Fake Accounts/Bots

The reason people disable chat is that it's 99.9% people hurling abuse. Which is real shame because a decent post mortem is such an enjoyable element of the game... If I refuse a rematch, it's because I'm too disgusted with my own play or that I simply wanted/had time to play one game...

But regarding BOTS: A while back, I tried switching to rapid, and the amount of bots and cheaters was mind boggling. (This is not just me being a sore loser, it's a fact evidenced by the many, many rating adjustment messages in my inbox).

Do I think chess.com made those? Not at all, it's just people cheating for some stupid reason or other. But rapid is less popular to begin with, and it'll be real hard to build a solid base of real players when there are so many obvious cheaters around to drive them away. It's a sad state, but there's no easy fix.

it just something, does not mean they are bots. 1700s are the toughest but 2200s are easier sometimes (bullet) and in blitz i can not even get past 1725, i got 1725 many times but almost never got 50 more points. rating does not measure skill compared to you, it measures average skill compared to everyone, it depends in your playing type (agressive, defensive, pawn pusher or something)

It's more complicated.
Here we need to separate several categories:
1) Fake accounts/bots from chess_com
2) Fake accounts/bots from third-party organizations (there are a lot of them, I won't list those that train their pseudo-AI on chess)
3) Players who use hints. There are again three groups: those using third-party sites, third-party browser extensions, and collective accounts.
All subgroups have their own set of patterns or red flags.

It's not a theory, it's how they get us hooked. Everything is based on the algorithms they use to find your player personality type and how you react to losing a couple of games in a row, against lower rankings, etc... then they match you with bots to obtain the necessary result to keep you playing. Real people are not reliable, bots give them what they need to manipulate us.

Chess is addictive enough as it is :/ he bandwidth to run all the bots would be insanely expensive I don't think it would be worth it

These site are most defiantly HAVE A.I bots as humans! (That said.... I don't know if Chess.com or Lichess are SPECIFICALLY DOING IT....

My gut says they are....

Sorry detractors ... I feel we are dreaming if we think there are 600,000 chess players playing on Chess.com.... Come on really? a the western game/sport is so popular that people from Zimbabwe are on here pushing pawns ... Think about ....
While playing Anonymous on LiChess . Whatever this is (it's not human) ...destroys me 3 games in a row.

I smelled serious silicone...... so I challenged it again and quickly brought up Stockfish 17..

Stockfish's Rating is 3400+

I manually played one of my favorite openings ... then let Stockfish 17 go to work from there.

here is the game....

Then had Stockfish 17 analyze the game 
Stockfish 17.... aka Anonymous
0 Inaccuracies
0 Mistakes
0 Blunders
6 Average centipawn loss
99 %Accuracy

Whatever this is .....

Anonymous
2 Inaccuracies
0 Mistakes
0 Blunders
19Average centipawn loss
94%Accuracy

Against one of the top of the line chess engines rated 3400+ this whatever this is makes 0 mistakes , 0 blunders ???

Really??

I'm having a hard time believing 2600-2700+ super GMs are playing on LIchess Anonymously... beating up on scrubs like me!

IT also makes NO sense that some jerk would be using an extremely strong chess engine (this is probably is Ryba 2.3 or something close to it) to smoke people anonymously.

Conclusion...

IT's a Bot... Now is it Lichess that is using Bots as players? We'll ..... I'm having a hard time believing there is a A.I. programmer running chess simulations anonymously.

So... yea... there are bots out there in fact... My theory is that they have been out there for a while...

Bots have been prevalent on online chess servers for decades now. Same as pretty much every (online) game or activity with a hint competitiveness ever - if it exists, people will cheat in it. That's just a fact of life.

The allegation in this thread, however, is that it's not random griefers cheating, but chess.com themselves running bots to somehow manipulate the users into spending more time playing. I for one find that hard to believe, especially without a more rigid analysis than the ones provided.

unless 50% of people cheat which maybe that amount have tried but it isnt the actual amount that cheat most games there's really no point to cheating you do realize servers cost alot of money right i dont think running an ai program for a million games a day is exactly cheap youd be wasting millions of dollars when marketing is more effective ai would make people leave the site more not less sure there are cheaters but then again the majority dont cheat(also its more common in higher levels than lower )

i wouldn't be surprised bukkman is being sarcastic

There are bots on chess.com, those being ad bots that post "call girls" forums.

booo also one of the forum posts almost broke peoples computers and gave them popups and forced them to post infinitely on there

Yep, sounds like your average virus. IDK how they keep making accounts.

Most definitely bots!

If you don't believe me, just start saying in in your chat box when you play against a bot. Say it and also say very firmly that you did not consent to playing bots. Because bot research pays great money, and chess is pretty much the oldest running, and very confined set, to learn AI code development in. Which humans are battling with.

Then watch what happens.

You will be warned. But if you keep it up. Your chat will be blocked. But if you keep it up. You will play nothing but unplayable opponents until you are playing a thousand points below your rating and still losing big. 🤣

Now how on earth are they managing that if the platform aren't grouping you in a "get rid of" box and giving you only bots to play?

Money! They get paid.

could you send me some of that medicinal smoke you are using so i can reduce my cancer pain meds a little i am sure i would play better chess that way

Unfortunately... that is probably true. 

Take a look at my scenario posted. I was playing anonymously on Lichess. Logically it makes no sense for a super GM to lurk and destroy amateurs. (By super GM, and I'm referring 2700 plus... would be the only person able to hang with Stockfish17 in a 5 min blitz match and make no errors. How many 2700s are there in the world.. less than a 100.

Nor does it make any sense that an amateur would troll with Ryba 2.3 or something similar "Anonymously" destroying casual players in Blitz.

What would be the point?

What does make sense... 

A) You have an internet site that is free, that makes money advertising. It charges fees for advertising based on the amount of users who frequent the site.

B) looking to increase revenue you want to create a platform where users get instant accesses to what they came to the site for. In this case... A game of Chess. (if not... with a mouse click, they are on to another site...

Bot's are the perfect tool. No waiting for a bot... Blam! instant Chess game! Problem solved.... However, the caretakers of these sites know that playing bots is not what people want. (they can just pull up whatever chess engine they have on their computer.

Using A.I. designed bots that mimic how a human would play chess to fool the masses appears to be what they have done. Economically it makes sense from a business standpoint, and I assume the caretakers of these sites justify using bots believing there is no difference between a 1300 elo bot and a human who is 1300 elo when it comes to playing the game of chess.

If Lichess is doing it... (and I think I just proved they are! ) then Chess.com being a more structured business unit....... IS MOST ASSUREDLY DOING IT!

The debate isn't if they are using bots.... the debate is "Is there a difference between playing a human who is 1300 elo and an A.I. bot programmed to mimic the playing skill of a 1300 elo human.

From a chess enthusiast's point of view, there is no point. But to some people, things like circumventing the rules or seeing how their automated scripts play out is a game worth playing in itself. (If you're a wanna-be hacker, automating the process to create a new account to get your bot online every time it is banned can even be seen as a useful, skill-building exercise...) More advanced users program their own chess engines or make modifications to existing ones, and then test them in the wild.

The traditional answer when you ask someone why they spend time sabotaging things on the internet for no gain, is "Because I can". I don't have the inclination to do these things myself, so I cannot say I truly understand it. But just because something is irrational to you or me, doesn't mean that there aren't other people who find it very much worthwhile...

So, your conclusion that chess.com is "most assuredly doing it" is very much based on conjecture. The debate on whether there is a difference between playing a human or a machine perfectly mimicking a human I suppose is an interesting one, which I will gladly leave to those with a more philosophical bent than me.

The issue is engines arnt that good yet to micic humans I mean isn't that what chess.com bots are supposed to do long term they are too consistent

Fair points ... that could be a flaw in my reasoning. I thought about that... i.e could it be a lone idiot... PLAYING A CHESS ENGINE just because he can....

WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST....

That said... I'm fairly confident it's not the first time I've ran into that Bot. TO think there is someone with the intellect of a retard giving himself a mental high five every TIME he crushes some in an anonymous blitz game using a top chess engine... YEP, MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

It makes more sense to rationalize that business wise there is an opportunity cost not using bots .

Yes, in one way it absolutely does. But, I've been trying to point out two things here:

1) One of your previous posts could crudely be condensed to "The only reasonable explanation I can think of that would explain X, is Y. Therefore Y is absolutely what is happening." But I can think of many, many things that would explain X, and would therefore only consider Y if there were some actual proof.

2) You haven't spent a lot of time studying the subject of cheating or the many outlandish things people do on the internet. Maybe that's for the best, because it's truly a weird world. But it does leave you ill equipped to reason about the various objectives any person might have when they set up a bot to destroy random beginners on a chess server.

But, when there's so much you don't know about the subject, I don't trust your conclusion, and - most importantly - you shouldn't either. People do a lot of stuff that don't make any immediately recognizable sense. Interpreting these actions based solely on what makes sense to you personally will be very limiting. Some things we *can't* understand, and we should be both aware of this and ok with it.