12845 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
So I've been looking at Clark Smiley's tournament history, and it appears he started cheating well before he was finally caught. In the span of 7 months, he went from 1200 to what would have been about 2000 by the time he was finally caught cheating. That's unheard of even for child GM prodigies, who usually take about two or three years to make that same leap.
The first red flag comes in at the Ashburn Chess Camp Blitz. In the blitz section, he actually went down from 1129 to 1072 in rating. In the long game section, he gained a whopping 170 rating points by beating two 1700s and a 1500, moving him from 1260 to 1430 instantly. Here's the progress breakdown:
Ashburn Chess Camp (Long games): 4 wins and 1 loss. --->1430
August 1st Saturday Quad: Clean sweep of 4 wins. ---> 1525
2nd Annual Ashburn Scholastics: Clean sweep of 5 wins. ---> 1640
Ashburn Swiss 01: 3 wins and one loss to a 1900. ---> 1647
43rd Annual Atlantic Open U1300: Clean sweep of 5 wins. --->1661
Ashburn First Saturday Quads: Clean sweep of 3 wins. ---> 1713
2012 Greater Mid-Atlantic Champion: Clean sweep of 5 wins. ---> 1717
TSS20120218: Clean sweep of 4 wins. ---> 1767
44th Annual Virginia Open. Clean sweep of 5 wins. ---> 1849
March 1st Saturday Quad: 2 wins and a loss to a 2200. ---> 1875
Va Scholastic and Collegiate Champs: Clean sweep of what was going to be 5 wins, busted and forfeited all games in the tournament while caught cheating on a 2100.
Total result from games (if not caught in the last one):
45 wins and 3 losses.
Not included were 3 arranged "training" draws with another 1600 (shame on the TD for even logging those games in the database).
omg I can't even rn. 7 months ago I was 1363 and now I'm 1902 USCF. Does that mean ur gonna accuse me of cheating too??? :(
Also, in a span of 2 tournaments I went from 1157 to 1515, and it's legit (I don't cheat!!!!)
Oh yeah. How do I know you are not some sort of troll, HashtagFlawless? Prove it, HashtagFlawless.
Although I don't know HashtagFlawless, her claim sounds reasonable. It is fairly common for young kids jump several hundred rating points in a year -- especially if they are playing alot of tournaments and have a good coach.
The point is the person got caught cheating at the end of the winning streak, and so therefore is likely not one of those situations where it's rapid child-prodigy progression. Get the difference now? Besides, 1200 to 2000 in 7 months is incredibly rare unless done by a sandbagger, but I know of no child that pulled it off (aside from the one that got caught cheating of course). Consider it took Nakamura almost 2 years to achieve the same progress, and he's arguably the strongest American player since Bobby Fischer.
Nakamura is considerably stronger than Fisher ever was.
No not considerably stronger. Naka is slightly stronger than Fischer ever was. Nakamura's highest rating ever was 2819 while Fischer's highest ever rating was 2789. A rating difference of 30 points equates to about a 54.6 out of 100 points played, which is the equivalent of an otherwise equal opponent having White every game.
Today, Nakamura is rated 2787, which is statistically the same as Fischer's final rating.
I cannot even imagine Fischer having a minus 12 score with no wins at all against anyone, including God himself.
Naka though, being "considerably stronger", did it...
I don't take much stock in rating comparisons of former champions anyway. There's no way in my mind that Nakamura is stronger than Fischer was at his peak.
Modern Super GMs seem to be some kind of computer enhanced chess cyborgs. I don't think further comparisons between now and previous eras is fruitful.
Anyone who thinks Nakamura is stronger than Fischer at his peak has precious little chess understanding .
Neither are/were outstandingly creative. And it's as tho' BF was not very tested and HN can't even pass it yet.
And altho' it's not fair to compare, I'll share on this pair, only 'cuz I care to bare my humble opinion....
....HN would embarrass BF in a match of today....and everyone knows it.
I dare to guess he (Naka) would lose the psychological duel, at least.
Go away hater .
Trying to compare raw ratings 40+ years apart (as one would if comparing Nakamura's peak with Fischer's) is a useless exercise. Ratings tend to go up in general over time. One can see that while looking over the world's top players over the last 45 years. During Fischer's time, a 2600 rating was sufficient for world top ten status. Nowadays, it takes 2700 to even make the top 40-50.
Most reasonable comparisons of players in different eras are usually undertaken by looking at how they compared to other top contemporaries of theirs. By that measure, Fischer has virtually no equal, except perhaps Kasparov. Look at it this way: when Fischer became world champion, he beat Spassky 12.5-8.5 (and that included a forfeit win for Spassky, which wasn't rated). So, in rated games, Fischer out scored the reigning world champion by 5 points over 20 games. Fischer was so far ahead of Spassky on the mid-1972 rating list, though, that he actually LOST five rating points to Spassky. (His rating dropped from 2785 to 2780.) No other player has been quite that dominant, even Kasparov (who always had Karpov within shouting distance). What puts Kasparov in the conversation, and quite possibly ahead of Fischer, is his long and distinguished run as world champion and top rated player.
This is not to say that Nakamura is not a great player (of course he is), nor is it to say that he might not belong in that conversation someday (he might). However, he has to at least get past Carlsen (against whom he has a brutally bad classical record) before you can even begin to mention him as an equal of Fischer.
Yes, attacking anyone who disagrees with you personally is the way to prove your point.
Is it weird to dominate like I am in my first few games?
by learningthemoves a few minutes ago
8/24/2016 - Shock And Awe
by arnabmoitro a few minutes ago
Non - Chess celebrity who played chess..
by shmuly87 8 minutes ago
AMAZING FREE Chess Clinic
by cheeky_chicky 14 minutes ago
by Nicholas_Shannon80 16 minutes ago
Hi, please I appreaciate that you guys tell me what is the best defense against
by SuirenBoid 17 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Nicholas_Shannon80 22 minutes ago
All The Reasons We Hate V3!
by Connor_Macleod1518 26 minutes ago
Which is most dominant country on chess.com?
by DeltaAquarid 28 minutes ago
tactic trainer changes
by 0110001101101000 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!