A Newbie drew Stockfish at highest level (2 draws so far)

And you are one of the flies swarming around the sh1tpile.  Another brand new member here to troll who doesn''t even play chess. And when chess.com bans you more will be created to replace you.  You bore me, maybe even disgust me, but you don't anger me.  You are just gross.  

Yeah, that's an oddity.

Someone who insists on repeating big bold lies about chess should be able to fool know-nothings to one degree or another... but trying to convince people who play chess is just dumb.

"I spent hours, sometimes days calculating"

Yeah, as @Ziryab said so have those of us who have played correspondence. Me included.

Once I spent a long time on a move in correspondence and blundered a rook to a simple tactic. Thinking a long time doesn't necessarily increase the quality of your moves, and even when you know how to organize your analysis, there's a limit to what you can do. The difference between a low rated player calculating 1 hour and 1 week might be nothing.

                The world according to a scam artist:

Drawing stockfish?                                                      Definitely possible!

Providing even a small scrap of believable proof?     Definitely not worth his time!

I do play chess. I Just like the forum here, anyway Thanks for your kind words.

Dude, quit already. You are not going to accomplish or prove anything.

Go enjoy life, enjoy chess. Beating stockfish on your phone not only will not fulfill you, you won't do it. 

This new thought tendency: "all this is a lie or a troll" doesn't make any sense.

In first place nobody proved it's a lie, because my moves in the games are not suggested by the chess engine, since they are my moves: you can check it out that when stockfish says do this I do a completely different move. 

In second place, it's insane to think someone is going to lie in a challenge like this one, 9 months of a lie is just insane.

Thirdly, if someone is going to lie, he would do it with a win, not a ridiculous draw. 

And in last place, if someone is lying, he wouldn't be willing to show and do it in front of cameras or physically to people that he can do it again.

If this is a lie, what do I win with it?? Nothing! I don't earn money with this, I don't earn credit because my name and country are anonymous. The only thing I win is insults and cheap trash-talking.

My anonymous identity and not earning money with this is another prove of truth.

The games themselves are a prove of truth. You can run software in them to see my moves are human.

If someone is saying this is a troll or lie, is because he even didn't read previous posts in the forum, didn't check the games played, etc.

It is very cheap and easy to say "this is a lie". If you think so, first prove it, then talk.

I can prove to you that I can do it.

I don't have resources or powerful connections to show this games in front of cameras like an event Kasparov vs deep blue. The games are the only testimonies available so far.

What would you do if you were me? Just shut up because nobody will believe you?

Kasparov, Nakamura, etc. never played a daily match against a machine. Nobody ever did it and draw in the whole history of human kind. It's being my idea and I did it. Anyone else can do it if they want. 

A GM, IM, FM or whatever wouldn't take so long to do what I did. They just don't want to spend months trying. Why? Because they didn't have this idea, or they think they can't, maybe they don't have resources to produce such event, maybe because they think nobody would believe them... Who knows? I think they are as capable to do it as I have being. 

That's right, it's much easier to win stockfish than someone to believe it. Maybe that's the reason no GM wants to do it. 

First of all, skepticism always makes sense.

Secondly, the burden of proof is on the one making claims.

You want to claim you did _____, so people will naturally ask you to make it believable for them. If you can't that's your failure, not theirs.

Just look at the match, that's the prove of truth.

People don't even look at the match, that's their failure.

And it's a lot more than screenshots.

Lets say I claim to beat Carlsen in a face to face game.

Of course I WANT to provide more than the game. No one will have to ask me to, for example, post the story of how this came to be. Of how I came up with the idea, how months before the game I contacted him, what our correspondence was like, why he agreed, pictures of us playing, etc etc.

Posting a single game is just childish.

So for example you say you calculated for days. Well of course you would talk to us about the process, how you came up with it, successes and failures, show us pictures of the notebooks or computer files you used to organize your analysis etc etc. No one would have to ask, you would naturally make it an entertaining and fully flushed out story.

Instead you just post a game. It's just as childish and unbelievable.

I looked at the match and found an error as early as move 5.

Another thing is, you want to play daily matches vs stockfish11 and one day win.

You are not a millionaire or a TV star.

How can you prove it if you have won or get a draw months later?

Beforehand you don't even know that you can do it. You have to do it first to know and it could have passed years to accomplish. Maybe my next win or draw is in two years ahead. 

And if you do it, why not to post the game in chess.com? Would you just hide the match and hide yourself in the shadows because people don't believe it?

I will post my next draw or win. That's it.

I have already proved to you twice that move 5 is stockfish move. You are just proving yourself that you don't believe the truth in front of your eyes. 

I've drawn top engines too.

Obviously not under settings and hardware that makes it noteworthy.

Maybe you're just illiterate when it comes to technology and really think you've done something amazing.

Again, I HAVE STOCKFISH.

Telling me it's a stockfish move is 100% meaningless. I can check for myself.

Plus the screenshots you posted were after 0 seconds of thought. It's a joke you continue to repeat this.

I know how you don't do it:  Posting a game with moves that aren't stockfish's #1 choice and then justifying it with the laughably weak chess.com game analysis.

So, according to you, chess.com hardware is trash, because their analysis didn't show any accuracy in the games???

Come on, read old posts and you will see how nonsense your accusations are. 

Incorrect.

Chess.com analysis is more of a marketing gimmick. The hardware, time, and depth is only good enough to catch basic mistakes.

It's a nice feature I've used myself, but when I (or anyone who plays chess seriously) wants to do actual analysis, a lot more is involved than turning on an engine for a few seconds.

I posted Lucas chess analysis too. With all time and depth needed on an Intel i7 processor computer. 

Just do the analysis yourself in your own computer and you will see.

And I created the free week premium account just to make chess.com deep analysis.

You just didnt read previous posts when I did it. 

And you keep saying the move 5 was a mistake? It's not even an inaccuracy!

Come on, look at your hands: they are not there, I can hear you from here saying to yourself that your hands are a lie and don't exist. You don't believe truth in front of your eyes.