Dear Chess.com,
Cheating in online chess has become so pervasive a topic that it sometimes feels impossible to separate good play from accusations of cheating. "Hans is great!" "Hans cheated!" "Danya is great!" "No, Danya cheated!" Is this who we are? Is this what we have become?
Your platform has also become a focal point for play and for associated rhetoric, discussions, legal issues, news, and so forth. Arguably, this benefits Chess.com more than it incentivises spending time and money to mitigate the human impact of cheating and unfounded cheating accusations.
Having limited to no insight into actual cheating data, we see that the "Kramnik effect"—whereby a respected player openly accuses others of cheating—has become an all-too-easy strategy for poisoning a community of otherwise hard-working players. It is demotivating and disappointing that a platform would condone this through inaction or apathy.
The rise of paid chess tournaments, the popularity of streaming, and the promise of income from streaming platforms or advertising deals are driving a higher percentage of players to consider casual cheating. This is aided by the simplicity of installing free cheating tools, which, when used in particular ways, are demonstrably undetectable over long periods by the tools Chess.com currently applies. These freely available tools are particularly helpful for those playing bullet, blitz, rapid, or non-standard time controls. For less than the cost of a popular legitimate chess database or engine (under $100 AUD), players can purchase a 'coach' bot that can literally make moves for them, should they choose to risk getting caught.
This last point is evidenced by people openly admitting they cheated for months as 'an experiment' simply to prove to themselves that it's possible to get away with it.
The fact that cheating is possible makes it hard for everyday players, who cannot access proctored, controlled, online tournaments like Titled Tuesday, to trust that a Chess.com subscription will benefit them, protect their time, and respect their commitment.
This undermines the prevalent narrative that cheating "isn't as common or impactful at lower ELOs." Cheating likely happens in any time control at any ELO.
For the everyday user, this is frustrating, to say the least. Common coping mechanisms are as follows—some good, some bad:
- Pretend it isn't happening as much as others say
- Embrace cheaters as a "learning opportunity"
- Start casual cheating yourself
- Stop playing before you "tilt" (good advice anyway)
- Find other platforms in the hope that cheating is less prevalent there
Unfortunately, recent controversies have led to heated discussions, and some popular GMs have publicly mocked cheat identification and research. Kramnik's unsportsmanlike behaviour actually provides cover to real cheaters, as anyone who suspects a cheater can now be mocked as just another armchair "researcher" or "evidence" gatherer.
This drama might seem like good PR for a platform, but a better balance could be achieved without spending millions on a yet non-existent "anti-cheat-o-matic-9000."
It has been said that eliminating cheating is impossible, and while this is accurate, it is also defeatist. So, what is possible?
- Reducing the amount of misguided, unscientific hyperbole
- Allowing everyday players to participate more in cheat identification
- Reducing the incentives for players to begin cheating
- Decreasing the percentage of cheaters on the platform at any given time
- Communicating with subscribers and the broader public about what is financially feasible
As a paying subscriber, I've noticed over the years that the tools available to help analyse games at scale have been reduced. For instance, it was once possible to see at a glance under which conditions a player loses—a helpful tool for identifying cheaters, especially in bullet and blitz games, where cheaters often only lose under time pressure. This could be a cost-saving measure or a UX simplification, but it has the side effect of reducing the agency of players who genuinely want to investigate cheating rather than play guessing games.
I hope to elevate the idea that leaning in the opposite direction could solidify your platform as not only a focal point for chess drama but also as a positive force that addresses community concerns and empowers chess and human behavioural research into cheating.
Please consider helping us reduce misguided, unscientific hyperbole.
As a paying subscriber, I don't expect you to "break the bank" on anti-cheating measures. However, I do urge Chess.com to invest a small amount of company time in producing a quarterly cheat transparency report with the following types of information, along with accompanying analysis. As a statistical layperson, I fully acknowledge that some of these ideas may be impractical, so please take them as suggestions for discussion.
- The percentage of known second-chance accounts currently active against the total player base
- The number of accounts banned for cheating in the quarter
- The percentage of cheaters reported by players compared to the percentage confirmed as cheating
- The percentage of confirmed cheaters across popular time controls
- The distribution of confirmed cheaters by timezone
- The percentage of cheaters in paid versus non-paid events
- The distribution of cheaters across ELO brackets
- The likelihood that a player will encounter a genuine cheater at any given time
- The number of titled players accused of cheating versus those confirmed as cheaters
- The number of new cheat methods/tools discovered in the wild
This list is indicative of ideas to address this issue, and there may be a completely different, better set of data points that would ease this problem more effectively. By elevating the excellent work of your cheat detection team and involving the community in the conversation around real statistics, we might see an improvement in discourse, inoculating our community from misinformation.
I truly believe that by releasing this modest amount of information, Chess.com can move the conversation away from Kardashian-level drama toward a MythBusters-like approach. This would at least bring us out of "he said, she said" territory and into a space where things can be measured by all. Is the problem truly better, or worse?
In the absence of regular input from Chess.com on the reality of cheating, I must assume that the problem is worsening. Consequently, my time is respected less, and thus, I feel inclined to reduce my financial support until such a time as I may cease paying or playing here entirely.
Yours sincerely,
An everyday chess player and subscriber
