In the previous posting, I related how I was told by Chess.com VP Danny Rensch that a single set of games in 2015 were the only ones that they were calling into question.

Here is my proposal to Chess.com:

•I’m ready to play using a private webcam for the next 3 months or whatever reasonable duration is required.

•If my performance is considerably worse than the last 3-6 months, then I will accept the prohibition. One indicator is that my current blitz rating would begin to fall dramatically and stay down.

•If my performance is similar or within range, then Chess.com system has made an error and I should be justly compensated for I revealed the weaknesses of their system, helped them improve it, took all the nonsense, and invested a lot of energy and time to dismiss the erroneous claims. If Chess.com is 100% sure, then they will never have to worry about paying me.

•I also need to be informed about what triggered Chess.com to lock my account based on games played ~3 years ago. Why now? Why not when it happened or a few months from then? Also, the exact games from 2015 that are being questioned should be identified to me. The mystery must be solved, for as it is, using 2015 games as a reason to lock me out in 2018 sounds downright strange.

The biggest risk for me is that the data is adjusted to fit the conclusion, but that can be addressed. My best indicator remains my blitz rating.

The problem I foresee is that after claiming to be 100% sure, it can be very hard for anyone to backpedal if my performance is within the range. Admitting to false positives may be a high hurdle to overcome.

But false positives exist, and I’m far from being the only one.

Here’s an article talking about the possible errors Chess.com made in another situation. It’s a comprehensive and thoughtful read, and if nothing else just read the statements from the players who were accused. I recall looking at the FM’s games in 2015 when this incident occurred, and always believed he was wrongly accused. Many others shared that sentiment. I was unable to look at the IM’s games, though, as his account was closed before I could do so, but his explanation speaks for itself.

I can’t help but think that if I and others were able to come to a reasonable conclusion at that time that the FM games appeared genuine, then why couldn’t Chess.com figure that out or approach the issue with a healthy dose of skepticism in their systemic conclusion?

Who is providing that human understanding to the games at Chess.com when such key evaluations are done?

After my last blog post, I was also approached by another Junior titled player who admitted to giving a fake confession just so he could play in the ProChess league.

In most cases, the cost of such false positives is insignificant to Chess.com; there is a minimal impact on them for making errors and losing a few titled players here or there. In addition, the Confession is a zero-cost strategy that has worked when many, but not all, of the times the players are indeed guilty.

As Danny Renschsaid,

“We have received confessions from GMs north of 2650+ FIDE, and you would never know it because we work with them to protect their reputation, allow them back on our site, and, after honoring our requests and “serving their time”, they have all gone back to enjoying Chess.com, knowing they are playing on their second, and only “last chance” account.”

The irony of this statement is not lost on me as I stand, alongside a few, fighting to defend my innocence for a set of games played ~3 years ago, while some guilty GMs amidst us continue playing on Chess.com and no one knows about these 2600+ players.

The second account option offered by Chess.com works best only for the guilty for they can stop the unfair part and return to normal.

Players who fake confess take a gamble.