Sad case of high school chess cheating

It's way easier for everyone.  At most tournaments I attend, the TDs prefer you notate electronically since it's so much easier for them.  For the player, it takes less than 2 seconds to notate a move and breaks your concentration way less than writing it down.  I'm happy either way, but I'd be fibbing if I said it wasn't a lot easier electronically and I didn't prefer it.

You're confusing things. You are talking about Kasparov, who got toasted by Deep Blue. Fischer had a flawless over-the-board attitude.

can you tell how me how to cheat?

Knock the board over and put pieces on better squares.

if you want to learn how to cheat then you need to read this book:

it was written by an english gm:

Electronic notation is not easier for a TD (I've TD'd National Scholastic tournaments for the USCF) and don't even understand how that could be the case. There's nothing wrong with them, but it's a hassle to always be addressing questions about the legality of the devices to less knowledgeable players.

It is for some TDs at least.  Perhaps the difference is due to his never once needing to address the legality of the devices to anyone in my experience.  At the end of the day, he simply has pgns sitting in his email inbox instead of barely legible or illegible scoresheets riddled with errors.

Deep Blue only won by one game and the match result was a genuine upset like Euwe defeating Alekhine for the title. 

Perhaps, but that was then, this is now. I'm not saying that Fischer and Kasparov weren't some of the greatest players ever. But there is no way Fischer or anyone else could beat even one of the computers jenium mentioned at their hardest level.

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. 

"1200 to 2000 in 7 months" would theoretically involve a player who played numerous moves at or just below expert/master strength but made blunders or mistakes often enough to be held to 1200. 

An example of an actual prodigy's progress(USCF):

• 3-11-2007: 1207  
• 2-28-2009: 1803 
• 10-2-2011: 2205 
• 8-29-2014: IM title
• 12-30-2015: Defeats 2600+ GM

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. 

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 .