It happened yesterday on the 1st board of the tournament.
1589 upsets 2161
I was on the losing end of a match-up close to the one described. My opponent had a very high correlation with computer choices.
It's unlikely but not horribly improbable.
According to this article, the odds for beating an opponent 500 Elo points higher than yourself are 4%, which is small but not insignificant.
Again from that article, your odds are for beating a player 700 points higher are 1% -- higher than I would have expected. I think that's rather remarkable.
So you should never give up hope when playing a higher-rated player. And if you're the higher-rated player, never let your guard down.
Thus all chess players are made equal.
It always depends on the performance of the stronger player.If they don't perform in proportion to their level and you can play better than usual,then anything can happen.
Obviously if you are selecting out of thousands and thousands of games a 1% probability is bound to occur a number of those times.
Yes that would be 1 in 100.
OTB 1589 players are usually solid, and when a 2161 is having a bad day, not taking the game seriously, stumbling into deep preparation or carelessly falling into a simple opening trap, then the 1589 has the opportunity for an upset.
In correspondence chess on this site, 1500ish players are usually quite weak, and an upset of this magnitude invites scrutiny.
It's unlikely but not horribly improbable.
According to this article, the odds for beating an opponent 500 Elo points higher than yourself are 4%, which is small but not insignificant.
no it doesn't work like that! 4% of points during a X-games match, probably more than 90% of those points are from draws
It's unlikely but not horribly improbable.
According to this article, the odds for beating an opponent 500 Elo points higher than yourself are 4%, which is small but not insignificant.
no it doesn't work like that! 4% of points during a X-games match, probably more than 90% of those points are from draws
i mean 96% vs 4% where are the drawing chances? :P, that's why... you can be sure it's just like that
i perfectly understand that ziryab.
but i also guess you're mature enough to see that you can circumvent this problem easily by not playing correspondence chess on this site. accet how it is or leave it, no other options really.
I appreciate your sharing of your perceptions. I disagree with your sense of the options, however.
The cheats on this site are too few to warrant leaving. The circumstances of one particular instance, however, is relevant to this thread.
I have played considerably more than 1000 correspondence games online at two dozen sites since I began ten years ago. Chess.com stands above most of these sites in overall quality, and Chess.com does more than most to root out cheats.
I have suspected cheating more often than it has occurred. Suspicions are an inherent part of online play. Learning to investigate suspicions is also worthwhile.
I often laugh at my suspicions because I take the time to check after the game. Most often, my own play is the culprit, and the alleged cheater made blunders just as egregious as my own. The difference was my failure to punish the blunder. In a small number of cases, however, postgame analysis deepens the suspicions. It is then thime to report these suspicions so the site moderators can do their work. That's what I did after the game I referenced.
It's unlikely but not horribly improbable.
According to this article, the odds for beating an opponent 500 Elo points higher than yourself are 4%, which is small but not insignificant.
I think it's not solely the difference in ELO that determines what the porbability of one player beating the other is. For example, would you say that the chances of a 1000 rated player beating a 1100 is the same as that of a 2500 beating a 2600? I don't think so.
@ ziryab
with respect to you as a person, i do not see where we differ in opinions here. i stated that you can either accept the cheaters and work it from there or leave the site.
accepting it obviously does not exclude taking action once you feel cheated; our misunderstanding is really about semantics and what i tried to point out is that you have to accept to run into a cheater online or leave. it's obviously up to you to take further actions against a suspected cheater once you played him.
I do not accept the presence of cheaters. The knowledge that crime will occur does not mean acceptance of crime.
The best option is to stay and to continuously work at helping clean the site of cheaters. Of course, every time you kill one fly, another will be born. That doesn't mean that you let them in your house, nor that you would ever consider abandoning a nice house occupied by an occasional fly.
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr109611.aspx?art=2&rd=1&lan=1&wi=821