When I think about it, chess is a game where accusations of cheating are regular. Most recently there is the Neimann scandal. There was a lot of cheating accusations for Kramnik vs Topalov as I recall. Kramnik was accused of using Fritz (predecessor to today's stronger engines), and Topalov's manager was doing statistical analysis of Kramnik's move choice and the engine's. When Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, he was very salty and accused IBM of cheating. And those are only a sampling of modern examples. It's hardly a game of cold objective analysis. They've got a lot of emotions these chess players, which makes sense. It gives me solace when I get overly wrought / emotional around my own intellectual pursuits.
>When Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, he was very salty and accused IBM of cheating
The accusation was that IBM made modifications to Deep Blue between games. That's not cheating but then it's not exactly Deep Blue vs Kasparov anymore.
There was a somewhat veiled accusation that there was human intervention in game 2 (as in, a strong human player interceded to influence or outright override the computer's move). Funny that in those days the cheating accusation involved a human behind the scenes instead of a computer.
Chess grandmasters are not the most balanced human beings.
It’s a very small amount of people who have decided to consecrate an inordinate amount of time completely mastering a game and whose main focus in life is playing it competitively against each other.
It’s a lot like elite athletes but more nerdy and with longer career.
