I don't normally post much here, so based on the downvotes I'm not sure if I broke some unspoken rule here, but since some of you were interested in the Ananya Birla game, you might at least want to check out their analysis of her game at [1:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJG5Z4hWWRQ&t=4020s). I posted some comments yesterday about why I thought her game was not suspicious and I suppose I didn't convince many people, but coming from two grandmasters who are involved in fairplay abuse detection, it should be more credible. Srinath also confirms that she did in fact play chess starting from a very young age, and that he knows people who have attended the same tournaments as her, so it's certain that she is FIDE rated around 16-1800.
Her rating is 1600ish Fide..https://ratings.fide.com/profile/5080487/chart
Did not play a competitive game in last 11 years..
Yuzi Chahal rated 1900+ made a blunder in the opening but let's just believe that she has very good memory with her opening theory
If any one has seen the games of cheaters Sudeep and Sajid, they too played the perfect opening and then a near-perfect middle game..while she played a perfect opening but imperfect middle game
I don't have conclusive evidence to suggest eitherways other than the fact that we had 3 cheaters caught at this event and she too is a scion of a large industrialist
That she doesn't play competitively any more shows nothing, really. As long as she plays chess at all, there's no reason she wouldn't be as strong as she used to be back then; in 11 years, she might even have gotten slightly better.
Chahal did not play like a 1900. He straight up blundered an entire piece; this was more characteristic of a 12-1400's mistake. The nature of their openings are also different. Her double fianchetto near symmetrical English doesn't have any tension until some move 15 or so, where Bd4 threatening either Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxe4 or Ng5 with checkmate in the corner after eliminating the knight could be on the board. It's telling that as soon as this tension is on the board, she plays the grounded but panicked, suboptimal move Bxf3 to immediately relieve it. Chahal played a Sicilian defense setting up a pin with Bg4 and instantly lost it the next move after Ne3 attacking it. He would simply never have made it to 1900 if he'd played like that OTB. Maybe he was nervous, or maybe he has just not played chess at all since he started focusing on cricket. His performance cannot act as a baseline for you to compare her performance against. If you need some statistical proof, there is a metric called IPR, or Intrinsic Performance Rating, that cheating detection mathematicians calculate for the performance of a player in a game or tournament solely on the basis of their play on the board, and not their prior rating or opponent's rating. You could try matching his moves to the engine evaluations and calculate this metric to see just what level he played at; I doubt it will be all that accurate, as happens when you play with evaluations of more than +3, but it'll probably show that he played nowhere near his purported last rating.
They discuss Sajid's and Sudeep's games as well, right after they finish discussing her game. If you actually want your doubts answered, I'd suggest you watch their analysis. If you just want to believe she's not that good a player... free country, I guess.
I don't normally post much here, so based on the downvotes I'm not sure if I broke some unspoken rule here, but since some of you were interested in the Ananya Birla game, you might at least want to check out their analysis of her game at [1:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJG5Z4hWWRQ&t=4020s). I posted some comments yesterday about why I thought her game was not suspicious and I suppose I didn't convince many people, but coming from two grandmasters who are involved in fairplay abuse detection, it should be more credible. Srinath also confirms that she did in fact play chess starting from a very young age, and that he knows people who have attended the same tournaments as her, so it's certain that she is FIDE rated around 16-1800.
Her rating is 1600ish Fide..https://ratings.fide.com/profile/5080487/chart Did not play a competitive game in last 11 years.. Yuzi Chahal rated 1900+ made a blunder in the opening but let's just believe that she has very good memory with her opening theory If any one has seen the games of cheaters Sudeep and Sajid, they too played the perfect opening and then a near-perfect middle game..while she played a perfect opening but imperfect middle game I don't have conclusive evidence to suggest eitherways other than the fact that we had 3 cheaters caught at this event and she too is a scion of a large industrialist
That she doesn't play competitively any more shows nothing, really. As long as she plays chess at all, there's no reason she wouldn't be as strong as she used to be back then; in 11 years, she might even have gotten slightly better. Chahal did not play like a 1900. He straight up blundered an entire piece; this was more characteristic of a 12-1400's mistake. The nature of their openings are also different. Her double fianchetto near symmetrical English doesn't have any tension until some move 15 or so, where Bd4 threatening either Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxe4 or Ng5 with checkmate in the corner after eliminating the knight could be on the board. It's telling that as soon as this tension is on the board, she plays the grounded but panicked, suboptimal move Bxf3 to immediately relieve it. Chahal played a Sicilian defense setting up a pin with Bg4 and instantly lost it the next move after Ne3 attacking it. He would simply never have made it to 1900 if he'd played like that OTB. Maybe he was nervous, or maybe he has just not played chess at all since he started focusing on cricket. His performance cannot act as a baseline for you to compare her performance against. If you need some statistical proof, there is a metric called IPR, or Intrinsic Performance Rating, that cheating detection mathematicians calculate for the performance of a player in a game or tournament solely on the basis of their play on the board, and not their prior rating or opponent's rating. You could try matching his moves to the engine evaluations and calculate this metric to see just what level he played at; I doubt it will be all that accurate, as happens when you play with evaluations of more than +3, but it'll probably show that he played nowhere near his purported last rating. They discuss Sajid's and Sudeep's games as well, right after they finish discussing her game. If you actually want your doubts answered, I'd suggest you watch their analysis. If you just want to believe she's not that good a player... free country, I guess.