powershaker, give it up. He was NOT cheating! Just because someone notices a tactic doesn't mean they're cheating. You found some tactics yourself. And making mistakes certainly doesn't provide evidence for cheating. Plus, if Ravello wanted to win so bad that he'd cheat to do it, then why did he lose a game to you? Just give it up. Not everyone that beats you is a cheater, you're just not a very good player.
Originally posted by ark13ark, I didn't say he was cheating. I said I sensed that he was. I wasn't saying he was. The game was just strange. That's all. Now, drop it! Also, Ark13? You're a patzer yourself, so stop critiqueing my play. I don't see you vying for a World Chess Championship ring. And, I wouldn't call an 1899 a scary thought to an average chess master. I've drawn 1800 players myself.
powershaker, give it up. He was NOT cheating! Just because someone notices a tactic doesn't mean they're cheating. You found some tactics yourself. And making mistakes certainly doesn't provide evidence for cheating. Plus, if Ravello wanted to win so bad that he'd cheat to do it, then why did he lose a game to you? Just give it up. Not everyone that beats you is a cheater, you're just not a very good player.
Originally posted by RavelloIf you only get accused of cheating in 0.03% of your games, then you should be terriby upset when it happens. I am accused in something close to 0.3% of my games, and the accusations are as water on a duck's back.
By the way out of 3000+ games played here it was the first time that I found someone accusing me,and he even told me that I was moving slow..........ME!!!!
Originally posted by powershakerJust because I said you two aren't playing at the same level engines do doesn't mean I'm being critical. It's the truth. I don't play at that level either. However, I am rated enough above you that I am qualified to critique your play. And admittedly those games were pretty blunderful.
ark, I didn't say he was cheating. I said I sensed that he was. I wasn't saying he was turd brain. The game was just strange. That's all. Now, drop it! Also, Ark13? You're a patzer yourself, so stop critiqueing my play. I don't see you vying for a World Chess Championship ring. And, I wouldn't call an 1899 a scary thought to an average chess master. I've drawn them myself.
And I'm saying your an idiot for sensing that he's cheating. Get over yourself!
Originally posted by ark13What people don't understand is I don't play like I do in OTB on here. I'm no where near as strong on here. I don't think nearly as long as I would say a tournament with a two to four hour standard time on the clock. I even know the mistakes I make. But, I've been trying a little more since, and my rating has started to go up. I was 1409 a couple of weeks ago. But, I don't have the time in this library to make a well thought out - well planned - move. So, this 1400s rating isn't my real strength anyway.
Just because I said you two aren't playing at the same level engines do doesn't mean I'm being critical. It's the truth. I don't play at that level either. However, I am rated enough above you that I am qualified to critique your play. And admittedly those games were pretty blunderful.
And I'm saying your an idiot for sensing that he's cheating. Get over yourself!
powershaker back on page 1
I am done with this argument
Oh really? Because 2 more pages kind of indicate that you aren't. I've alerted the various posts in which you reiterate your accusations against Ravello. Baseless accusations I may add, "He found a tactic, he must be cheating.". If you actually look at the game the moves just make sense. First Ba6 skewering the queen against the rook winning at least the exchange unless the knight interposes which removes a dangerous central knight. That much is easy to spot. And once you see that then the fact that if the knight interposes it becomes pinned is obvious. Quick check reveals white can't defend it a second time and black can attack it with the queen. Whether Qc4 or Qc2 takes a little more thought but in the end it doesn't matter black is winning either way.
I find it hilarious that you call ark13 a patzer. He is anything but. I haven't played him yet but from the games I've seen and the analysis he posts I don't look forward to it.
PS. Let the records show powershaker, the self-claimed 1600-1700 player, has a 1-1 record against Ravello (and a timeout loss as well). No one cares if you 'had him beat' in a game or if the game you won 'showed how superior you are'.
Originally posted by XanthosNZDoesn't matter. It's all just a game anyway.
powershaker back on page 1
[b]I am done with this argument
Oh really? Because 2 more pages kind of indicate that you aren't. I've alerted the various posts in which you reiterate your accusations against Ravello. Baseless accusations I may add, "He found a tactic, he must be cheating.". If you actually look at the game the moves just mak ...[text shortened]... cares if you 'had him beat' in a game or if the game you won 'showed how superior you are'.[/b]
Originally posted by ark13Oh, and ark13, you have a correspondence rating of 1800s, not a standard OTB rating of 1800. Don't try to make people think you're so powerful with your books and your databases. LOL So, no, you shouldn't be critiqueing my play. I've had an 1800s correspondence rating at the USCF level. But, that sure didn't make me an 1800 OTB play! You need a reality check.
Just because I said you two aren't playing at the same level engines do doesn't mean I'm being critical. It's the truth. I don't play at that level either. However, I am rated enough above you that I am qualified to critique your play. And admittedly those games were pretty blunderful.
And I'm saying your an idiot for sensing that he's cheating. Get over yourself!