http://en.lichess.org/Sdiv3KAMWhite elo 1900+
Black elo 2000+
Lichess analysis shows black made no inaccuracies, mistakes or blunders. Is black a cheater/computer, or just really good? Please share your opinions and/or analysis of the game~
When ratings are that close, I don't think either side would have that low amount of inaccuracies, mistakes, blunders. I, of couse, would need the time control to evaluate this. I can see this happening in a correspondance game, but not in a blitz or a game shorter than 30 minutes
Easy Checkmate captcha for the win >_>
Just because they made no mistake doesn't mean that they made the best moves.
Well, the inaccuracy/mistake/blunder classification is not so useful for determining whether someone cheated.
One doesn't have to be a computer or especially good to do that. It's very uncommon, especially at faster time controls, but it happens.
Keep in mind that only mistakes that drop the evaluation by more than 0.5 pawns in a single move are classified as anything.
So, you could make 20 consecutive moves that lose 0.4, be down 8 pawns, and have played without inaccuracies, mistakes ,or blunders according to this scheme.
I wouldn't read too much into that :)
Worthy of mention is that the linked game doesn't (nor should it) mention any player name, but I'm nervous about commenting in this topic because someone people might be able to correlate this with the original game. :-(
There are a couple mitigating factors:
1. This SF analysis might be incorrect. Proving that White played a perfect game is no easy task and likely requires more than a 60-second analysis.
2. Even supposing White did play a perfect game (which we don't know), that by itself doesn't prove cheating. I've played some Morphy-esque perfect games OTB, it's just uncommon, especially in bullet/blitz and especially among amateur players.
If you're still concerned about a specific player, please don't make public accusations but instead follow the policies listed every time a forum topic is created! Thanks.
If it's not very lenght game or correspondence, i would say that black is a computer. Not because he played a perfect game, but rather because some of his moves are very hard to find or to understand. Moreover, this was an open game with complicated variants, which significantly reduce the possibilities of a perfect game for a human. It's even more true if black was under 2000.
Even though, it can never be said in only one game if some player cheated or not.
Cheating fest. Not even Magnus Carlsen games have that accuracy level.
It's not about accuracy (i sometime make 1min game with 0 innacuracies), it's about the moves he played : they were very (very !) difficult to find.
Accuracy have something to do as well position-game complexity. I too can play almost perfect games playing the london defense.
Check that game. Ive reported one of them weeks ago :). One of them has recentrly been banned, the other one seem to have some anti-ban power. Maybe thats meaning of LM.
http://en.lichess.org/7IAdWfSgJust because the analysis shows 0 - 0 - 0, it doesn't mean they're cheating.
