chess.com doesn't do itself credit

Yes, it would be in your best interest to count unrated games

Just because a bunch of people were banned in the past doesn't mean anything about this group.

Looking at your list I notice a guy like Gonnosuke... are you trying to tell me that after over 1000 games of alleged cheating that chess.com hasn't banned him?  Preposterous.

Ah yes, Gonnosuke, AKA Roy Gates.  Rated about 2000 OTB, yet ahead of all titled players in turn-based here.

Yes I have analysed Gonno, once with Deep Rybka 3 & once with Houdini 1.03a multi-processor engines.  Others have also analysed his games.

I have no idea why he's still here, tbh.

Note- ratings here are inflated or deflated

This is useful info I wish everyone knew, tbh.

If you missed that I based it on the pack of players I see titled players in, not the raw rating itself, then I'm guessing you also missed the sarcasm nearly all of my posts have been conducted with.

Why should run of the mill players care whether titled players play here or not. I don't know what you mean by them making the site legitimate. If you want to play chess here, play.

Okay, public pressure has forced me to reveal my true identity.  I.....am Magnus Carlsen.

 No, I am you fraud!

It's disappointing to me how terrible people are in general at reading between the lines. I'm not quite sure how much more obvious wafflemaster can be...

At the same time, I don't understand the point of this thread. I mean, we get it (at least some of us do) but what are you hoping to accomplish? Is this just a "Look what I did, I beat the system!" thread?

Well, if you headline your thread: "Cheating", it's too easy to detect. This way, the waffle gets to amuse not only befriended breakfast items, but he avoids being called an "anti-semite". Classic threadkiller that

I don't have enough information to express a judgmental opinion, but a club player playing at GM level at turn-based chess is suspicious, to say the least. But to balance this view, even before chess computers were at all strong there were correspondence chess specialists who were unknown over the board. In the (interesting) linked game, I feel Qb3 was a very natural move forcing the win of a pawn, so the loss of the pawn can be said to be a pawn sacrifice by the GM on the previous move. While to more average players, the risk of his knight being trapped could be missed, I doubt a GM playing turn-based chess would miss the danger. I don't claim to be strong enough to assess whether this gambit is sound or not.

Because it would make this great site even more marketable.  Why shouldn't I want good things for the site I love?

I never said it would make the site legitimate, I said it would add an air of legitimacy.  I meant it more in a colloquial sense than trying to literally suggest that chess.com is illegitimate or something

Thanks for the advice.  I do that currently.

Like I eventually said somewhere in there... the point I'm making isn't novle... I was just in a mood last night and came up with this thing.

In a perfect scenario this would generate so much publicity that the outcry from general members would force chess.com to hack into these guys computers, set their homepages to inappropriate sites, sign them up for lots of junk mail, and ban them from chess.com FOREVER.

Houdini tells me the moves so far have not been blunders.  Would I have known that myself?  No way.

But I am sure that you will see more easily than me (based on your blitz rating) the tactic that won a pawn - a queen move threatening a pawn and removing a black knight's only retreat square.

 I believe I could tell you why he's still here.

In my previous account, I got the chance to play Roy several times (15-20 at least). In most of these games, he was able to give me instructions and explanations that significantly exceeded the level of a 2000 player's understanding of chess.

I was also informed that his '2000' rating was from tournaments that he played 20 years ago. That's 2 DECADES ago. Slightly out of date, don't you think?

I also recall that his chess.com rating used to be in low 2000's when he was starting out here (which seems fairly accurate). I recall a steady increase in his rating over a couple of years - and his quality of play and understanding seemed to increase as well. The amount of time he spends on games (over 1000 of them, plus puzzles that he plays out and sometimes posts here) leaves me understanding how he could be a very strong player.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at this point in time, he entered several tournaments and came out with an IM designation. But hey, a hobby is a hobby.

Sure, and like you said I'm sure the GM wouldn't have missed it by any stretch of the imagination.  Would I have evaluated the position as full compensation for black though?  No :)

So you're saying at least 2200 strength, and it wouldn't surprise you if IM level?  No offence guy, but how can you tell the difference between a player of 2000 strength and a player of IM strength?  I can sense about 300 - 400 points above me but after that it's really all the same as far as I'm able to tell... (the same for anyone)

Knowing a lot of ideas or history of moves is very different from being a very strong player.

Yes, it's out of date.  However a long hiatus from tournament chess is just as likely to mean you're weaker than before as it does stronger.  The old rating means very little except that he was never a titled player.

Heh, this is silly.  So you're suggesting that from 2007 or 2008 (forgot when chess.com began) he went from something like a strong B class player (lets say 1700 USCF which is something like 2000 chess.com) to IM strength?  And you suggest he did this though his games maybe?  He's won so many games clearly the competition has been below him here.  If he did go from 2000 to IM level in his years off he clearly finished his improvement before 2007.

The number of games doesn't = time spent much less the quality of that time.  But again it's silly to propose these games and posts have improved his play for both the comparatively low level of competition (based on his win %) and the time spent (a mere 3 years).

You clearly underestimate him.  His rank at chess.com is far above any other titled player here (except those two FMs in the top 50).  As Steve noted, others have analysed his games.  I was one of them.  His play was better than IM strength.