If you play slow games on playchess.com most of your opponents cheat.
I have played hundreds of games in there where my opponent played what Fritz recommended on every move and not one of those games were detected by anti-cheating software.
And then there are all those games where the opponents start cheating when they begin to get into trouble.
Those are the most frequent ones.
All the cheating annoyed me a lot therefore I started mailing Chessbase games where my opponent had cheated on every move, but nothing happened except once where they wrote to me that the cheater would have his rating deleted.
I also mailed them a few of those games where the opponents started cheating once they had gotten into trouble.
Even though they had played very poor out of the opening and then somehow had been able to play the remaining 40-70 moves of the game according to Fritz I was told that this was no indication of cheating what so ever.
For that reason I have not played rated games in there for almost five years.

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 05/06/12 at 21:53:13:


Yes, I am referring to the original post, which does not concern what constitutes cheating, but if cheating is actually occurring. I think the latter is more important since this was the original issue, and also if there is no suspicion of using an opening book, database, computer engine, all of which whether the aforementioned constitute cheating is a debate within itself, but if there is no assistance of the anterior, then there would be no argument about if a database is cheating or not. The question is about if opponents take certain amounts of time on certain moves constitutes cheating somehow.

If I remember correctly, blitz time controls with no increment were the time controls referred to. I find it quite impossible to comprehend how one can flip pages of an opening book and try to follow variations whilst playing such a fast control. 

Today I tried to play a 3-minute game whilst studying chemical thermodynamics, and that in itself was very difficult to concentrate properly, on either activity. It was difficult to read even a few sentences and play fast enough to not lose on time or blunder horribly.

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 05/06/12 at 20:30:14:


The problem si why do you think you are playing a computer? I can say that any of my opponents are cheating because they require 5 seconds to play a certain move, but how is that enough evidence? The argument in these past few pages seems to have changed into one is sure that the opponent is using either a book, database, or computer engine, and what constitutes cheating. If I remember correctly, the original issue was is any form of assistance during playing is even occurring.

As I said anteriormente, if so sure that you are playing a person who is using a database/computer, then send the game to the ICC anti-computer team. If they determine that the games are not cheating, then honestly there is nothing more to do. And if I remember correctly, each game needs a reason to why one thinks the opponent is cheating. I doubt that one of the reasons can be given as, "I think my opponent is cheating because I think so." And in my 11 years of ICC, I have never heard of anyone being suspected of cheating because of the certain amount of time spent on a move, most especially in a fast time control such as 3 0 or 5 0. I have had at least 50 opponents in the seven years that I have played in ICC's 1-minute pool that have paused for 10 seconds during the opening or in the first 20 moves, surely this does not indicate cheating?

Quote:


Damn, I meant to click rey and clicked modify instead, and screwed up you post. Please accept my apologies. Markovich

Markovich wrote on 05/05/12 at 22:23:00:


This is pretty much it.

Internet games don't have anything real at stake. Focus on the game itself, worry about ethical stuff when something is actually at stake. If you're worried about cheating move on to another opponent. 

Done and done.

Stigma wrote on 05/05/12 at 19:09:59:

I really don't care.  I do think my advice is best, but do what you like.  You want strong opponents?  How about hiring a coach?

Markovich wrote on 05/05/12 at 01:20:17:


I have had opponents get force resigned at chesscube.com.  But I guess it depends on the percentage agreement of your moves to most engines based on your rating.  If you don't tjink that cheaters get caught google Dembo cheats.

The issue is not with regards to what cheating is, it is to if cheating is even occurring. I think you are trying to discern what is cheating, but he issue is is cheating actually occurring just because of time gaps? If you decipher that as cheating, then I could probably say that all of my opponents are cheaters. And that is highly unlikely.

You say that those who cheat have acted dishonetly--have they indeed cheating though, just based on your logic of likening time gaps during blitz as somehow cheating? This is the firtst time of my 11 years on ICC that I have heard of suspicions of cheating due to time gaps.