078. Cheating / Not Cheating

White: tripoduk - Chess.com, 2022

Prompted by the ongoing drama about high-level chess cheating / not cheating, evidenced / not evidenced by various algorithmic methods, notably at chess.com, I've been considering my own results again.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, chess.com have an analysis module that goes through your games afterwards, assessing how accurately you've played. My daily scores, always against players rated 700 points below me, are usually in the 90% bracket, which is high. However, if you get a good position out of the opening, are in control from then on, and are hardly ever threatened, you're not induced into making mistakes and are free to find nice moves. Hence your score will be very high. Or so you'd expect. The module does surprise me sometimes.

For instance, one game I won cleanly in 17 moves – all very satisfactory – and my score came back at 61.2%. Say what?! Okay, I could have played a standard Bxf7+ tactic and didn't. It's the sort of thing I watch for in OTB blitz games as I catch my mate out with it quite often. So I think it unlikely I missed it here. More likely I purposely refrained, hoping for the Legall's Mate trick on the following turn, which I indeed got to play, in effect twice (10 Qxe2). Still... 61.2%?

Well, anyway, the module has recently made amends by awarding me two 100% scores. Naturally, I see fewer problems with those ;). But let's examine them all the same.

The first came from a trap in a Dutch Defence. I only really made one move, an obvious one (12 b3) hitting a defending piece. To that point it was all previous praxis, and the four remaining moves followed straightforwardly.

The second was a trap in a Scotch Game. I'd had this before in an OTB league match, as far as 11...Qf6 – or rather as far as 12 Qf3, since the position arrived in reversed form after 1 Nc3 Nf6 2 e4 e5 3 a3 and so on. In that game I developed the queen's bishop before exchanging the other, which is less accurate than switching it round, though I still won in 24 moves, and with 24 b3 mate no less.

Back in the online game, Black was winning by move 12.

Whereupon the module praises 13 c4 for White and 13...Nxe5 for Black, calling the latter “brilliant” – even though its justification was a simple king and rook fork (14 fxe5 Qxe5+) which was only possible because White had just opened the e5-a1 diagonal. Not exactly brilliant. After that I brought my rooks to the centre files (...0-0-0 and ...Rhe8) and won a couple of moves later.

So what do I conclude from this? Nothing. And I don't expect anyone else to conclude anything either. Chess.com have in fact "concluded" something twice. The first time (2014) I was banned for "cheating". The second (2016) I received an automated “Warning about suspicious play”. On each occasion I replied with a detailed exposition of recent games – with reference to minutely-researched openings, numerous databases (OTB, CC, engine tournaments, and my own engine-enhanced analysis), an extensive library (close to 500 books), and suchlike – and that seemed to satisfy them (whether it's mean of me to utilize all my off-board resources in this fashion is another question). I've not heard anything since 2016, and the earlier ban was rescinded. They even gave me a free Diamond membership. Thanks :)

As for the current furore, I'm Team Hans, at least as regards the Sinquefield Cup. Magnus just played rubbish. Nonetheless, the reason I don't play classical chess online myself is...

The possibility of cheating.