I think you're being a bit draconian in your approach, the fact firebrandx didn't see the mate and had his own plan which was different kinda supports that he isn't using an engine to play I feel.
All I did was play for Qh3 with support by the f1 bishop. It was the first thing I saw after Bxf1, and that's what I played for since I knew it would win.
At any rate, I'm not going to waste any more time worrying about it. My account is still very much active, having seen thousands of accounts get banned in the years I've been on chess.com. I'll let that record speak for itself.
I wasn't suggesting anything wrong at all in your game PB illustrated Firebrand.
Was making the observation that whilst you choose frequently to comment in the forums here on chess.com you cannot currently be considered an active playing-member. These days you rarely ever play any chess at all here.
" There is another issue I want to point out. What makes me wonder how a player of your caliber can miss checkmate in 1 at move 23? [...] I assure you I would cancel his results by default without hesitation and recommend at least 3 years ban from official Anti-ICCF competitions."
You are sick. Really.
You are sick. Really.
You aren't in position to judge my reasoning. Especially when you cherrypick.
I meant such sign would be - but only in case of borderline positivity - the additional ground for disqualification. It can be:
a) attempt to deceive cheat detection by throwing blunders
b) unsportsmanlike behaviour (toying with opponent)
c) sharing the game with another, much weaker player
d) oversight (very unlikely with WCCC candidate player)
Would you also disqualify players who are too tall?
Austin Lockwood apparently agreed with you.
An account with the name "AustinLockwood".
Sockpuppetting is not that hard.
I think it might have been Austin Lockwood, noticed by bananaman. He has no reason to stay and play here as he runs his own CC playserver, aside from ICCF. I have no reason to answer his disappeared post. He knows my email. And apparently he has more important things to do than discuss cheat detection.
My assumption is following: 90 cheaters out of 100 are plain stupid, either thinking cheating is undetectable or underestimating detection or suffering with cognitive bias. They get caught. From the remaining 10, 9 have no own chess skill and experience whatsoever to emulate excellent human play with computer assistance. They may choose between getting caught and/or losing to much better human players. The remaining one must work hard, have sufficient knowledge and keep own statistics with good self-control. Still it doesn't guarantee him full success in both. Also keep in mind all participants are checked before, people who were caught cheating somewhere in the past or were found positive in testing, aren't allowed to participate. Scrupulous honest players will not start cheating out of blue sky.
This thread was about one tournament on this site, it is not to be used to discuss cheating, accusations of cheating, those previously banned for cheating or anything else cheat related otherwise the thread will be locked.
It actually was Austin. He emailed me directly after posting in this thread, stating he had to step in when Zeman tried to claim something that wasn't true about their discussions.
@FirebrandX -- did the email came from ICCF domain? Did you check the headers for spoofing/open relay traces? There are websites that can do email header analysis for you, e.g., http://www.spamcop.net.
Just curious. Claiming very loose association with ICCF while serving 2nd term on the Services Committee would make me pay extra attention there.
Of course, it may be all legitimate.
His email came from schemingmind.com, which I'm not familiar with myself. It appears to be a member site of the BFCC. At any rate, I have no reason to doubt it was him. The things he wrote about would be very hard to spoof knowledge of.
I also believe it was him. I am not familiar with internal ICCF's ranks, so I googled it when I wrote my answer to Irontiger and missed the change. He had minor rank back then, but he was the past ICCF-forum admin.
More details: he sent me two samples. The first one was easily obvious engine user, he revealed later it was last ICCF champion Marjan Semrl. The second one was T3 borderline and I recognized games of Tonu Oim from IX. ICCF WCCC. Oim had there the highest T3 human CC matches known: 89%, and this is known exception. I wrote him I knew these games and honestly reported them as suspicious, but inconclusive, requiring deeper look. He quit our correspondence then, thinking perhaps it was flawed and useless.
Indeed, schemingmind.com indicates a legitimate Austin Lockwood.
Too bad he quit; it would be interesting to know what was this "professional statistical advice was that his methodology was fundamentally flawed" -- as far as I am familiar with Polar_Bear's approach to T3 methodology, I would not characterize any flaws (which all T-X methods do have to a varying degree) as fundamental.