Scotch Game

are there any good books out there on the scotch game?

Thats a shameless plug pfren lol!  :-P

In fact isnt Yelena Dembo living somewhere near you?

In one of the islands in your neighbourhood?

Not going to comment on the book, since I don't know anything about it, but I'd like to mention that WGM Dembo is "persona non grata" here on chess.com after she was banned from the site for cheating - was it in 2010? Can't remember.

Yes I've heard the story, but I seriously doubt that Yelena Dembo was cheating in chess. 

Statistical analysis was done on her games - either she was using an engine, or she was by far the best correspondence chess player ever, her quality of play far superior to any past or current correspondence world champions.

The discussion is not one to have here however, but head over to the cheating forum if you're interested http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum

where the methods are regularly debated. However, the people who actually perform the analysis and know the most about the whole thing believe the site is actually far too conservative in banning users. They only act if ~100% sure.

True, but also true that statistical analysis was done on Capablanca's games and was proved he was using Fritz 12. What does that tell us? 

I personaly think that sometimes the evaluation algorithms they use spit out faulty results and that no case is 100% when it comes down to GMs (its another story when you check moves made by club players like me, or Capablanca). 

;-)

No, on average there are certain levels of match-up that humans can't seem to break (which is very interesting to me considering players from 60 years ago fared no better it seems).

Yes, 1 or 2 games you can even have 100% best moves, especially when facing a weak opponent.  All these things are taken into account of course, they don't boot you for 1 game.

thanks for the suggestion.yeah....I too have heard about this curious banning.hmm....she probs was cheating though,since the statistics clearly show that.

We dont actually know what kind of check it was done on her, or how many games they checked or how many moves matched the computers results. Chess.com does not disclose the methods used.

To me it just does not make any sense at all. Why would any titled player be cheating here. Its not like some nob who tries to win points for their team. She doesnt need recognition ot plaudits and there is no money involved. 

I see it entirely the other way around, although I don't see any incentive for any player to cheat.

The WGM could well have been cheating to help promote her books/name etc. It's not like I'd particularly heard of her before she was banned - however, if she had risen to become one of Chess.coms best players and active on the site, then I would know her. She has books etc. to try and sell after all, and coaching services.

On the other hand, why would the site ban her unless they were absolutely certain? What motivation could they have to not want a respected titled player contributing to the site?

Also, I don't think it can even be suggested that the site didn't do proper analysis on her games. I think I remember top 3 match up rates for a sample of 20 games being posted, but all this of course had to be deleted from public forums when Dembo threatened the chess.com with a lawsuit unless they dropped the "cheater" tag, which the site backed away from (lawsuits are expensive in the States).

I find it strange,  people asking "where is the evidence?" when actually the site HAS evidence, and the person asking has none, just a gut feeling that "something might not be right". Nevertheless, debate is healthy I suppose!

Well ofcourse you are entitled to see things any way you want, no one said otherwise.

First let me say that i knew Denbo way before chess.com (not personaly obviously)  she has featured in many international tournaments. Just because you didnt know of her doesnt mean she is  not very strong player.

Also i agree that books and coaching could be a reason for cheating (again i am not saying that she did cheat)

Now, about the absolute certainty of the results let me tell you what i know.

The published analysis (the 20 games or so you mentioned earlier) was not  done by chess.com but by a chess.com furummer (Steve Collyer) using rybka3 at 12-20 ply depth (about 2000 -2300 elo player in other words).

Also (and this is important) forcing moves and variations were not excluded. Also he (steve collyer) said that his findings are not to be taken as proof (he actually said "gospell").

Apparently after he (collyer) complained to chess.com they had IM david pruess investigate the games and he banned dembo. 

Chess.com never published any results, or explained what method used to determine cheating. Never said they had absolute evidence.

Now i would like to think that chess.com's results are accurate and i am here (in this chess site and not some other site) because i like the punishment dished out to cheaters, as opposed to other sites who do bugger all. But in some cases (namely high profile names) i would like to see some hint of  proof.

I dont think it's so unreasonable to expect some explanation is all im saying.