It was a 30+5 game in the Caro Kann, one of the easiest openings to get a very high accuracy(at least in a lot of lines).
I have many similar Caro(but from the black side) blitz games where my opponent plays the advance, plays some passive line, I get some queenside initiative and just play pretty natural moves, he drops a pawn or two and ez 90+% accuracy. Now if you looked at my QID/Nimzo games it's a whole different story.
I think that game was very suspicious. It's almost impossible for someone of that level to find all of the moves that he did. He was extremely precise. Even the "bad" moves were top engine suggestions.
no, they just outplayed you.
you made mistakes, he noticed them
he played theory you didn't
your point being?
Stockfish 12 ( NNUE) actually recommand 15. g3 at 50 millions node, depth 28/45.
Unnatural move. Highly suspicious of Stockfish assistant.
Stockfish 12 actually recommand 15. g3 at 50 millions node, depth 28/45.
Unnatural move. Highly suspicious of Stockfish assistant.
1 thing
50 million nodes
this is scholastic chess. I'm happy to tell you that 1 move recommended by stockfish is not cheating
Stockfish 12 actually recommand 15. g3 at 50 millions node, depth 28/45.
Unnatural move. Highly suspicious of Stockfish assistant.
1 thing
50 million nodes
this is scholastic chess. I'm happy to tell you that 1 move recommended by stockfish is not cheating
1 move is nothing if there is obvious move.
If you have something to capture, 1000 human will capture, 3600 engine will capture. Exactly the same move, no concern. Same to obvious development of pieces etc.
But a very unnatural move is played, suspicion is raised.
Did I say " he is cheating or confirm cheating " at this point?
no, you just said "Highly suspicious of Stockfish assistant."
I consider that close to saying he is cheating
at this time, I wouldn't say that there is sufficient evidence say such a thing
of course, I could be completely wrong
H3 is also a bad move
H3 is third for stockfish -- sometimes cheaters pick the 2nd or 3rd move. However, h3 is is also a classic human "I have no idea wtf to do" move so certainly proves nothing.
I just don't see 15. g3 as a human move for a non master. Sure, way down the line it may improve king safety. But its far from obvious that the game ever gets to that point. The move wouldn't have been on my candidate list. Its not proof, but its suspicious as hell.
Overall he had a 98.2 accuracy.
Accuracy is just a gimmick. Even chess.com has warned people that it's not a cheat detection tool.
In any case, he was rated a lot higher than you, and the game was a boring caro where most pieces are traded off early... many people would have a 90+ "accuracy" in a game like this even if both players were rated 1000.
Definitely he was. And you were too. Using a computer is the only way to play online chess.
White was clearly thinking of playing c5-b4-b5.
Why not play c5 on move 15? Maybe because Qf4 is a possible reply.
g3 prepares this plan by not allowing Qf4. I don't know why so many people are talking about g3.
Was he thinking this when he played g3? I don't know. Could he have cheated? Sure. But this game is pretty boring and normal IMO.
Oakus used a computer: to play XD
Hello. I've recently played a game for my school chess team. This game was played online because of covid. I suspect my opponent could have used a computer. Overall he had a 98.2 accuracy. My opponent was white.
Here's the game: https://www.chess.com/a/2WYo8cDUakoYa
first of all thats not your game
Hello. I've recently played a game for my school chess team. This game was played online because of covid. I suspect my opponent could have used a computer. Overall he had a 98.2 accuracy. My opponent was white.
Here's the game: https://www.chess.com/a/2WYo8cDUakoYa
first of all thats not your game
Though then again taking with the bishop seems strange too. All in all I don't think it's super likely they either did/didn't cheat