Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Suspected Cheater 'Strip-Searched'

  • SonofPearl
  • on 30.12.2012, 15:31.

News has emerged that a Bulgarian chess player was "strip searched" after being suspected of cheating during a tournament in Zadar, Croatia held from 16-22 December.

There were 36 players in the tournament, including 16 Grandmasters, yet the 26-year old computer programmer Borislav Ivanov with a rating of only 2227 Elo finished with a 6/9 score, beating four GMs along the way to claim 4th place.

The top placings at Zadar

# Name Elo Pts
1 GM Predojević Borki  2600 6.5
2 GM Stević Hrvoje  2622 6.5
3 GM Sumets Andrey  2638 6.0
4 Ivanov Borislav  2227 6.0
5 GM Jovanić Ognjen  2538 5.5
6 GM Kožul Zdenko  2638 5.5
7 GM Šarić Ante  2533 5.5
8 GM Martinović Saša  2530 5.5
9 GM Cebalo Mišo  2402 5.5

.

Despite the "strip search" no evidence of cheating was found. 

Stanislav Maroja, chairperson of the chess union in Zadar District said, “After the eighth round we received a signal about Ivanov’s game and after his game with Borko Predoevic, who later on won the tournament, we decided to check on both of them. There were suspicions that Ivanov has some electronic tools to help him and in my capacity of a judge I decided to make a move in line with the FIDE rules. It is not true that we made him strip naked. He himself took off his t-shirt, while we emptied his pockets.”

The FOCUS Information Agency quoted GM Zlatko Klaric, “Ivanov is chess programmer...he made moves like a computer, which was obvious in the game vs Jovanovic. Technologies are so developed now that theoretically, since the games were aired live, Ivanov’s friends...could have sent him hints for his moves through chips, which could have been placed under the skin, in the ear, or in the teeth.”

Either Ivanov had the tournament of his life, or he found a way to cheat without being detected. All of his games from the tournament are below.

This disturbing story also raises many other questions, two being: a) what are the limits of an arbiter's powers to search an individual suspected of cheating? and b) do we now have to scan suspected players for implanted computer chips?

.

.
Games and results table via Chessgames.com.

Czytano 14921 razy 167 komentarze
7 głosów
więcej Różne

Komentarze


  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sittingpawn

    @Cnacnel ~Houdinivanov? Man looking how people are immediately gravitating to it, I would tell you right now you need to patent that and sell it at the next chess event, A little picture of Ivanov in a position like The Turk, dressed similarly and instead of a person below him pulling the strings you have a computer with the words Houdini printed on it in such a way as to not violate their own patents. GENIUS! You'll rake in the dough!

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Champeknight

    Houdinivanov will never play in a big tournament again... Unless he is a stupid, arrogant man.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    C-nack

    Just check out the last game... Karpov, Kasparov, Tal, Fischer, Rubinstein, Carlsen, Anand in a vote chess would play this game worse than Borislav Houdinivanov.

    20... Nxb3!?

    26... Qa6!

    32... Nb6!!

    34... Qf1!!

     

    It's not a mystery that Houdini is generally better than the grandmasters. I await a game Carlsen vs Houdinivanov. I hope Carlsen will draw at least 1 game.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sittingpawn

    @Sisu~ I have a feeling based off of how this article and similar ones were written that they were responding and didn't actually report what had happened (the organizers). I'm sure the idea of someone being striped searched wouldn't be something they wanted publiclly known. The fact that they had to make special note that it was Ivanov who removed his shirt makes me think they were trying to do damage control. I for one hope we can see more of Ivanov down the road. He is likely to be a bit of an attention grabber for the next few tournaments he joins and it'd be interesting to see if he gives a statement. CHESS DRAMA!

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sisu

    @sittingpawn: I think i've said enough on this matter. But take it from me, master level players can spot a cheater, not just based on one game, but based on many things. In this case Lilov noted the computer moves, the previous history of the player, and the understanding of the player.

    The real criminals were the organisers who chose to report on such a case when they did not prove their allegations. The horse had already bolted! Cried over spilt milk! Whatever phrase you would like to use.

    It is quite hard for an amateur player (and this includes the arbiters) to understand sometimes, but this is chess. 

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sittingpawn

    @sisu~ I'm not sure what I'm waffling about, I'm trying to progress the conversation because the rest of you sound like broken records, you have one idea that you use to support your case, "his moves match the computer so closely, and the others do not. In this event he clearly cheated, and as the video shows," The fact of the matter is that this is circumstantial and I've shown in other situations that this isn't an isolated occurrence with players. Heck the 10 year old version of Lilov did the same. I also don't understand what you mean at a fish level, this terminology has never been introduced to be before, I can guess but I don't see the similarities. I still disagree with you that a "master" player can spot a cheater out of a crowd or even from looking at a game. I'm sorry but I think you place too much faith in these people and this is clearly evident in that this is a discussion and not a closed case. I also think you still missed his point in talking about this "knowing" or whatever he calls it because he was talking about a person playing poorly, doing moves that a stronger player knows better for. This wouldn't work for someone online cheating because they wouldn't make those mistakes. The idea being that Ivanov wasn't cheating in that 8th game he was playing himself. It's a compelling argument.

    @Liart~I guess you wont read this, which is fine but it's nothing like the same. Unfortunately the system isn't a perfect one. Yes the innocent can be convicted under false beliefs just like the guilty can run free because of technicalities. But your analogy is again under an assumption that the similarity in this case is both are guilty but going to get away with it, and I could just as easily say it's akin to the case of the guy who was convicted of rape because he was black, picked up on the street miles away and convicted on his prior records only to find DNA evidence exonerated him 10 years after the fact proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he didn't commit it. See these arguments will always go around in circles.

    The history of this discussion, starts with the yell to arms over the fact that he beat 6 GMs and that in and of itself was impossible. Then someone got clever and showed a high correlation of his moves to a computer's top choice, then there was a small and good discussion about possible ways it could have been achieved and then some new people stepped in and then it wasn't he made all his moves like the top choice of houdini it was now top 3 choices of houdinis and there it got stuck. There needs to be more than that.


    The thing is I would place my billfold on the fact that each and every one of you holds faith in one of the following things;

    An omnipotent, omniscient and ubiquitous god
    Alien beings who have traveled to earth
    Ghosts
    telepathy
    psychics, including prophets like nostradamus
    Major government conspiracies like 9/11, kenedy assassination etc...
     
    Yet it would take an extreme amount of suspension in disbelief to believe that a person could play a game where a good majority of his moves come from the computer's top 3 options. BTW, I finally did get to run the figures and analysis of the 116 move game, i didn't do 5 min a move because to be honest i'm not devoting 20 hours of my computer to it but instead stuck at 90 seconds. Ivanov came in at 86% compliance with top 3 moves, but I don't just look at Ivanov, I need a control to compare to. You see it's not enough to say, WOW 86%! that's incredible, so I went on to check his opponent... His opponent picked the Houdini's top 3 83% of the time. Ivanov's first 50 or so moves consist a lot from the top choice of houdini, then after around the 50 mark and especially after his blunder in the late 60s we see his choices dip, a lot less come from top 3 and even fewer choices from top 1. Ivanov has one blunder and two significant mistakes in the first 100 moves. His opponent had top 3 choice 83 percent of the time, mostly dispersed throughout the game, while Ivanov had more top 1 choices the difference wasn't significant. His opponent had one blunder in the first 100 moves that came when he lost control of the win at move 73. The curious question is if Ivanov is cheating why make such a costly mistake? If I were going to try and theorize this I might suggest that because of his opponents ability to fend off and prevent Ivanov from gaining any ground in the game maybe he panicked. This is the second game in the tournament and if he was cheating this is where he'd be most concerned with getting caught. He could think, wow they're setting me up, having me face a computer to see what I do. He panics and trys to throw the game. Of course when it isn't taken this would not only explain the blunder but why he starts picking from top 2 and 3 moves from there on out. His "mistakes", if you can call them that, for rest of the game till the end are inconsequential and not threatening.

    Now as to how he cheated!?! I've asked you ardent afirmationists in his guilt to tell me how this was accomplished. He was searched and therefore we can assume he had no device on him. You get hung up on the computer analysis and become a one trick pony so since you fail to discuss this I guess I'll have to give it a go. It is possible, considering how thorough they searched him that he had something in his underwear but to be honest any device that they wouldn't have detected that would allow him free movement and the ability to sit and sweat for long periods of time wouldn't be able to give him accurate information. Another idea is a deep ear piece. There are a few hearing aids that sit deep inside the ear canal and can't be seen with a cursory glance at the ears. I would hope that they asked to see in his ears but assuming they didn't it's possible. I'm not sure of the ability to transmit or receive radio frequencies in devices like these though and it's possible that anything that would have to receive information would have to be bigger. It really doesn't matter how his informant got the information, they could have been in the audience or they could have been watching live, there's too little information to ascertain that but we can safely assume anyone could have gotten the games moves in a timely manner so as to give the computer 60-120 seconds at the least of contemplation time to decide it's move... Speaking of which there were a few times when I was going over that the best move the computer chose out of the gates became below top 3 after a min of thinking and a move that never even was top 3 to start breeches top 3 30 seconds in and at 90 seconds becomes top 1. Hence it's important to give the computer time to think. The issue I'm having is how he could have done it. I will grant the high correlation to his move choice and the computer's top 3, but to me after all my other research on other people's games I can tell you that it's not as improbable as I once believed. So the burden is on the accuser to show guilt. You've convicted him already now show us how.

    Why? Well here's the thing. An accusation of cheating is a considerable offense. It's so important that we've spent days debating it. It's so important that Valeri went and made an hour video documenting his opinions of the games in question. This has the potential of ruining a man's life to some extent and if that's going to be done, well you should be absolutely unequivocally certain. What if I were to say this. One of you who have been arguing with me this whole time is cheating! What if I were to tell you that one of you, someone that would surprise you and then again wouldn't, who has been attacking Ivanov for cheating is using a computer program, a program that is NOT houdini and only when the games have gotten away from them. See I was going through your guys games too to check correlations to top 3 houdini moves the thing is that one person had a funny situation where most moves didn't correlate till they got into trouble, down a piece or positionally in trouble. Then their moves become significantly stronger, top 3 choices across the board, after running a few against some older chess engines I had on my computer I noticed that one of them was almost a match move for move. Now this doesn't always mean a win for this person because sometimes they're in too much trouble to escape, sometimes it amounts to a draw from a defeated position and sometimes it is a win. The point being what if I came forward and divulged that person name with only my opinion to go off of? What then? I mean if I was wrong, if this person just shines in the presence of adversity then I've ruined chess.com for this person, they'd have to switch accounts, they could be black listed and all because I rushed to judgement. Here's also the sad thing. I say I wont divulge this person's name (and there is a person this is a true story), and if say this person makes a comment saying, "give us the name!" and then I do people will say, "well of course he said for us to name him because he wanted to use that as an excuse in the fear that he would be called out anyway! He did it to provide cover." If that person stays quiet on the subject people say, "How interesting that he was calling for Ivanov's head a moment before but then when he hears of this cheater on chess.com he becomes quiet, he knew it was him! PROOF!" He can't win. But don't worry, I won't name him because it's not my place, I could be wrong. The point though is that with what is at stake, it should be only under the right amount of proof that the label cheater should be applied to someone. As it is I guarantee that this guy will be lucky to ever join another tournament. If he's guilty then that's a good thing but if he's innocent it's a horrible thing.

    See maybe you guys don't understand, I ask a lot of questions because I KNOW I DON'T KNOW! You seem to have a lot of faith in your knowledge, but see I know I don't know. I don't know what happened, I don't know what went down and I cannot say with any certainty what happened, I can try and speculate all I want and through discussion then things can get hashed out and maybe some answers can be brought to light. Not in any way about whether he's guilty or not, Look that's not possible without more information, I'm sorry but you can never KNOW, instead maybe we can figure out how to prevent these situations both false positives and false negatives in the future. Even at the very least we can challenge our own beliefs which makes them stronger. The thing Sisu is that you only seem to look at what agrees with your system of belief and disregard and explain away everything that doesn't agree with it. High number of top 3 choices, AGREE! strip searched and found no device for cheating, IGNORE! Moves that blunder away pieces and don't fit with top 3, explain away interference, etc... I admit that even though I can find similar situations of people matching up with the computer's top 3 80% or more, that this is still an anomaly that points a finger and Ivanov, especially when you look at his moves when he makes mistakes compared to the best move, ie swapping maybe e3 with b3 since they sound the same or the live feed issue (I'm still not clear on what happened with this). Unlike most of you I'm open to either being true, I just cannot convict based off of some computer pondering.

    @champeknight~I was initially not going to respond to you as you called me a troll for not agreeing with people which I found sophomoric but I will address this because I figured someone would bring this up. First off, I never personally used tactics trainer, in fact, I was teaching friend chess and tried it out letting them play through it mostly on my phone. This was back awhile ago. I don't usually use computers, in fact I had to go drudge up these engines from back when I was playing around with configing TheKing engine. I'm a pen and paper and book kind of guy but the internet is the best place for online chess as I've had issues with correspondence chess before. Of course I'm sure that answer wont impress you but it's the truth. The other truth is that I never beat what's his name as my strongest player beat. The game was essentially drawn early in a tournament, maybe move 20 or so if I recall and then I believe that player was banned back when they used to tell you. I got the win and the points but I never beat him, I would say my best win was against a 2400 player. I also will agree that I suck at OTB! Surprise! Well suck is a harsh word but I rely heavily on the analysis board and my days to think, you see my mind is getting quite feeble in my old age. I actually don't mind the accusations because I can discuss my games and I used to write down notes and keep detailed information about the games I was playing but I don't have the time for that anymore. I think you'll also see if it shows I lost to a 1000 rated player once too, I timed out! :o The thing is I know about me just as you know about you but neither of us really knows about Ivanov! Anyone here read the brothers karamazov?

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sisu

    @Champeknight: Yes he and thousands of others are similar. You know and I know, but I have better things to do than do an investigation like Lilov to convince the staff to know.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Champeknight

    Check out sittingpawn's online chess rating vs his tactics trainer rating, both in 2009. His best win and highest online rating is very impressive. His tactics trainer rating is mediocre, even after a thousand tries. Incidentally, it is hard to cheat in tactics trainer with limited time.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Champeknight

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Liart

    As of now I am not going to read any posts by sittingpawn anymore. I figured a while ago that that was just a waste of time, but was tolerable for far too long.

    P.S. This reminds me of Case of Ramush Haradinaj the lider of terrorist organisation acting in Kosovo, who was liberated by international court of justice after majority of whitnesses were KILLED (I think it was 8 out of 9 key whitnesses or something crazy like that). So there is no whitnesses who are willing to testify, hence the guy is "innocent".

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sisu

    @sittingpawn: With all due respect, I have no idea what you are waffling on about. You ask a lot of questions, but most of them are irrelevant. If you watch the entire video, it is rather comprehensive, and I agree with Tiger Lilov's assessment.

    However to prove this assessment is another story, and that is why the organisers/arbiters were not adequately prepared for this. I also enjoyed Tiger's idea of introducing a jamming device after that idea was kind of shut down by some silly arguments here.

    But as I said before, this Ivanov will be under the microscope now, and I doubt whether he will play to this level again.

    If you compare a few of the results where you have a lower rated player performing superbly, for example my friend Jari, then the difference between those players and Ivanov is rather simple: his moves match the computer so closely, and the others do not. In this event he clearly cheated, and as the video shows, he played other events where he played to his true level. One cannot be so playing at this level with that amount of accuracy to the computer's moves, when two weeks ago, he was playing at a fish level, blundering pieces etc etc.

    Also in the video, the round 2 and round 8 games have a simple explanation. Round 2: In time trouble his "signal" was messed up. Round 8: there was no "signal".

    Rather convincing if you ask me.

    Note that Tiger has had to spend a lot of time to convince amateurs of this, by making the video. Strong players can take 5 to 10 minutes of quick analysis of the games and the player and then they already know. That is what I mean about understanding. A true master player has years of understanding in the game which cannot be compensated for by someone cheating with an engine. The cheaters cannot "cover up", because they lack the understanding to do so.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sittingpawn

    @gerakus~ Okay I'm going to run a deep analysis of this 118 move game. But lets get the picture clear, did he pick top 3 moves the whole game or the top 1 move? Every person up till now has said top 1 move. Also I guess this 2600 level player he played that game against was some genius too because he held off the Best engine in the world for 118 straight moves, even though from my recollection of the game there were moments when Ivanov held a bit of a lead. I'll set it up for 5 min time controls and I'll see for myself.

    @dokter~ A fine post, and I'll make sure to watch the entire hour later, I've been through a good portion and I heard Valeri say something interesting about 15 moves into the first game after the opening. He said he'd never seen, even with GM games, so many top computer moves played like this. He earlier stated it would be a miracle. The problem with this is it only took me to go and grab the first game of his off of chessgames.com Valeri Lilov vs Milos Roganovic. A game played in 2001, a game played that doesn't list either players rating so either they're unrated at the time or it wasn't input but here's the funny thing, starting from I believe move 11 where I randomly just choose to go into the game throughout for 20 straight moves Valeri chooses top 3 engine choice 19 of the 20 times. He usually chooses top 1 with one or two in top 2 and I believe only one was the top third choice. Does Valeri know how to spot a cheater because during this game he did cheat? Well of course not! What was Valeri's rating in 2001? I mean he was 10 years old at the time so I'm sure it wasn't significantly higher than 2200.

    @Liart~ See this is how it starts. Someone doesn't agree with you so attack the man himself. Better to not address what I've brought up, better not take on my challenge to explain how it was done but just make some crass remark. Fitting.

    @Sisu~ Since I haven't watched the entire video yet since it is 3:30am here and I cannot sit through an hour of it yet, I'm glad you brought this part of "understanding" to the table. I think this if not more than anything goes to show you a concept of psychological warfare that is implemented into the game. Now Valari makes a decent point, but essentially what he's saying is that Ivanov played a useless move that shouldn't have been played and that typically speaking a 2600 rated player would not make this mistake. We of course have to raise Ivanov up to the status of 2600 and no longer look at him as 2200 because he's been beating these masters. Now, let me tell you something about myself. I play an online game of sorts called Lumosity, essentially they are games that try and challenge certain aspects of your brain with the idea that you'll be able to work on those areas and strengthen them. Now, there's this one game where a symbol is shown to you then another symbol is flashed in front of you, all in all there are like 5 I believe and what you have to do is quickly choose if the new symbol matches or doesn't match the previous one. I love this game and there are times I don't miss one, I have fast reaction time and I get 100% correct and I'm just sailing and then I'll play another game, and I miss one right out the bat, there's this awful little buzzer sound to tell you you missed. Then I'll get a few right and I'll miss again, then again, and then I'll start missing more. Next thing I know my response rate slows to almost double and my accuracy falls by 10-15 percent. Why is this? Why is it when I take IQ tests where I'm not aware of my previous results I do fabulous but when I'm aware if I got the last question wrong I do horrible?  This is one of my interesting caveats to this whole situation. The element that is underlying this whole thing. I don't dare think that IF Ivanov is innocent that he is a 2600+ rated player in the least. I would however say he has flashes of getting there. Did his opponents underestimate him? Did he have extra prep time going into the match? Does he buckle under pressure and flourish in the breeze? Was he using some electronic device to assist with moves? Did he have a centaur feed him moves from the back of the room? Was a computer chip under his skin? Lots of questions not a lot of answers. The problem though Sisu with your suggestion about Chess.com using a master level player to look at games of suspected cheaters (which I assume they do do) and analyze them for weird moves like this is that Valeri's point was that this game Ivanov got beat like the lower rated player he is and therefore wasn't cheating this game cause if he was he'd not have made that move. Therefore contrasting this to how he played in the previous games. Of course the previous game we never saw him under that kind of strain.

    You know for all you who want to bash me and attack me and get angry at me just because I don't agree with you. It's just sad. News Flash, not everyone has to agree with you and you're not the center of the universe. Stick to relevant coherent conversation if you don't like what I have to say, refute it. FINE, refute my position and refute my ideas, take on my challenges and use your mind to dissect and dismantle. I realize that when talking to people about religion you can get into shaky grounds, politics too sometimes but seriously chess?!? You guys are going to get all personal over a discussion of possible cheating in chess? Can nobody have an opinion that is not 100% lock step with your own? Of course this doesn't apply to all of you, just a select few, but i giggle every time I read it... and there are some whom I just don't bother reading.

    And on the last note, how come nobody will discuss how it could have been done?

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sisu

    I would suggest to all staff members to watch this.

    Organisers and staff just have to be smarter. But what is relevant for chess.com is that around the 40 minute mark in the video he says something interesting concerning "understanding of the master level player". This is what I am referring to in my suggestions to eliminate cheaters on this site very quickly. Hire a master that understands the engine, not some master who doesn't really know, and not rely totally on stupid statistical analysis to determine everything.

    I would say that Ivanov is about a 1900 level player. He is too much of a fish to know how to centaur his moves. 

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Champeknight

    Excellent conjecture Liart. Sittingpawn is just a troll disguise for ivanov. His arguments are unbelievable. Too bad he can't cheat his way out of this forum.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Liart

     about sittingpawn:

    I am starting to beleive that the owner of this account is Borislav Ivanov himself. I can't find any other explanation for his stubborness

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    dokter_nee

    Yes Sittingpawn, check this video completely, thanks for mentioning this rusty:

    http://blog.chess.com/TigerLilov/chess-mysteries---the-cheating-scandal-in-zadar

    This is so obvious, it's amazing that he got away with it.

    Really sad for chess.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    sittingpawn

    @TwoMove~ I don't understand how we can take a moment here, a moment there and try and compare them as if it's relevant, because it's not. Annand did not by any means play his best tournament there. It is not expected that the computer would match more opening moves for annand because usually opening theory is less best move based and more best concept based and that's not something the computer can do. Unless it's using and opening book we can expect it not to match opening prep to a high degree. Lastly and most importantly you noted that the setting was 10ply which by houdini standards on my weak computer means that houdini would be playing bullet chess. My version of houdini on my weakest computer in my house reaches 15 ply in less than half a second. Try changing the settings for 24-25 ply.

    @Paladnio2012~I love your satirical wit! Unfortunately I think the roles are quite reversed. What the prisons are full of are people who were convicted in a court of law beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is much too much doubt. In fact, if Ivanov comes out tomorrow and said he cheated or if they caught him cheating somehow then I would gladly say he was a cheater. On the other hand, if they took Ivanov and stuck him buck naked in a sealed off room with Carlsen, with all types of interference devices and no video feed and he beat Carlsen I would bet my life that that would only fuel on the "HE MUST BE CHEATING" crowd. First, I've done my own research of the games themselves and I haven't found any move that was astounding to such a degree that a person of my ability couldn't have made. I also have run the game through computer analysis with between 2-5 min/move and I do not get the same correlation between best move and Ivanov's move. Please do this, look at his games and find me a point where he makes a complicated sac that doesn't pay off for 10 moves or something like that. Some bizarre move that is so innocuous that it is only seen to fruition a ways down the road. Something a human would rarely ever play because of the long complicated and vague lines it produces. Explain to me if he was strip searched and the live feed turned off how he was able to still cheat? How was it done? Why is that too much to ask? If you're going to prosecute this guy, do it the right way, tell us how he did it.

    @dokter~ I'm using the same engine all you used, but I'm not running it for a fraction of a second, I'm running each move between 2-5 min per move. Maybe it's because I understand the way these engines work. You're not going to win anything against decent players if you're only playing the computers first move every time. And I don't care what someone "feels" The guy is a federal master, fine that's respectable but he's reacting to his emotions, one might wonder if anyone of you would feel the same way about these games had this guy been rater 2700. When you write, "By the way it was the game of round 5 were all the moves matched up for me personally. And when you run the engine, it''s better to let it run with 3 lines. And also you don't need to include the opening (like first 10 moves), as I see you did." Look, if your'e running the best 3 lines then you have to give the computer more time to contemplate the moves, I wouldn't trust it anything less than 90 seconds at the very least, Also, if you think he's using a computer why not use the first 10 moves? Chances are he used a computer for the first 10 moves too, I mean if you're going to cheat, why only start cheating at a certain point? I mean wouldn't his computer have a good opening book? That way he could play a perfect opening book to give him the best chances, no point in making some stupid blunder in the opening, and besides one of the main complaints everyone has is that he played so many different openings, so therefore lets look at the opening too. Besides you're still missing my point. Let's say you're right and he did match up with the top 3 computer moves in a game, again like I've stated before this is only an improbability and not an impossibility and therefore is not sufficient evidence. Explain how it was done considering that he was stripped and searched and all that stuff. As to his age... do you forget he is rated over 2200? It's not like he sucks at chess, you act like he's a complete patzer and then one day went to a tourny and played like a phenom. The trust is the guy understands chess and was able to knock off some low end GMs in a tournament. Let's not forget that these GMs are not top 100 players, they're just people who have done what it takes to get GM status and are not unbeatable. As far as the live feed, I'm only going off of what others have said, and they said it was turned off for both 8 and 9, but lets assume you're right as I have no reason to doubt you. According to all your own statistics he still played with a high correlation to computer moves, and if this is the case than it still flies in the face of him using the live feed to cheat.

    @Liart~ My assumptions about your ASSUMPTIONS are not wrong in the least. Look just cause you've heard of this guy before doesn't mean you're not just going off of what people tell you. You cited an article by a guy who lost to him who is mad and claiming he cheated. I mean look you can, "know he cheated" all you want but that's an assumption and to be quite frank the only thing I really know is that you don't "know" anything with regards to this. If you "know" he cheated then you should be able to tell me how. I mean if you're so bright as to "know" things that you're not directly involved in then by all means tell us how it all began. Look, you suspect the guy, fine. It's a typical response but if you can't prove it then you should not jump in with both feet.

    @rustytroll~:p

    @hicetnunc~Funny cute game, I only wished my 18mo. could move a piece to the correct space and push a pawn. You must be so proud. BTW, I don't know how you found my profile on chessclub but I'm beginning to think you're an evil genius hacker who has infiltrated my maximum security firewalls and is watching me on my webcam as we speak :o

    @_valentin_~I agree here to some extent, that's why I keep trying to get the conversation off of the idea that he had a high percentage of best computer moves. If we accept that fact then the next point would be to figure out how it was accomplished, given all the data we're given. The truth is in my online games where I can report suspected cheaters I often do with a high amount of success. I'm not overly trusting, but gosh if we're wrong here we're turning something that could be a great story and even a great motivation for all lower rated players and kids into something dirty just because why? Are we jealous? Are we mad he did something we couldn't? Of course the reverse is also true, if we laud him and tell his story and he is found to be a cheater than we have crushed these same people once motivated and inspired.

    @gerakus~ "on move 68 and 69 black make two blunders in a row, probably his houdini freezes or windows 8 crash" I think this shows how far people can fill in the blanks in order to make things match their own view. So he blunders and though he's rated at 2200 he can't figure out how to make a simple move of his own when his computer mysteriously freezes. I'm assuming at move 68 considering they went to move 116 that he wasn't in time trouble so why then could a reboot and start-up which only takes a min or two not be able to be done? It's a great idea that this program freezes but seriously it's not a realistic explanation. Also look at what he was doing when he screwed up, he was killing time, he was playing "safe" thinking his position was stable, he essentially got his mind in a loop and he played the same move expecting his position to be sound. It's not like he he made some bizarre move that cost him, it was really just a mental fart at best, which happens again later. Then you say, "on move 115 black made a terrible blunder so easy to spot, that cant believe was miss by a player playing like a 3000+ raiting machine :)" If I recall Annand made a horrible move in his last tournament that should never have been made by a world champion. I'm sure when you're move 116 into the game the mind can give way regardless how good you are.

    {sigh} Look, it's annoying trying to discuss whether or not his moves matched the computer's best 3, even if they did it's not proof in and of itself that he cheated as this is not an impossibility. It just means it gives you cause for concern. Computers don't always make the best moves and humans are completely stupid. Maybe he was completely focused, maybe he's taking some chess steroids, maybe he has a computer built into his brain and is able to calculate positions at a fast rate. Maybe he's a programmer and therefore he used his own algorithms and "rules" he built for his computer to help him pick his best move. Look be creative, be inventive and clever, but try and figure out how it could have been done then. When this discussion began people talked about blocking wireless signals and jamming devices, get back on the full topic at hand. I believe he couldn't have used an earpiece and it's unlikely that he had some device implanted in his skin. I would be surprised if there was someone in the audience feeding him signals on what to move because this would have been spotted easily enough. If you can paint a whole picture of what possibly happened then your case for stating he cheated becomes more clear and precise. Just saying he played an unbelievable 9 games is not in itself enough.

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    _valentin_

    hicetnunc's clever game was a lovely refresher to the lately confrontational conversation that had developed!

    Let me ask all other participants:  Do you seriously expect the people making the arguments you're trying to refute to throw in the towel at some point and admit that you were right all along?  And if not, what's the point of continuing?  We've heard all arguments many times over by now.  It appears that some of us like to exonerate people when they can, others like to convict people when they can: that's a question of a value system, not technical analysis.  We all agree that it's highly suspicious -- what you do with that suspicion and where you take it from there is where we differ.  We can agree to differ, and be done!

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Liart

    @doctor_nee:

    If I only knew that "go back arrow" would save my work! And it was a long post, I was so upset that I even didn't try to replicate something similar, just couldn.t do it. :)

  • 20 miesięcy temu

    Champeknight

    Sittingpawn, you are the troll. Thanks rustyknife for bringing home the point against the troll.

Powrót na górę

Wyślij odpowiedź: