Yura, maybe it would have been better to put the effort into accusing the Chinese guy instead of the bedsheets? You're quite good at that. So far, the Chinese players' response in the neighboring thread has been discouraging; it's not even clear how to counter it. In my own circles, I've often encountered the position of an artist who has vomited out absolute garbage—"that's just how I see it." Such people are practically invincible.
Maybe you'll look at the saves? And Rebel's as well; he has far more grounds than the Chinese guy to claim "that's just how I see it."
For example, here is another thought. I've heard arguments several times along the lines of "he has an unusual way of thinking," "he/they don't play like others," etc. This applies to both Rebel and the Chinese players.
Imho, it's all nonsense. During my time in "Alaska" and at various club champs, I've watched dozens of games from the perspective of top players and others. And I haven't noticed any particularly unusual thinking in anyone; most actions were logical and understandable. And if they were unusual or incomprehensible, they were usually blunders, which is why people lost.
My strict imho is that top players differ from non-top players in that they blunder less than others in calculable situations. Plus, they have a better gut feeling in 50/50 situations.
You guys look at obviously suspicious actions, like not taking the Pandora's box with magic, etc. But you understand that a smart, experienced cheater won't get caught on something like that. This means you need to look at something else.
The thought is this—the higher the player's level, the more predictable their actions are for players of equal skill. That is, if a medium-weak player might make a difficult choice almost every turn, a strong player has significantly fewer such choices. Quality gameplay is usually divided into several segments; at the junction of these segments, there are non-obvious branches, but within a segment, events proceed more or less forcibly.
This can be seen in the history of any gaming sport—at its inception and development, many brilliant players emerge, creators who play originally and in violation of established norms. Simply because the norms are crooked and the opponents are mostly noobs. But when the sport becomes more or less studied, and strategies and tactics settle, there is far less room for Creation, and poor knowledge of the "mandatory program" usually leads to losses regardless of the player's level of brilliance.
So, returning to Heroes—this game is quite well studied, so if a player constantly "creates" in forced situations, it means they are either a noob or a cheater. That is, in a game between two high-level players, there is a certain fate—in most situations, a completely unambiguous and predictable decision will be made. Exceptions occur either due to mistakes or insights, in a ratio of at least 3 to 1, likely even more.
I remember conducting a simple experiment in the analysis of some controversial saves—I gave several strong players a save just before a strange decision and suggested they play from it for 1-2 days. And surprisingly, their actions aligned with my assessment of the position; if they diverged, it was only at the branches, not on the forced section.
Conclusion—if when analyzing games of medium-weak players you need to look for obviously suspicious moments, then for a strong player, it is enough to simply note a poor knowledge of optimal development/scouting/movement strategies to ask the question—"dude, how did you become such a strong player then?". And conversely—if a player has few or no situations where they made the strongest positional decision and it turned out to be a fail, then something is also wrong.
Analyzing games of strong players (which almost all World Championship participants undoubtedly are) is actually much easier than analyzing a noob season. A champion's game should evoke a reaction like "Wow!!!" rather than "what the hell?".
Added after 40 minutes
I was corrected here that different players play in different styles. Yes, that exists, so one person's decisions should not be mechanically transferred to another.
To determine the validity of a comparison, you first need to see how the player behaved previously in similar situations. For example—if he from time to time grabs scholars with his hero, messing up his own build, then he can be forgiven for luckily grabbing a scholar with log. But if he usually doesn't take them, but suddenly in a non-critical situation took one and got a prize, then you can start wondering. That is, before analyzing a suspicious match, it makes sense to study the weak points of his style, sources of possible mistakes and insights.
I remember I had a game where I found a utopia with control at the end of a path through the wilderness, and with my hero (!). They would have definitely pinned it on me if there were a case. But the secret was simple—I have a weakness for running the hero to upgrades, even when I need to push somewhere for tempo. Sometimes in the 1st week I might veer slightly off the road to visit an upgrade. Or in the 2nd week, let the minions beat something, while the hero on an angel runs through the respawn to collect upgrades. I remember Alex and Vasya scolded me for this in Kingisepp. So in that game—I went to one upgrade, saw a stadium, then another one behind it, and ended up hitting the utopia.
In this regard, the analysis where the guys studied how Tinker takes or doesn't take skills on level-ups is absolutely correct. That is, an adjustment for playing style is immediately made, and based on that, a decision is made about the strangeness or reasonableness of certain actions.
