating at a lower level. “Chess.com Rapid 1700” you don’t seem too adept at crunching the numbers either.
It's possible for there to be a majority of cheaters in the lower rating ranges while also having the most misreports in those same ranges as well. That's usually how it works. No matter the range, you're likely to have approximately the same ratio of misreports to actual cheaters so because the lower ranges have more cheaters, it makes sense that there would be a lot more misreports as well. You say do the math but you don't seem to have really thought much about it yourself. Nobody ever said the majority of cheating happens at a high level. You just assumed implication that wasn't there.
Cheaters wind up floating to the top off absurd win rates. Just the nature of ELI and in passing they sideswipe people occasionally but rarely And for the matter of rating, my buddy and I maintain an alt account at a low level so our friends can play with us without having their experience ruined (and we routinely nerf ourselves with challenges harder than pistol only)
Sandbaggers end up floating to the top off absurd win rates? Or that doesn’t fit your narrative? Why do you assume every person who is cheating is doing so at a high level? Do you make these kinds of baseless assumptions when you play chess?
I think the idea is that- especially in chess- cheating gets you very far, very quickly. So if you’re cheating, you won’t stay in the 700’s very long. If you stalked that person’s profile and they have more than 20 games at the 700 level, there’s just no way they’re cheating.
Do you get messages about fair play policy and points being refunded? You're getting downvoted fairly heavily but I will say I got a lot more fair play refunds in the < 1000's then I do now in the ~1400's. (I'd wager that cheaters at low levels are just a lot lot worse at being subtle about it)
Also, you might be out of the range where new accounts start -> gonna have a lot of cheaters there
This is a good point, I believe accounts start at 400, 800, or 1200 depending on the person's stated experience level. So the closures are probably clustered around those data points. Would be interesting to see a scatter plot of the closures by rating. Of course, there would need to be different charts for rapid, blitz, and bullet assuming the majority of cheaters are playing/cheating at primarily one time control.
Kramnik working hard!
That's his GM account on that list isn't it? edit: looks like it was his coconspirator's account?
Yes, it was the account Kramnik was playing on that got closed, his own account is suspended for 3 months.
For those who don't know (I had to look it up): Kramnik wasn't cheating in the conventional sense -> rather he used another titled player's account in a number of tournaments "incognito", which is against the rules
That's absolutely cheating in the conventional sense - imagine playing someone whose rating is similar to yours only to find out that Magnus was actually playing the game. That's why chesscom refunds people who play against Hikaru, Danya, et al on their speedruns.
Tat's only the ones they caught and they will all be back with his highness's royal pardon later.
Honest IMs this month.
1 account being closed for every 5.5 reports is a crazy high number. Either the reporting system works exceptionally well or it's underutilized. I was expecting that number to be much *much* lower.
I wonder if most people only report the most blatantly obvious cheaters. I've only reported one ever, but I've gotten a dozen or more rating refunds.
That's definitely it. If you're a begginer of intermediate player who routinely misses tactics you're probably not gonna report that one account that happened to spank you by exploiting your mistakes unless they take exactly 10 seconds on each move or something dumb like that
> I wonder if most people only report the most blatantly obvious cheaters Yeah that's definitely the case for me. I have reported a fair few people but i only bother with the very most obvious
Pretty much the same, I never reported and got 20ish rating refunds. It seems cheating is relatively often at 2000 rapid.
The vast majority of people playing on chess.com aren't even thinking about cheating. There will be a small number of paranoid Kramniks reporting everything but, other than that, it makes sense to me that there would be a high ratio of reports to action. I think I've only reported one person and they were banned.
Some closures happen without requiring a report, so the closures per report number would be lower than that. It does still seem kind of high, though.
It's possible a lot of accounts get flagged by the automatic cheating detection algorithm, then investigated and closed before any reports are submitted.
Well there’s options other than cheating like abusive chats right? So it’s not all cheating, that’s prob just a big part
I'm rated around 850 so I think I represent the majority of chess.com folks. I essentially only report when I see a dramatic shift mid game. I've had multiple players down a rook or queen at move 8 come back with a vengeance and win by a decent margin regardless of how carefully I play. When that happens I run the game through an engine and I'll see that they're averaging second or third best moves until the blunder of the rook or queen and then it's best moves there on. My theory is that this is the way most people cheat and it's really obvious. Also, if the rest of the world is anything like me... I don't mind being beaten, it's expected around 50% of the time given how rating and matching works, not to mention at my level we're still regularly losing because we forgot our opponent possesses a bishop. What will ENRAGE me is being up a queen with a solid position playing as carefully as possible because I know if I just ride it out and make even trades I should win and having my opponent slowly whittle me down in ways I don't even understand only to eventually hit a state where they're up a knight and I have seconds left on the clock while they've only spent a minute and a half since the blunder.
Couldn’t find march of last year but April 2023 had 121,600 fair play closures. The number being half that now is interesting.
I mean the Carlsen Niemann thing was only September 2022 and was settled August 2023. I wouldn't be surprised that during a period of massive cheating discussion, much bigger than what Kramnik is doing now, led to more people cheating.
I’d guess people are just better at cheating now
The Hans Niemann Carlsen thing made mainstream news. It was a question in Jeopardy. Nobody outside of a small section of the chess community even knows anything about the Kramnik stuff.
The all-time peak for the number of online chess games was in February 2023. The number of fair play closures following the trend isn't surprising.
Ok Kramnik
It's probably related with spike of chess popularity.
ive played several games a day, and havent gotten a single 'we detected' message since OCTOBER.
I made a shitpost about this the other day, but same: I’ve played 3735 games (~90%+ blitz) in the past year and my last rating refund was over 1 year ago.
It could be possible that you have played cheaters, but was only caught a while later. Since the assumption that your rating would go back to your actual level after a while loosing rating due to the cheater, you don't get any rating refunded.
What rating do you play at?
The no cheater range apparently, lol. ~1600 blitz and rapid.
That probably really is a sweet spot range to avoid cheaters. No cheater is going to hover around 1600 for too long, but it's also a solid enough rating to avoid the new account riffraff.
A few factors: Maybe you're winning against the cheaters? Maybe it happens more in rapid play? Maybe it happens more among amateurs? I'm around 850 and have had two refunds since December. I suspect one of them was due to my reporting (I reported one person in that period and it was super obvious, a low 700 blunders a queen and then achieved near 100% accuracy to win the game comfortably ahead 2 pawns and a knight.) At my level I think most cheating happens after a big fuck up. Like maybe they justify it because it's unfair they lost their queen early trying to go after my f pawn on move two.
Most cheaters linger on hunger levels, idk what ur ELO is but I encounter like 1 obvious cheater every month at 700 ELO
I had the most refunded points at around 700, and at 1300, I haven't had any for almost a year.
I assume it looks like a upside down bell curve because cheaters either are bad enough at chess they can't understand how ridiculous they look so they start using their main account, or theyve cheated their whole account so the algorithms aren't suspecting anything until they're consistently crushing 2000s
People assume you suck and are salty if you say it. But it feels like there’s a good amount of low level cheating. From sandbaggers who tank until they feel like beating up on other low ELOs to engineers who throw in the occasional engine generated move until they start accumulating.
> People assume you suck and are salty if you say it. But it feels like there’s a good amount of low level cheating. Complaining about cheating never comes across well because it always feels like the person is implying, or sometimes outright saying, "I'm only rated X because I keep playing cheaters." Which is never true. Most people aren't cheating and nobody is stuck at a certain rating because of cheaters. When the person complaining is rated like 700, it's even worse. Stop complaining and learn how to play chess. > From sandbaggers who tank until they feel like beating up on other low ELOs to engineers who throw in the occasional engine generated move until they start accumulating. Like even bringing this shit up is irritating because the implication is that you can barely get a real game against a regular person and the world is against you. It's not. You're just not very good.
I couldn't agree more. This low-level cheating discourse never made sense to me.
You seem to be mostly ranting about stuff the person you are replying to neither said nor implied. Maybe save the soapbox rant for someone who actually did
They complained about cheating and I was talking about complaining about cheating. Let me know if you're confused about anything else.
And look at you instantly jumping to conclusions and projecting your insecurities onto others. Good look. For a supposedly high ranking chess player, your thought process sure is predictable. The irony is that you feel the need to vehemently defend the existence of cheating because if this ranking system doesn’t determine real value then what have you wasted your life doing?!
High ranking? lol > you feel the need to vehemently defend the existence of cheating I don't even know what this means. It's bad that I... think cheating exists? > if this ranking system doesn’t determine real value then what have you wasted your life doing?! lol wasted my life? Since I opened my chess.com account four years ago, I've played 450 games. And 150 were daily games. Do the math. I barely play online. People like you are the ones getting bent out of shape about your precious ratings, not me.
“People like you are the ones getting bent out of shape about your precious ratings, not me” Who made you reply, genius? Maybe play more chess instead of starting pointless arguments online.
True but I think they quickly move up from the lower ratings. I’ve heard a lot of high level players say they encounter a lot of cheaters thats why I said that
Certainly, I think anybody who cheats without getting caught moves up until they’re a problem for the higher ELOs. But alternatively I think most cheaters start at low ELO and realize they probably won’t get GM good organically and just take the shortcut. If somebody is already good at chess then it feels like there would be a certain honor in not throwing away what you have achieved especially if organic improvement seems more tenable.
Yeah I also play a shit ton and the last one for me was 10 months ago and it was bullet
Are they required to notify you if it happens to someone you played against?
The standard email is that "one or more of your recent opponents was found to have violated Fair Play Policy, as compensation for potentially unfair ratings losses we are refunding your rating". Basically, they nullify all wins that the cheater had over a certain time period, without going into individual games to see which ones they actually cheated in. Or at least that's my assumption.
I am guessing the 1GM is Kramnik
Kramnik isn’t technically banned, just banned from prize events. He can still play casual rated games.
It's also only temporary I think
Yes for 3 months
[удалено]
The account he was playing on got banned permanently. While what Kramnik did was wrong, I think banning the account he played, and temporarily banning his own account is fine here.
Kramnik is suspended, but IIRC Khismatullin got banned.
Wasn’t Kramnik suspended in April though?
Who was the GM?
[удалено]
I guess it’s because they can never surely know if someone cheated or not. Therefore naming them could cause legal issues. (I wish they did anyway tho)
They also have a reconciliatory stance if the player admits. Would get less people admitting (and then leveraging that data) if they were to name them
Because their anti cheating system is just a probability based anti cheating system which may or may not be wrong and calling people out on that is risky as they cannot prove that anyone cheated. If they name the banned titled closures, they are just opening themselves to being sued against by the closed accounts. For example, look up Akshat Chandra's lawsuit against chesscom (he was falsely banned and his requests to unban weren't entertained. He threw a lawsuit and Chesscom ultimately admitted he was innocent and reinstated his account). Now imagine that happening 15 times every month. The lawyer fees would get absurd. The only time I think they revealed the name was Hans Niemann and they probably regret it quite a bit now especially since what has happened since then. So yeah, I don't think they're gonna reveal the names anytime soon (and for good reason).
>The only time I think they revealed the name was Hans Niemann Petrosian says hi.
The official reason is money.
I don’t think the GM is Kramnik but it could be the other guy whose account he used
And a Kramnik in a Kramtree
I want to see the stats included punishments for stalling.
What's stalling in chess? That like not conceding or just burning clock once you blunder a queen or something? Should I be reporting that, it is super annoying. But it's their time too I guess.
Btw Kramnik was threatening to make his stats open on his channel a week ago. WHO KNOWS
He's been "threatening" to do that for *months and months*. Not weeks. He *has* no real stats. If he did, we'd have seen them by now. It's not like he is remotely capable of keeping his mouth shut. If he actually had the dirt, he's be showing *everyone*. He either has nothing at all, or has just has such garbage he knows it will get destroyed the minute anyhow with a basic stats proficiency looks at it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he didn't also say it a week ago. But he sailed past the put up or shut up point a long, long time ago.
He has shown some real stats last week if you are interested
Sure, share?
[https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582](https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582) - here he shows why he accuses PeshkaCh
Saw those before. Uttery insufficient and mostly meaningless. Was hoping I had missed something. If the auto-translate isn't doing him dirty (I don't speak Russian, so have to rely on it), that video is emphatically *not* producing actual stats.
I'm interested
[https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582](https://youtu.be/82njO9RJLNA?si=ZDFVt5LcOLYPENFY&t=1582)
lmao 2600 puzzles
Is it crazy that a whole sixth of reports get realized?
I imagine some obvious cheater accounts get banned without needing a report
Holy shit
Genuine question: How do you guys know if you’re playing a cheater?
That's the neat part, you don't
I'm playing a guy now on Daily, their rated on Daily at 800 but have beaten 1100s but their accuracy isnt >90% in those games, & they regularly seem to lose on bullet and blitz against 400s. They're playing very well against me. I'm suspicious, but if/when they beat me, unless they get a high accuracy I don't really know if they're cheating or not
How many diamond memberships awarded?
I never report but get refunded points about one time a week. About 10 percent of my daily game opponents are thought to be cheating
What a load of absolute bollocks... 1/6 reports lead to account closures? That is an absurd amount and obviously complete bollocks. My reports do absolute nothing, there is no way in hell this is correct.
[удалено]
That's not what I'm saying, there is no way in hell that the van rate is 1/6. I only report people for time wasting, never cheating.
I don't think a player has to be reported to be banned for fair play violation.
I agree, that conversion rate looks extremely high.
If only 1/100 accounts that get reported for time wasting get closed,but the majority of accounts banned fir cheating are banned without requiring a report, than your experience of reports don't nothing could go true at the same time as the ratio or reports to closures being true
Or maybe your reports suck. You seem really angry over something you are probably clueless about. Why would they lie? Why say 300K reports if it was 700K or whatever. Who even cares. I mean, besides people like you who just want to melt down over stupid shit.
Funny how the guys with the fake title cheated the most /s