Originally posted by DiophantusAn intersting link, thank you.
That begs the question why does chess.com have two versions of the list? The forum list (the first link) is the version I remember as the "official" version from back when cheating discussions were banned in the forums but that list is woefully incomplete if the other one is to be believed. I did check and some well known characters who have been on chess ...[text shortened]... ust make the hidden list public? I looked but couldn't find an obvious link to your list.
Originally posted by DiophantusI reckon the open forum link is/was manually updated by a single member of staff.
That begs the question why does chess.com have two versions of the list? The forum list (the first link) is the version I remember as the "official" version from back when cheating discussions were banned in the forums but that list is woefully incomplete if the other one is to be believed. I did check and some well known characters who have been on chess ...[text shortened]... ust make the hidden list public? I looked but couldn't find an obvious link to your list.
The
http://www.chess.com/cheating.html
link seems to be automated.
Manually adding 700+ entries to the
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters
thread (which seems to be what happened previously) would be tiresome in the extreme.
That's all I can think of, anyway.
Originally posted by ZygalskiThat makes sense. The forum link always has the name of the same single staff member attached to its posts. I am still puzzled as to why they would have the two running in parallel and not make the automated list more obvious. If you had not pointed it out I would not have known it existed. On the other hand, I don't log in to chess.com very often so may have missed some huge flashing light encrusted announcement.
I reckon the open forum link is/was manually updated by a single member of staff.
The
http://www.chess.com/cheating.html
link seems to be automated.
Manually adding 700+ entries to the
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom---list-of-caught-cheaters
thread (which seems to be what happened previously) would be tiresome in the extreme.
That's all I can think of, anyway.
Interesting piece Something fishy at the Botvinnik Open http://whychess.org/en/node/1455
Yes, a certain Sergey Klimentiev, rated 1698, seems to be doing rather well. Is he perhaps a youngster whose rating hasn’t caught up with his talent? No, it seems not, as he was born in 1969. The RCF website continues:
He’s already beaten a series of FIDE Master level players, crushed IM Alexsej Lanin and drawn with IM Ivan Rozum. Players and organisers claim that after an encounter Klimentiev is unable to show or recall the moves from the game he’s played. The tournament continues, and today the St. Petersburg player is up against the Ukrainian Anatoliy Polivanov.
In the comments under the news item it’s pointed out that Klimentiev doesn’t even know the names of the openings. Up to this point you might be tempted, as I am, to side with the amateur player – is it really so unusual not to be able to recall the moves of your game or the names of the openings?! Perhaps he’s just having the tournament of his life? But the opening moves of the game he played as Black against Polivanov (on stage, with spectator access restricted) do seem to suggest he might have been performing somewhat above his ability level: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Bg4?? 7.Nxd8 ("an alternative was 7.Qxg4"😉...
The fact that Klimentiev is still playing in the event is likely to lead to more debate about how we can deal with suspected cheating when the alleged culprit isn't caught red-handed.
Originally posted by kopatovIf he was black in that game I would think a double question mark suggests he might have been drinking rather than performing above his ability level. If he was white I don't think we can ascribe any super human abilities based on a blunder by his opponent.
[bBut the opening moves of the game he played as Black against Polivanov (on stage, with spectator access restricted) do seem to suggest he might have been performing somewhat above his ability level: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Bg4?? 7.Nxd8 ("an alternative was 7.Qxg4"😉... [/b]
I am guessing he is still playing in the tournament because no evidence has been found to suggest he is up to no good. I think they should scrutinise the yogurt supply very carefully.
Originally posted by DiophantusFor someone who was playing near perfectly then collapsing when his briefcase was taken away suggests he had outside help in the first few un-monitored games. He was allowed to play on an went on to lose all of the remaining games.
If he was black in that game I would think a double question mark suggests he might have been drinking rather than performing above his ability level. If he was white I don't think we can ascribe any super human abilities based on a blunder by his opponent.
I am guessing he is still playing in the tournament because no evidence has been found to suggest he is up to no good. I think they should scrutinise the yogurt supply very carefully.
Originally posted by kopatovThey took his briefcase away? Why have there not been protests about this horrendous abuse of his human rights? Oh yes, this was in Russia. He's lucky they didn't just throw him out there and then. I hadn't seen the bit about the briefcase removal until you mentioned it. Did anyone search the briefcase? Did they find anything? My money is on a very small clone of Kasaparov.
For someone who was playing near perfectly then collapsing when his briefcase was taken away suggests he had outside help in the first few un-monitored games. He was allowed to play on an went on to lose all of the remaining games.