Here are the following facts I noticed about this player overall and in this specific game below.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=73471918

The above game analysis concluded the following t-scores:

1)25-39 moves-64.1% (take note that this is just below GM norms)

2)5-39 moves-76.9% (notice the drop off for a player able to play near GM #1%'s)

3)2-39 moves-82.1% (again a drop off, I find 3rd bests easy to pick out and the CM playing opposite found 2x as many too. Perhaps there is a intentional reason for the drop off ?)

4)0-39 moves-82.1% (hmmm, I would think a player at this level would of atleast found a 4th best, the CM found two)

5)2-39 moves-87.2% (wow, this guy beat someone who had better t-3, t-4 and t-5 scores.Impressive.I saw a game once where Anand beat Aronian , who had better t-3 and t-4 scores, but not t-5,at Tata Steel )

This player Scottrf, had 5 moves outside of the top 5 while our CM had only 3. That perhaps doesn't seem to raise any red flags but, when you look at in the game where those moves occurred for each player, I find it quite revealing. In the first 24 moves that were analyzed, when many database moves, personal opening prep moves and general opening knowledge give many players an advantage in finding the best moves, I noticed something peculiar about Scott's play in the 1st 24 moves.His t-scores for that portion of the game were as follows:

1)12-24 moves-50%
2)4-24 moves-66%
3)2-24 moves-72%
4)0-24 moves-72%
5)1-24 move-79.1%

* This is something I might do in one of my better games.I would try to give the someone the benefit of the doubt in this situation against a CM, but then I find the following in the last 15 analyzed moves of the game for Scottrf:

1)13-15 moves 86% (wow, that is pushing Borislav Ivanov proportions)

2)1-15 moves 93.3% (gad zooks, I couldn't sleep at night knowing some people play certain portions of their games at that level and not report them)

3)0-15 moves 93.3% (one could conclude that looking at how close the game was and or how high the scores might be that t-3 moves just wouldn't work at this juncture of the game, that is if the player used an on going analysis and running percentange totals)

4)0-15 moves 93.3%

5)1-15 moves 100% ( perhaps played to help make this look more human, it is right in the middle of this long string of moves, perhaps the t-2 move is actually a t-1 on a stronger engine's deeper search ?)

* Special note, while Scott played 5 moves outside of the top 5, in the first 24 moves, the CM didn't play anything worse than a 9th until the 2nd and 3rd moves of this 15 move onslaught. I find myself playing 13ish, 14ish best moves too, when I try to solidify my position, after being forced to go totally defensive and I lose all tactical planning opportunities too.

Then there are a few circumstancial pieces of evidence that I find rather unsavory, about a "near master level player". The first is this players use of the tactics trainer. This player came under such scrutiny to begin with, other than his generally condescending attitude towards others in the forums, and his victorys over players at this level. Scott bypasses questions in the TT he doesn'ty know, simply by leaving the screen and returning until he finds a puzzle he can solve. This gives the illusion that his tactical skill is on par with his rating and perhaps he deserved this victory, but a closer examination revealed his clever deception. Also, why would a near master level player, or perhaps "master level" player, not share any info about his chess club, or his FIDE rating ? It is perfectly understandable why some people wouldn't, but if there is perhaps a chance you could go a few rungs higher up the titled ladder, that is something to hang your hat on, if you discover you are that talented. If you are that talented, why waste your time doing the following ? :

White	Black	Result	Time	Moves	Date	Action
Computer2-MEDIUM (1269)	Scottrf (1564)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	44	12/13/13	View
Scottrf (1561)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1201)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	43	12/12/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1187)	Scottrf (1559)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	73	12/12/13	View
Scottrf (1557)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1295)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	61	12/9/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1255)	Scottrf (1554)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	34	12/9/13	View
Scottrf (1551)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1230)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	47	12/9/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1253)	Scottrf (1549)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	36	12/9/13	View
Scottrf (1546)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1256)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	37	12/9/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1284)	Scottrf (1543)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	79	12/9/13	View
Scottrf (1540)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1267)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	44	12/8/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1268)	Scottrf (1537)	1-0 (lost)	10\|10	64	12/8/13	View
Scottrf (1551)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1275)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	37	12/6/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1270)	Scottrf (1548)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	47	12/6/13	View
Scottrf (1545)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1326)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	37	12/6/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1196)	Scottrf (1541)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	64	12/5/13	View
Scottrf (1539)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1194)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	66	12/2/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1343)	Scottrf (1537)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	50	12/2/13	View
Computer1-EASY (1141)	Scottrf (1533)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	12	11/30/13	View
Scottrf (1531)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1267)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	32	11/28/13	View
Scottrf (1528)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1280)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	46	11/28/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1286)	Scottrf (1525)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	35	11/28/13	View
Scottrf (1522)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1261)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	36	11/28/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1261)	Scottrf (1519)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	37	11/28/13	View
Scottrf (1516)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1253)	0-1 (lost)	10\|10	17	11/28/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1245)	Scottrf (1529)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	27	11/28/13	View
Scottrf (1526)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1218)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	54	11/27/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1242)	Scottrf (1524)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	23	11/27/13	View
Computer3-HARD (1544)	Scottrf (1521)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	34	11/27/13	View
Scottrf (1512)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1175)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	43	11/27/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1182)	Scottrf (1510)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	35	11/27/13	View
Scottrf (1508)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1196)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	35	11/27/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1209)	Scottrf (1506)	1-0 (lost)	10\|10	23	11/27/13	View
Scottrf (1520)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1299)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	42	11/26/13	View
Computer2-MEDIUM (1293)	Scottrf (1516)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	28	11/26/13	View
Scottrf (1512)	Computer2-MEDIUM (1281)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	37	11/26/13	View

a few minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #32

nameno1had

cont'd. for the above post....

perhaps this is why Scott wastes his time doing this ^^^^....because of this:

Computer3-HARD (1528)	Scottrf (1500)	draw	10\|10	31	11/25/13	View
	Scottrf (1499)	Computer3-HARD (1529)	0-1 (lost)	10\|10	13	11/25/13	View
	Computer3-HARD (1534)	Scottrf (1507)	1-0 (lost)	10\|10	12	11/25/13	View
	Scottrf (1515)	Computer3-HARD (1528)	0-1 (lost)	10\|10	19	11/25/13	View
	Computer3-HARD (1510)	Scottrf (1523)	1-0 (lost)	10\|10	30	11/25/13	View
	Scottrf (1532)	Computer3-HARD (1542)	1-0 (won)	10\|10	25	11/25/13	View
	Computer3-HARD (1528)	Scottrf (1523)	0-1 (won)	10\|10	52	11/24/13

Could someone please tell me how a near master level player struggles to beat the computer on that setting ? If it were the impossible setting I could understand. That is the setting titled players play and those regularly beating titled players....

Clandestine Subjugation