OK,

I can live with that. 

Because it doesn't help you however, does not mean you know it doesn't help anybody. Nor are they by definition ambiguous if someone can take meaning from them.  But I would say that I think there is a great deal one can say that only has value if the hearer finds meaning for themselves. If I have to convince you of what I "really meant" than it fails its purpose. Taken as stand-alone comments independent of the subject of this thread, both the meanings of my first post here and the quote seem glaringly obvious to me. But I am neither upset nor eager to explain myself if you disagree. To post a link from one of my all-time favorite movies, Little Big Man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLso0ZBqOi4

Like I said, I can live with that.

The fallacy of equivocation is part of what's in my mind. Even Jesus got hit with it; Pilate trying to be clever and ask, "What IS truth?" Jesus' silence put proof to that. 

The cheat-detecting bot (or whatever you would label it) is only the product of some programmer and therefore can be no better a judge than it was programmed to be. Wesley So saw perfect play? Because he is a perfect player himself? Or maybe he just used a bot that saw another bot. For sure proof, right? Look up the wanted picture of Nat Turner, Rebel Slave ("Have you seen this man?") He's been dead for way over a hundred and fifty years, but anyone can still see that face most any time they care to. Its a drawing of anyone.

Look at your own words:

Quote:


So you think anyway. You quibbled by correctly using the word, "most." But even that is debatable. This is not a 'dis to you, AOC. I respect you. But as an ICU RN with over 3 decades in the field I can't count the number of demented, or alcoholic, or addicted, or just scared for their lives (often rightfully) persons who were just as convinced as you that they knew exactly what was going on, why, and for what purpose. Do you imagine such events only occur in some pathological milieu? Think again. I also strongly agree with the Freudian-derived concepts of the Unconscious Mind, as well as that bio-chemical influences (hormones for instance) can and do deeply influence and at times control our behavior, including judgements we make of ourselves and others, often without us having the least idea of what's really driving our actions. Does this mean therefore no one can judge? Of course, not. But it does mean that the CIA term "blowback" ( the unintended and un-foreseen  consequences of our actions - even if undertaken for the most noble of reasons) will always be in play.

So, what I was REALLY doing was *griping* about how:
1. In-Person OTB arbiter & rule based events remain by far the best response to cheaters. ("Best," not perfect).

2. Therefore, interest in on-line play is a poor substitute, at best - at least for play that counts towards official ratings, etc. And perhaps just in general as well. A kind of group-think where many people agree to do it for fun & convenience despite its obvious pitfalls.

I want to finish with a quote. I heard it recently on You-Tube but failed to book-mark it. I really like it. If any know the source and could reply with it I would very much appreciate it. I believe it comes from Boris Gelfand and goes like this:

Quote:
   

I don't think I've answered everything you asked, but its what you get, my friend. And as for Petrosian? I can only dream that one day I'll be so good Tigran will be forced to cheat in order to beat me. That would be sweet!

Respectfully,

Cathexis

When people look to judge others, and if they look long enough, they will always find exactly what they were looking for whether it was really there or not.

As Stigma noted, a bot has been reposting with some word substitutions. So in a way, you just replied to yourself:

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 08/26/20 at 23:09:13:


Quote:

The bot did it to one of my posts as well. I remember being annoyed because I had posted the same thing. But until Stigma pointed it out, I didn't realize it was the *exact* same thing with just a few words changed.

IsaVulpes wrote on 10/06/20 at 02:32:02:


I watched all the videos and have to say nothing I observed convinced me he cheated, yes he glances down at times for a millisecond, but is that really enough time to keep track of what is going on in a given position. To cheat like that effectively one would have to play all or nearly all computer moves, glancing down at something from time to time is suspicious but doesn't feel like a feasible cheating method to me.

The fact that he managed 3.5 out of 4 against the likes of Caruana, So and Dominguez is in itself suspicious and one wonders if he has ever accomplished a similar feat before. Nevertheless the onus is on chess.com to justify their decision with more compelling proof.

IsaVulpes wrote on 10/06/20 at 02:32:02:


If they just check "weird moves" (which sounds subjective), there's no way they could have enough matches to conclude (even a 100% match is not enough if we're talking 2-3 moves/game); if they check top engine moves, they would still need a lot of matches with eyes dropping down to get any kind of statistically conclusive evidence (these guys play top computer choice roughly 50% of the time). Judging by the published feeds, TL Petrosyan was looking down a lot, no matter what quality of moves he was playing, so I doubt this is the explanation, or at least, a statistically valid explanation.

hicetnunc wrote on 10/05/20 at 19:29:45:

Rumour has it they crosschecked the top computer choices with the instances of Petrosian glancing downwards, and his moves correspondeded to engine a lot more during the downward glances

I think that eg the moves that Nakamura singled out as "Bit weird" all happened after downwards glances

hicetnunc wrote on 10/04/20 at 13:55:05:


Interesting, thanks for posting.

Nakamura looked at some of the games on his twitch channel and, with the exception of one or two moves, thought they looked pretty standard.  Yet he gives the benefit of the doubt to Chess.com because he doesn't think they would have issued a press release and singled out Petrosian by name, if they didn't have something conclusive.

One issue with game analysis is that we don't know which games to analyze -- i.e., whether Petrosian stands accused of cheating in all the semi-final and final games or only some of them.

Petrosian lost two games in the semi-final match, but they were the first two games, and some have suggested that he might have started cheating after that.  But what do people make of the Caruana game, where it looked like Petrosian was losing at one point? 

We also don't know how much the game analysis factored in to the determination.  Some have pointed out that Chess.com would have continuous video of Petrosian and not just the snippets that the viewers saw.  Possible that Chess.com saw something there?

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/04/20 at 20:35:58:


This article is a couple of years old.  The video I gave above is from 2020 and updates this.  In general, Chess.com claims to have gotten much more accurate in their cheat detection.  If that is true, then pointing to problems and false positives in the past may be of little relevance to what is going on now.

Bottom line is that, other than Chess.com, Petrosian and perhaps a few others who are in the know, no one knows what went on here.  Will be interesting to see if this is reported to FIDE and, if so, what FIDE will do.