Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Ian Thompson]

Apart for money from spectators, why is that the chess servers present real time analysis of games in progress? It's just makes life too easy for those who would seek external assistance.

Not sure I follow this - unless I misunderstand the question, it's free?

It might be free at the point of use but some sites have advertising on the live games pages which will generate revenue for them, with the amount depending on the number of viewers.

[MartinCarpenter]

In an earlier event, several players who did not meet the ECF standard of proof for a ban were banned by Chess.com

There have been stories that players had been banned by chess.com or lichess for looking at emails during games, looking at other games in a match, or having someone on the same IP address follow games in progress. I don't know whether I believe these stories beyond reasonable doubt, but balance of probabilities that they are true seems possible. Without an explantion of the accusations leading to a ban, you don't know.

Thinking about it, dual screening as Hans was accused would be a natural thing to do in a team match. You play on one screen and have the other three games on a second monitor. If that's against chess.com's terms and conditions, it may just indicate that their terms and conditions are not fit for purpose if you want to run a team match.

One thing which annoyed me slightly during lockdown was that they hadn't done the basic work required to actually give us a useable 'online teams match' interface.

Not their core business perhaps, but trivial to do in functional terms. Can only suppose that they just don't especially care.

[Matthew Turner]

What is it about Presidents of Scandinavian Chess Federations?

https://twitter.com/tarjeijs/status/157 ... RQdgABDsMQ

To be fair the players are getting involved too

https://twitter.com/RuneDjurhuus/status ... 5310980097

[Roger de Coverly]

What is it about Presidents of Scandinavian Chess Federations?

There's a game that some players like to indulge themselves in. That's to set their rating as low as possible and then see how quickly or in how few games they can restore it to its usual level. It may be that some spectators like to watch the fun of mass slaughter of innocents. Every so often participants in this activity run across beginners who've newly discovered the delights of looking up moves on their phones etc and have yet to be outed by the engine finders.

Justin Horton raised the issue of why players would lose intentionally and this "game" was mentioned as ine of the reasons.

To be fair the players are getting involved too

Isn't that just the long standing alleged behaviour of trading tournament points for rating points and vv?

[Chris Rice]

While I've been chess coaching, I've seen several fathers do this on purpose so their children can get what they consider to be a fairer game. I had to tell the child (at school) that this is not right to which the child usually retorted "that my father said the rating was wrong!" No idea whether this happened in this instance but it might be plausible.

[David Sedgwick]

Justin, I must have missed your appointment as Chief Prosecutor for this Forum

Absolutely fantastic David

Thank you for the sweets.

[JustinHorton]

Justin Horton raised the issue of why players would lose intentionally

Did I?

(I may very well have done so, but I don't remember it.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Did I?

(I may very well have done so, but I don't remember it.)

Joey Stewart kickd off the thread, but you chippped in fairly soon.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12215&hilit=losing&start=90

There's a bit in that thread about why ratings are deliberately lowered, but not very much.

I don't think I imagined the concept of a rating run though

(edit) It has been called Grandmaster speedrun.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments ... ichessorg/ (/edt)

[Mick Norris]

But he appears to have acted after the event, not during it.

Yes, but his intention was still to get Chess.com to take action which the ECF did not consider to be justified.

I have withdrawn any negative allegation regarding Pete Heaven's motives. I continue to regard his actions as inappropriate.

I have received private messages disagreeing with that view. It was these that led me to edit my original post.

Pete Heaven is undoubtedly one of the unsung heroes who did try to do something positive about the rising tsunami of English online cheating during the Covid years. Usually his efforts were met either with a wall of silence or total indifference, which I also see as inappropriate to put it mildly!

Yes, cheating wrecked what would otherwise have been a major step forward especially for players at the geographical fringes of English chess

I enjoyed the online ECF county championships, until I got a game chalked off for playing after the chess.com server crashed (despite my opponent and I both being unaware, and both playing a normal game in our view), and more seriously after 1 of my team mates had an opponent cheat against him, and despite efforts to play his subsequent rounds on Zoom, he never really recovered

Anyway, I'll invite Pete to the first meeting of the Criticised by Sedgwick Club, which I suppose ought to be held in Iran

[David Sedgwick]

Anyway, I'll invite Pete to the first meeting of the Criticised by Sedgwick Club, which I suppose ought to be held in Iran

Mick, I did apologise for that particular comment, albeit a year later.

I am hoping to go to Iran when it becomes a free country. If you, Pete Heaven and others are available at that time, perhaps we could hold the meeting then and you could elect me as the Honorary President of the Club.

[JustinHorton]

Did I?

(I may very well have done so, but I don't remember it.)

Joey Stewart kickd off the thread, but you chippped in fairly soon.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12215&hilit=losing&start=90

There's a bit in that thread about why ratings are deliberately lowered, but not very much.

Oh yeah, I remember that now, But I wonder if what puzzled me was not sabotaging your own rating (for which we can think of a few reasons) but when people do it in casual games.

[JustinHorton]

Dlugy

[Keith Arkell]

The best thing to have come out of the disclosure of Niemann's serial cheating ( 100+ games!) is the clarification that there is no real difference between online engine cheating and otb engine cheating. Cheating online to steal prize money or prestigious results is equivalent to doing so otb, but easier to accomplish. No longer can perpetrators somewhat bizarrely plead ' It was only online, m'lud '.

To understand the suspicions of the top players better, consider the following storyline:

Romeo eventually ties the knot with his long-term girlfriend Juliet. Then he hears rumours that she cheated on him a couple of times before they wed.

When confronted with this she confesses but promises Romeo that she only cheated on those two occasions. He decides to forgive her, reasoning that she was a lot younger and hence less mature back then.

But soon afterwards reliable sources make it known to Romeo that Juliet had lied to him and that she had cheated on him more than 100 times before they were married.

Romeo thinks to himself 'Ah, but now that we are married and live under the same roof it will be far more difficult for her to cheat on me, and I've not heard any rumours.

But then signs begin to appear that she might be at it again. No proof yet but enough to convince him.

Romeo files for divorce.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Just to be clear, is this "cheated 100 times" thing proved beyond reasonable doubt - as opposed to "only" balance of probabilities?

[NickFaulks]

Dlugy

I thought when Carlsenchess.com took their original pop at Max Dlugy that they might have been well advised to stick to softer targets. He doesn't say what he intends to do next, but I don't expect this to be the end.