An increasingly common occurrence

@Ruzgar9543, Wow! So because he beat GMs clearly dictates he cheats! Isn't that sweet? I sit on lichess TV and I see untitled players beat GMs like they are kids.
They beserked him, he didn't, and they paid for it. Is there any wrong with that? Also, allow me point out the fact that this was blitz. You expect me to believe he had time to cheat in 3minutes? Is that logical at all? Also, I watched him play and he wasn't slow in moving. That said, he never really had time to put his moves and his opponents' moves in a chess engine. He was just too good and lichess punished him for it. 😕

Alireza won 77% by berserking, most GMs. But he couldn't beat this fairly obscure, suspiciously new FM. GM Arjun Erigaisi with 2600+ blitz lost to this FM 2-0-0 19 cp in 3+0. Is this possible for a fairly random FM? Yes, but highly unlikely. "I see untitled players beat GMs like kids" Not with 2-0-0 presumably.

@ruzgar9543 you know why your are saying this? because you hate FM Hardman

@Kimushka yeah i hate cheaters

@ruzgar9543 If he is not a cheater, then why are you saying he cheats? because you hate him.

@Kimushka how do you know that he is not a cheater?

Does Alireza still represent the Fide Flag, the country (the nation) must be proud of him - but i am not sure what the state thinks.
I see that in Lichess account he still has the Iran flag applied

@Gambl0r Giving up 50% of your time at the start of the game due to berserking is a serious risk for anyone of any strength. The ensuing time trouble that often occurs as a result of the decision to berserk is large reason why Alireza lost his game to IM chesscode93 early on.

@DragonMaterz EXACTLY!! idk why people are not getting this .. @alireza2003 was playing Bullet while everyone was playing blitz..(Some players did berserk him back tho)

@DragonMaterz Admittedly, I shouldn't say so obliquely that it doesn't make a difference and it shouldn't be rewarded. Rather, I should say that it makes very little difference and shouldn't be rewarded with a full extra point. That's far too generous, especially when you consider that must players only berserk if they are much higher rated than their opponent.

It also obliterates the notion of a tournament being played with a particular time control. Players who want to play 3+0 join a tournament with that time control and end up way out of the podium positions simply because they end up playing fewer games than the players who join a 3+0 tournament and berserk constantly (essentially playing bullet).

Players who 100% berserk will often play 20% more games than players who 0% berserk – more if there's a significant number of double berserk games. That coupled with awarding an extra point for a berserk win means that a player who wins 100% of their games with a 0% berserk rate would finish behind a player who won only around 85% of their games with 100% berserk rate. So the increased risk of losing our drawing the odd game where you might've won with more time is completely offset and then some by the combination of playing more games and gaining extra points.

The only fair way to balance that would be by decreasing the value of a berserk win to a half point, or by calculating the standings based on points per game rather than purely on points scored.