VOTE CHESS GAME ANALYSIS

Of course.Well said.Plain and simple.

For such an intelligent guy, I'd think you'd be able to at least navigate to dictionary.com to see that resignation != draw.  You do know what != means, yes?  Hope so.

You might be unmateable dude, but resigning was cowardly.  I was actually wanting to see you prove it, and thought you might be able to, but you chose to talk your way out of it instead of putting action behind your words.  Too bad for you.  No action = no proof.  Sorry pal, you lost this one.  Resign = loss, not draw.  Go look it up, genius.

 Good grief, Erik...that was outstanding :)

I can't help myself:

Cheater-1 I schooled you and your programs when you said the best in the world could not do it! So I guess I'm 2900+

Now, I won and I demand you reveal your true identity to me.

What do you have to say for yourself regarding my playing ability now.

SCHOOLED By Chess 101. Greed.

Now I'm confident against any programs. I didn't have the advantage of top notch programs and hardware. So this was a test for me. This may not come as a shock to you because your computer would have revealed that all my ideas were human thinking. And today, the humans triumphed. Remember when you said I was a 1700 player using Chessmaster? How does it feel now?

cheater_1, you should go straight.  This cheating thing isn't really working for you ;).

Hadjarai, thanks for posting.  I went over and read cheater_1's post in the public comments tab of the game.  It sounded pretty conciliatory.  Of course he was pushed to face reality, but still. 

chess.com team and webgogs, good game and congratulations!  Cheater_1, good game. 

well that was fun...

cheater, thanks for playing... everyone else, thanks for putting up with this crap 

Quite clearly some people did, otherwise there wouldn't have been so many players and Cheater_1 wouldn't have created dummy accounts to spy on the chess.com team page.

 absolutely not. resignation is a complete acceptance of inevitable checkmate.

Unfortunatelly, cheater_1 made mistakes in the endgame.  We could see there aren't real power behind his big words. So, it isn't interesting to organize next special events with him. However, an endgame of a rook against five pawns is interesting!

 In the diagram up: people said  2. f5 is stronger then 2. Nd6. I can add, what I analysed when the game was still playing (waiting to 38th move of white): white need to play 5. Bc7+ and not 5. Kd6. Afther that, IMHO, all black pawns will be blocked and eaten.

 cheater_1 wrote:

Character is determined by ACTIONS, not words. 

I think so much so, that if I were to say something about you, it would tell people more about me than it would about you.  People form their view of me, and rightly so, based on what I say.  People form their view of you, based on what you say. 

(The idea that actions are stronger than words only comes into play when the actions run counter to the words.  Then one has to decide which is more indicative of the person's true character.)

I had rybka 2.3.2a estimate it as exactly...  +0.99 

I'm not sure the position was to be the best chess player, just an unmateable one, given his use of computers etc.

All of the "best players" have been beaten, tale Kasparov and Deep Blue for instance.

From our perspective, we had webgogs, who is an individual unique in his dedication to this endeavour + a bloody good chess player to boot.

Without him, would the best chess player tag have stuck, probably. So let's not carried away as infallibility is for God, whoever he may be, not us.