Yes, I saw that... and that's why I said they are bad examples.. those kids got a sudden increase in their ELO not because they were working harder just prior to that point, but as a result of a natural development of their chess skills, something that only happens when you are a kid/teenager.

<whattefat:Your opinion means no more than the next person's without any evidence. People would do best to hold their opinions until there has been a reasonable investigation.>

Why the hostility?

Ok. w/e, I thought I was being told to shut up and just voice my opinions about the matter as soon as it becomes a moot point.

<If I'd wanted to be personal, I'd have accused you of cheating, since I know about as much about you as you do about Singh.>

Really?... some people in this site use so much rethorical and/or fallacious arguments.. ah well. Or was that a joke?

Answer any of these then:

Do I wear a hat while playing chess in tournaments?
Do I have a very close training partner that has been caught cheating? Did he wear a hat when he was caught cheating?
Did the cheating device was hidden in his hat?
Did I stop winning games as often, after people made sure I wasn't cheating? Have you gone through a few of my most important victories and realized how closely they resemble computer play?

<Did I stop winning games as often, after people made sure I wasn't cheating?>

He did have a dip in form, but then he has been playing well again.

<Have you gone through a few of my most important victories and realized how closely they resemble computer play?>

This to me is the crucial point, and nobody as far as I know has done any such analysis. Petrosian's comments on the matter are simply bizarre. I see a bunch of wild accusations on the game pages, but nothing of substance. If you do wish to argue that he is using an engine, a good start would be explaining how Humpy held him to a 0.00 eval to the 41st move of D P Singh vs Koneru, 2006.

This to me is the crucial point, and nobody as far as I know has done any such analysis.>

From todays issue of Chess Today (http://www.chesstoday.net/):

From a letter from the Chess Players Association of India:

"As you all are well aware, most of the Indian Chess Players who have gone through Mr. D.P. Singh's games from National A 2006 held at Vizag suspect that he was getting external help during his games. Most of the top players including many GMs and IMs have studied his games individually and also in a group and found that after theory all his moves matched with Deep Junior 9!!"

Alex Baburin's response:

Well, you can accuse me of anything you want.. I am pretty sure you'd make a fool out of yourself, given that you don't even know my name :).

But I see what you are saying... "innocent until proven guilty" and I concurr.

What all the games? or just some games? The above statement could mean nothing if we are talking about two quick games, for example, or two games where opponents didn't give Singh hard enough 'puzzles' to solve.

Also, "his moves matched with Deep Junior 9" doesn't mean a whole anyway, <sneaky> explained that very well on earlier pages here.

In any case, I would like to see those games.

<for example when Mr. Singh wastes tempi, which makes no sense>

This is not unusual at all though it looks that way to you because you are a chess patzer. A grandmaster coming armed with theory and solid principles of game can hold its own against computer engine for a long time, in many cases it can hold a draw. It happened many times in the past and it is no different now.

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?ev...