See, when you have a long time to think, you can make perfect moves. Wow, good job.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/825485393?username=pontecorvo_88
2300 Rapid Rating but 1000 Bullet Rating
Sort:
Jun 14, 2018
0
#4
C-FieryFox wrote:
Very interesting...
Not to chess.com, they don't give a ****
Jun 14, 2018
0
#5
Will I get a warning if I say that I think pontecorvo_88 is a cheater?
Jun 15, 2018
0
#6
I assume whatever super amazing cheat detection they had years ago has since broken down. So they're left with unpaid volunteer mods to clean stuff up, and for these guys it's a lot easier to deal with cheating discussion than it is actual cheating.
So yeah, talking about it is a big no-no.
You may have thought Erik was only useful for signing checks, but you'd be wrong. He's also good at paying himself so much that there's not enough to pay for skilled programmers.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#7
By the way, @real_name_hidden is a huge moron. Tactic ratings are the easiest to fake, and chess.com wont even ban you for cheating on those.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#8
Be careful, you might be banned for talking about this in a public forum.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#9
You probably have spotted a cheater. Though a lower rating in super fast speeds can also be down to time outs as the chess.com servers are quite poor and autoreconnect doesn’t work very well at all. I can’t be bothered to look but you could scout their games and see how they play.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#10
I’m just going to call you up on ‘fake’ ratings for tactics. You can game tactics scores for sure, but it isn’t cheating anyone (except maybe the individuals who do it). And it would be ridiculous for any game to penalise people for gaming tactics if that’s what they want to do. It isn’t really any of your business if people want to do that. It’s a learning mechanism not a competitive arena. I think the bigger question is why that metric needs to be made public at all.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#11
I don't care about people cheating the tactics. #7 is directed at @real_name_hidden
Jun 18, 2018
0
#12
jonathanpiano13 wrote:
Be careful, you might be banned for talking about this in a public forum.
Of course. They ban oven non-issues, but not people like pontecorvo.
Reprimanding me for pointing this out is counter productive. If they cut off their nose to spite their face I'll just laugh at them. I have nothing at stake, and they have a website / job.
Telestu wrote:
See, when you have a long time to think, you can make perfect moves. Wow, good job.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/825485393?username=pontecorvo_88
He wasn't perfect in that game, although he was very good. I don't know. You might be right.
That said, there are some people, myself included, that are much better when time controls get longer. And it is possible for someone who is generally weak to play a game where we find almost all the best moves. I'm only USCF 1437. But I do have a game I analyzed with Fritz 16, where I got 83% best moves (not on this site).
I think you would need to show unusually high accuracy scores for a significant % of their games, not just one.
Again, you may be right. You may even be probably right. But I don't think it is a given with the evidence shown so far.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#14
Klauer wrote:
Has bullet something to do with chess?
The best bullet (and blitz and rapid and 960) players in the world are also the best classical players in the world... because yes, they're VERY OBVIOUSLY related.
https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/bullet
Jun 18, 2018
0
#15
madratter7 wrote:
Telestu wrote:
See, when you have a long time to think, you can make perfect moves. Wow, good job.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/825485393?username=pontecorvo_88
He wasn't perfect in that game, although he was very good. I don't know. You might be right.
That said, there are some people, myself included, that are much better when time controls get longer. And it is possible for someone who is generally weak to play a game where we find almost all the best moves. I'm only USCF 1437. But I do have a game I analyzed with Fritz 16, where I got 83% best moves (not on this site).
I think you would need to show unusually high accuracy scores for a significant % of their games, not just one.
Again, you may be right. You may even be probably right. But I don't think it is a given with the evidence shown so far.
1) I checked his game with an engine. You don't have to pick #1 engine move for every move to cheat. You just have to have a ridiculously high percentage for top 3 (or 4). This is what I checked for.
It's simple to pull games from his blitz where he plays... very well too
By the way, this guy he beat 3 times in a row later had his account closed... so he beat a cheater. Good job. What a great player.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/807514032?username=pontecorvo_88
2) Is your USCF current? Are you 70 years old?
Not many people have a gap in ratings like that... but also you only have 30 games played. It could be that you haven't gotten used to it yet. If you play both time controls regularly I assume that gap will go down to a normal level.
Jun 18, 2018
0
#16
nhim22 wrote:
get a life
Oh, we're doing 10 year old stuff?
It's been so long... let me try to remember...
Umm...
"Your mom is dumb!"
(Let me know if I'm doing it right)
Brixed wrote:
1000 bullet would be pretty darn low for a 2300 rapid player.
I would expect 2100 bullet or higher.
No, that is too high. Something like 1800+ bullet would be acceptable and should be expected. But not 1000....
Jun 18, 2018
0
#18
May be he uses his leg toes to move the mouse,congenital absence of fingers could be the case.Jokes apart...he could be suffering from a disability of hands which keeps him slow in bullet,who knows! just me thinking out of the box here..sorry!
https://www.chess.com/member/pontecorvo_88
I guess it's because when the time is short, it's easy to make mistakes.
Right chess.com?
Algorithms to catch this stuff are probably impossible... right? The technology just isn't there yet. Maybe in 20 years.