I'm very suspicious about these top rated players.
Unbridled Strength...
Sort:
aadaam wrote:
I'm very suspicious about these top rated players.
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure chess.com would be pretty tough with cheating, and they say they have ways of finding out. I choose to believe that they are just extremely strong CC players.
No, players on here are not Grandmaster strength. I would put money on no-one here being able to achieve the grandmaster title (other than current grandmasters and players that are already titled). Just because someone is 2900 in correspondence chess (and on a different scale, I might add, though people won't understand me if I go into that) doesn't mean they'll be very strong over-the-board. Ouachita, for example, has his massive database of doom and of course his squad of researchers working 24/7.
Hmmm... I didn't write this post as an accusation, but many seem to have their suspicions.
NM Tonydal: Is it not conceivable that a player without a title could get to a substantial rating? After all, with three days per move, someone who, say, didn't have to work and could spend, like, all day studying a position, working out variations etc. Could they not find the most accurate moves without silicon help?
tonydal wrote:
Sure, it's conceivable. But would I feel comfortable in such a situation, with the ready availability of such silicon support systems? Not at all.
Bear in mind too that in one tournament I am playing in there have already been 5 or 6 guys busted out for cheating. Before that occurred I (along with everybody else) was of course expected to take all of their massive ratings in good faith. Pardon me for being a little skeptical about such things by this point.
You can play me? I have bad rating! :D
Tonydal: Fair enough mate, if that's how you feel. I guess I can afford to be a little casual about it, as I've only played somebody 2000+ a couple of times.
Though there are probably more, there's one person on that list who I am 100% certain is cheating. In fact, he got busted for cheating earlier this year (in a round-about way on these forums). Now he is back on a new account doing it all over again. I'll give you a hint. He's in 6th place. Starts with an A... ends with an A...
I'd report him but I'm too lazy, and since I don't play turn-based chess here, it's not my problem.
I don't see why someone would bother with their chess.com rating if they were strong enough to become titled.
ErrantDeeds: go to the cheating discussion group and there you will find extensive game analysis posted by SteveCollyer. You can see there how strong are the top players on chess.com compared to patzers like Fischer, Kasparov or Alehin. And that will answer all your questions :)
Yeah, it's hard to say how well certain players' online ratings transpose over onto a board. Things tend to get alot different. Also, when looking these mega-high rated players, it's good to look at their Average Opponent's Rating.
tonydal wrote:
RapidFire wrote:
There's one person on that list who I am 100% certain is cheating. In fact, he got busted for cheating earlier this year (in a round-about way on these forums). Now he is back on a new account doing it all over again.
Seriously, this is possible?! Guess the problem is worse than I had thought...
Yup, this guy had entered a thread earlier in the year praising the merits of computer-assisted chess. He admitted to using a program in his games here but claimed he did not know it was against the rules of chess.com. He promised to stop and even began a new account.
In that same thread he had admitted he couldn't get over 2200 here at chess.com on his own which is why he began to use a program for assistance, thinking everyone else was and that it was ok. Anyway a couple of months after claiming to drop the computer assistance, his rating has magically risen to 2800+ on his new account. I've already analyzed some of his games, they almost entirely correspond to Rybka 2.0's top choices. Chess.com does a pretty darn good job monitoring the top players so I guess it will just be a matter of time before they give him the boot.
Crikey, there are some frighteningly strong players on chess.com. I make it 1 player over 2900(!) and 16(!) over 2800! Incredible. I cannot fathom what such players are capable of with the game. It does raise a couple of questions with me:
1. Just how strong are the players here? 2900+ seems insane, are the top 15-20 players genuine grandmaster strength?
2. How strong can a player be here? How far do the numbers go? Is 3000 the maximum?
I play at more or less 1700 on chess.com. When subjecting my games to computer analysis, I typically get a return of 3 or 4 mistakes or innacuracies, and the odd blunder. It seems incredible to me that play can be so perfect. One can only dream.
ED.