I took a look back through the thread in the FP group & I found an answer to my question about comparing ECF to c.c ratings ..
"There's a Gerry Johnstone in the ECF database with a 121 ECF rating, which roughly translates to 1600 elo."
Joe, have you looked here ...
http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/
... enter 'Johnstone' in the Name field & it will show you his recent club playing history.
... I would love to see the match-up rates of some of the other top VC teams. Against Lewis chessmen in the final we were heading for a draw until they blundered at the end. How did their play compare to ours in that final? And we always have very close games against Last Rites. Are they really in any position to throw stones?
I think they probably are. This is the salient part of petitbonom's message to me:-
" One of our team did an engine analsis of the game ( stockfish 8), and the figures are
Last Rites 50 55 66.7 T1, 2 3.
FvF 89.4 100 100
This came as a bit of a surprise !
Vote chess is difficult to 'pick through ' on occasion, but most match ups we could see in very complicated positions were from one particular player "
Of course the T3 figures I obtained aren't that high but they're still bad
67% 92% 92%
One game tells you very little as we know but there're six games in our games list with T3 values over 90% & that's worrying. The only good news I can find in that list is the last two games which are comfortably within the benchmark figures. I would like to believe that the removal of dalephilly is what caused that but there's no way of knowing without more results.
I'm tempted to wait & see what kind of engine-match results the next few games throw up but then we've been on hold about this for over a year. I just have a fear of accusing someone who may be honest, of cheating, if not in so many words.
OK. So dd is called Gerry Johnstone and lives in Yorkshire! He is currently at his highest rating, but I have no idea how good that is in the scale used on that site. Sorry for the ignorance on my part. There seem to be quite a few players rated higher than his 129 or so, but it still means very little to me. But I can see how, if it turns out he is actually a very average club player playing standard time controls, then that would count against him in the cheating stakes. But it would still not be conclusive.
I'm still not convinced that our team could not find one of the best three moves in a given position 90% of the time. The question is whether the "best" moves equate to the engine best moves. dd is very keen on making "principled moves", by which he means moves that agree with established chess theory or that fit the particular opening that we are playing. A chess engine, I assume, would not consider any such factors. So if we could show that dd was picking out moves that a chess engine thought were good, but that were not "principled" in that sense, then again that would be troubling. But we would be talking about a huge amount of work to look into all of that and it would still probably be a matter of opinion.
I just don't know what to think any more. dd is a very good teammate in that his tone is always polite and patient, and he explains things carefully and quotes sources etc. He seems genuinely committed to helping other team members to improve, as well as to improving his own game with lots of research and so on. I would be really sorry to lose him from the team, for that reason mainly, but I'd be the first to support his removal if we could find real evidence.
This is his latest message to me:-
"I've found this allegation very unsettling. This is not why I play chess - its my hobby and is meant to be a break from the hassles of work. After sleeping on it, I've decided to take a break from vote chess and to focus on my OTB game (I was going to be away for most of April anyway). If the team is so inclined, I could be invited to rejoin in May. In the meantime, I don't know if its possible to access my personal daily games - but if it is possible anybody is welcome to check any of them. Good luck in the ongoing games."
I think there're two ways of reading that - as the natural indignation of an entirely honest player when being accused of something underhand, or as a retreat by someone who's been using engine assistance in our games, albeit cautiously?
His reaction to all of this seems quite out of proportion to me because I was careful to avoid accusing him of anything. I know that he's been active in our games & is seemingly a conscientous team member but I'm starting to think that a break might be best for both FVF & d-d.
Examining his personal playing doesn't help us much anyway because his published BCF suggests an OTB ability around the 1700 mark, which closely corresponds with his actual Rapid rating. He's explained that his Blitz & Bullet are poor because he doesn't treat them entirely seriously & it hasn't occurred to him to plat those unrated. I can't say I was that convinced by this last explanation.
His Daily appears to be genuine because his games have been repeatedly & comprehensively engine-match checked during the past year & more.
So what do we have? Worryingly high engine-match figures in many of our games over the last two years or so but that was also the period in which dalephilly was reasonably active in our groups. Then you get down to the tortuous business of picking over individual moves in games with high T3 numbers, trying to find a consistent correspondence with T1/T2 moves & d-d's suggestions.
I've only just noticed another thing, I'm unable to reply to him about that because he's 'unfriended' me! At least I'm pretty sure we had been friends - either that or he's blocked messages from non-friends.
Now that is over the top considering how careful I was with both my language & enquiries.
I'm not surprised that he has found this unsettling. Anybody would if they were innocent, and probably if they were not. I'm inclined to believe his contention that he is a man who has been working extremely hard on his chess for the last few years after a long time away from it. Perhaps there is some way that we could verify his claim that he was the most improved player in Yorkshire, or whatever that was about. The only "evidence" we have against him is that he is not good at fast formats of the game and I entirely understand that. But if it turns out that he is a half decent OTB player then, given his meticulous approach to VC, and blunder-checking in particular, I think that would explain his high daily rating.
As for our team's engine match-up rates, this is only a worry because some people have decided what they think the benchmark should be. I have looked a lot at the other team's comments on our games, and as far as I can see nobody else plays VC like we do. I haven't seen another team where so many people on the team suggest moves, are prepared to really study the consequences of those moves, debate strategy as well as looking a move or two ahead, and generally put in hours of hard work to make sure that we get it right. So who is to say what a team of dedicated, honest players might be able to come up with? And, by the way, why are we talking about individual games where the match-up rates have been high, when even the witch-finders admit that individual games are no guide? The more I look at this the more I think that this is no way to root out the cheats. And I just don't think it is credible that somebody would cheat at VC and not in their individual games.
Stephen (33) I'm afraid I don't understand why you think that the fact he plays bullet and blitz rated rather than unrated makes it more likely that he cheats at daily chess, or that it somehow invalidates his explanation. Surely by playing rated he is actually exposing himself to criticism. I am quite prepared to believe that he plays fast format chess just for fun and plays rated because he doesn't really care what his rating is, as it is just for fun. It's clear that VC and Daily Chess is what he takes seriously. I bet he loses many of his bullet games on time. Anyway, I think we should keep the lines of communication open and encourage the idea that he may return in May. At some point we may have to come clean with him about the fact that he has attracted the attention of the witch-finders and is being watched.
Are you happy for me to try to send a quick message? If nothing else we would find out about whether he is blocking messages. I would just say somehting along the lines that I am sorry he has left the team, that I know what it's about, and that we will try very hard, as an admin team, to get to the bottom of it by the time he is back in May.
Joe, at the risk of embarrassing the other Stephen, take a quick look at his rating stats...
https://www.chess.com/member/sjfg
Those are what I'd describe as a standard candle of consistent, honest playing. Notice the close correspondence between Daily, Rapid, Blitz & Bullet without any large gaps. The ability he has in slow time control is reflected in fast time control as well. In other words, you can tell he's a competent chess player purely from his ratings.
Clearly, d-d isn't a player of the same kind or class. By itself that isn't suspicious because I can find quite good moves given ample time but that doesn't make me a good player. At faster time control, my game begins to fall apart & without an openings database, my positions are often lost before I get out of the opening. I'm a complete tortoise at the game but I know it, which is why I never go near blitz or bullet games. Why would I, I'm hopeless at it.
That's why d-d has long been a puzzle to me because there's something there that's never quite added up. And his reaction to my enquiry puzzles me even more - he's either the most over-sensitive person I've ever met or he realised the game was up. I'm sorry to say that I think it's the latter.
It's too late for me to get into the complex subject of engine-match analysis, save to say that even working as a team we don't start having brilliant flashes of insight or gaining Super-GM abilities at tactics. It does help to avoid mistakes however because there are so many more eyes watching for them.
But when we start playing at a level of engine moves that no top GM has ever achieved, there's something out of place.
First, just a thought: If either of you do message d-d, it may be good to point out that the admin of the Last Rites asked about him, which is what triggered (at least indirectly) Stephen_33's query.
I definitely understand it's not a comfortable situation and can understand that d-d would want us to have confidence in him, but I don't think his reaction was very good either. He treated an honest inquiry as an accusation and just left the team...
A year or so ago an unrated player played in an OTB tournament I participated in and won his first two games. This was rather surprising, and most of the regulars were naturally curious (and the TD perhaps slightly suspicious). Some of us asked, in a friendly manner, how he was so good without playing OTB before, which he answered honestly. Now he is a 'regular' to Alabama chess tournaments.
I had a similar experience: I was underrated in my first open tournament and when I beat two 1900's, an NM actually said (where it was obvious I could overhear) something about how a "1500 fish" suddenly improved due to cheating. Although I disagree with how he dealt with the situation, I have no problem with the fact he wondered if I was cheating. Anyway, we're very friendly with each other now.
The point of those stories? It's OK to be honest about things that raise red flags in your mind (of course, being careful about how you do it). That way they can be cleared up.
Anyway, previously when considering d-d, we had noted that he definitely had actual chess knowledge. That's confirmed by his OTB ratings. But his ratings kept a seed of doubt alive, at least in my mind.
Not too long ago, I analyzed a number of his comments more extensively than I've done before. I found that almost all of his analyses were in agreement with the computer. Something that I noticed was that the only times he disagreed with a computer, he always expressed some doubt about his analysis (as if he knew it wasn't perfect).
General principles are good, but only get one so far. On move 28 of our game against the Last Rites, Josechu, you posted a diagram you thought won material. d-d said 32. Ne6 was an improvement, but later claimed not to have analyzed variations, but liked it based on general principles. But that makes no sense. Your line, if correct, won material, so for him to claim something as an improvement, he must know it resulted in a better outcome, not just that it looked like a decent move.
Every so often there are things like this that raise red flags in my mind. Based on these red flags and my analysis of his analyses, I tend to think he probably was cheating.
That's why I'm glad Stephen_33 asked about his ratings; it could clear things up. I have to say, if he had just noted that he was an OTB player who was bad at blitz, it may have caused me to think it less likely that he's cheating. But leaving the team and basically treating questions as accusations makes me more prone to think he could be guilty.
Well, I certainly hope he's not cheating. If he's not, I hope he comes back to the team.
Off to bed now.
Well I can't message him for now because he's effectively blocked me as a non-friend. This response still baffles me & I can't see any good reason for it.
I'm usually pretty tactful in these matters & can't think of anything I wrote that should have resulted in him becoming resentful towards me. If either of you would like to see our correspondence, I'd be more than willing to post it all.
Are either of you able to contact him?
No, there's no icon on his profile to send him a message, and when I created a new message and entered his name, it said he only accepts messages from friends. So he either unfriended you or stopped receiving messages from friends, as you noted.
Now only notes could work, although they would be public. In other words, he's made it hard for us to reach out to him, whatever we decide to do. As of now, us deciding to do anything is almost moot for the time being since he has decided to leave at least for the time being?
Perhaps something should be said to the team; I'm sure he will be missed. Maybe something basic along the lines of he decided to stop VC to focus on OTB for a time; it's unclear if he will return.
I've been thinking about composing some news to explain events to the other members, although I'm surprised no one's asked. I don't think the explanation that he's quit in order to devote more time to his OTB chess will convince anyone though, because he was such an enthusiastic member. Why would he up sticks & leave without saying anything?
I think I need to spell out the unadorned facts, such as they are. FVF is a group for strictly adult players & we all need to face the reality of cheating, even in VC. When that issue raises it's head we have an obligation to investigate, regardless of who is suspected & I think most aware & sophisticated members would understand & accept that.
Dinner first, then I'll sit down & write that later.
True. Although it was a reason he gave you for leaving, I guess it probably would raise a lot of questions that it was so sudden and without telling everyone.
One thing I think is important is to convey that we tried to handle things professionally. We were never certain he was cheating. Rather, we had some honest questions and some suspicions, one of which was about his ratings. When you asked about his ratings, it was to see if things could be cleared up, but then he reacted how he reacted...
I'm away staying with friends for the weekend and I can't spend much time on this. Bad timing. The thing that worries me most is that chess.com have not banned him for his individual games and yet we are being taken down a road where one of our players is being hounded by players from other teams for contributions he makes to VC games without any real evidence. I'll have to leave it for a couple of days but it still sits badly with me. If he cheats then we don't want him, but how are we supposed to know?
Joe, he quit, we didn't kick him out or even hint he should leave. There was no suggestion of hounding by other teams, other than the concerns raised by Last Rites & I was simply asking him some basic questions about his very odd ratings. Arguably I should have done that long ago because there have been suspicions around him for some time.
It's true that the 'evidence' is extremely thin but as SJFG has said, there're certain comments he made in the Rites game that are inconsistent & imply an understanding of the position that he didn't explain. In other words, knowledge of the strength of a move he recommended that might well have come from an engine.
Anyway, we have to be able to ask our members reasonable questions about their chess ability, without them throwing their toys out of the pram! Sometimes it's better to be over-cautious & allow an honest player to go, rather than risk a dishonest one contaminating our games.
Stephen. This is all very uncomfortable. Some thoughts:
From a comment that dd made a month or so ago, it seems that he plays OTB at a chess club. It might be instructive to know how he gets on there.
From his comments, he seems to have a meticulous system that he uses to great effect in long time format games which would probably be far too slow in bullet and blitz etc. As for Vote Chess, he is incredibly disciplined in the way he approaches it. He is almost always the first to comment, and he almost always votes right on the 24 hour mark. More importantly for this discussion, he is quite prepared to spend a lot of time writing long posts that deal with broader issues than just "this is a move that I like." I would be inclined to say that he is probably the hardest-working player on our team, who appears to devote more time to our games than anyone else. To me, that is not a behaviour that you would expect from a cheat, but obviously that is just a feeling based on amateur psychology.
I would love to see the match-up rates of some of the other top VC teams. Against Lewis chessmen in the final we were heading for a draw until they blundered at the end. How did their play compare to ours in that final? And we always have very close games against Last Rites. Are they really in any position to throw stones?
As you know, I am deeply suspicious of the benchmarks used to analyse cheating in VC games. Nobody really knows what a team of many dedicated players is capable of when they have almost unlimited time to analyse each move with access to the analysis board and a database of hundreds of thousands of master games. The only possible benchmark you could use would be based on similar teams playing under the same conditions.
I have thought about all this a lot and my conclusion is that banning players on chess.com should be left to chess.com. And how likely is it, really, that a player would cheat in VC games and not in their own games? As I say, this whole thing makes me feel very uncomfortable.
Well done though, for grasping the nettle. I just hope that dd will not react negatively. And I just don't see how you can throw a player off your VC team just for being too good at VC. Natural justice says that we would need to find something that could pass as evidence, and how do we go about finding that?