[roflyear]

That's hardly evidence.

Me, as a 1600 player, have played some 0-0-0 games on Lichess. I didn't cheat. I just play a lot of chess games and during those games, my opponent was really bad, so I had a perfect game (according to the engine).

[mikenew]

You're conflating accuracy with engine correlation. Having a perfectly accurate game means you didn't make any moves that caused a centipawn loss. Having 100% engine correlation means you're making the exact moves the engine would make.

[dak1]

I think I have on 3-4 occasions played a game where, after evaluating on chess.com, got a 100% accuracy (which is engine correlation). A couple times were all theory and then blundering a mate in 1, but...

I did have one game where I didn't know the theory except a very vague recollection in the beginning. I actually thought I had blundered in that game and was trying to figure out what I'd do if my opponent made a certain move — they didn't find it, I ended up winning material in a tactic and they resigned — I was in complete shock when it came back 100% accuracy (and I definitely did not see the engine response to the move I was worried about, which was the best move).

I'm only around 1600-1700 on chess.com.

Not taking a position either way on Hans, but I have no doubt he knows far more theory than I do (and I do know some lines 20+ moves deep), and correlating with an engine is not impossible even outside of book.

[zarzavat]

To repeat what was said above, accuracy is not the same as engine correlation.

Engines often play moves that are counterintuitive and weird, but nonetheless good. This is because they can evaluate large trees of tactics in a way that humans cannot.

If a human finds a natural move that is just as good as the engine move (in terms of evaluation), they are still playing accurately, but they are uncorrelated with the engine. Playing accurately is not a sign of cheating. Playing many engine moves is a sign of cheating.

[roflyear]

Those games don't have 100% engine correlation, either. The entire video is a mess.

[drexlspivey]

The engine scores centipawn loss against the perfect move (according to the engine). The engine plays the move with the lowest centipawn loss itself. How are those two different?

[lupire]

If there are multiple good moves, they all count as accurate.

[boole1854]

So there are "really bad" opponents at the 1600 level, but is it reasonable to think there are "really bad" opponents at the 2600 level? It's a different world up there.

[iends]

Right, op is making a mistake in thinking that a perfect game against a 1600 is the same as a perfect game against a GM. GMs will intentionally play less perfect moves to head towards complications where they will come out ahead. When I start to bang out 15 moves of theory against a IM/GM they will recognize it and play something I’m not familiar with and just win more quickly.

[roflyear]

Those games were against opponents 100-200pts lower rated than Hans, in some cases.

[joshuamorton]

You, a chesscom 1600, played a (or multiple) perfect game against a chesscom 2600 and/or strong IM?

Link?

[roflyear]

No. I never said that.