Most of his higher rated opponents also berserked, including DJ Haubi on those two games. So effectively these were all blitz games with blitz opponents.
I can see this will not be resolved any time now. Online cheating proof is done by stats. "You played too well so you must have cheated". And he's passed that threshold on this tournament. Q.E.D by modern methods. I dare say that in the past, criminal convictions were done on the best evidence they had at the time, and there must have been miscarriages of justice.
If he did cheat, we don't know how. Like they didn't know how Borislav Ivanov was cheating until they found something in his shoes. Even that must have been a very clever technical thing to do.
I don't think this is really about one person - it's about how online chess is going to progress and be effectively policed. It's a major issue, much discussed.
The percentages above are comparing Magnus Carlsen in one tournament (where he played stronger opposition) to an online player here in one tournament. Maybe pepellou played better in this tournament than Magnus did in that one. It doesn't mean he's a better player as consistently, over a longer period of games, Magnus would have better stats, and we're not comparing like with like, as they weren't up against the same opposition.
It's like comparing tennis players and their unforced errors. The errors may appear to be "unforced" but I guess you'd make a lot more of them if the guy over the other side of the net is going to punish you badly if you don't play your best stroke, i.e. the stronger the opponent, the more likely you are to make an unforced error against him as you're playing under a lot more pressure.
Many of us were asking "on what evidence was he banned" but lichess wouldn't provide it, either to us or to him. That left us speculating. Maybe why this topic has gone on so long.
I mean, how many of us have played a good game of chess, totally fairly, but then been worried we maybe played too well that nobody would believe us? So then, maybe, we run it through the engine and are "relieved" that actually we didn't play as well as we thought we had. But this is the fear we face - if we're not believed, we can be booted out with no way to return.
I can see this will not be resolved any time now. Online cheating proof is done by stats. "You played too well so you must have cheated". And he's passed that threshold on this tournament. Q.E.D by modern methods. I dare say that in the past, criminal convictions were done on the best evidence they had at the time, and there must have been miscarriages of justice.
If he did cheat, we don't know how. Like they didn't know how Borislav Ivanov was cheating until they found something in his shoes. Even that must have been a very clever technical thing to do.
I don't think this is really about one person - it's about how online chess is going to progress and be effectively policed. It's a major issue, much discussed.
The percentages above are comparing Magnus Carlsen in one tournament (where he played stronger opposition) to an online player here in one tournament. Maybe pepellou played better in this tournament than Magnus did in that one. It doesn't mean he's a better player as consistently, over a longer period of games, Magnus would have better stats, and we're not comparing like with like, as they weren't up against the same opposition.
It's like comparing tennis players and their unforced errors. The errors may appear to be "unforced" but I guess you'd make a lot more of them if the guy over the other side of the net is going to punish you badly if you don't play your best stroke, i.e. the stronger the opponent, the more likely you are to make an unforced error against him as you're playing under a lot more pressure.
Many of us were asking "on what evidence was he banned" but lichess wouldn't provide it, either to us or to him. That left us speculating. Maybe why this topic has gone on so long.
I mean, how many of us have played a good game of chess, totally fairly, but then been worried we maybe played too well that nobody would believe us? So then, maybe, we run it through the engine and are "relieved" that actually we didn't play as well as we thought we had. But this is the fear we face - if we're not believed, we can be booted out with no way to return.