My advice is to never publicly accuse or hint at someone being a cheater while live streaming. You cannot control the actions of what your viewers will do in their vain attempt at social justice or whatever. With edited videos, you can curate the message that you want to send, sort of like you did with this one. Good luck, thank you for addressing it head on. I bet it'll be a distant memory and under a week.
Yeah, i always like Naroditsky way of handling cheater, he just say his opponent was way "underrated" then archiving the game for evidence and report them. lol, but he always make a point that his opponent also could have the best game of their life, and tell the viewer not to accuse them of "cheating". unless it was so blatant and he just laugh.
Worth noting a couple of things. 1.) He hit an accuracy of 93.4&, against a much higher rated opponent. 2.) One thing Levy always says is to look at clock spacing. He was extremely consistent with his timings, and an overwhelming majority of his moves were in the 15 seconds or less range. Only 7 of his 50 moves were above 20 seconds, and 5 more were above 15. That means 38 of his 50 moves were in the
@@DavidPNeffguys it's normal to multi task, I myself have some experience as I am in a strict family and need to clean the house everyday, therefore when I want to play while cleaning I play chess
Maybe 99.9%, but not 100%. We cannot be sure for anything. The best we can do is wait for a good explanation, so we are able to believe that no cheating was included, or maybe a confession of the played that they did cheat.
I love Columbo. One of the best shows of all time, anyone who has never seen it needs to give an episode a try. They are all the same yet all different. If this was his case he would do demonstration in front of the accused. Columbo would sit down in a game of chess with the accused. He would have a rice cooker set up in the corner. He would make the brilliant move. Then he would get up and turn on his rice cooker and come back and immediately make the move after sitting down like a normal person. He would look at his watch and say “ah 25 seconds have passed, where has all the time gone?”
I'd really recommend blurring the email address of the friend that sent you the email. Just extra precautions for people to not go harass further. Despite your good intentions, people are silly. Good to hear the thoughts and explanations behind everything. Keep up the cozy vibes!
If you watch to the end they permit Nelson to freely show the email. My first reaction was the same but this person seems ready for whatever might come their way
My #1 takeaway from this is, if it is true, it's really sweet that his teacher took the time out to write this email. Reminds me of the way my basketball coach in high school was looking out for us, he was a real stand up guy and one of my biggest rolemodels to this day.
@@googlewhackthis There is too much evidence that shows the guy was cheating. He took the same amount of time to do the critical move as he did the two obvious follow ups. He also had a massive raise in his accuracy rate in his last six games as of this video posting than what he previously had. Do you think that all of the sudden he went from a 1500 level player to a 2000 level player? This is why I doubt it was an actual teacher, unless he just told the teacher what happened without showing the video. Anyone looking at all the evidence would draw the conclusion that the player was cheating.
@@googlewhackthis Teacher and Cheater are anagrams of one another. Anagrams have nothing to do with the meaning of the words, they just have the same letters in a different order.
It is sad that people need to be told to not be jerks. If a player cheats, they will be caught, but assuming someone is cheating does not give others the right to act like fools.
For me the most suspicious thing is not that he found the Nb5, but that he did that as well as playing almost perfect both in opening, midgame as well as endgame.
@@astlinj if you are 1500 and play like 2300, yes. Playing perfect against someone who blunders isn't that difficult, but against someone who is 2500 and to do it the entire game... 🧐
@@astlinj If you have followed his rating climb series you would notice that every player he played against before did a few mistakes each game. People around 1200-1500 are usually strong at some or most moments of the game, but to play almost perfect in every part of the game is very unlikely. 93% accuracy against someone who is 1000 higher rating than you is very suspicious
If he did cheat during your game you could check some of his other games. But to me that Nb5 idea does seem a bit suspicious. He did spend about 15 seconds on that move and then spent 12 seconds does seem very suspicious. When you sacrifice a piece like that you need to be 100% certain that the sacrifice works the first time around.
Yes exactly. As a 1400 I think that move was probably beyond my ability to find, and if I somehow managed to spot it I certainly would have spent longer thinking about it
15 seconds on brilliant move isnt that bad in this case since theres not much to calculate because all you need to do is look out for is checks and captures which black didnt have much of, so all you need to do is quickly scan for them and if nothing bad happens then play your brilliant move. So i dont see how you cant be 100% certain after 15 seconds
@@BoomSki-pn9lb well it’s because your opponent isn’t required to take the knight. As a 1400 myself I would feel compelled to calculate all moves other other than cxb5 before I felt comfortable playing that move. The queen has a check for example, and while it isn’t good I would need to calculate that to verify
@@BoomSki-pn9lbit's the fact that the bishop move after the knight move also took 12 seconds is suspicious. You don't make that knight sacrifice without already planning to check with the bishop
Don't worry about it. This too will pass... you can only control what you do, not others. Don't waste your present by worrying about the past. The truth is we'll never know, so, move on and keep smiling. You're a wonderful teacher. You are extremely clear in what you teach. Chin up, head up... and carry on regardless. Truth is in a year or two you'll be going " Galadriel who? " Forget about it!!!
@williammcguire3426 I really like the wise message to Nelson. Actually, your message is quite universal which I will also try to remember. I guess another way of saying it is don't waste your mental and emotional energy about the past or future at the expense of the present. The cost of regret is expensive. I like Nelson's teaching style, the way he communicates as well as his personality. In fact, sometimes I'll watch his videos to destress. That's pretty powerful if all you're trying to do is teach chess, but someone can get a chess lesson plus something actually more valuable than a chess lesson, which is positively affecting one's mood. Nelson has been a blessing to me. Thanks Nelson, you're awesome!
He was more upset in this video than he was in the livestream He was chill really, a couple of chuckles and it was off to the next game Maybe Magnus and Hikaru should take the same advice (LOL)
@@DanielSong39 yeah I agree. I watched the game live and after knight b5 Nelson did get a bit suspicious and actually checked his opponents stats... but remained chilled. But " rice cookers " and two long delays before executing the brilliancy....hmm...I personally think Nelson has every reason to be suspicious... He remained cooler than I would... lol! No matter what, I think Nelson is one of the better teachers of chess out there. An all around " good guy "...hope he moves on from this soon.
Don't worry about that Nelson you are a very special chess teacher and thats most counts.. After all a 154 winning streak is not bad at all.. Just keep up your excellent job!!!
As a slow thinker, my strength goes up way more than you would expect on longer time controls, so I can relate to having disproportionately low blitz strength. The suspicious maneuver looks like something a 1500 could do, nothing too strange about that. 1500 is really uneven terrain. Like, you get games with high accuracy, but sometimes, you just make a bad move. If you get lucky, then maybe you just don't make a bad move in some particular game. It seems like a reasonable report in good conscience, and I don't think a single report should get someone shut down for cheating unless it's 100% certain, so it all seems above board to report something suspicious.
Yep. I still win most of my rapid games at almost 1400, but struggle at 700 in bullet and at 1100 in blitz. It's a totally different skill to find great tactics than to see easy blunders fast. And I also play mostly blitz btw.
Yup... I dance between 1450 and 1550 and my accuracy is usually in the high 80, low 90s, but sometimes I blunder something stupid for no reason and then the game is in the 70s through 80s... I think my highest accuracy ever was something like 95 or 96, but it was an easy game where my opponent blundered a piece early in an opening I knew. This game looks pretty normal to me, to be honest. The only thing suspicious is the 12 second delay on the recapture, but I've also just paused for a bit after making what I think is a good move to make absolutely sure I'm not missing something stupidly obvious as I'll get excited and lose focus.
@@pommedemer1922well it's not impossible for a 1500 to win a 2000+ player in one game. It's just very improbable and the possibility of that happening is about 1%. Since Nelson is playing so many games and his opponents get stronger game by game, the logic says that he is not going to win every game.
It's funny that we got no screenshot attached about "subscriber harassment messages" in the email yet we still got a clear description about rice cooking stuff
@@justusschoenmakers8987 His mind appears to think in terms of patterns, which I'm told is how the greats think. Putting together that pattern with some opening preparation means this guy is GOOOOD. (Of course, assuming he's not cheating.)
I kind of figured something like this would happen whenever you lost your first match of the climb. i.e. you'd either run into an actual cheater or someone would get lucky enough not to make those "one or two mistakes" 1400s typically make. Unfortunately in a game like this those two are indistinguishable.
The fact that Nelson made blunders in his two previous games and the players picked up on them means he's playing a better caliber of player, and eventually he will lose. It was kind of to be expected.
He did specifcially point out it was the combination of both the regular cadence, someone using similar analysis times for very unequal positions, and the caliber of a number of the moves being used which made it seem suspicious, not just that the person didn't make any blunders. Having just found this speed run and watched most of it very recently, this game definitely was developing very oddly even prior to the Nb5 move.
@@christopherheckman7957 to be fair to Nelson he's 2200 rated when he's actually playing chess when he's livestreaming and explaining every move to his viewers I'm sure his level drops hence the blunders.
I have never heard a professor call a student "a friend of mine". That seems a bit of an odd way to introduce them. "Galadriel is a student of mine" would be standard
FYI in the university I attended, students can go through some processes to apply to become an instructor of 1 credit pass/fail class (that does not satisfy any graduation requirement).
That doesn't sound strange to me. First, from the diction (often awkward, imperfect grammar and usage) of the e-mail, it sounds like English is not the primary language of Viktor and the professor, so you can't expect the same level of nuance and understanding of word usage as you would from native English speakers. Second, it sounds like the professor is running a chess program that is not a formal class, so they don't have a normal teacher-student relationship, but rather more of a collegial relationship. Third, because of the language issue and simply because we don't have all the facts (e.g., is Viktor a regular student or an older, part-time student, maybe as old as the teacher?), we really don't know what terminology (translated into English, with errors) makes sense to Viktor and his teacher in their context and culture.
I'm the guy who sent the E-Mail and I'm not a professor LOL. I'm just a regular student who happens to be fairly good at chess and I'm teaching chess at the university. Just google 'Viktor Weinkauf RWTH Aachen' and you will find some proof (can't link it here because YT won't show my comment...)
'm the guy who sent the E-Mail and I'm not a professor LOL. I'm just a regular student who happens to be fairly good at chess and I'm teaching chess at the university. Just google my name and you will see that I'm legit :)
Very good point IMO! Never thought of that until reading your comment. Teacher's at any level of schooling would never use the friend when talking about a student. Very good observation!
As a slow player it's not strange to me to struggle moving up in blitz, sometimes it's not even about having less time to think but about the panic you feel from having that additional time pressure to begin with
Someone mentioned it, but it would be a good idea to blur out who sent the email. There could be people wanting to also harass that person too, besides the opponent (I know right?). Anyhow, I've forgotten about this small drama, just looking at this video I am still suspecious, and don't think the opponent is entirely in the clear, but I am going to drop it because it is a waste to keep thinking about it. It's time to move from that.
I'd like some actual proof of "harassment". Just some people messaging you asking "why did you cheat?" is not what qualifies as harassment. Not in my book.
@@kshitiz6376 I don't have proof, and am only basing off what was said in the video. The thing is, while you didn't intend to and just politely asked, the words "why did you cheat" can be interpreted differently (as in could be viewed as a threat).
@@kshitiz6376 having a bunch of random people message you over something they are not involved with at all is definitely harassment and choices made can expediate or slow it
I teach chess at a university! It's a 1 credit class, it counts as math (but since it's only 1 credit, it's not going to be enough to satisfy most requirements other than raw credit count), and we focus mostly on endings and techniques for analyzing them. I do give the kids time to play each other and we sometimes go over the games together, if there's time.
Yeah, a lot of things get "taught" on a university campus that aren't even for 1 credit. Most of them are less legal than Chess, but I wasn't clear from the email that it was a course not just a club.
@@thenextgeneration9030 makes sense; lots of logic and pattern recognition involved. Could also be used to teach several applicable aspects of graph theory.
The dead giveaway that 'Viktor' is actually Galadrial97 is the random oversharing (rice cooker etc). It's what all liars/cheats/scammers do. A university professor first of all wouldnt get involved in such a petty dispute and if they did, they would do it from a faculty email address and would clarify their curriculum in a paragraph instead of ranting on about rice cookers. Granted, English is probably not their first language but that genuinely reads like it was written by a 14 year old pretending to be their parents and explaining why their homework wasn't submitted. There is no question in my mind that this player used assistance in this game, however its absolutely not OK to harass them. Grow up.
I was going to highlight this. As an educator myself, I would always email using my faculty address to add clout to what I am saying. Sending something from my gmail is super weird.
I'm the guy who sent the email. Just google my name and you will see that I'm a legit 2000 Elo player who teaches chess at university. I'm not Galadriel.
I don't know what to conclude but I definitely want to sign up for that University course. Seems like you learn all the things you need to win games. LOL.
In terms of giving this matter a full fleshing out, I do believe it's highly relevant to note that potent play had already been encountered starting at around 1300. Two games in particular we're fully on track for an L before this one. Don't forget, ratings groups also include those who have fallen back from higher levels (though that doesn't appear to be the case here). I'm at this level and about 5-10% of the time I surprise myself with sussing out strong tactics and near perfect play...mid 90s accuracy and a slash line of say 2/0/0 in a 30, 40 move (or greater) game. Those games end up getting (absurd) c.c ratings estimates...even above 2200. And often that's necessary to just barely get a win given that my opponent ends up with an accuracy stat in the high 80s and a slash of something like 4/1/0. None of that means cheating didn't happen here. But I do think a fair amount of deference has to go toward the guy simply having played a few hundred Elo above norm. That possibility has to be just as likely as having cheated... especially given the fact potent play has already been encountered. That said, those other guys could've been cheating. And make no mistake c.c is beseeched by such crap. A week almost never goes by that I don't end up with a refund.
I tend to play slower games too, and for the past several years never played blitz. You mentioned that he did play a lot of blitz. It's possible he gets into time trouble in blitz and either loses on time or makes critical blinders under pressure and cannot break out of his rating.
Hey man, wild situation here! Personally, I'm inclined to say he was cheating. 1. The email just seems... off. Though German, so his first language may not be English, his email doesn’t seem like it's written how someone whose second language is English would sound, and it definitely doesn’t sound like someone trying to make a professional impression. 2. What kind of 1400 finds that move? Either he really is the next Carlsen, or Stockfish found it. Plus, finding it in 12 seconds is crazy. 3. The rice cooker story doesn't really make sense, it's not a super long time control, and I personally hate trying to multitask while playing chess. 4. While I totally understand the "please stop harassing me" aspect of his case, the "solutions" the coach provides are also just... weird. 5. His account's game history is suspicious. His most recent game was against you (93% accuracy!!), and he hasn't played since. Plus, who turns on their rice cooker, plays a ridiculously good endgame, and then doesn’t even play another game while their rice is cooking? All in all, it seems really suspicious, but innocent until proven guilty, i guess? If that was legit, then well played Galadriel, you're gonna be an incredible player. If it was stockfish, shame on you.
It is plausible, just not probable. A year later that seems to have been his peak and his rating has slightly decreased. He's probably using another account now, which I don't blame him after getting publicized. I also find it funny how the professor uses buying a membership as cheat prevention. Like, cheaters will straight up burn through money and accounts to make up for their lack of skill and general psychopathy, as anyone who has met any of these doofuses while gaming can attest to.
@@copopopocoporododorocould be that the teacher of the course isnt obligated to be formal in correspondence outside of work but just chooses to for the most part
People who were 16 in the early 2000s would use IRL more than someone like yourself IMO (we invented it anyway). The real issue is why the professor doesn't use OTB instead.
"Oh those moves were so obvious" is kinda bogus, this really was just suspicious. Perfectly fine to stay sus, even if it is possible. But if anyone of y'all harassed another person? Come on... This is a game of gentlemen. Harassing is just as, if not worse, than cheating in the first place.
I watched this live. Not yet discussed but suspicious to me at the time was how long Galadriel97 was taking to play his moves in the end game: Nelson could hardly move a piece, the only analysis needed for each of Galadriel97's moves was to check his queen wasn't blundered, pick off the remaining pawns on a and b files, and push his pawns on a, b and/or c. Check out the live stream from 34:00: Galadriel97 takes between 7 and 26 seconds per move in a knight & bishop versus queen endgame with no passed pawns (at 34:10 he takes 23 seconds to take the pawn on g7 - that's beyond suspicious). If he's clever enough to spot the earlier knight to b5 (and the other best moves) why did he need to take so long for each simple move in the end game?
Magus was cheated on by butt beads Anna was accused of cheating with a lipstick Nelson was cheated on by a rice cooker I don't think Anna would hate lipsticks.
I was there for that match and to me it was extremely suspicious... the knight sacrifice on b5 wasn't the suspicious part, it's the fact that after he 'calculated' the sacrifice and the moves afterwards, it still took him over 10 seconds for each move following the initial knight move if you calculate a sacrifice like that, you also calculate the moves that will come after it, meaning you shouldn't need to spend over 10 seconds for the move
@@deinauge7894 but there is literally nothing to consider about it. If you go balls to the wall and sacrifice a full piece there is no point in rechecking if the tactic works
Well, I want to share my point of view. Yes, it is possible for a 1500 to get lucky by finding a crazy tactic like this. Yes, it is possible that this 1500 didn't immediately continue their tactic but spent 14 seconds to play the discovered attack on the queen because of another task. Yes, it is possible that this guy wasn't cheating. But all of this story leaves me really troubled. Why a 1500 learns advanced theory but can't pass 1100 blitz? Why a 1500 plays like 20 or 30 stockfish moves in one game? Also, why didn't the player themselves contact you and instead they made their teacher do so? Were the stockfish moves also coincidental? And the similar amount of time used for those moves is also random? And the 1500 was sure enough that it was safe to play a risky tactic like this, after using only a few seconds, and even while cooking, and even against a national master?? I don't want either for this occurrence to become a scandal that will annoy us for a long time. However, we cannot say that we believe (or do not believe) what the chess university teacher, if this is a real, unless they give a good explanation for those questions. Again, I am just sharing my point of view, with no intention of being rude or offensive to anyone.
12 seconds to see that brilliant move would seem legit if he just immediately took with the bishop, it's not impossible he have been in this position before if this is his preferred opening. You are allowed to learn from the analyzer after the game, and if you repeat your openings over and over again, you'll learn the right moves. I think his arguments seems suspicious, I agree with you it's not nice to message him and turn this into the Hans Niemann case all over again. I'm just a low ranked scrub so Idon't know alot of theory, but I like to repeat my openings and try to get my opponent on the same Track so I know what i'm doing. This 1493 dude does seem too low rated for his skills, but again, he might be the new Hans and just quickly climb through the ranks, and it seems all fair again when he turns 2k+. I think you are correct Nelson and this is the right approach
He literally made one good move, you accused him of cheating cause your ego couldn’t handle loosing. Hate this when higher rated players think that they can never loose lol 😂
So I just noticed that, regarding the 12 second Bb5 move, Nelson took 133 seconds on the move beforehand. I feel this is notable because the email says he was turning on his rice cooker at the moment when Nelson moved... which is very coincidental, considering there was a 133 second interval beforehand in which the turning on of the rice cooker could have taken place, but instead it was exactly when Nelson moved. Just wanted to point out the seemingly rather coincidental nature of this.
Or the guy started the game knowing in advance that he was going to take some time at some point during the game to attend to his stove, and then noticed that Nelson was having a very long think and figured he could just do it then.
@@bunpeishiratori5849 Well the issue is that the turning on of the rice cooker only takes a few seconds (I would imagine), so the fact that it coincided with Nelson's move is of low probability considering the given time interval. Of course "turning on the rice cooker" may imply more than the click of a button, I'm not sure, but if it was a longer procedure then it would be coincidental that he came back at around the same time that Nelson moved. Unless he was keeping an eye on the screen while cooking rice, which I'd say is only possible if he was playing on his phone. The fact that he said specifically that he was *turning on* the rice cooker makes me think he didn't stop in the middle of the procedure, rather he had just finished the procedure, when he came back to the game. Which would seem coincidental with how much time was present. I hope what I'm saying makes sense... if he stepped away from the computer during a 133 second interval, it's kind of lucky that he left / came back at the nearly perfect moment.
@@shaneebersole8366 Regardless of how long it took, it's coincidental. If it took little time, it's a coincidence he happened to leave right around Nelson's move. If it took longer, it's a coincidence he happened to come back right around Nelson's move. The only way it's not a coincidence is if he was playing on mobile, and keeping an eye on the game, while doing his cooking.
@@exist0142 ngl I'm sure you've had the situation where you wait 15 minutes for something to happen and as soon as you stop waiting it happens say u haven't i dare u
Ngl, it doesn't look too suspicious to me. It just seems like he got a couple of lucky breaks and managed to play a good game. He played some theory in the opening. He made a normal-looking break in the early middlegame. Then, when he saw that he blundered d4, his brain switched into "tactics mode" and he recognized a pattern he'd recently studied. Finding one brilliant move in a game isn't too far-fetched. With the extra queen he just traded pieces and took away your pawns to convert. Sometimes people spend too long on simple moves. I still have that habit after crossing 2000, so I can totally see a 1400 who struggles w/ faster time controls doing that too.
I also find it especially suspicious that he claims that he was multitasking while crushing an NM. I remember one time I sent a text in the middle of a game. I got mated on the next move!
You might just google that and find the courses he's teaching at the RWTH Aachen (Germany). It seems they are extracurricular sports activities as can be found at any university. Seems quite legit to me!
You do have a responsibility here. Fine to say that your opponent's moves are potentially suspicious and that you are going to report them *so that they can be investigated*, as long as you make it clear that it is possible they weren't cheating, and that nobody should assume that they are. If you accuse people of cheating in a live-stream watched by many people, some of those people will harass the person you accused. That's the nature of the internet. You cannot rely on all your subscribers bring decent people. Clearly some of them are not. I don't know whether this person was cheating or not. Even if it's later proven that they were, it doesn't change fact that it's wrong to throw around accusations like that.
I think it's great that an accelerating player has the support of his teacher. Cheating is of course a scourge and needs to be identified. But I also think that trajectories in improvement in any sport or skill are not constant and straight lined. I think you have the magic for a moment, then for a period, then that becomes your new plateau from which to develop. I applaud you for sharing this email, and look forward to some resolution for you both. The rice cooker seems perfectly explainable, you are only turning it on, not monitoring it. By the way I am doing terribly at making any progress, and look forward to the stars aligning for me too.
Nelson, I know you get a lot of comments, and mine will tend to run on, so here's an executive summary before I go into more detail: * Several times in the video, you say his Blitz rating was 1000. True, but he wasn't playing Blitz against you; it was Rapid, and his Rapid rating was 1482. (And speaking of Blitz, maybe he was playing to get experience with what to do in time trouble.) * It is very bad sportsmanship to immediately conclude (during the game) that he was cheating just because you lost. It is worse to make that claim without thinking about it. Sure, it looks suspicious, but spending a minute during a speed run video is not enough time to come to a correct decision. * The two previous games you played, you made a blunder that the opponent saw right away. However, they blundered in return, which is a major reason why you won. Okay, more detail: 2:45 VINE KOWF (who I'll just call V). 4:04 The "weird statement" has that ring of plausibility. It would have been so easy for a cheater to have said, "My phone rang, and I had to turn it off," or something more common. 5:38 This might have been a seminar that V is holding at the university's chess club. Incidentally, the 97 in G's user name suggests he was born in 1997, which would make him about 25 years old, so he would be (what we would call) a graduate student. 6:48 It also suggests something that I proposed in the comments of the original video, that G had done some opening preparation. In that case, being familiar with a line in a non-standard opening could be mistaken for cheating. 7:24 It definitely looks like the same PATTERN (which means this isn't your average 1400 player), which is (so I've been told) how very good chess players think. 7:39 Apples and oranges. You were not playing a Blitz game, so you should not be using his Blitz rating. His Rapid rating (10 minute games) was 1482 before your game. 8:59 "Maybe he mixed something up" ... like another part of his dinner? 8-) 9:16 There's no accounting for personal taste. Alternatively, he might be practicing being in time trouble. (If you continually mess up in the opening and/or middle game, you would probably never reach a situation where you ARE in time trouble.) 9:38 Apples and oranges again. You didn't play a Blitz game, so why are you looking at his Blitz rating? 10:48 You know what is also bad sportsmanship? When you get outplayed, your immediate reaction is that the other player cheated. I'm surprised that you reported him right away (during the video itself!) instead of thinking it over. P.S. If RU-vid allows it, you should probably have put in a poll. My opinion is that it looks suspicious, but there's not enough information to conclude that he cheated.
He didn't immediately conclude they were cheating. Honestly, the fact that you don't know that simple fact makes me suspect that you don't really understand the first thing about this game, and what took place. Go and watch the game in the live stream, and then comment, so you have full context.
سلام استاد بزرگ در خصوص تقلب باید بهتون بگم که سایت مجموع دقت ها رو حساب میکند و وقتی کسی تلقب در یک بازی میکند سریعا سایت حساب آن شخص را نمی بندد . ولی به هر حال شما بزرگترین استاد و معلم هستید . لطفاً ادامه دهید. با بهترین آرزوها سید ابوالحسن از ایران
I just looked at his account. If he cheated, it was literqlly that 1 game. You go back and his highest games are 95 and 96%, but theyre like 8 moves and opponent blundered a queen. Would be really odd for him to literally only cheat in the 1 game. I think the accusation is unfounded. Most games are sub-90%.
Unless he knew that Peter-Patzer is Chess Vibes and took an opportunity to be the first to beat him in this ratings climb. Quite risky (or maybe I should say stupid) though to cheat against someone even if you know that they normally play on a much higer level, since you can get banned.
@@mncdssctn9110 Exactly my thought. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a kid who couldn't resist going for his 15 minutes of fame. Stupid for an adult, normal for a kid. And he also wrote the letter. Chess teacher in university? Sounds like someone who doesn't know what people do in university. And fake a note from an authority figure, that's just such a classic kid idea. Just a guess, of course.
The whole thing is totally suspect. Tough one with no proof though. The time passing before the bishop taking is the kicker. When you have a brilliant plan come together you pounce. In addition, not taking the pawn on g7 later in the game adds to it. 99% chance he cheated in my book but with no proof he needs to get a pass and we move on. Love the channel
I don't, if the move seems crushing I double check and also calm myself. I found a rook sac in a game and my opponent missed the idea, his best was to accept a lost end game but he tried to win and my Q & B combined to mate him thanks to a back rank weakness and his AWOL fianchetto bishop. I wasn't in a hurry to play, I wanted to make sure I didn't blow the brilliancy that I'd discovered to bust my opponent's position, which looked superficially ahead.
That's essentially what it is; it looks possible that G cheated, but there's no proof. Nelson should have said it was suspicious, not claimed that cheating had occurred.
We’re not talking about your rook sac. Take all day with that move. But how long did the next move take? By then you’ve done the calcs and you make the follow up moves at an expedient pace
Actually if you are an inexperience player, no you do not pounce; you get excited and take longer to move. But I don't think he was an inexperience player. Only logical way he cheater was the chess program needed to be on the whole game. And if that's the case, then every move should be suspect. And if he sandbagged a few moves, then that should be fairly easy to spot too.
@@GlazedYeti as I tried explain I didn't rush and found a mate ending the game quickly. I've many other games where I missed quick wins, but the games where I found the right moves and was clinical, naturally looks suspicious in the engine. The argument to rush on follow up moves is illogical and disrespects the opponent, who entered into the line for a reason. If you haven't missed something, then you can enjoy the moves, if you rush you might blow it falling for a trap.
I mean if you thought he was cheating, you were 100% in the right to report him and state that you think he's cheating. The harassment was out of your control though.
Honestly i think that this email with all these rice cooking, adv french ideas and blitz IRL crap just made matters worse but imo this guy could've just found that idea and after sacing the knight he maybe took some time double checking if he was right. As someone mentioned that email could've been written by him because dudes just scared he's gonna get instantly banned just because a youtuber reported him
I'm the guy who sent the email and nop, I'm not Galadriel. Just google my name and you will see that I'm a legit 2000 Elo player who teaches chess at university.
Hi Nelson. I'm a big fan of chess vibes! Thank you! Two things about the letter really strike me as odd. 1) Why even say he's cooking rice? He could just say he was distracted by something, pondering the move, etc. I would not write a letter and give such an silly excuse. Even if I were cooking rice, I'd probably say something more vague. 2) The other thing that I'm trying to wrap my head around is the following, and it might lend him some credibility: That letter is pretty darn well-written. It addresses the fellow's discomfort at being hounded, but does not belabor the point. That's fair. And he openly allows you to put the letter on Chess Vibes. If I were cheating, I think I'd be embarrassed by putting the letter out there and inviting more criticism. That being said, I find it odd (and some others have mentioned this) that no school is named, nor does the professor name himself. If I were defending my student, I'd certainly tell you my name. Last note. Yeah, Nelson, I'm on your side. Only a very sophisticated player could play that game against you. Yet there is one more thing that bugs me. If Galadriel wrote the letter himself, it is, despite a few blunders, written very well. Whoever wrote that letter has a descent mind. A good command of the English language. Just pieces and pontifications, for whatever they're worth. -J
As a 1600, the brilliant knight move is definitely something that can happen at a high 1400/low 1500 level. Someone can do a lot of puzzles and be good at tactics but still blunder in certain games. That move itself really didnt seem that suspicious to me. Of course the time usage is another story.
Yeah, a 2 move tactic is not suspicious. That's not some complicated find and I think it's sad for that to be what makes Nelson think he's cheating. The 1400 had inaccuracies in the opening before that.
yeah im around 900 and i can find some pretty neat moves for my rating because I play puzzles most of the time. besides that, i barely know anything about positional play and i end up with lots of inaccuracies or mistakes. now a 1500 is way way better than me so they could probably find that knight move aswell. but beating someone 1000 rating higher is just suspicious lol, i would not beat a 1900 in a thousand games
This email is bogus. The give away was “IRL.” I’ve been teaching higher ed for 25 years. College profs would never do this. Go job exposing this cheater for what he is.
That teacher guy can be googled by name, and it turns out he is 28 yo. No surprise he used more internet slang than you, in particular when conversing in a foreign language. Now, did he really write that letter? I don’t know, but it is easy to find out by contacting him via another route and asking him.
Really enjoying your videos Nelson, especially this rating climb series and also sharing with my students. Great to see your thought process during games. Thanks! I think you handled this awkward cheater situation very professionally.
There is no doubt, you had reason to suspect cheating, but I also feel it unlikely that he did cheat. So, I kind of take his side on this one, but I completely understand why you thought it necessary to report him. Also, on a side note, it was definitely a good move to call out those who are harassing him. Even if he was guilty of cheating, the harassment he is facing is not okay.
It is a little bit weird that he played that move considering he hasn’t studied the knight sacrafice before and he also could think of the advanced French poison pawn all in like maybe 12 seconds from the other move and then 12 seconds on the move before that would’ve seen the knight sac with the king and rook fork and he didn’t take that much extra time to see if it even does anything.
What's even weirder is that even Nelson wasn't able to see this move until his opponent played it. He was explaining his thought process to his viewers and he didn't even consider this. Sure,I'm to believe that a 1400 is able to find a move that even a titled player is not able to see. Definitely not cheating since he drew against a 1750 I guess?
as a 1200 who doesn't know any theory other than the hippo (the hippo lets me peak at 1300), i find brilliant moves all the time like this in like 12 seconds, and i play them confidently. then i get checkmated by a knight that bounces too much, or by some other sick move i didn't see. but sometimes, i'm brilliant like this. i believe the guy.
It still feels really weird to me. Even the language in the email... It's apparently from a college professor but he uses language like "IRL" and "YT-Video". Not saying there aren't professors who talk like that I just don't know any who would use that language in an email to someone they didn't know. Feels to me like someone was impersonating a professor... Either way, dont worry about it Nelson. You still make great content and we'll still support you and your videos
@gernotkatzer1608 unusual in everyday life? Absolutely not. Using that language when you're trying to convince someone you don't know personally and offering to share that letter with 300K+ subscribers? Personally I'd like to sound as professional as possible and using language like that just isn't professional Not to say that it's definitely not written by a chess teacher. Just some potential red flags
@@bookworm9962 I guess you are older than 28. I m also, and I agree I wouldn’t use such colloquialisms, but young people may be different. Also, I hope that a special place in hell is reserved for those who accuse others of things they haven’t done. Honest conviction should not be counted in their favour if the claim was not objectively correct, because if innocence cannot save someone from major inconveniences, why should stupidity?
As a 1500 I think that the move was not as difficult to find as it seems, I'm generally not good at blitz or bullet either and rarely play it. It's a tough situation but I think he might have just had a strong game, some players are more consistent than others
im a 1200 player and ive had a game where i had a 93% accuracy and the engine said I played like an 1800 player. The reason im not past 1200 is because its impossible to always play like that. Sometimes you play better than your rating and sometimes you play lower. As a 1500 player his upper ceiling is probably a lot higher. This guy was playing an opening he was comfortable with its not out of the question that he had the vision to see that move and took some time (12 seconds) to double check and make sure that he was right.
I think this is a lesson for you. Don't even suggest that someone is cheating in your streams unless you're already deep into the post game analysis and there's concrete proof of cheating. If you don't know that he's cheating, as you repeatedly say, then you shouldn't have suggested he was in your stream. You can't control twitch subscribers!
i am 1300 and I am weak on end games like a lot of players around my rating. He studied openings so it's not that far fetched to play well in the opening, and then get a bit lucky to find the sacrifice and faded late on, maybe he had nerves, or something. I have played the odd really good game and the odd brilliant move, especially involving tricky knight tactics. To me it is feasible to play that game as a 1400 player, it wasn't like a succession of complex tactics, he just found logical moves, and one brilliant move.
So the guy is multi-tasking, studying deep opening theory and middlegames that arise from openings (Jobava, French, etc) and he's just a little below 1500? That's bs!
That email is almost definitely fake. It's not from a university email address, written like a teen/young adult, it has no proper signature block. Also, I don't think a professor would dive into an issue like this. Also, a university "chess professor"?? What kind of university has something like that? Even the content, tone, and structure of the email is just plain bizzare. You should ask the "professor" what school and department he works in. Ther're university directories where you can search for specific teachers and verify his story. This email all but confirms he was cheating.
It’s funny to me that people don’t realize it’s different when one 1400 has 90% accuracy against another 1400 than when a 1400 has 90% accuracy against a 2300. Also psychologically, when I make a mistake or my opponent plays out of their mind and my queen is lost, I almost always have opportunities to get back in the game when they in turn make mistakes because they get excited and lose their cool. This guy was as constant as a computer. Alright I’ve said my piece
I’m also a 1400. Sometimes when I found the move that I think it really strong (like a great or brilliant move), after they played their next move, I just spent a little time to analyze again 1 more time to make sure I wasn’t wrong. So I think he just got lucky that game.
