MY LAST FIDE ONLINE ARENA UNFAIR PLAY REPORTS

Since May 2026, I have been an Arena International Master (AIM) in online chess. However, there are nuances.

I shall stop playing on FIDE Online Arena (FOA) and the site Worldchess.

Below are my latest unfair play reports that I have sent.

&&&

NN is very probably using a chess engine. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (39 moves), NN was disconnected several times in the middle of the game. NN used only 1 min 56 sec of thinking time, while NN’s performance was impossibly perfect: accuracy 0.99, average centipawn loss 2, inaccuracies 0.

&&&

NN is one such player who repeatedly offers a draw against players with a higher ELO. If the draw is rejected, NN takes a long pause. After that, NN plays abnormally fast and precisely as an altogether different player. I am pretty sure that a chess engine was in use.

&&&

NN – I think his games should be checked. I won him, but I think he is playing abnormally fast and precisely. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (47 moves), NN played astronomically fast: every single move was made using the time increment only. NN’s final thinking time is seriously negative: - 1 min 53 sec. Despite a very high speed, NN’s statistics are unbelievably good: accuracy 90%, average centipawn loss 15. When I played at normal speed, NN made only 1 inaccurate move. All the other inaccurate moves and mistakes NN made in a simple technical endgame, when I played extremely fast due to the Zeitnot. I suspect that NN (AFM!) is playing with the chess engine, and when the opponent plays very fast, he does not have time to read the chess engine's screen or thinks it is unnecessary. Thank you.

&&&

NN is very probably using a chess engine during a live game. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (53 moves), NN played at an astronomical pace. During the whole of the game, NN’s thinking time was negative. There were only some rare occasions when NN did not use the time increment only. At the end of the game, NN’s thinking time was seriously negative: - 1 min 29 sec. Despite a very high speed, there were long sequences of precise moves that NN made almost instantly. The statistics are also unbelievable: accuracy 0.91, average centipawn loss 15 (or 0.19). Inaccuracies 3 (or 5), mistakes 2 (or 3), blunders 0 (or 1). However, if we do not count the opening moves, it turns out that most of NN’s inaccuracies were practically the best moves to try to win, as White was in a Zeitnot and these moves were the only options to avoid very drawish endgames. I will stop playing on Worldchess because there are far too many cheaters, and Worldchess is far too slow to take them down. I cannot spend the rest of my life writing unfair play reports every single day, which seem useless anyway.

&&&

These were my last 4 unfair play reports. 

There are cheaters on every chess platform, and I have abandoned many of them.

The FOA is particularly peculiar. It is FIDE’s official gaming platform. However, no video cameras are used. The players cannot be blocked. One cannot set the rating difference for challenges. To obtain the title, one must play in tournaments, where one meets players with low ratings who use chess engines. It rather looks like the system wants you to play against the cheaters and tries to obstruct you if you try to avoid them.

Sometimes the system finally recovers your rating points, but you have already lost the chance to obtain the title, and the system does not restore that chance. You have to start everything all over again.

26 May 2026 

MALEKOHTUNIKUD KINNITAVAD SEDA, ET 2 + 2 = 5

Maletajad, kes reklaamivad, et malemäng arendab mõistust, ei oska ju arvutada. 

Põhikooli matemaatikaga on raskusi. 

Igatahes oskavad nad vist loendada ainult kaheksani, sest kummalgi vastasel on algseisus laual kaheksa etturit.

Nii oli see rahvusvahelise maleföderatsiooni FIDE hääletamistega - nende reeglid on niivõrd segased, et nad kas tahtlikult või kogemata ei saanud ise ka aru, millise "häälteenamusega" nad 2022. a. otsustasid, et seoses Ukraina sõja algusega tuleb Venemaa maletajaile kehtestada spordisanktsioonid. 

Mis enamus see oli ja millest see oli enamus, jäi täiesti arusaamatuks ja muutus vastavalt vajadusele pidevalt. 

Hiljem viis seesama häälte lugemise algoritm (või selle puudumine) 2025. a. selleni, et korraga võeti vastu kaks erinevat resolutsiooni, milles üks teatas, et sanktsioonid Venemaale tühistatakse, teine aga, et ei tühistata. 

Matemaatikaga pole sellel erilist pistmist, sest arvutuste tulemus peab poliitiliselt õige olema. 

Hiljem süüdistati vale tulemuse saamises reeglite rikkumist, ent reegleid rikuti ka õige tulemuse saamisel ja juba aastal 2022.

Äsja sain seoses maletajate matemaatiliste oskustega järjekordse üllatuse osaliseks.

Nimelt saatis FIDE Online Arena mulle ootamatult kirja, milles selgitas tiitlite omandamise uusi reegleid.

Kirja alguses teatati, et seoses reeglite reformiga on laekunud palju nurinaid. 

Ent mina pole FIDE-le mitte mingisugust protesti saatnud seoses tiitlite omandamise reeglitega. Samuti pole ma varem kuulnudki mingisugusest "reitingureformist".

Samuti teatati kirja alguses, et nurinad on põhjustatud sellest, et inimesed pole uute reeglitega veel harjunud. 

Seejärel tutvustati neid uusi reegleid. 

Paraku oli selles kirjas kogu tekst matemaatiliselt kirjaoskamatu, kahemõtteline ja vastuoluline, kohati otseselt vale. 

Kui ma sellele kirjale oma kommentaaridega vastasin, sain ma vastuseks ainult automaatvastuse, mis sisaldas täpselt seda sama vigast reeglite kirjeldust. 

Kui saatsin eraldi kirja, tuli samuti automaatvastus täpselt selle sama vigase tekstiga.

Nüüd on FIDE Online Arena vist juba tuhandetele maletajatele saatnud matemaatiliselt täiesti vigase selgituse uutest reeglitest. 

Küllap on paljud saanud selle kirja juba mitu korda. 

Võib kujutleda, kuidas selle institutsiooni postkast on täis e-maile, mis püüavad selgitada, et uued reeglid on arusaamatud ja tekst mitteloetav. 

Iga kord saadab see institutsioon automaatvastusega täpselt selle sama esialgse vigase kirja. 

Sisuliselt on minule juba kolm korda paari päeva jooksul saadetud kiri, mis teatab, et nüüd on uus reegel, et 2 + 2 = 5; ja kui ma sellest reeglist aru ei saa, siis tuleb see sellest, et ma pole uute reeglitega veel harjunud. 

Niipalju siis sellest müüdist, et maletajatel on palju mõistust. 

I PROTEST FIDE ONLINE ARENA DECISION CONCERNING GAME CANCELLATIONS

Unfortunately, I am practically forced to make my recent letter to the FIDE Online Arena support team public. The reason is that I have repeatedly signalled to that chess platform about their shortcomings through different channels, such as a letter to the support team or a public post on their social media site. I have never received a single comment, not a single word. Now, however, I received a notice that my ability to play has been temporarily restricted because I have cancelled some chessgames. 

As a result, I wrote a letter to the support team and shall publish it here on my blog below. 

I Protest FIDE Online Arena Decision Concerning Game Cancellations

Recently, I received the following notice:

“Game start paused due to recent cancellations.”

My ability to make a challenge was paused for 10 minutes.

I have to stress that the FIDE Online Arena does not have the feature “rating difference,” “rating range,” or whatever it is called. Unlike all other major online chess platforms, the FIDE Online Arena does not allow players to automatically reject opponents with very low ratings compared to the challenger.

Currently, my rating is approximately 1750, and I did not make a move in a game against an opponent with a rating of approximately 1200. The reason is evident: praxis has shown that if I win against such an opponent, I receive 0 rating points; if I lose, I lose 15 or 20 rating points.

It is also not the case that I often dismiss the opponents with a much lower rating than mine. Quite to the contrary: during my previous session, I played approximately 10 games against opponents with a much lower rating, usually earning only 1 or 2 rating points. I spent approximately 4 hours and earned about 15-20 rating points. 

Finally, someone with a rating of approximately 1500 played with astronomic speed and precision, and I lost my first game in that session. I sent a report about a possible use of a chess engine and ended that session. In a few minutes, I lost all the rating points I had earned in 10 games over 4 hours.

Today, I also already played one game against a player with a rating of approximately 1200.

There are other compelling reasons the player might not want to play against a given opponent, unless it is a tournament game. While these do not concern the present case, generally, it too often happens that the player thinks to know that the opponent is a chess engine user or has the tendency to unsportsmanlike behaviour. 

I have to note that I have written to the Support Team about similar issues before, but I have never received any feedback.

Unfortunately, I have to inform you that, as long as the current, uncommon practice of the FIDE Online Arena persists, I shall not make any public lobby challenges on that online chess platform. 

All this does not mean that I do not appreciate many excellent features of the FIDE Online Arena platform.

Sincerely yours

Jüri Eintalu 

I Have Received an Answer

As of now, I have received the first official response to my complaints about the FIDE Online Arena system, which, among other things, does not allow setting rating-difference conditions for challenges. 

I am not entitled to make that answer public. 

However, I quote one phrase from that response:

“... we are already working on creating rating filters.”

KERES - FINE 1937

Keres - Fine 1937

The game Keres - Fine 1937 is said to be Paul Keres’s first outstanding chessgame.

Of course, the game contains several mistakes.

Since then, the opening theory has evolved, and Black’s defence has been improved, for example, by Kramnik.

Keres himself admitted, in his book Valitud partiid [= “Selected Games”], Tallinn 1961, that his maneuver Re1-e3 and Rd1-e1 was clumsy.

Fine had several options to make a prophylactic move h7-h6. He also missed the opportunity to play 20...b5xa4!, attracting White’s bishop from the active position on the diagonal a2-g8.

Fine allowed Keres to start a combination. Suddenly, it turned out that White’s first rank was weak, and Fine seemed to get a counterplay.

After the move 27...d5-d4, the position was critical. White’s rook on e3 - the defender of the rook on the first rank - was attacked and had no good retreating squares.

However, Keres had calculated that the move 27...d5-d4 also opened a diagonal a2-g8 to White’s bishop.

White attacked first and won.

Below, I have tried to make some short comments on that game.