Verified accounts

Hello, 

We need to push for verified accounts as a community. Let's be honest here for a minute. The online chess scene has dealt with this cheating epidemic for far too long. Chess.com does an amazing job regulating their money events and top-level players, but it's the little guys that get the most screwed by these people. 

Chess accounts are free to make and nothing stops a person from being banned and then simply creating a new account and continuing the behavior. We live in a world where people can use VPNs and all sorts of other things to get around permanent ban systems. To be truthful, I am not even sure if chess.com goes as far as to permanently ban IPs of repeat offenders. Not only do they get banned and just make new accounts but you have no created a "game" for them to see how high they can get their rating before they get caught and the act of cheating becomes a "skill" that one can get good at.

The simplest and very effective way to combat this would be with verified accounts. I ought to be able to pay a one-time fee to get my account verified and then prioritize matchmaking against other verified accounts. I'd be totally fine with waiting a little extra time for a match. It would be such a good change. 

I get that the cheating problem can't be solved and this isn't a perfect solution. But if people like myself are willing to pay money for it, why is it taking so long to implement? It seems like a relatively cost-effective way to at least combat the issue. I mean, I only pay for a plat membership... but I'd pay diamond but I don't like that there aren't verified accounts. If I'm going to pay $15 a month then I should NEVER be playing against "free" accounts. 

I have such a hard time just enjoying my time playing online chess because I'm constantly feeling like I'm being cheated. I get that 95% of the time they aren't, but my brain thinks they are 95% of the time. Having verified accounts would make me and many others FEEL so much better. Knowing that when we play, if anybody gets caught they will get their verified accounts banned and be unable to make a new verified account and therefore will be out of the pool of players I would face. 

It's a change that could make chess.com a lot of money so I just don't understand the hold up. It really feels like the bare minimum that chess.com could be doing at this point for the 99.9% of players who aren't titled players playing in money events. I also think it would cut down on the toxicity some. I really hope it is a change that we see in 2025. 

We HAVE to do something to save the integrity of our beautiful sport. This current system feels like it's built for the cheaters. It's a game for them and sadly it's a playing field that is allowing them to get better and better at it. This is a solution that could cost nearly nothing and something I'd be willing to pay entirely too much for... honestly. I don't think it should cost that much. But I'd honestly pay over $100 for it... it means THAT much to me. Having that weight lifted off my shoulders when I play would be priceless. 

Hi there, @im_pillowpants

You’ve raised some excellent points about the current state of online chess and the persistent issue of cheating. Your frustration is valid, and I agree that it’s time for a stronger stance to be taken. Verified accounts could indeed be a game-changer for improving trust in the platform, and I’d like to add to your ideas with a few considerations.

1. Verified Accounts: Practical and Fair:

The idea of verified accounts is fantastic, especially when linked to prioritized matchmaking. Many players would gladly pay a one-time or subscription fee for the peace of mind that comes with knowing their opponents are held to a higher standard of accountability. It’s also a win-win for Chess.com because it provides them with an additional revenue stream while addressing a core concern of their user base.

2. Matchmaking Filters:

You mentioned wanting to avoid playing against "free" accounts altogether. While I understand the sentiment, perhaps a matchmaking filter would be more inclusive. Verified players could toggle an option to only match with other verified players. That way, those who can’t afford verification aren’t excluded from enjoying the platform but those who invest in verification get the experience they’re looking for.

3. Cheating and Repeated Offenders:

You brought up the loophole where banned players create new accounts. This is a tough issue for any online platform. While VPNs and IP bans are notoriously easy to bypass, tying verified accounts to a government ID, phone number, or other unique identifier would make it much harder for repeat offenders to return. If done carefully, this wouldn’t have to compromise privacy.

4. Addressing Community Concerns:

I think one potential challenge is ensuring that the introduction of verified accounts doesn’t inadvertently create a sense of "elitism" or exclusion. Chess is for everyone, and while verified matchmaking is a fantastic option, it mustn’t fragment the community or stigmatize "free" players who might not have the means to verify.

5. The Psychological Impact:

You touched on something really important—how cheating (or even the fear of it) affects the mental state of players. Even if the majority of matches are clean, the constant suspicion erodes the joy of the game. Verification could be a way to rebuild trust, which is just as important as combating actual cheaters.

6. Implementation Costs:

It’s worth noting that while this idea might not cost much in theory, implementing and maintaining a verified system securely (and on a global scale) could be more resource-intensive than it seems. That said, Chess.com has demonstrated a willingness to invest in its platform, and this seems like a natural next step.

Final Thoughts:

The chess community thrives on trust, fairness, and the love of the game. Verified accounts might not eliminate cheating, but they could go a long way in creating a better experience for players like you who want a level playing field. I hope Chess.com is listening to players like us because your proposal is thoughtful, feasible, and has a lot of support from the community.

Thanks for sharing your ideas—hopefully, 2025 will be the year we see some real change!

Cheers,
@JosephReidNZ

Is that second post AI generated? It’s a good synthesis though. Anyways, there’s not much of a difference between paid tiers and this new verified tier you’re suggesting, when it comes to trust that an account is not cheating:

(The way a more costly tier somewhat discourages cheating compared to a free one is that you put money into the account so getting caught loses that money. There is the exception of titled players which get paid tiers for free, though, so a new tier could be a tiny improvement, but I imagine currently people buy for features, not some vague reassurance about cheating. Personally I’ve never felt any pressure or defeatism off facing a cheater: I don’t even notice/assume the mere possibility of cheating unless there’s a Really good sign, and even if I did notice, I would be excited/determined to potentially win against the odds)

So, this reduces to simply wanting to play against paid tiers. There used to be premium-only tournaments if I remember correctly, but I don’t see them anymore, so presumably chess.com had reason to remove them.

Assuming then, that nothing will happen, I will just try to impart the obviously more productive mindset of not worrying so much about cheaters, using an overdose of justification:

Unless the cheating is blatant, any advantage in ability must be generally consistent, and so the rating will stabilize and account for it. And you don’t really worry about cheating when you’re playing against a bot instead of live. For manifold reasons, many people win against cheaters, but especially since crucially, the better you play, the harder it is for a cheater to win without being suspicious. It’s just like taking a test: sure, you can get nervous and maybe the teacher or school district slipped in some impossible question, but the best thing to do is to do your best (I know this is easier said than done, but unlike a test nearly everyone plays for fun, not money, so there’s no stakes. It’s a game. {Deleted paragraph involving siblings and one about overriding concepts}).

No, I do not mean a paid, tier system. I mean people verifying by submitting documentation to prove they are who they say they are on that account... which is a one-time deal for that "person." If the account gets banned, the person gets banned. 
You can still make free accounts. But a verified account can pick to play against only other verified accounts. I know that I mention that a diamond account should never be playing against a free account... and that is true also. At the very minimum it should be an option to the paid accounts and not the free ones.

Ah, so something like the verified titled players system but for all players. That makes a lot of sense. I think it could relatively easily be sloppily implemented in the code by creating a new “title” V for verified, and then adjusting the visuals and any other issues using the beta system.

"nothing stops a person from being banned and then simply creating a new account and continuing the behavior" -RIGHT! I told chess.com a dozen times to do ANYTHING, but nothing happens. There a a few topics here with suggestions, but nothing is done. As long as they ignore this, there is another suggestion: just give as an option on playing new games: "wanna be paired only with players that are at least 2 years registered" on the user setup. Because its known that 99,5% new players are NOT new, but old banned accounts!