Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Open File - No Losers Here!

  • NM Zug
  • | Jan 22, 2010
  • | 4817 views
  • | 30 comments

The Open File

by Life Master Mike Petersen (Zug)

No Losers Here!

Did you ever look at the list of players on chess.com sorted by rating?  You look at the first page or two just to see who might have a high rating, then you look up what page you might be on, and that's about it.

Well, I've gone the list one better.  I decided to see who the players are at chess.com who have lost at most one game, and list them all here.  I stopped after looking at the 300 highest rated players.  Turns out there are 38 of them, and I have listed them all in the table below.  You should have some fun going over them.  I decided to put some additional information for each player that might be of interest.  For instance, among the 38, 16 are premium (paid) members while 22 are not, and 23 identify themselves by name while 15 do not.  I also listed the average rating of their opponents, and it turns out that Vladik tops the list in that area, while tkanzakik has the lowest average opponents.  Another interesting point is that there are very few titled players in this list.  One additional thing to note is that a few of the players on this list are not currently active: chapo60, loser, Blogeurix, and prvnrk.

Okay, so what does all this mean?  Well, I'm going to leave that part up to you.  Do your own analysis and post a comment.  What do you think it means?

Abbreviations:  F=Free
                P=Premium
                I=Real Name Listed  
                U=Unknown Name
                AvgOpp=Average Rating of Opponents

    User ID               Rating  AvgOpp    Wins     Losses    Draws 

F U capablankamonte        2964    1845    87  (99%)  0 (0%)   1  (1%)
F I atlantischess          2960    2158   148  (89%)  1 (1%)  17 (10%)
P U baki1959               2941    2344    33  (77%)  1 (2%)   9 (21%)
P I Vladik                 2928    2417    30  (63%)  0 (0%)  18 (38%)
F I ManuChena              2888    2380    27  (68%)  1 (3%)  12 (30%)
F U chapo60                2859    1992    75  (88%)  0 (0%)  10 (12%) 
P I miantola               2851    2104    62  (87%)  0 (0%)   9 (13%)
P U sproates               2823    1792   166  (94%)  0 (0%)  11  (6%)
P U snrf                   2804    2194    25  (93%)  0 (0%)   2  (7%)
P I Ludde                  2758    2077    79  (83%)  1 (1%)  15 (16%)
F I songoku                2711    1896    95  (78%)  0 (0%)  27 (22%)
F I baldyman57             2676    1928    55  (89%)  0 (0%)   7 (11%)
P I Zubrea                 2675    2172    54  (77%)  0 (0%)  16 (23%)
F U Slow_Burn              2657    2317    22  (88%)  1 (4%)   2  (8%)
F I BlackRodryg            2648    1828    52  (96%)  1 (2%)   1  (2%)
P U eternaloptimist        2636    1749    28  (97%)  0 (0%)   1  (3%)
P I arunabi (GM)           2636    2174     8 (100%)  0 (0%)   0  (0%)
P I talmich                2635    2036    59  (78%)  1 (1%)  16 (21%)
P U loser (NM)             2635    1738   249  (97%)  0 (0%)   7  (3%) 
F I stojle                 2592    2021    33  (87%)  0 (0%)   5 (13%
F U velemajstorjm          2592    1746    37  (97%)  1 (3%)   0  (0%)
F I kon27                  2573    1859    70  (96%)  1 (1%)   2  (3%)
F I ADBell                 2572    1740    47  (94%)  1 (2%)   2  (4%)
F I Zbreg79                2567    2257    17  (77%)  1 (5%)   4 (18%)
P I KYLion                 2566    1802   190  (96%)  0 (0%)   7  (4%)
P I BCG1                   2541    1824    22  (85%)  1 (4%)   3 (12%)
F I yuggoth                2530    2007    36  (86%)  1 (2%)   5 (12%)
F I Blogeurix              2528    1957    10  (77%)  0 (0%)   3 (23%)
F U Revere                 2523    1661    36  (95%)  0 (0%)   2  (5%)
F U prvnrk                 2521    1828    54  (83%)  1 (2%)  10 (15%) 
F U SicilianTM             2520    1872    34  (92%)  1 (3%)   2  (5%)
P U mac_daddy              2518    1513   164  (99%)  1 (1%)   1  (1%)
P I ImmortalTechnique (FM) 2509    2305     3 (100%)  0 (0%)   0  (0%)
F U BoboXXL                2508    1810    27  (96%)  1 (4%)   0  (0%)
F U Bantu_negro            2505    1685    51  (86%)  1 (2%)   7 (12%)
F I bosico                 2504    2043    74  (84%)  0 (0%)  14 (16%)
F I tkanzakic              2499    1628    82  (96%)  1 (1%)   2  (2%)
P I bajenager              2493    1942    53  (98%)  0 (0%)   1  (2%)

==========================

Click here for links to Mike's other work on Chess.com

Comments


  • 3 years ago

    Cystem_Phailure

    Here's an update, almost 23 months after this column was posted (the author himself has not logged into chess.com for more than 1 year).

    I just stumbled across this old blog entry while looking for something else and was curious as to the "outcome" of these super players.  The full list has 38 players, including a GM (17th on the list), and NM (19th), and an FM (33rd).  Those 3 titled players are still active and playing on chess.com, as are 4 other players from the list.  Another 6 accounts are technically still open, but have not had games played in a long time (some since before this post was written).

    The 25 remaining accounts, including all 16 ranked higher than the GM's account, have all since been closed, 19 of them by chess.com for cheating.  The other 6 were all closed a long time ago for other reasons, perhaps 1 step ahead of getting caught?

    So exactly half of this list was made up of people who were later terminated for cheating, including 13 (76%) of the 17 people ranked above the GM.

    I'm sure no one is surprised. Cool

  • 5 years ago

    Mainline_Novelty

    wouldnt mac_daddy habe the lowest avg. rating?

  • 5 years ago

    Ricardo_Morro

    My suspicions are increased when not only does a player have nearly 200 wins with no loses and just a few draws, but is also playing over 300 games simultaneously. Such a player is obviously making a push for the top rating spot.

  • 5 years ago

    fireballz

    i think chess.com is the ultimate chess site.  Anyone that play chess will come here. Even the world champs will take a look at what we say about them. Problem is they cannot play a game, because they might lose.  So, they play just enough games to make the top list, and no one would know bout their little secret.  I would do it.  Chances that some idiot who don't like chess, would come here and cheat to be no 1 player is little far fetched.  I wouldn't waste my time like that. I mean how does it feel to have best chess computer in the world, and know that a grandmaster would win it anyhow. I just don't like the average game of our top rated player to be less than 1800, cause thats my r rating.  If you can win 40 of my kind, then your rating should be 1801, and not 2999-lol

  • 5 years ago

    jrs49

    I wonder how you can make such a claim as your profile shows you have not played any online game and you have been a member only 2 weeks ago unless I am missing something!

    With due respect to your live chess,
    Regis

  • 5 years ago

    ericycsong

    wow

  • 5 years ago

    ninevah

    There is a difference between OTB and CC ratings of around 200-400 points if you play reasonable number of games without computer aid. This is because you are not time-constrained, you can refer to books or play out different variations on your chessboards and play huge numbers of games in no time. This is also due to the process of awarding ratings in OTB tournaments.

    I'm not sure how USCF gives ratings, but in my country in order to become rated you have to fulfill some requrements (score against certain number of rated players, etc.) which involved playing against rated players. The trick is, our ratings start from 1800ish and while they're comparable to those of USCF, anyone below 1800 is for all purposes unrated. So, you can see it's hard to gain rating. You need to play in many tournaments and you need to play against good players. Not quite the same here.

    In CC, beating opponents rated 600 and even 1000 (!) points lower will raise your rating. This is useless inflation - in real-life neither Topalov, nor Anand will play against me with my meager rating. The tournaments that they visit are not open for me. But here, it's free for all - you can play 100 games per month with people double your rating. Even if you don't cheat, your rating is in danger of being terrible inflated.

  • 5 years ago

    Noob_Harry

    <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:871772262; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-2731612 -1641097536 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:2960; mso-level-text:%1; mso-level-tab-stop:75.75pt; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:75.75pt; text-indent:-57.75pt;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:1820269069; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1827028900 -1340455266 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-start-at:2964; mso-level-text:%1; mso-level-tab-stop:75.75pt; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:75.75pt; text-indent:-57.75pt;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} -->

    User ID

    Rating

    AvgOpp

    F U capablankamonte

    2964

    1845   

    F I atlantischess

    2960   

    2158  

    P U baki1959

    2941   

    2344   

    P I Vladik

    2928   

    2417   

    F I ManuChena

    2888   

    2380   

    F U chapo60

    2859   

    1992   

    P I miantola

    2851

    2104   

    P U sproates

    2823

    1792  

    P U snrf

    2804   

    2194   

    P I Ludde

    2758   

    2077   

     

    Seriously how can you people think they are cheating, when they don’t even need to. Its blindingly obvious! The rating system is flawed!
  • 5 years ago

    meier2009

    perhaps these players are genuinely that good, one thing for sure we will never know 100% and my hats off to them, as they are much better than me.Cool

  • 5 years ago

    meier2009

    This is a difficult thing, for the top players, always they will be scrutinized. It would be nice to have a chess.com tournament LIVE once a year, so all players would come, face to face. This would eliminate any doubts for anyone, as you will meet your opponents. I have played on m any sites and there is always talk of someone that cheats, because of the level they reach. Who knows, who really cares, as long as we all are having fun, enjoying the game that brings all nationalities together and puts aside biases that our own governments have against each other. It is interesting, this article and it shows to me some really, really good players. I think a blitz game with these players would truly show a computer player or not, 3 min games.

    In the end, I love this game, (not that good at it) but I love it and love to play all players, as I learn from each game.

    If I play someone that is using a computer, what a better way to learn, yes?

    Cheers to all and the best in your games ~

    PS - Thanks for the facts you have presented, very detailed.

  • 5 years ago

    jrs49

    I have come across another category of free players who would play some total of 40 games or less without a single loss, only to have their account closed without giving any reason.  They would then come back with a new account I presume because they give the same town & country but do not mention their name as before and start the same process again with a starting rate of 1200.  All legal!

  • 5 years ago

    jrs49

    "atlantischess's name Kacakovski Dimitar is the name of an FM, whether that is the same person is a question, but most likely it is if he is a 2900 here."

    The above question can easily be answered.  Here is a link to FIDE master Kacakovski Dimitar photo. Note he is wearing glasses

    http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=15000052

    Compare with Chess.com profile and make your own conclusion!  I believe Macedonian nationals can tell us with greater certainty.  May be some of them personally know Mr Kacakovski!

  • 5 years ago

    Heinrich_24

    My highest rating in OtB-chess was near 2300, I am now at ca.21O0 ( German rating), which means Elo ca 2200

    It is not easy for me to play here in the 2300-2500 area.- And I invest much time into my games.

    So someone with 2600 or 2700 here should,-in my view-  at least have 2400 in OTB-games.

  • 5 years ago

    aljazm

    i agree with the comments of reedrichards..But i must hasten to add that we should give all these top players of chess.com the benefit of the doubt...There is nothing positive to gain in accusing or even just insinuating that someone may have cheated for having high scores.

    My advice, let's continue playing the game we love and find enjoyment on it...And forget the ratings....High ratings is only a bonus, a reward,a recognition of your ability. But nothing beats the highs you get, the excitement you feel on winning...

  • 5 years ago

    dakotaveight

    What type of analisis could be done? what would the tell tale sign of a computer chess player look like?

  • 5 years ago

    Archaic71

    I am sure many of these players are legit . . . and I am sure many are not.  You figure, a 2000+ USCF player joins, they should be able to utterly dominate almost anybody they play online - 1700ish online ratings don't have much hope against an OTB expert.  It would be bang on easy to join, buy a platinum membership, join 3-4 tourneys and end up 20-30 wins and no losses. 

    Of course, then if you start playing players equal to your ability, that W-L record should reflect it. 

    I suppose less the 40 out of a few hundred thousand is not to bad.

  • 5 years ago

    ReedRichards

    It seems as though some of us suspect that "cheating" may be the reason for such great results. Assuming this is the case...and one wins the vast majority of one's games with a computer...then, to what end? There is no real benefit for doing so. One has nothing to gain by doing this...except fool oneself.

  • 5 years ago

    bigpoison

    A list like this is one of the few consolations I get out of being a weak player.  I feel bad for you fellas who are actually good at this game.  At least I'm getting whipped by gray matter rather than silicon.

  • 5 years ago

    FirebrandX

    Quote Adamperfection:

    "atlantischess's name Kacakovski Dimitar is the name of an FM, whether that is the same person is a question, but most likely it is if he is a 2900 here."

    Looks like you need to read my first "Top CC according to Rybka" thread in the game analysis forum.

  • 5 years ago

    lemoj

    What is the average percentage of win/lose/draw for a IM in real life chess? I bet they would love to get close to 70%win but generally it seems to me that draw is the most frequent result between two IM.

    Of course, if real life IMs played more often, let's say, your local chess club champion, they would probably get closer to that kind of results. But still, 99% victory? 

    I love the game, and I'm not good at all by any standard (except against a random dude who hasn't played in ages), but at least, I diserve my wins.

Back to Top

Post your reply: