So, if some chess players want to belittle me and my chess, they are free to do so.
I am not belittling anyone's OTB accomplishments. I am pointing out that when on chess.com, the only evidence that counts is the evidence available. The claim from Kantfields that Ponziani Power was backed by a 2500-strength player, and thus is apparently above suspicion for cheating while other teams are not...is not really true.
WELL, first of all, why does it matter of Worstiest was banned or not?
I think all anyone knows right now is that "The Worstiest" (account, not the person) wasn't banned for cheating, right?
There are other ways to be banned.
The opinion I expressed above about 4. d3 is not my own and if you wish to argue that point further you may want to take it up with GM Ovetchin and GM Lysyj and tell them the same thing, that they 'don't know what they are talking about.'
Out of curiosity, where did they say that? (Presumably in The Open Games For Black, but I can't find it...)
WELL, first of all, why does it matter of Worstiest was banned or not?
I think all anyone knows right now is that "The Worstiest" (account, not the person) wasn't banned for cheating, right?
There are other ways to be banned.
I only brought it up to point out that Kantfields was not being precise or even-handed in his assessment of Ponziani Power's innocence or others' guilt.
Shouldn't you guys take this to the cheating forum or something?
Shouldn't you guys take this to the cheating forum or something?
Quite possibly ;). I would not have commented here on such matters if it had not shown up on its own...
Right now I aint what I used to be. But if you will look at my two recent exhibition matches you might see at that point, I was still playing well....."
That's a nice resume. I well remember a Kasparov vs rest of the world queen endgame, where a position arose that, after about 10 minutes of analysis, I thought ROTW had an only move to find. It took them a couple of days of arguing before they even started seriously anaylyzing it. It is really hard to get a chess commitee to play the right move in a complex endgame position, let alone opening. Needless to say, analysis by commitee is inneficient and the correct voice can get drowned out by assertive plausible, incorrect opinions.
btickler
"when on chess.com, the only evidence which counts is the evidence available."
Who are you to decide what evidence counts?
I gave you available evidence. You can look it up yourself. Even on Chess.com I gave evidence with the two exhibition matches.
You are a blatherskite and a criticaster and a doryphore and a hoddy-noddy!
btickler
"when on chess.com, the only evidence which counts is the evidence available."
Who are you to decide what evidence counts?
I gave you available evidence. You can look it up yourself. Even on Chess.com I gave evidence with the two exhibition matches.
You are a blatherskite and a criticaster and a doryphore and a hoddy-noddy!
The only evidence I would really look at is a link to Ponz111 games against 2200+ opponents where engine use had not been agreed to beforehand, and where no team was working with you. Then, I would take said game(s) and check them vs. an engine before I would accept them as proof of your current playing strength.
Everything and anything else is predicated on your prior ratings OTB, not on your playing strength now. That might be a stricter standards than I would hold other chess.com players to ;)...but then again, most players are not having claims made about their playing strength this way (and I realize that you did not make the claim in this case, but it's there anyway).
As for who I am, I am just a player expressing an opinion and relating my own observations. If my opinion is mistaken or not worth considering, you're perfectly free to ignore it.
Why hasn't Ponzi posted at all for months?
Why hasn't Ponzi posted at all for months?
Oh, he did post quite profusely ;), just not on the public forums.
btickler "The only evidence I would really look at is a link to Ponz111 games against 2200 opponents where engine use had not been agreed to beforehand" Who cares what evidence YOU would look at in your attempt to disparage me. However:
If you refer to the exhibition matches they were Centaur games where engine use was not only allowed, but expected.
If you refer to the USA Championship and years before, that was a time when [I think] highest computer was class A or maybe expert and computers were not used.
I have not posted in months in this kind of format because I have been quite ill. However, I have posted much in "Open Discussion"
Welcome back, sir!
btickler "The only evidence I would really look at is a link to Ponz111 games against 2200 opponents where engine use had not been agreed to beforehand" Who cares what evidence YOU would look at in your attempt to disparage me. However:
If you refer to the exhibition matches they were Centaur games where engine use was not only allowed, but expected.
If you refer to the USA Championship and years before, that was a time when [I think] highest computer was class A or maybe expert and computers were not used.
As I said, you're free to ignore me, but what you just said does nothing to disprove my point. You're pointing to centaur matches (not an indication of your current playing strength) and OTB and correspondence play from quite few years ago (not an indication of your current playing strength, either).
I have not posted in months in this kind of format because I have been quite ill. However, I have posted much in "Open Discussion"
...and in the votechess league group forums, which is the source of this little explosive tangent of Ponziani pontificating ;)...
Anyone with half a brain knows that my results playing ALL games with Black in the recent Exhibitions Are an indication of my playing strength at the time.
Anyone with half a brain knows that my results playing ALL games with Black in the recent Exhibitions Are an indication of my playing strength at the time.
How so? Insults are not supporting evidence. How are centaur exhibition matches that focus exclusively on one very narrow variation of the Ponziani that runs out to 30+ moves any indication of your current, unassisted playing strength?
I'm not interested in fuzzy logic.
P.S. The_Worstiest was not banned. You can go to the Ravenclaw vs. Gryffindor votechess game and look him up on the team list. No banned symbol.
I went back and checked, which was interesting because now I see that Sinksma and Orakelwhip have both been banned...interesting.