Author: Boris Burrakowski
Date: 08:25:19 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2000 at 20:08:51, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >On March 15, 2000 at 19:12:51, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On March 15, 2000 at 12:14:34, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2000 at 06:05:14, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2000 at 21:32:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>White appears to have played relentlessly and flawlessly. Black made two >>>>>mistakes. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I don't believe you should >>>>>convict someone for playing perfectly. However, if the game was rapid, I smell >>>>>a rat. Maybe two rats. >>>> >>>>Thanks Dann. You came to the same conclusions I did. Yep, perhaps two cheats :( >>>> >>>>*** Djordje >>> >>>Hello Djordje, >>> >>>What was the time control? If it was something like 5/12, then why assume >>>cheating? If it was something like Game in 3 minutes, then yes it is difficult >>>to play a flawless game; however, it is still not impossible. >>> >>>I see black _giving_ white the opportunity to play an excellent game. After >>>black sacrificed the bishop for two pawns to break-up White's kingside, White >>>played what looked to me like fairly obvious moves. The point is did White play >>>above his head, or did black play poorly? In my opinion, black played poorly. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mel >> >>Hello again Mel, >> >>Thanks for helping out. Anyway, it was a game in 5. Difficult for a 1700 guy >>to pull off, as already said. Still, I cannot be completely sure about what >>happened. I wouldn't like to hurt anybody, but as I was asked to unofficially >>arbitrate I will openly state my opinion, as described above. >> >>*** Djordje > >Hello Djordje, > >I really don't think his rating of 1733 negates the possibility he didn't use a >computer. What appears to be the case many times over is someone who gets >burned, as in this game, suddenly gets the chess program fever bug and cannot >believe he played so badly. Well, if you find it hard to believe a guy rated >1733 could play that well, then how about the guy rated over 1900 playing that >Bishop sacrifice? Would you call that a good move? You are obviously not a very strong player. Black didn't play badly as you suggest. It is a very good game, it's more likely there are two cheaters than none. I agree in full with Dann and Djordje. > >Another thing about a blitz rating in the 1700's is that is for blitz. I think >you'll find that a chess player's rating is generally a few hundred points >higher at standard time controls. The point being that this 1733 rated player >may very well be a much better player than you think. This is not true. If you look at the ratings on eg ICC, you will see the blitz ratings far exceeding standard ratings. The best standard rating is 2700 and blitz 3200. > >Are you absolutely certain he used a chess program? If you are not, then you owe >to whomever you report that there is no conclusive evidence. I personally think >it's a tragedy to accuse someone of using software without absolute proof >indicating such was the case. If you had enough doubt to post here for opinions, >I suspect you weren't absolutely certain he was using software. That is a very >difficult decision without question. However, I think it's better to err on the >wrong side than to convict (for lack of a better term) the innocent. > >Regards, >Mel
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.