28-04-2016, 01:23 AM
Thanks for the links Andy.
From the link <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-case-of-cheating-in-chess">http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-case-o ... g-in-chess</a><!-- m -->
The game Danov, Radi–Ustianovic
From the Diagram in the link above Lilov claims that White’s decision to capture the f-pawn gxf5 before playing the winning Re8 is a deliberate suboptimal move in a completely winning position to deflect suspicion.
Lilov comments:
“"A club player will find this move in a second," Kuznetsov writes. Danov, who has completely outplayed his opponent, has a move rated at +18 pawns, but plays one the computer rates at about +5. It still wins, but the path to victory is more complicated than the simple overwhelming 49.Re8 which immediately gets White a queen.”
It is disingenuous to suggest White did not ‘find’ the immediate Re8. After Black’s (obviously dangerous) reply Rb2+, White would have to calculate accurately to avoid a perpetual or even 2 lines where White is mated.
The chosen gxf5 is not ‘more complicated’ - it’s obvious that Black has NO chance of saving the game, and was quite likely to resign. Elsewhere in the video Lioov goes on about computer moves and human moves, but this gxf5 is a very human move. As a ‘club player’ I would certainly have played it. Lilov only has a point if it is assumed that the White player was using a computer – circular, prejudicial reasoning which reminded me of "if she floats, she's a witch"
This and the remainder of Lilov’s video seems to comprise hand-waving, biased innuendo – this kind of thing is a much bigger worry to me than cheating itself, and it’s disappointing that Chessbase readily promotes it.
From the link <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-case-of-cheating-in-chess">http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-case-o ... g-in-chess</a><!-- m -->
The game Danov, Radi–Ustianovic
From the Diagram in the link above Lilov claims that White’s decision to capture the f-pawn gxf5 before playing the winning Re8 is a deliberate suboptimal move in a completely winning position to deflect suspicion.
Lilov comments:
“"A club player will find this move in a second," Kuznetsov writes. Danov, who has completely outplayed his opponent, has a move rated at +18 pawns, but plays one the computer rates at about +5. It still wins, but the path to victory is more complicated than the simple overwhelming 49.Re8 which immediately gets White a queen.”
It is disingenuous to suggest White did not ‘find’ the immediate Re8. After Black’s (obviously dangerous) reply Rb2+, White would have to calculate accurately to avoid a perpetual or even 2 lines where White is mated.
The chosen gxf5 is not ‘more complicated’ - it’s obvious that Black has NO chance of saving the game, and was quite likely to resign. Elsewhere in the video Lioov goes on about computer moves and human moves, but this gxf5 is a very human move. As a ‘club player’ I would certainly have played it. Lilov only has a point if it is assumed that the White player was using a computer – circular, prejudicial reasoning which reminded me of "if she floats, she's a witch"
This and the remainder of Lilov’s video seems to comprise hand-waving, biased innuendo – this kind of thing is a much bigger worry to me than cheating itself, and it’s disappointing that Chessbase readily promotes it.