Does this look a bit suspicious?

[sje]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

[Dann Corbit]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

Not if it's a human who plays against computers. It is just what I would expect.

The faster the time control, the greater the advantage for the machine

[sje]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

Not if it's a human who plays against computers. It is just what I would expect.

Maybe, but recent history output says otherwise.

A thousand elo is a big margin.

[Dann Corbit]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

Not if it's a human who plays against computers. It is just what I would expect.

Maybe, but recent history output says otherwise.

A thousand elo is a big margin.

True, and we would expect a similar disparity if someone was using a computer game as a tutor while playing. But the pattern of getting blasted at faster games and doing well at slower time scales makes sense for someone who plays against computers.
One thousand Elo is certainly a bit shocking, though. It seems that the fast paced games must not be against computers, because the win/loss ratio is about 50% and his Elo is under 1400 his opponents must be about the same. Hard to imagine a computer with an Elo of 1400.

If you think it's a cheater, just noplay them.

[swami]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

maybe a shared account, common in playchess.

[sje]

Finger data exerpt form a human registrant at ICC:

Code: Select all

              rating        win  loss  draw total   best
Standard        2394        501   188    31   720   2394 (23-Apr-2008) 
5-minute        1322        235   240    20   495   1437 (23-Aug-2007) 

maybe a shared account, common in playchess.

You may be right; that certainly would explain a lot.

[ozziejoe]

i think people tend to be about 200 to 400 pnts better at standard than blitz (on icc), due in all likelihood to ims and gms not playing long games.

However, the disparity you report is just too big, unless the blitz rating is very old and he has improved. Definitely suspicious, but not definitive. I think if you look at his games you can tell. e.g., is his opening play flawless at long time control but weak at blitz (then could be using database or opening book guide). Does he find some deep, conterintuitive combinations in a relatively short amount of time? there must be ways of telling

best
J

[Roman Hartmann]

Well, it looks susipicious, no doubt about that. Personally I stopped to care about that problem and don't add people anymore to my noplay-list on my computer account. I don't care if they want to waste their time.

The only thing I changed when I spotted more and more of those elo-boosters was that I disabled auto-resign of my engine. So they have to mate my engine to get the win and often those playing 'advanced chess' will just run out of time with a dead won position even though any real 1400 player would be able to give mate in the remaining time but as they have to look up every single move they often run in time trouble. A bit unfair to all the fair players who also lose because they are not quick enough with their mouse though ...

best regards
Roman

[Ovyron]

A bit unfair to all the fair players who also lose because they are not quick enough with their mouse though ...

What's unfair about it? Even when I play as human I may play till the very end of the game on a totally lost position if my opponent is in time trouble. Playing fast is also a requirement in blitz, so if my opponent cannot mate me in time, that the position is lost/won is irrelevant.

Maybe it doesn't look very nice from my part, but when other players do it against me and I lose on time on a won position, I'd be handicapping myself if I didn't use this strategy that is within the rules.