lol why would anyone think that there was cheating in this game??? First of all the opening is very very well known and the opponent made so many terrible moves that finding the easiest/best (hey look I can get a free Rook) moves were really not hard at all lol. I have actually found a player that I know is cheating, but he is not getting caught because he is clever about it lol. He is doing exactly what I would have done if I wanted to prove that you can cheat and never get caught by this system. I reported him even and still nothing happened (and I did make my case) and after that I told him he should stop cheating and he hasnt played a game or even been online since lol.
Very nice; congrats.
@Yuvaraj2009 That may well be your score; but what was your opponent's? ;)
@MrPushwood I agree with Push.
Well known opening. Easy to memorize. Very forgiving once you get advantage.
Plus the enemy had only 1 inaccuracy and 2 blunders.
In short games like these, specially starting from well known openings that have some traps in em, are more or less gon be towards 0-0-0.
Share your games that are defense in nature where nobody trades until like the 20th move and see how your score changes.
Well known opening. Easy to memorize. Very forgiving once you get advantage.
Plus the enemy had only 1 inaccuracy and 2 blunders.
In short games like these, specially starting from well known openings that have some traps in em, are more or less gon be towards 0-0-0.
Share your games that are defense in nature where nobody trades until like the 20th move and see how your score changes.
@Rembrandt16 said in #24:
> @MrPushwood I agree with Push.
> Well known opening. Easy to memorize. Very forgiving once you get advantage.
> Plus the enemy had only 1 inaccuracy and 2 blunders.
> In short games like these, specially starting from well known openings that have some traps in em, are more or less gon be towards 0-0-0.
> Share your games that are defense in nature where nobody trades until like the 20th move and see how your score changes.
Wdym?
> @MrPushwood I agree with Push.
> Well known opening. Easy to memorize. Very forgiving once you get advantage.
> Plus the enemy had only 1 inaccuracy and 2 blunders.
> In short games like these, specially starting from well known openings that have some traps in em, are more or less gon be towards 0-0-0.
> Share your games that are defense in nature where nobody trades until like the 20th move and see how your score changes.
Wdym?
@AYUBALLENA said in #25:
> Wdym?
this scenario is a case where it's easier to get 0-0-0. meaning 0 inaccuracies 0 mistakes 0 blunders.
not taking from OP's ability to find the right moves. but finding the right moves were easy.
and as others have said, when you have such a large advantage, almost everything is a winning move.
> Wdym?
this scenario is a case where it's easier to get 0-0-0. meaning 0 inaccuracies 0 mistakes 0 blunders.
not taking from OP's ability to find the right moves. but finding the right moves were easy.
and as others have said, when you have such a large advantage, almost everything is a winning move.
@Rembrandt16 said in #26:
> this scenario is a case where it's easier to get 0-0-0. meaning 0 inaccuracies 0 mistakes 0 blunders.
> not taking from OP's ability to find the right moves. but finding the right moves were easy.
> and as others have said, when you have such a large advantage, almost everything is a winning move.
Yes I know, I mean the last line
> this scenario is a case where it's easier to get 0-0-0. meaning 0 inaccuracies 0 mistakes 0 blunders.
> not taking from OP's ability to find the right moves. but finding the right moves were easy.
> and as others have said, when you have such a large advantage, almost everything is a winning move.
Yes I know, I mean the last line
Just amazing how Ng5 (comments said it was Fried Liver) wasn't marked an inaccuracy by the lichess engine (cause OP said it was 0-0-0). I mean, fried liver isn't well known to be played by the GM's due to black's possible responses I guess, but I saw before that Kan Sicilian (e6) got labeled as an inaccuracy(?) in lichess engine.
Weird engine. Or maybe that type of inaccuracy was still too playable for human games? Just wondering. But still, if that was the case, wouldn't that mean that the fried liver should be more playable? Probably not. Thoughts?
Weird engine. Or maybe that type of inaccuracy was still too playable for human games? Just wondering. But still, if that was the case, wouldn't that mean that the fried liver should be more playable? Probably not. Thoughts?
@Jerish said in #28:
> Just amazing how Ng5 (comments said it was Fried Liver) wasn't marked an inaccuracy by the lichess engine (cause OP said it was 0-0-0). I mean, fried liver isn't well known to be played by the GM's due to black's possible responses I guess, but I saw before that Kan Sicilian (e6) got labeled as an inaccuracy(?) in lichess engine.
>
> Weird engine. Or maybe that type of inaccuracy was still too playable for human games? Just wondering. But still, if that was the case, wouldn't that mean that the fried liver should be more playable? Probably not. Thoughts?
Hmmm, well idk much about gm’s
> Just amazing how Ng5 (comments said it was Fried Liver) wasn't marked an inaccuracy by the lichess engine (cause OP said it was 0-0-0). I mean, fried liver isn't well known to be played by the GM's due to black's possible responses I guess, but I saw before that Kan Sicilian (e6) got labeled as an inaccuracy(?) in lichess engine.
>
> Weird engine. Or maybe that type of inaccuracy was still too playable for human games? Just wondering. But still, if that was the case, wouldn't that mean that the fried liver should be more playable? Probably not. Thoughts?
Hmmm, well idk much about gm’s
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.