Roll up, roll up for the OTF chess tournaments

[ad hoc]

Ok just checked, I'm definitely booted.

No, my ranking has been pretty static for a while now. The only thing I can think of is that of late I've started doing the puzzles, which also gives you a rating - and my puzzle rating is way below my game rating (for a number of reasons, the main of which is that I'm not really bothered by the rating so I tend to move before I've thought much)

As far as I know no-one has been using my IP for games, but I will check with my younger daughter who has started playing chess a bit, and may have signed up with chess.com

[Levin]

I seem to remember that IT and Sam's friend got kicked off as well.

[Etienne]

https://support.chess.com/article/64...y-on-chess-com

Basically it says that the only reason you get booted is for using an engine. Which I assume you haven't been doing. It does say that you can appeal (towards the bottom of the page).

[irony towers]

I seem to remember that IT and Sam's friend got kicked off as well.

{ahem} I'm still on chess.com as they haven't rumbled me yet.

The reason I haven't joined OTF tournaments since #15 is because my membership allows me to enter no more than one tournament, and I'm still in a chess.com knockout tournament that started in September 2018.

Many commiserations to ad hoc. The only semi-suggestion I can offer is that you may be a victim of your own ability. In your list of Daily matches it shows me the accuracy score for some games, and you were maintaining >95% for a long run. It's just possible that this raised the suspicions of an embittered rival from outwith OTF.

[Levin]

Apologies IT, my mistake.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

What a pain, ad hoc! Ludicrous. Are you going to appeal? I see they have fucked up our OTF25 table as part of booting you.

Coincidentally, my premium membership failed to go though its annual update a few days ago due to a credit card change so I've had an urgent request from Chess.com for payment under pain of loss of membership. That had prompted me to review my level of membership anyway - I currently pay for the very top level I think, and don't use anything like enough aspects of the site to make that sensible. So I was going to investigate renewing at a cheaper premium level. But this thing with ad hoc has made me doubt whether I want premium membership at all.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Right I've now cancelled my premium membership entirely. Partly, to be fair, because their system is (no doubt deliberately) set up to make it difficult for you to switch to a lower premium level. No idea whether the site will keep my membership going as a free member, but as I'm in other tournaments I think some kind of chaos will ensue either way (since you can't be in more than one tourney as a free member). Under "reason for cancelling", although in truth there are a few as noted in my previous post - I don't use any benefits that I wouldn't have with the much cheaper Gold level and feel stupid for overpaying so much - I took the opportunity to lodge a protest about ad hoc's expulsion by attributing my cancellation to that. I thought it might dilute the message of moral outrage if I noted that I would have switched to Gold if they had made that possible!

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

I'm so sorry ad hoc. I'm not sure I like this at all - what can we do about it?

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

ok, I went back and re-upgraded to Gold (the minimum premium level) which may somewhat dilute my protest. I still have an email to respond to about my cancellation of Diamond, though, so I'll make the point again about loss of goodwill.

[Sam]

I seem to remember that IT and Sam's friend got kicked off as well.

IT has already covered his bit but the reason Alex no longer plays with us is indeed that he got booted. He assumes someone took exception to getting beaten by him and reported him for cheating. It's an imperfect science trying to police it and obviously as by far the biggest chess site on the internet they have to deal with more of it than most, so I don't think he holds it against them, but he prefers Lichess anyway so didn't bother protesting his chess.com expulsion.

I doubt it had to do with your tactics rating, ad hoc. They don't necessarily expect that stuff to line up. My tactics rating is much higher than any of my game ratings (I posted on here a couple of years ago in amazement when I had a good run and it got up to around 1700, and it's now generally around 1400 to 1500).

[ad hoc]

Yes I haven't decided whether to appeal yet. It's troubling on a number of levels, but I don't pay for the site (I did for a while but it's been ages since then). I think I'll take the weekend to decide what to do. I have an account on gameknot so it's not like I need to give up chess. The thing I'll miss is playing against you lot.

[fatbear]

I'm gobsmacked to read this, and like VT ( and everyone else ) I feel very sorry for adhoc and I don't like this at all.

[Bored Of Education]

I'm sorry to hear that, ad hoc, hopefully, they will see sense when you appeal. I am afraid my knowledge of chess sites is on a par with my knowledge of chess so I am not sure what steps to take. I have no loyalty to Chess.com so am happy to move the tournaments somewhere else if everyone wants to.

On a slightly more prosaic note, any ideas why Rebellious Jukebox conceded his game to me? He was way ahead and I wasn't going anywhere particularly. I did think he just wanted to end the tournament but, on checking, realised that the 2 points he would have got off me, were he to win, would have put him level with Wouter (although I can't pretend to understand the Tie Break system).

[Sam]

I'm going for 'he pressed the wrong button', looking at the position, but I'm sure there must be something we're both missing (we are the worst two players on here, after all).

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

I just thought that after ad hoc's news, it was time to call it a day.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Understandable.

[The_Purple_Cow]

That’s shocking news. I don’t think you should let them get away with it, Andy.

The main reason I play mostly 5 minute games is that I figure it doesn’t give people time to cheat. There have been a couple of games where I suspected someone of cheating with an engine, or using a ringer, but I’ve never had the nerve to actually report anyone. Even so, I’ve had rating points refunded to me 2 or 3 times by chess.com.

Eric Rosen has a couple of good videos on how to spot engine cheaters, the main way seems to be in looking at the time gaps between your move and theirs. If it’s seven seconds after every move - they are using an engine.

[Sam]

Anyone have any ideas about a new tournament, then? On a different site, if it means we can all play still (maybe I could invite Alex back as well)?

[ad hoc]

I don't think you should base your decision around me. For what it's worth I've enquired about appealing and been given a deadline of tomorrow to do so. I still haven't made up my mind whether to do so, for a number of reasons (the main one being my issues with the site acting as prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner - as I was a free member I sort of feel that they can do what they want, but it still feels well dodgy. And if this kind of thing happens to paid members I can't imagine how furious they would be)

[The_Purple_Cow]

I noticed this morning that I have been refunded the rating points I lost in games against Andy. I found that weirdly depressing when I consider how much better at this game Andy is than me. How, as you say, chess.com can act this way on what must be the flimsiest of evidence (f any) really makes my blood boil.

I like lichess.org if we are looking for a new home.

[Wouter D]

Anyone have any ideas about a new tournament, then? On a different site, if it means we can all play still (maybe I could invite Alex back as well)?

I'm perfectly happy for us to decide to stay or go wherever. I don't remember putting any effort into choosing chess.com over alternatives. But if we'd move elsewhere, I'd prefer if someone else takes up the organizational role.

[ad hoc]

How, as you say, chess.com can act this way on what must be the flimsiest of evidence (f any) really makes my blood boil.

Well the "evidence" must be a computer analysis of my play. In the information they proudly state that they have 9 full time employees working on this (to presumably give you the idea that this is something they spend a lot of time on). But then later they reveal that they kick 1000 people off each week. Given that they have to deal with actually responding to people who appeal, the 9 employees spend no time on the initial decisions.

[ad hoc]

The alternative is that they simply kick everyone off about whom they receive an accusation.

[ad hoc]

The best part of this is when Nakamura cracks up laughing on the video https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...rlsen-nakamura

(BTW I did appeal in the end. Not heard anything since)

[Wouter D]

The best part of this is when Nakamura cracks up laughing on the video https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...rlsen-nakamura

I like this sense of humor.