no one?
Thoughts on Ben Finegold insinuating that Adhiban is a cheat?
Sort:
SomeChessMoves wrote:
He is just pointing out an anomaly.
Except he isn't really. He is flat out saying something along the lines of how he wouldn't be shocked if Adhiban is found to be cheating.
Those are insinuations that shouldn't be done lightly.
SomeChessMoves wrote:
Maybe this is a language issue, but he is just saying that his performance is surprising because it is not consistent. He is not flat out saying that there is cheating. If in the future there was proof he wouldn't be surprised. This doesn't mean a confirmation on an accusation. It is simply explaining something can't explain now.
Can you explain why Adhiban wins a lot and then loses, with ups and downs? Your reasoning would be just as suspect as Finegold's. We don't have conclusive proof, that is why Finegold said "if".
This is definitely not a language issue - it is clear that Finegold is more than insinuating, but just short of accusing Adhiban of cheating.
Of course we don't have conclusive proof, but isn't that true of every player and every game? Unless there is at least credible reasons to doubt a GM, it is unwise to accuse him - especially given that none of his actual opponents or the match officials present have raised any such issue.
Poor judgement from Ben.
Aug 23, 2019
0
#5
Finegold ... what a dufass. I give him Zero respect. Repeated two dozens times.,"I don't think he cheated, but wouldn't be surprised in the least if he did."
Aug 23, 2019
0
#6
It's a serious accusation. Does he ever offer any proof? Any links to an analysis of his game?
Aug 23, 2019
0
#7
He's being a weasel, constantly qualifying his accusation. The accusation being made is very real, based on not only on a specific game, but past tournament results.
In this video, I don't see any insinuation whatsoever that Adhiban cheated.
In the above discussion, user MustangMate offers a quote that does not actually appear anywhere in the video. I understand you are summarizing your understanding of the general idea of what Finegold said, but quotation marks are not meant to denote your interpretation of the speaker's or writer's meaning, instead quotation marks are meant to denote strictly and exactly what was said. Producing accurate quotations is easier if you copy and paste from the transcript provided by youtube, making corrections as needed.
It would help make your case if you would quote the specific statements or combination of statements which you perceive as constituting the insinuation that Adhiban cheated.
My perception here is that Finegold describes Adhiban's level of play as inconsistent, which Finegold says caused him to perceive the possibility that Adhiban might be cheating. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that Finegold only references this perception in the past tense. At no point does Finegold say that he presently perceives a possibility that Adhiban might be cheating in the present or that he presently perceives a possibility that Adhiban might have been cheating in the past.
Finegold further states that if Adhiban were to be caught cheating, then Finegold would retrospectively connect the finding of cheating to Adhiban's inconsistent play. Given Finegold's tone and contextual statements, I don't interpret this to be an insinuation that Adhiban is or was or might be or might have been cheating, rather it seems that Finegold is using Adhiban as a lecture example to illustrate the more general concept that 1) inconsistent play can be perceived as a sign of cheating and 2) when someone is found to be cheating, if the person did have inconsistent play, then we do tend to connect the inconsistent play with the finding of cheating.
There is certainly value in discussing the subject of cheating, the subject of perceiving that someone *might* be cheating, and the subject of perceptions that arise after someone has been found to have been cheating. These are all realities that arise in the game of chess.
If you're not happy with how Finegold presented this subject, then how should Finegold have presented it differently? How would you discuss this subject?
When someone new arrives on the scene with inconsistent play, then some people may have the perception that the new person might be cheating. If it is not possible for a lecturer to name any examples of players who were inconsistent at first but turned out to be really good, without insinuating that the players in question are cheating, well then maybe we should look into upgrading and modifying our language to make this kind of expression possible...
I think what we have here is a problem of language comprehension. Finegold is describing something at a higher resolution, with a greater level of detail and nuance, than you are perceiving. To put it another way, Finegold is playing Chess while you all are playing whac-a-mole.
I have no clue about this guy, but when I was looking at Sam Sevian's games online, I noticed he played someone who in a 44 move game played 95.7 accuracy... wow let's look who it is.
Oh Adhiban Baskaran... and he's playing almost identical to stockfish in so many previous games today... but before the sessions on march 17 wasn't near that # accuracy wise
He's suspect by his own games just on chess.com
This is a video from Ben Finegold's Chess Club channel and around 4:27 Ben Finegold goes on a bit of a rant about how Adhiban could potentially be cheating. He tries his best to cover his tracks by saying stuff like, I don't think he is cheating and then again goes on a rant about how Adhiban could potentially be cheating, before coming back to something like, I don't he is cheating, before again continuously insinuating that Adhiban could be cheating.
He does this right through the Adhiban game that he analyses.
I wonder if any of you have seen this video and what your thoughts are on a GM in a public forum openly insinuating that another GM is a cheat?