> That's how many grandmasters there are total (1771). I was quoting the number active, hence the hedge of give or take current active / cheating.
The difference between 1.8% and 1.4% is negligible and is only in regards to the limited population of chess grandmasters which could not be a valid sample representation of 93M chess.com members.
> Yes, I think cheating more than a fraction of a percent as you originally posited is a detriment to competition.
Your answer is apparently in reply to some question that was not asked. On the contrary, my claim was that the argument that cheating was "widespread," by extrapolating a mere two dozen cheaters among 93M, is fallacious reasoning, specifically a sweeping generalization, and also that
>>> Research has shown fewer than 0.02% cheat.
which is not a postulation but a published fact.[1] Being that two hundredths of a percent may be described as a tiny fraction of a percent rather than more than a fraction of a percent, you can clearly see in this case, by your own scrutiny and straw man, cheating is not a detriment to competition.
Yes, I think cheating more than a fraction of a percent as you originally posited is a detriment to competition.