PRO Chess League

[Joshua Gibbs]

my friend JusticeBot lost to Wesley So though he was the exchange up at one point.

He beat Nakamura yesterday in blitz i hope he can do well wednesday

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 { E60 King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, King's Knight Variation } Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. h3 e5 7. d5 a5 8. Bg5 Na6 9. Be2 Nc5 10. Nd2 c6 11. O-O Re8 12. Rc1 Qc7 13. b3 Nfd7 14. a3 f6 15. Bh4 Bh6 16. b4? { (0.70 → -0.35) Mistake. Best move was Rb1. } (16. Rb1 Rf8) 16... Bxd2 17. bxc5 Bxc1 18. cxd6 Qxd6 19. Qxc1 Qc5?! { (-0.22 → 0.39) Inaccuracy. Best move was a4. } (19... a4 20. Rd1 Qc5 21. Kh1 Rf8 22. f3 Rf7 23. Be1 Qb6 24. Qc2 Nc5 25. Bf2 Qa5 26. Qb2) 20. Rd1?! { (0.39 → -0.26) Inaccuracy. Best move was Na4. } (20. Na4 Qd4 21. Bg3 Qxe4 22. Bf3 Qf5 23. dxc6 bxc6 24. Bxc6 Rb8 25. Rd1 Re7 26. c5 Nf8) 20... a4 21. Kh1 Kg7 22. f3 Nb6 23. Rf1 Nxc4 24. dxc6 b5 25. Nd5 Rf8 26. Bxc4 bxc4?! { (-0.02 → 0.65) Inaccuracy. Best move was Qxc4. } (26... Qxc4 27. Nb6 Qxc1 28. Rxc1 Rb8 29. Bf2 Re8 30. Kg1 f5 31. Nd5 Be6 32. c7 Rb7 33. Bh4) 27. f4 h6? { (0.56 → 2.39) Mistake. Best move was Be6. } (27... Be6) 28. fxe5 fxe5?? { (2.44 → 10.74) Blunder. Best move was Be6. } (28... Be6 29. Bxf6+) 29. Be7 Kh7 { White wins. } 1-0

[Mick Norris]

chess.com week 5 report

chess.com week 6 report

You can work out the round 7 pairings

[Mick Norris]

chess.com week 7 preview

[Joshua Gibbs]

Wesley So lost to Mamemdyarov.

[Mick Norris]

Both London teams qualified for the playoffs standings

Chess.com Report

[Mick Norris]

Playoffs showing round 1 pairings

Cannes Blockbusters vs London Lions
2478 avg 2463

GM Matthieu Cornette 2599 vs 2276 FM Marcus Harvey
GM Murtas Kazhgaleyev 2594 vs 2456 IM Justin Tan
IM Deimante Daulyte 2421 vs 2488 IM James Adair
Flavio Perez 2298 vs 2635 GM Romain Edouard

Amsterdam Mosquitoes vs London Towers
2499 avg 2462

GM Loek Van Wely 2674 vs 2360 IM Thomas Rendle
GM Wouter Spoelman 2578 vs 2401 IM Peter Roberson
IM Ali Bitalzadeh 2397 vs 2452 GM Keith Arkell
FM Ilias vander Lende 2347 vs 2635 GM Gawain Jones

[Keith Arkell]

London Lions and London Towers both performed amazing comebacks to proceed to the last 16.

[Nick Burrows]

You can watch a replay of the live feed here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/125653642

Mike may be interested to watch his Witney teammate play in the first game vs GM Cornette

[Chris Rice]

There has been a cheating scandal, and a relatively significant one but chess.com in keeping with their lack of transparency policy are officially not saying exactly what type of cheating it was.The match between San Jose and the Las Vegas Desert Rats initially ended 8½-7½ in Las Vegas’ favor, but then two of the Desert Rats’ wins were overturned for reasons of cheating. Not only did that flip the result of the match, it also flipped which team won the last playoff spot in the Pacific Division. If the original result had stood, then Las Vegas would have made the playoffs.

The adjusted match score was Las Vegas - San Jose 6.5-9.5. The original match score:

Las Vegas 8.5 - San Jose 7.5

Gareyev 3-1
Liu 2.5-1.5
Troff 1.5-2.5
Stopa 1.5-2.5

It is likely that only one player was involved so we can speculate that it was either Gareyev or Liu that lost two points in order to generate the new score. Elliott Liu has been accused of cheating in the USCL previously over the following game.

http://uschessleague.com/games2015/liuatoufi15.html

It was felt that 17. Qc2 was the type of mistake only made by computer engines on low-depths as it allows black to push ...g4. Rational players who have just played the lengthy Nd3-Nf2 maneuver to prevent ...g4 would not move the queen away. Even club players who wanted to do so would play h3 first. However, without any comments from chess.com this proves nothing.

There are also chess engine correlations analysis for the four players:

GM Timur Gareyev (FIDE 2617, FIDE rapid 2615) : 387 undecided positions, correlation scores : T1=43.9%, T2=67%, T3=78.3%, blunder rate = 3,88%, acl = 16.77
FM Elliott Liu (FIDE 2284) : 285 pos, T-scores : 42.6%/57.2%/68.2%, br=5.26%, acl=17.26
GM Kayden Troff (FIDE 2511) : 675 pos, T-scores : 39.6%/63.2%/70.7%, br=4.44%, acl=17.26
GM Jacek Stopa (FIDE 2453, FIDE rapid 2511) : 191 pos, T-scores : 39.1%/60.1%/79.8%, br=5.24%, acl=16.88

Whether they were used to identify the culprit is again not known.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments ... ss_league/
http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=4596

[Mick Norris]

As far as I can tell we have Lions v Marseille Migraines and Towers v Stockholm Snowballs tomorrow

[NickFaulks]

It is likely that only one player was involved so we can speculate that it was either Gareyev or Liu that lost two points in order to generate the new score.

If you can narrow it down to two players and don't say which one it is, surely that's rather unfair on the one it isn't.

[Alan Walton]

It is likely that only one player was involved so we can speculate that it was either Gareyev or Liu that lost two points in order to generate the new score.

If you can narrow it down to two players and don't say which one it is, surely that's rather unfair on the one it isn't.

As there was an adjustment in the result then all four are under suspicion, but as Chris said if this was just one player being caught, then the suspicion falls on only two due to the scores; unless somebody actually gives more detail then both these are suspected of the crime

[Roger de Coverly]

It was felt that 17. Qc2 was the type of mistake only made by computer engines on low-depths as it allows black to push ...g4.

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/2p1n1b1/pp1p1n2/2PPp1pp/1P2Pp2/2N2P2/P2BBNPP/2RQ1RK1 w - h6 0 17"]


That's such a tabiya position from the Kings Indian, that Qc2 in that exact position or even the general idea, could well have been a computer move, but one that was discovered in pre-game analysis. Black is likely to play .. g4 anyway, even if it's a pawn sacrifice.

[Nick Burrows]

It may be that they were 'caught' with engine correlation analysis, and Qc2 was given as the best example of a clear computeresque move.

Surely this is going to be an ongoing problem with these type of online competitions. Incidences of cheating will likely be much more commonplace.

[Alex McFarlane]

Surely this is going to be an ongoing problem with these type of online competitions. Incidences of cheating will likely be much more commonplace.

There was another match in this tournament where the result was changed and then changed back again. This has resulted in a 12 year old being named and accused of cheating both in the match and at other events.

It is bad enough when an adult is accused of cheating without any real proof ... it is deplorable when this happens to a junior.