The anarchy outlet of r/chess is set up to mislead and meme 24/7 by default. It's one 'younger' generation's way - not with hate but fun based, of dealing with life opposite to the Rogoff rubber cell for our grumpy elders.

'.. I have zero interest in defaming or destroying the reputation of any titled player or human being on the planet ..' and in the next sentence he contradicted what his business practically did just months later for popularity

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

It's complicated yes, I might be biased here true but I don't see the organizers following their own preachings one bit with influencer 'Chess.com's coach of the month IM Levy Rozman' and main live commentator together with several other figures closely tight to the org (bull) milking this incident nonstop on every media outlet e.g. with CAPTIONS like

0:00 Intro to Drama
2:23 EYES DOWN "EVIDENCE"
4:05 Tigran: PIPI in PAMPERS
6:56 SUMMARY

Hi perfidious,

<But when chess.com play their <J'accuse!> card, it is all up with that party--there is no appeal from their Day of Judgment.>

A friend of mine, not what you would call a famous player, was banned there and he kicked up such a persistent row and would not let it go that he was eventually let back on - not because he really wanted to play there again but to clear his name. (no evidence or data was forthcoming.)

A name BTW not used for selling books or getting top dog invites, he just felt the insult needed rectifying.

I think they just ban a few every now and then at random to give the impression they have surveillance equipment to frighten off would be cheats.

Maybe we should call the 'Professional Rapid Online Chess League' the '2020 Computer Chess championship.' :)

7:18 PM · Oct 2, 2020·Twitter Web App>

Hi Ohio,

<"GM's are in a different universe than the rest of us.">

Yes, but that will not stop us telling them what openings they should play and the best way to improve.

Here in the US, the amount of time and labor required to successfully prosecute an accused cheater is great, and many tournament directors would rather not deal with it.

That being said, a case is usually only brought when the evidence is overwhelming, and their are not many cases at all of a player successfully defending against an accusation of cheating.

Some guy in OZ still wondering about

A trout in the milk?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/1...

This 'author' has the guts (necessary financial freedom) to go public, so at least one of all this other 'respectable' mute gentlemen stops pussyfooting around.

It`s as if the evidence is all under seal, and that Petrosian is not presumed innocent until clearly and openly proven otherwise. It`s the lack of clarity and openness implied in McShane's article that stands out.

To put the onus on Petrosian to prove his innocence seems completely wrong to this US-based former paralegal.

Why should he have to incur the expense of filing suit against the governing body, if he is innocent, to prove it?

I will tell you why, because of the secrecy which both protects and condemns.

One element I would like to see in the algorithm is percent likelihood to find the best move given time constraint and player rating, but for now I am sure that is impossible to do.

We understand and can anticipate human nature more than the same for the human brain.

Hey Man, Nice Shot

'.. [Wesley] So, for his part, told the Guardian in an email that he felt sorry for Petrosian. Perhaps thinking of Lance Armstrong, he added: “I was a big fan of a certain cyclist and a part of me understands the pressure to succeed at all costs. At the same time I feel pain for other competitors ... Who will restore what was taken from them?” ..'

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...

But what adds humour to the situation is that Wesley So, who seems to be the chief concerned opponent, was forfeited a game for making notes against Akobian in a US Championship game back in 2015!>

<Muttley101....Ironically, (Petrosian) threatens to stop playing on chess.com forever over the matter. Not his choice to make.>

In point of fact, that choice was made for him; they and the PRO League barred him for life.

<StenitzLives....To put the onus on Petrosian to prove his innocence seems completely wrong to this US-based former paralegal....>

As it does to this poster; yet in this modern world, we have seen too many instances from all walks of life in which accusation equals proof equals guilt.>

I can offer some thoughts on this.

Yes, TP could make that decision, but there is a crucial distinction that I thought was clear. If it was TP's decision, he could later decide to change his mind and play on chess.com again. If it was chess.com's decision, TP could change his mind and want to play on chess.com again, but he wouldn't be able to if they decided he couldn't.

They did, as you state (banned for life), and so he can't. I get that one can argue the point, but clearly chess.com have the final say on this, and that was my point- of course, anyone can decide whether or not they will play on chess.com or anywhere else, but ultimately chess.com decides who has access to their site. Apologies if that was not clear.

Regarding the right to know the basis of allegations so as to be able to answer them, this is a fundamental right of a proper justice system of course, and a reasonable right in general. But this isn't a justice system, it is a private company that is trying to detect and stop cheating. The problem here is that if the evidence of cheating is disclosed, it gives people who cheat information they can use to try to continue cheating but be better at evading detection in future.

So, those working in this area try to develop detection methods that catch all the bad guys but doesn't mistakenly label good guys as cheating also, so that they are at least reassured they have caught out someone cheating and don't malign someone unfairly.

This is an area of statistical and computer analysis in which the key is finding the metrics that do this, and, having worked in this area, I can say

1) it is not an easy problem to solve
2) it is however soluble

Also, there is other information one can gather, but the key points are 1) disclosure isn't mandatory, 2) there are good reasons for non-disclosure, and 3) robust metrics that don't get it wrong are possible, despite being complex to develop.