https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fn...

<OCF: I had my suspicions, but the fact he participated in team games, which was against the rules, and won Caissars, which was likewise against the rules,>

He played the Chessbookie game as well. I noticed <Sneaky>'s name among the participants just last leg, and the one before that. This made me have a look at the ChessBookie Hall of Fame page, and I see that he ended up in the Top Ten several times: most notably he took 3rd place in the Championship leg in 2015, and 4th in the 2010 Championship. So he's been close to winning the whole thing.

This was clearly a bit unethical. I mean, as I understand it, he often put up events to bet on in the game, helping out and supplementing the bookie and/or substituting for the bookie. And surely he had access to see what (and how much) the other players were betting on. I find this to be a bit disconcerting.

Me personally, I admit that If I had been around here almost since the beginning, like so many of you guys here have, I would have felt a bit let down, and not found this whole <Sneaky> business to be just charming and amusing. Quite frankly, I understand if some of you also feel a bit disappointed. This doesn't take away all the great qualities this remarkable person had, of course.

<..but I wonder if he had ever intended to come clean in a public manner.>

I don't know. I'm a bit surprised to think about the ChessBookie issue now that you bring it up. As one example, if he placed in a spot that would otherwise generate a prize, then that strikes me as sort of unfair. Of course, he's the one handing out those very prizes in the first place. I'm wavering on this, but still lean toward charming and amusing. He rarely enforced the site rules, so that he didn't apply them to himself is at least consistent.

1. The scores
2. How many rounds are left

Everything else is meant to be taken as light-hearted fiction. You'll note my repeated shots at <chessmoron> about being sick. You'll note my repeated shots at <WinKing> about not being as nice as he thinks. You'll note my repeated refernces to <offramp> trying to cheat when he made that mistake. You'll note me using Yoda-speak whenever I reference <lostemperor> saying something he really didn't say. You'll note me using <Penguincw> as a mouthpiece when I want to say something and have to invent a person to say it. You'll note how I always applaud supposed acts of cheating as someone having competitive spirit. And so forth and so on. It's all make believe, a faux pretense of seriousness about the contest. It's really not meant to be taken seriously. I'm playing it for laughs.

I am reluctant to break character and even make this post, but I don't want you to have any hard feelings and in particular decide not to continue in this contest>

<As one example, if he placed in a spot that would otherwise generate a prize, then that strikes me as sort of unfair.>

<Sneaky> did in fact win prizes. This excerpt is from the 2015 championship announcement on the Chessbookie Forum page:

<chessgames.com: ..Second and third place runner-ups are <Winter> with 23,736 chessbucks, and <Sneaky> with 20,314, who will both receive a free one-year membership as well as a $25 gift certificate to the Chessgames Store.>

Chessgames Bookie chessforum (kibitz #8274)

Let me just note: <beholder> ended up fourth, so one could say that <Sneaky> robbed him of his prize that year.

<In any case, that does tell me these contests do mean something to me, and should be conducted with some sense of propriety.>

They definitely should. I know these contests are supposed to be light-hearted fun, and not too serious. But I think the joy disappears if they are too arbitrary and not conducted properly.