Alright I retract my comment on the matter, even though I never outright accused anyone of cheating,
was only saying I was suspicious, that's all.
Can you blame me? I've encountered multiple proven cheats on another site (who have had their accounts suspended) since covid started.
Just thought he could have been another one.
To add another insight, here are the comments made on the topic by a fellow player (and friend of mine) from the same section:
On the subject of Daniel Gomez - it is not that he is suspected of cheating, it was that he had " come out of nowhere " and it was hard to know how strong he was. given how players were put into sections, rather than choosing which section to play in was the problem.
Daniel did want to play in the open, but with no otb grade his was a problem. Eventually an estimate grade was worked out, and he was placed in the major. Players who knew about him may have felt he should of played in the open - a point he proved by winning 5/5.
Nobody likes playing someone who should be in a higher section, and this causes grumblings, covid has created this unique situation and therefore don't accuse Daniel of cheating, we are just having to accept the circumstances - but not without a good old fashioned moan!
Edit: redacted mention of another chess site
The post that was quoted here has been removedI remember the debate about the old lady and i think i was just about convinced by your arguments in the end though I may not have said so on the thread.If I didn't I'll take this opportunity to apologise.
As for your maths test,the attitude of the school was disgraceful.
In Britain, I would hope such a child would be given another maths test to prove/disprove the accusation.
I have a friend who is interested in Geography.During out childhood, he could read a list of longest rivers/highest mountains or whatever and quote them with very few,if any mistakes from memory.
Some people have an aptitude for these sort of things(absorbing and remembering facts)
You usually see them on t.v quiz programmes!!
@64squaresofpain saidHi Zak,
Game 3 - Zak Tomlinson (1795) vs Richard Chiang (1705)
Saturday afternoon's game was another epic, also lasting nearly 4 hours.
I probably played more chess than anybody that day, over 7.5 hours for two games.
Do I finally get on the score board?
[pgn][Event "Leamington Spa Major"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2021.07.10"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Tomlinson, Zak" ...[text shortened]... loss - 35
Richard Chiang
Inaccuracies - 3
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 7
Avg. centipawn loss - 50
14. Rac1.
14. Rfd1 seems indicated, to reinforce the d-pawn. 14...Nxe3 could then be answered by 15. Qxe3, being that White could save the d-pawn through the interpolation Nxf6+... after ...Bxf3.
18. Rfd1.
18. Bxc6 Nxc6 19. Ne4 would save a tempo in lines where the f1-rook goes to the c-file. 19...Bxd4 would lose two pieces for a rook after 20. Rxc6.
25...gxf6. A little surprising but I guess Black didn't want my Queen to get on the light-square diagonal, or was weary of d5
On 25...Qxf6, I don't see how Black avoids losing at least one more pawn after 26. Qc3.
29. Qc5+
29. h4 seems stronger because neither Black's queen nor knight can readily help blockade it.
If Black opens lines by 29...e5 30. dxe5 Nxe5 in order to better get at the h-pawn, this mobilizes White's bishop as well, and 31. Qh8+ Ke7 32. Qa8 would keep control.
The text prepares to establish a passed b-pawn. But this will require White to operate on both wings, and White's queen can't readily reach the kingside, nor White's bishop the queenside.
@64squaresofpain saidHi Zak,
Game 4 - Ross Murphy (1713) vs Zak Tomlinson (1795)
Sunday morning I was paired against a friend of mine, we even had a chat over coffee before the game and thought about having a quick draw.
And why not? In these tournaments there aren't any rules regarding minimum number of moves.
We still somehow played over 20 moves, but all quite quickly and eventua ...[text shortened]... n loss - 15
Zak Tomlinson
Inaccuracies - 2
Mistakes - 1
Blunders - 0
Avg. centipawn loss - 19
8...a6.
A waste of a tempo. 9. Nb5 could have been met by 9...Qa5+.
13...Nxd4.
13...Bxd4 would threaten 14...Bxb2. If White defends the b-pawn, then 14...f5 holds the extra pawn.
14...e5.
Blunts Black's own bishop. Better is to activate the other by 14...Be6. 15. Nc5 could be met by 15...Rad8, threatening 16...Nc2+.
15...Nc2+. Just so White can't castle, but not a real issue
If this loss of castling isn't an issue, then why not defer the check, especially since the possibility of ...Nxe2+ would inhibit castling.
16...Nd4. Immediate retreat, otherwise e3 would be problematic
Couldn't the knight retreat to b4 if necessary?
@Duchess64
I'll jump in here, if I may. I have only come across one instance of cheating OTB. In a Major back in 2016 I played a Knight move incorrectly on the board. Neither me nor my opponent noticed at the time. A few moves later, with said knight I was able to gain material advantage and score a victory.
It was only a matter of time before I realised how I had gained my full point. I kept schtum, wins on a Friday night of a weekend congress are notoriously hard to come by!