Player forfeited from AWC

I did think that many of the games onubense vs APU_1 were much better than maybe should be for player I beat 10.5 - 2.5, but not I was sure, so not I did say anything. Onubense did play some bad line in first half of match even if APU_1 was computer, so was hard of to say of 100%. Still, not this does surprise me as much as would maybe I like because of how strange it is for player I have beat much to have such good luck of with Onubense. Not I am actual sure whether I would like of to play computer or Onubense more if I win next round because both are very difficult in different ways.

"Its impossible that i have used computer assistance when i dont have used it. Even so, i have seen my games and its obvious that i didnt use it in any game, with mistakes, blunders and big mistakes." - APU_1

Then maybe we would be okay of to examine these games of you with Onubense? I will go through and find actual number of "real" mistake and blunder that are appear since sometimes lichess is not like opening or is not like move even though both is are good if analyze longer. Same is for choose simple endgame win over fast win that are complicated. Also will try find anything that not look such human.

1. lichess.org/aVpKwu4F No real inaccuracy if not count opening, and 14. Rc1 not is actual mistake and is choice 2 of stockfish, although also is worth of say that 6. b4 is best move of accord to stockfish. Not it is most natural move though. 8. Nc3 also is mistake, but is both natural move and is move that not does stockfish see is mistake at first, so will say is only inaccuracy. Is difficult for human of to see why is mistake with 8... h5! though. 9. b3 is inaccuracy if are ask me, since is only 0.5 pawn worse than 9. d4, but still is mistake. This is only real problem lichess analysis find. Also note that APU_1 was spend time on first moves 4. c3 and 5. cxd4. Is seem strange that not white would know moves of own opening in main line for black, since would want play opening as fast as can in important game like this. 5... d5 is a little strange, so can understand spend time on 6. Qh5 though. Also, not is a lot of time you spend here on these two moves. At end, I think is actual 0 Blunder, 1 Mistake, 2 Inaccuracy. Is suspicious, but not is have flat move times, and could see this be played of by good player.
2. lichess.org/NBpJ7q1W Okay, this is interesting game. Often these games of this lines are very complication, and are harder of black even though maybe not it should be that bad if are play perfect. Also, normal is not of to play these line and to instead play of either 2... d5 or 2... Na6. 2... e6 very strange of for human to choose, but maybe I think APU_1 could choose because know these lines well and is complication. Also is worth to say that at some depth 2... e6 is top move of stockfish at certain depth even though it realize that is better of play other move if analyze more time. Also moves at beginning were not such much time is used as was in game 1. First thing of real suspicious I find is maybe 6... g5. At first is move stockfish like of most, but later not it is. Is also look like very dangerous move as human. Much more dangerous of 6... g6 which are actual better with many of same idea. Maybe could be misclick though. It at least are inaccuracy even though is stockfish inaccuracy also. Also appear that are inaccuracy of 8... Nd7, even though again is inaccuracy that stockfish suggest. Also it are very normal move of for a human. From here though, is very strange. Not only does play very well, but play all top stockfish moves until move 21... Ba6+ which is clear win for any player. Not many of the move were super hard of to find, but is very good play for all stockfish top move choice every move until end in such position when are can be tricky of find correct ideas. So in total is only 2 inaccuracy in position with many idea, both of these inaccuracy also were top stockfish move when analyze not much time. Very suspicion, but not is impossible, since many of move not were such hard of to see.
3. lichess.org/7BJB3Szd Again, is throw off by 6... Nf6 and 7... d6. Would think that would at least know some of lines that plan of to play vs onubense in important match for some slightly not mainline ideas... Still, maybe not did think that onubense not would play main ideas, so not did think would need know such lines? Also of the twelve inaccuracy that are listed, only three are not in clear won part of endgame or in opening. Of these are we have 15. Nb5 which are move that try to trade and still is winning, 16. Nxc7 of with same idea, and 22. exd5. Again, still winning and with idea be trying to set trade piece for more simple win. Still, not they are best moves, so maybe have 3 inaccuracy, 0 mistake, 0 blunder. Are a couple tricky move to see that are in rook ending, but not rest is too suspicion. Not too many strange moves of for human to see or for too many of strange idea. Are some, yes, but other than find a few good move and not blunder not is such strong evidence of cheat. So is strange, but again, not would I think is mean for sure is cheater.
4. lichess.org/2lYaKT2p This is first game that APU_1 are lose, and make strong case that him is are human, at least of for this game. Are many mistake and all of moves are normal idea of for black. Not too much of time was spend on opening, is clear that was lost when still have had time of on clock. Is look very human with many mistake and blunder of for both player.
5. lichess.org/snvk0qfu Not is play such slow of opening that should know, but is also because of maybe play of last games and remember? Is of interest that outside of choose of opening, only inaccuracy is again of 14. b3 ideas, so maybe is because knows this is idea of some other position? Is also worth of say that all of moves after 5. cxd4 until 13. Kh1 are best of say stockfish. 13. Kh1 is second best move of say stockfish, but is very strange move of for human. Not I do see idea of immediately, but maybe someone else is are see idea of this move. Maybe are to try play e4 with not have king on g1-a7 line? Not I am sure. 14. b3 at least it are clear of what idea is, but 13. Kh1 look of like very strange move of human to me. After this, are many top engine move again, but not they are appear such impossible of to find on own even though all together are difficult and stockfish top move stop at 22. Rc1. Some of moves are hard to understand why take such much time if did not see plan before are play, but can understand if were try be careful. Again, suspicion but not I am sure this are why this are such suspicion other than find play well and not have clear errors other than have kept up for such far as this without any clear error other than one game where he are lose.

Maybe am will see if something is more obvious later when do last 5, but so far if look at games 1, 2, 3, 5 is very suspicion, but not I can see clear reason for to say cheat other than that all four are not have any real error and that is play extremely well against other player who are should be very, very difficult of for him to win of game with. Am sure that similar case could of be made with for me if choose some match I play against other player. However, is strange that would happen here since not this is go through all matches to look for one where he play best, but is just look at one match here, and are much more unlikely to happen of sample of one match instead of many match.

apu looks legit to me too hes 2600 level so it is very possible that he beat a very rusty onu imo idk im very surprised that he has been marked as a cheater since I played a lot of games with him in my alt accounts and his alt accounts and never felt like he was cheating, he's just a good player and those games was not suspicious at all to me... weird

Good analysis @Xeransis. There is a point which I think needs to be emphasised. The fact that someone has, in the past, played without engine assistance doesn't mean that they haven't used engines in specific games.

Although APU is a strong player, under the assumption that his series against onubense is the main catalyst for him being flagged as using computer assistance, I suspect that by several metrics this series is a statistical anomaly which suggests there is a high probability of him cheating. Is it possible that he just played an amazing series against one of the top players ever? Sure. But one of the drawbacks of an online tournament is that you can never be 100 percent sure of player honesty regardless of reputation. If there is a significant conflict between APU's average blitz performance on that particular account and his performance in that series (under the assumption that was the main reason for believing computer assistance), then there is probably some very high (95% at least I suspect, although 99% would be optimal IMO) confidence that cheating was involved and unfortunately that has to be acted upon.

On the contrary, the opening APU played against onubense as white usually lends itself to very low centipawn loss as white. There are a few ~2000 players that play this opening against me very frequently (1. Nh3 h6 2. e3 e6 3. Nf4 Nc3 4. c3 Nd4 5. cxd4) and I usually scrape a draw or lose as black. On computer analysis, these players usually have a very low centipawn loss against me. If centipawn loss is one of the major metrics involved in this decision, this may skew any conclusions in favour of APU cheating, assuming APU doesn't play this line frequently.

It would be interesting to see how this decision was made, at the very least from a mathematical perspective. But as it stands, I can't conclusively say either way whether computer assistance was involved.

Gentlmen, i have to say thanks to Xeransis for the analysis (very good one saying the truth), but there is something that it seems that everybody forget...

Why did I choose the Nh3 - e3 opening? Easily... I have studied about Onubenses games and he has the worst porcentage of victories with this opening, so, I chose this opening in every game with whites for this reason (except last one because he had a draw with me in the 3 game os whites and i chose e3 and Nf3, which i have used many times with good results).

I have won him in the past several times with this opening and for me is the strongest one and for this i used it (I have won Tipau too with this opening and most of people for ten years in FICS, buho, etc when computers didnt exist).

Its obvious that i have to think some moves when i dont wait a move from my opponent, waiting another one, so, its normal than in a match vs Onubense i have to think.

Its so curious than Xeransis said than was suspicious a move that i have thought when if i used computer assistance the evidence would be the opposite, moving without thinking...

Its very curious too that Xeransis only watched games that i won except my first loose, but why dont you analyze the completed match? Because others one prove clearly that i wasnt cheating.

On the other hand, nobody can think that i can play of some way in tournaments or in same games (using for examples opening like h4 many times, which i really like but obviously im not going to use it in a world championship tournament) and another person like Onubense, can have a bad day having many mistakes (like vs me and everybody can watch that he didnt play as well as others day)...

Xeransis says... i have beaten him 10-2.5, so its strange that he has won Onubense... Everybody has better opponentes than others one and we always played tournaments with little time and nothing to play. When the thing is serious some players play better and others play worse (and some years ago i could show this being the best in a tournaments with best of the worlds in Buho, Onubense an Tipau included and Lichess didnt exist: www.buho21.com/ver_foro.jsf?id=28071&n=9).

Finally, Lichess has not answered to me, has not taken any part about this, there is no evidence of cheating and with every opening everybody can see that i have used many times against hundreds of people, having mistakes too and loosing some games...

I repeat, that i would like to travel to the city of Onubense and playing this match on live to avoid every trash about me with no reason and evidence. Even so and if Tipau or system doesnt change the mind about my play, i will go to the city or country where the winner is and i will challenge him to a match with sames rules (Xeransis included).

Best regards everybody that without evidence defends presumtion of innocence.

And, i have to add one thing about this: "If there is a significant conflict between APU's average blitz performance on that particular account"... My account was opened with only a few weeks before tournaments because i closed my last one months ago, but i have had here in Lichess two accounts with more that 2600 playing vs the best players and no cheating advertisement the whole life and i have more than 20 acconts in buho with 2600 and even so some of them with 2800 years ago when computer assitance didnt exist... Its a very bad argument and nobody knows if im training, thinking about one opening or waiting some moves from my opponent.

The most suspicious thing in this case is that just now, 5 days later of winning, someone tells me that im a cheater (when Lichess says in some minutes and when i have won 2 rounds and no words about this). But yes, it was vs number 1 and this was not expecting in this kind of tournaments... curiousely...

And wow... i cant beat Onubense that doesnt play usually for many months and i have 10-2,5 vs Xeransis but i have 13-4 vs Kreeds that is in the tournament too in quarters final... but yes, he for sure has the level and not me... what an argument! Its a pity reading things like these...

"Its so curious than Xeransis said than was suspicious a move that i have thought when if i used computer assistance the evidence would be the opposite, moving without thinking..."

It take time to check computer, but not it take 6 second to play if already know theory.

"Its very curious too that Xeransis only watched games that i won except my first loose, but why dont you analyze the completed match? Because others one prove clearly that i wasnt cheating. "

Is plan, but it take time, and not I have such many hours for want to spend analyze others games, so not I did do all of at same time. However I am will do others.

There is not enough evidence to prove APU_1 is guilty of cheating.

Yeah, some of his games may seen suspicious, but they don't provide any actual proof. I think that unless Lichess mods come out and give a good reason why APU_1 is banned, then we should use the USA law and say "Everyone is innocent until proven guilty" and unban him.

Also, @Xeransis , sometimes one can be doing something while playing a game, which can increase move times. I have done it before.

Honestly from the public eye we dont know what @APU_1 did wrong, and honestly it doesnt look like he cheated.

It would be a shame if the main reason people are saying he cheated is due to the fact he defeated onubense.

We do need to acknowledge the fact that this was a 3+2 game where people would have prepared a fair bit in order to get ready for this match and they have a decent amount of time, therefore they will be most likely playing atomic better than they usually do.

#FREEAPU

"Also, @Xeransis , sometimes one can be doing something while playing a game, which can increase move times. I have done it before."

I have also, but it just is one other bit of to add more of to this of suspicious. Again, not I am say that he was cheat, but not I am say from what game I have analyze that not he was. Is clear that was play incredible well in some of games with almost every move top choose of stockfish. I not would say from what I see that is clear of cheat, but is maybe I would say that is as likely of be cheat as not is cheat. Some things of here are very much suspicious. Also, moderator have tool that not I can see so is very likely they are see something different. or that have use version other of stockfish that are show even more of suspicious. Maybe is other games outside of tournament that are make clear of cheat? Not I know. But not I will go so far as of to say that is clear not did cheat, or that is clear did cheat of in his games with onubense as are many thing suspicious even though nothing I see is of prove him cheat.

"We do need to acknowledge the fact that this was a 3+2 game where people would have prepared a fair bit in order to get ready for this match and they have a decent amount of time, therefore they will be most likely playing atomic better than they usually do."

Yes, but should only of be for opening. For you 3+2 is much of time more than normal, but not this is true of APU. Him usual is play longer game, but have sometimes play shorter game. For instance of see how he play, look of last game of him win when play of me. lichess.org/BCV5zzti Is clear not cheat, and are many mistake of both side, so is very strange for see something such difference for this match. Also, when I make move in opening slow here, is because not I had memorize opening after 4. c3? because I was more worry about other lines and not I had decide whether was worth try to memorize all strange lines that not many people are play. But with APU of white in those games, is very strange that would need think of at all of those moves if was plan to use these opening. Is silly if any are try to make line of white and not learn any good plan against early not best moves with week to prepare. Also is strange that would choose of to be doing other thing that would need take time for in important match. Again, not I can say of sure that was cheat, but many thing are suspicious, so not I am more likely of say that was not.

@APU_1 if moderators have more information that would maybe show why was ban you, would you be okay of for them to show in this thread? Since is such public issue, I think if you are okay with it maybe it could make more sense of this decision and if you are okay of it not I am see why moderators not should show information if is clear evidence that not we have see.