Well, I know that we had big fights in the Alliance on several of these (top-choice) moves, while for others we felt that the choice was obvious -- and apparently it was, according to the machine, too. I'll take a look at the discussions again, shortly.
jlueke: Do you know if the machine played out of a book until move 10? We found existing games that led that far, but I wonder if Shredder was aware of them.
Valentin,
I'm looking at a Kramnik Shirov match and the concurrence there is lower. Some moves were of course obvious still it's a very long string of perfect moves.
To answer your question, I didn't let the computer use any opening book. I made it figure out the Stonewall by itself :-)
While defending against accusations that our team was using computer assistance in a public forum (starting at post #38 here) I am concerned about the fluky degree of agreement with Shredder in this game.
Can all major contributors to the discussion confirm that they did not look at any computer analysis during the game? (I have no reason to doubt anyone myself)
The background for posting this was the result of comparison with anotehr vote chess game. I obviously had noticed that the Alliance was making many best moves. I had just concluded another pretty high quality vote chess game and did some analysis on the teams. The results were what Iwould expect except that one team had a higher number of 1st choice computer moves and less 2nd choice when the did not have the inaaccuracy. Then valentin commented that according to existing chess.com algorithms that game would be flagged. But one of the issues was that the current detection doesn't filter on moves where the second choice is notably worse. Regardless, the moves seemed pretty natural to me and it was an entertaining game. That led to the concurrence of moves for this game being released. Obviously from a single game no conclusions can ever be drawn. I will admit I am a little suspicious that a team that was clobbered by an IM level player could so accurately reverse the advantage after giving it up to the computer early but maybe that's a feature of the Dutch position that was reached. I hope that the game was at least instructional, I am glad I finally get to see all the comments the Alliance made during the move discussions and that's really what it's all about.
...Then valentin commented that according to existing chess.com algorithms that game would be flagged. But one of the issues was that the current detection doesn't filter on moves where the second choice is notably worse...
...Obviously from a single game no conclusions can ever be drawn...
First, how on Earth does _valentin_ know what detection methods chess.com use & what the thresholds are? I certainly don't & have explained this to him a couple of weeks ago in PM. I do hope this isn't post-Dembo scaremongering.
I shouldn't lose too much sleep about this vote game being flagged. After all, I can't imagine chess.com booting 100+ Alliance group members! 
There seems to be a rumour spread-about (perhaps by people trying to discredit chess.com's methods) that match % rates are the be-all-and-end-all of cheat detection when in fact top 3 or top 4 match up was (and is) being used by a group of volunteers simply to suggest suspected engine users for chess.com staff to investigate.
As to the second point then yes, I'd say that a single game high match up rate is only grounds to investigate other games by that player & nothing more.
Repeatedly selecting top engine choice moves in balanced positions when there are 3 or 4 other candidate moves with very similar scores is another factor to consider, as is the lack of any inaccuracies.
This was my analysis of the game from the Cheating Forum:
Deep Rybka 3 x64 Hash:1024 Time:45s Depth:12-22ply
AMD Phenom x 4 2.30Ghz 4GB DDR2 RAM
Database Used: Batch Analyzer
[Event "Alliance versus Computer"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2010.04.26"]
[White "The Chess.com Alliance"]
[Black "Engines"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Analysis "Deep Rybka 3 x64 Hash:1024 Time:45s Depth:12-22ply"]
{ Book Moves: }
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d5 4. Nf3 e6 5. c4 c6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Nc3 0-0 8. c5 Bc7
9. b4
{ Analyzed: }
9... a5 { Nbd7 19 13 : Ne4 19 13 : a5 27 13 : b6 31 13 }
10. b5 { b5 19 13 : bxa5 10 13 : Qb3 7 13 : Qa4 -1 13 }
10... Ne4 { Ne4 9 14 : Qe8 51 13 : b6 62 13 : Nbd7 66 13 }
11. Nxe4 { Qc2 14 15 : Qd3 14 15 : Qe1 14 15 : Nxe4 1 15 }
11... fxe4 { fxe4 1 14 : dxe4 59 14 : cxb5 262 14 : Qe8 342 14 }
12. b6 { b6 1 14 : Nd2 -20 14 : Bg5 -37 13 : Ne1 -51 13 }
12... Bxb6 { Bxb6 1 14 : Bd6 65 14 : exf3 89 14 : Bxg3 89 13 }
13. Bg5 { Bg5 1 14 : cxb6 -10 14 : Ne5 -36 14 : Ne1 -47 13 }
13... Qe8 { Qe8 2 15 : Rf6 136 15 : exf3 173 14 : Qc7 256 14 }
14. cxb6 { cxb6 2 14 : Ne5 -12 14 : Nd2 -54 14 : Ne1 -62 13 }
14... exf3 { exf3 1 15 : Qg6 49 15 : h6 54 14 : Qh5 63 14 }
15. Bxf3 { Bxf3 1 14 : exf3 -7 14 : Bh1 -116 13 : Bf4 -267 13 }
15... Nd7 { Nd7 1 14 : Ra6 17 14 : e5 23 14 : Rf7 46 14 }
16. Rb1 { Rb1 1 14 : e4 -13 14 : Rc1 -13 14 : Qb3 -15 14 }
16... Ra6 { Ra6 -2 14 : h6 6 13 : e5 9 13 : Qg6 12 13 }
17. Bf4 { Bf4 -14 14 : Rb3 -14 13 : Bd2 -15 13 : Bg2 -17 13 }
17... Nxb6 { Nxb6 -8 14 : Rxb6 0 14 : e5 19 14 : a4 56 14 }
18. e4 { Qd3 -8 13 : Bd6 -15 13 : Qc2 -15 13 : h3 -24 13 }
18... Qf7 { Nc4 -23 14 : Qe7 -3 13 : Qd7 -2 13 : Qd8 0 13 }
19. Bh5 { Bh5 6 14 : Re1 -9 14 : Be2 -9 13 : h4 -12 13 }
19... Qd7 { Qd7 -5 15 : Qe7 7 14 : g6 11 14 : Qf6 108 14 }
20. Be2 { Be2 -5 14 : Re1 -12 14 : Qc2 -12 13 : a4 -14 13 }
20... Nc4 { Nc4 -5 14 : Qd8 142 14 : e5 149 14 : Rxf4 192 13 }
21. Bd3 { Bd3 -5 14 : Rc1 -13 14 : Re1 -12 13 : Qc2 -15 13 }
21... b5 { b5 -5 13 : h6 0 13 : Ra8 0 13 : Ra7 1 13 }
22. e5 { Re1 -8 13 : Qe2 -9 13 : Qh5 -12 13 : Kg2 -15 13 }
22... Qf7 { Ra8 -29 13 : Qf7 -21 13 : Qe8 -17 13 : Ra7 -14 13 }
23. Qg4 { Qg4 -21 14 : Qc2 -28 14 : Rb3 -46 14 : Re1 -47 14 }
23... Ra7 { Bd7 -26 14 : Kh8 -26 13 : Ra7 -21 13 : Ra8 -20 13 }
24. Qh4 { Qh4 -30 13 : Rb3 -30 13 : Qh3 -33 13 : Rbc1 -41 13 }
24... g6 { g6 -33 13 : h6 0 13 : g5 164 13 : h5 229 13 }
25. Bh6 { Rb3 -33 14 : Bh6 -35 14 : Qg4 -49 14 : Bc2 -48 13 }
25... Re8 { Re8 -35 14 : b4 30 14 : Qf3 36 14 : Rb7 41 13 }
26. Qg4 { Rfe1 -18 14 : Be2 -26 14 : Qg4 -35 13 : Rfc1 -41 13 }
26... Ba6 { b4 -18 14 : Ba6 -18 14 : Kh8 7 14 : Na3 21 13 }
27. Rfe1 { Rfe1 -18 14 : Rfd1 -37 13 : h4 -47 13 : Rfc1 -49 13 }
27... b4 { b4 -18 13 : Kh8 -3 13 : Rc8 0 13 : Raa8 13 13 }
28. Rb3 { Rb3 -17 14 : Rbc1 -83 14 : Qe2 -87 14 : Bc2 -91 13 }
28... a4 { a4 -17 13 : Kh8 0 13 : Raa8 17 13 : Rb8 44 13 }
29. Rxb4 { Rxb4 -14 15 : Rbb1 -108 15 : Bxc4 -163 15 : Bxg6 -229 14 }
29... Nxe5 { Nxe5 -14 14 : Na3 53 14 : Nd2 32 13 : Bb5 34 13 }
30. Rxe5 { Rxe5 -14 13 : dxe5 -44 13 : Bxg6 -354 13 : Qe2 -518 13 }
30... Bxd3 { Bxd3 -14 13 : c5 153 13 : Raa8 395 13 : a3 406 13 }
31. Qd1 { Qd1 -15 14 : Re1 -16 13 : Kg2 -25 13 : h4 -27 13 }
31... Be4 { Be4 -15 15 : Bb5 0 15 : Bc4 -1 14 : Bf5 0 14 }
32. Bf4 { Bf4 -15 15 : Bc1 -29 15 : a3 -28 14 : Bd2 -41 14 }
32... Rb7 { Rb7 -15 14 : Qe7 2 14 : Qf8 7 14 : Ra5 8 14 }
33. Qxa4 { Qxa4 -20 15 : Rxb7 -23 15 : Qe1 -56 15 : Qd2 -59 15 }
33... Rxb4 { Rxb4 -20 14 : h6 0 14 : Ree7 0 14 : Qe7 2 14 }
34. Qxb4 { Qxb4 -20 12 : Qd1 -963 12 : Qa6 -1426 12 : Qa3 -1390 11 }
34... Qa7 { Qa7 -20 13 : h6 0 13 : Qe7 0 13 : h5 10 13 }
35. Qc3 { Qc3 -20 13 : f3 -49 13 : Rxe4 -87 13 : Qd2 -91 13 }
35... Qxa2 { Qxa2 -22 14 : Qa4 0 14 : Qb7 0 13 : Qb6 0 13 }
36. f3 { f3 -22 13 : Kf1 -70 13 : Bd2 -84 13 : Qxc6 -95 13 }
36... Qb1+ { Qb1+ -22 14 : Qc2 -14 14 : Rb8 0 14 : Bf5 43 13 }
37. Kg2 { Kf2 -19 15 : Kg2 -19 15 : Bc1 -29 15 : Qc1 -97 15 }
37... Qa2+ { Bd3 -19 15 : Qd3 -11 15 : Qa2+ 0 15 : Qc2+ 0 15 }
38. Kh3 { Kh3 0 13 : Bd2 0 13 : Kg1 -22 13 : Qd2 -22 13 }
38... Qc2 { Qc2 0 14 : Bb1 42 14 : Bc2 49 14 : Bf5+ 104 14 }
1/2-1/2
{ Game Summary }
{ White: The Chess.com Alliance }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/29 ( 79.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/29 ( 86.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 26/29 ( 89.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 27/29 ( 93.1% )
{ Black: Engines }
{ Top 1 Match: 24/30 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 26/30 ( 86.7% )
{ Top 3 Match: 29/30 ( 96.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 29/30 ( 96.7% )
{ All Players }
{ Top 1 Match: 47/59 ( 79.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 51/59 ( 86.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 55/59 ( 93.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 56/59 ( 94.9% )
Just a quick glance through the game does raise some interesting points.
White chose the 1st choice move in many instances when there were several candidates all within a few centipawns of best move. eg:
16. Rb1, 17. Bf4, 19. Bh5, 20. Be2, 21. Bd3, 23. Qg4, 24. Qh4, 27. Rfe1, 31. Qd1, 32. Bf4 & 38. Kh3
Where the draw was astutely agreed when Rybka shows the score as 0.00 after this move from White.
White dropped around 0.20 of a pawn twice I think. Other than that a very accurate game indeed.
...Then valentin commented that according to existing chess.com algorithms that game would be flagged. But one of the issues was that the current detection doesn't filter on moves where the second choice is notably worse...
...Obviously from a single game no conclusions can ever be drawn...
First, how on Earth does _valentin_ know what detection methods chess.com use & what the thresholds are? I certainly don't & have explained this to him a couple of weeks ago in PM. I do this isn't post-Dembo scaremongering.
I shouldn't lose too much sleep about this vote game being flagged. After all, I can't imagine chess.com booting 100+ Alliance group members!
There seems to be a rumour spread-about (perhaps by people trying to discredit chess.com's methods) that match % rates are the be-all-and-end-all of cheat detection when in fact top 3 or top 4 match up was (and is) being used by a group of volunteers simply to suggest suspected engine users for chess.com staff to investigate.
As to the second point then yes, I'd say that a single game high match up rate is only grounds to investigate other games by that player & nothing more.
Repeatedly selecting top engine choice moves in balanced positions when there are 3 or 4 other candidate moves with very similar scores is another factor to consider, as is the lack of any inaccuracies.
In my opinion, the only thing about this game that looks suspicious is the unusually high level of first move agreement when there are two moves of very similar value (to the computer). I would not say this game "would be flagged", as it is certainly only a more statistically significant sample that would trigger alarms. Chess.com are well aware that with millions of games being played, they need to ensure certainty to much better than 1 in a million.
The discussions and the disagreements that occurred in them are strongly supportive of this being a fluke level of agreement, and I would not expect it to be repeated over multiple games. There were moves where we could certainly have ended up playing different moves that would have made the stats less extreme.
Well if a member (or members) lobbied for all 11 moves which were very marginal top engine choices in balanced positions where there were at least 3 or 4 other solid candidates then I think that would be a strong cause for suspicion.
Only dropping around 0.20 twice in the game looks very unnatural imo. Often the too many cooks scenario of vote chess leads to more inaccuracies not less (look at how the 3 GM's + The World fared vs Carlsen) so I don't necessarily buy the simplistic view that many minds will produce not simply better chess, but crucially more engine-like move selection.
I'd say even if one or two members had computer lines it would be an accomplishment to get the whole team to vote for those given equal options. On teams with one or two strong members follow the leader can easily take place but in this group that seems less likely.
When I get a chance I'll plug in the Pogonina game just to see what that looks like. Overall I'm somewhat interested to compare best moves between GM OTB, Vote Chess, and Patzer like me concurences. I suppose with some idea to match up playing strength and quality of play especially consistent quality move after move
Not perhaps a decisive mistake, but a significant one at this level. A couple such slips can decide a game. Similarly, -0.6 is a dangerous disadvantage, one step away from losing. We were lucky, but right to believe that our initiative was worth more than the computer could realise.
Participants in the Shredder game may be interested in an overview of how we managed to get such consistent play. Mostly a matter of agreeing on the natural move, combined with some fluky close votes? 
Here are all the moves where Shredder thought two moves differed by 0.1 or less.
15.Bxf3 6:5 Indecisive discussion, with more argument for the move not played, the more natural move being chosen by more people.
16.Rb1 3 moves discussed, a lot of disagreement, but in the end we all went with the move any blitz player would probably have played :-)
18.e4 3:3:2:1 tied vote happened to go with the move played
19.Bh5 We all agreed with the most aggressive and forcing move once it had been suggested (after I had suggested the timid-looking and probably inferior Bg2) Good example of how team discussion avoided individual errors
20.Be2 By far the most natural, tempo move, agreed by (almost) all after two suggestions
21.Bd3 Planned previous move, using the tempo to reroute the bishop. A natural move, lining up pieces at the black king in a typical way.
23.Qg4 Three moves routing the queen to the attack were discussed, and the one
played seemed "by far the strongest", since it was the only one that maintained the initiative. It turns out Shredder thought it was only 0.09 better, but may have been wrong as we got a lot of our disadvantage back in the next 10 moves.
24.Qh4 Compelling move forcing a weakening of the black kingside. No disagreement.
25.Bh6 Our kingside attacking plan was on autopilot here (but we didn't see that
black could escape a few moves later by getting behind us on the queenside)
26.Qg4 Pretty obvious continuation of the attack, once we (eventually) realised
the other candidate move letting our h-pawn advance had a tactical flaw.
27.Rfe1 My inferior suggestion got snubbed (again) for a better move from Ivan,
but we missed black's counterplay at this point, and Ivan and some others
thought we were probably winning. (it turns out Shredder still considered us
to be slightly worse)
31.Qd1 After black's counterplay, we were looking for the draw, and discussed
two moves to go for it without a consensus being reached. The move that
ended up being played after a close vote was the more natural tempo move,
now that our kingside attack had been disrupted. The discussion was more
positional than analytical.
32.Bf4 The move we played seemed urgent to everyone - Bf4 obstructed the black
queen, allowing us f3 to kick the black bishop and free our rook. Computers make such simple decisions complicated :-)
37.Kg2 The game was heading inevitably for a draw, and the disagreement about what square to put the king on was not important (It turns out Shredder basically agreed).
That does assume that no-one looked at an engine then suggested candidate moves giving sound reasons for them, but still... If you believe that none of your members used an engine at any point in this game then so be it.
Drawing 3100+ Elo rated Deep Shredder 12 left (as I understand it) at least 12 hours to analyse per ply is quite some achievement, considering modern engines batter Super GM's & the best unaided humans are lucky to scrape the odd 1/2 point here and there regardless of time control.
I would assume many of the voters in this group who took part have solid real-world credentials.
Can you tell me some of their FIDE ratings please?
Well, I missed 2000 FIDE by a whisker (actually by half a point in my one shot at an 11 day FIDE rated tournament in the 90s), but when I had the time and inclination I was relatively much better at correspondence play (similar rating to some FMs here). Some of the other players in the team are much stronger OTB and/or here (Ivan, _valentin_, Savyma at quick speeds certainly, maybe one or two other players. Alenhanh makes a lot of good contributions. Urvang is also pretty strong. But they will need to give their own ratings). Don't make the assumption that correspondence chess ability has a monotone relationship with over the board ability - it is very rare for players to get to the top of both disciplines, just like it is unheard of for mile and marathon runners.
It is simply ludicrous to believe that all of the different people to suggest the moves that happened to be Shredder's first choice were cheating, but on different moves were able to convince the entire team to get their move voted in some mysterious way (given that there were other moves under discussion that had very similar ratings). Much more plausible (and true) is that in most cases the top rated moves seemed a lot better to human beings in the discussion, even though the power of the computer could see that odd alternatives were almost as good. And in some other cases the move that got chosen was a fluke in a tied or very close vote, contrasting greatly with moves where there was total agreement. The reason was not computer input, it was the thematic nature of the moves.
http://www.chess.com/members/view/_valentin_
I can't find any players with last name Razmov on FIDE or USCF ratings databases 
http://www.chess.com/members/view/savyma
Don't know real name so I can't judge FIDE rating
http://www.chess.com/members/view/ivan_the_truble
If you supply his real name then I can check. No FIDE quoted in profile.
I believe he was a very competitive junior in Russia. I am not sure he plays OTB at all these days. And from many discussions in vote chess games with him, I know that he has been both rather stronger than I was at turn-based chess and yet sometimes (even in this game) I have seen more clearly than him. I am absolutely certain of his integrity.
Incidentally, you are persisting with the incorrect view that OTB ratings are more relevant than turn-based ratings here. None of us have got to the top of chess.com. I had a somewhat inflated 2400+ rating, _valentin_ had >2500, I am sure Ivan is substantially stronger than his turn-based rating (he still has 100% in such games).
I understand why Mr Razmov is reluctant to play OTB - far too many people dashing-off to the toilet to check their games on the mobile phone 
I can only find one titled player in the group:
http://www.chess.com/members/view/IMCheap
Vladislav Akselrod
Current FIDE 2427
I assume he made the bulk of the suggestions for candidate moves.
Do you know who has the next highest checkable FIDE rating?
IMCheap's rating is irrelevant as he did not participate. I refer you to my (edited) last comment as well.
The moves where there were alternatives with very similar evaluations were suggested by about 4 or 5 different people on different moves (simply look at the earlier parts of the discussions in the archive), often not being the first suggestion the active contributers came up with.
Well sure, but I'm just trying to get a handle on the real-world credentials of the members who drew a long t/c game vs a 3100+ Elo rated engine.
Unfortunately many of the 2500+ rateds in online chess at this site turn out to be engine users. The turnover at the top is quite staggering if you look at player tables from 6 months ago. Like it or not, internet ratings alone have very little prestige.
I have another question:
Do you know what settings per ply (time/fixed depth/hash table size) Deep Shredder 12 was allowed & also the specs of the system it was used on?
After inaccuracies on moves 11 and perhaps 22, the Alliance pulled off an unbelievable string of 16 best moves in a row not only equalizing the slight disadvantage but even outplaying the machine to end in a completely even position.
Here's the analysis mostly at 16 ply
<!-- BODY,DIV,TABLE,THEAD,TBODY,TFOOT,TR,TH,TD,P { font-family:"Nimbus Sans L"; font-size:x-small } -->