Shahades's blog regarding the Kosalyov incident for starters. He may have grounds for such accusations, but the "sensational" headline of "cheating scumbag" is unprofessional and totally uncalled for. He then goes on to say Zurab is a racist, making racial slurs. Again, a lot shouting that is unjustified and completely wrong (Saying someone dresses like a gypsy is not being a racist. Gypsies are not a "race" of people but an ethnic group.) Boldly printing headlines in his blogs with "Racist" "Sexist" "Liars" is typical of the many accusations he makes of people and organizations. He seems to think he's a spokesperson on Woman's issues, making all the "politically correct" statements. The points he brings up are topics of concern, but his manner is unprofessional which leads me to question his intent, which I see as only self serving.
So, who does one believe? Hansen who says he did very little study or reading of books growing up, and spent all of his time playing blitz and bullet on the internet or Shahade who claims he's lying? (from where does he make this claim? Personal knowledge?) Btw, Hansens early chess games, literally 100,000's can be verified on the 1st chess websites. He wouldn't have had a whole lot of time for study, playing like a maniac all the time.
@mdinnerspace I don't know, man. It seems clear to me based on the evidence that Zurab is a cheater and did use a racial (ethnic?) slur. I also don't think advocating for women's issues is any evidence of untrustworthiness. Maybe you don't like the very direct way in which he discusses these things, but again, it's hard to go from that to him being untrustworthy.
There's also a large difference between "no study" and "some study." I'd believe Hansen if he said he mostly played and only read a little. But I think the claim is that he literally didn't read anything at all, which is (as Greg points out, alluding to firsthand knowledge of the situation) wholly unbelievable.
Where is this 1st hand information to be found? I found dozens of accusations of "liars" in Shahade's blog's, but nothing refering to Hansen.
"Cheater" is a broad term . Brings up all kinds of images in peoples minds. It is a term that has many connotations, a "card" thrown out for people to imagine the very worst. Zurab has never been accused of assisted played by an engine. He allegedly "rigged" a tournament with friends that agreed to results before the matches. Yes, technically this is "cheating" but not in the context that is usually associated with the term.
Sorry, but I have an issue with someone who appears to have an agenda, prefacing his blogs with playing the card "racist, sexist, liar, scumbags". He's always making allegations, mad at something or other, taking personal issue. His home page describes never once having tasted alcohol, never having worked a single day in his life. As if he's "above" everybody else. Not my cup of tea.
I have heard Hansen on his broadcasts when discussing how he learned chess. He's has simply said he did not spend his time studying books, rather he spent it playing bullet and blitz chess. Never had a coach, the game just came naturally for him at a very young age. This is not uncommon, a few lucky ones are gifted. I'm very sure he has "booked" up in recent years. He'll be playing in The Isle of Man Event. Good Luck.
Saying having "never studied" is not refuted by the random reading of chess material. "Study" implies the systematic approach of devoting time and energy to a given resource.
Ok, so your objection is that while Zurab cheated, we shouldn't call him a cheater? Or that someone whose style you don't like is automatically untrustworthy? Personal views on a personal blog -- how shocking!
There's an oblique reddit comment (under his handle curtains20) referencing people who claim to have become masters without ever reading a book and so on.
Anyway, I think what's most likely is that Hansen mostly played a lot and only read a little, which seems reasonable.
There are ways of reporting the facts and or allegations of misconduct in a headline. It seems clear Zurab abused the system. He should have been booted out a long time ago.
But to Headline a blog with "Cheater, lying scumbag" is sensational journalism. It's main intent is to sell copy, not report the facts.
So, I guess Shahade would label Capablanca, Morphy and many others who never studied books or had a coach at an early age as "Liars"
Many thanks for everyone's well thought out replies. :) If I had to answer my own question, I would have to say that playing competitive OTB has gotten a bit less exciting for me, whereas playing for fun and socializing about chess has gotten more enjoyable as my rating has increased. For example, I was offered the position of VP in my local chess club from what I guess was only because I was one of the strongest players in the club. I most likely wouldn't have been offered this if I was a 1200 or 1400.
i enjoy chess now, when i am a weak player (with a very low rating). i play mostly for fun but i also do study the openings, middlegames etc but casually. Mostly i enjoy chess when there are complications over the board and it becomes very calculative. i do like chaos also, which players like Tal, or Nezmehtdinov created otb.
Anything above 2000 is stupid.
At that point it becomes ridiculously tedious; seldom if ever do you see anything but by the book; move for move games.
0/0/0s become common. Which is ridiculous.
There arent THAT many grandmasters in the world.
But according to lichess and the number of people rated over 2200 like everyone of us should know 5 gms personally.
Too much chess engine C++ written high school projects masquerading as top tier players.
I'm fine being 1500-1600 rating, the moment I fall into the obligatory chore of studying is when I lose the element of fun and become a slave to the concept.