Cheating Analysis

Cheating Analysis

Only Chess

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

C
Cowboy From Hell

American West

Joined
19 Apr 10
Moves
55013
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Wrap your computer in chains and submerge upside down in water at a fixed depth.

Z

Joined
24 May 08
Moves
717
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Got time to do a similar analysis on his "awful" game ?
Maybe some other time.
The game above was quite short, but still took about 2 hours to analyse to a depth of 20 ply.

d

São Paulo, Brazil

Joined
28 Oct 08
Moves
12076
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by greenpawn34
After pulling off some fantastic wins v 2600 GMs (Ivanov is 2200) he was
reportebly strip searched and they found nothing.
A bit off-topic, but this caught my attention: does FIDE or tournament organizers even have the right to strip-search a player? That sounds wrong on many levels.

V

Joined
21 Sep 05
Moves
27507
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by Zygalski
Maybe some other time.
The game above was quite short, but still took about 2 hours to analyse to a depth of 20 ply.
Just curious, why use a fixed depth? I'm not suggesting it's wrong but I don't see any benefit compared to e.g. 30 secs per move. The downside is that it's difficult to predict how long to analyse a whole game.

C
Cowboy From Hell

American West

Joined
19 Apr 10
Moves
55013
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by danilop
A bit off-topic, but this caught my attention: does FIDE or tournament organizers even have the right to strip-search a player? That sounds wrong on many levels.
"After the eighth round there were suspicions that Ivanov had some electronic tools to help him and in my capacity of arbiter I decided to make a move in line with the FIDE rules."- Stanislav Maroja, the chairperson of the Zadar County Chess Federation


It's unclear whether the current FIDE regulations give an arbiter the right to search a player. The official Laws of Chess don't mention anything specific, so perhaps Maroja referred to the following paragraphs:

13.1
The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

13.2

The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition.


http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/bulgarian-chess-player-strip-searched-after-suspection-of-cheating

Duckfinder General

223b Baker Street

Joined
25 Apr 06
Moves
33101
09 Jan 13
1 edit

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
"After the eighth round there were suspicions that Ivanov had some electronic tools to help him and in my capacity of arbiter I decided to make a move in line with the FIDE rules."- Stanislav Maroja, the chairperson of the Zadar County Chess Federation
.


http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/bulgarian-chess-player-strip-searched-after-suspection-of-cheating
Perhaps everyone should play naked to avoid this situation. I know I am. Why were there suspicions after the 8th round ? It appears as though he lost his round 8 game.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by gambit05
For me the first surprising move was 20 Rxa7. I would have played Nc7 (I didn't used the analysis board or any other assistance)..
20.Rxa7 or Nxa7 wins a pawn. What is so surprising about him wanting to win a pawn? If black is a grandmaster, he does not seem to be playing at his best.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13
1 edit

Originally posted by Zygalski
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1703505

[Event "19th Open A"]
[Site "Zadar"]
[Date "2012.12.17"]
[Round "3.12"]
[White "Borislav Ivanov"]
[Black "Bojan Kurajica"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E00"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2565"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[Analysis "Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:640 Time:N/A Fixed Depth:20ply"]

{ Book Moves: }

1. tead played the 2nd choice move with very little difference in score...
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5?

What book is this in?

4...c5 don't look good to me, because after 5. Bxb4 black must recapture away from the center resulting in double pawns. I do not see any advantage in that.

Even a patzer like me can see 4...Bxd2 is the best move and the only one I would consider.

How do you get all this analysis scores and percentages?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
You didn't happen to be at The Zadar Open did you?
No, of course not, numbnuts.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Ah, so that is the engine you use. Funny, when i saw white play dxe5 i was immediately reminded of your 'game' against kingshill...
I don't see a dxe5 in this game. What game are you referring to?

S

Joined
27 Apr 07
Moves
119487
09 Jan 13

This is like watching RJHinds walk into a helicopter blade in slow motion.

p

Joined
24 Aug 07
Moves
48477
09 Jan 13
1 edit

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5?

What book is this in?

4...c5 don't look good to me, because after 5. Bxb4 black must recapture away from the center resulting in double pawns. I do not see any advantage in that.

Even a patzer like me can see 4...Bxd2 is the best move and the only one I would consider.

How do you get all this analysis scores and percentages?[/b]
I haven't checked any books or databases but c5 looks playable. It's probably an attempt to steer away from the books.

4. ...a5 is also a move. In fact, it was recommended in a repertoire book that I own, in a similar position (substitute Nf3 for g3). The open a file can come in useful.

Just because a move isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't playable.

When I was at ICC, I saw a Speelman game (at least I think it was Speelman) where he did something similar. It was a blitz game and went like this:



The GM just wanted a position where both sides had to think (and play chess), rather than dash out theory (memory).

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by Zygalski
Maybe some other time.
The game above was quite short, but still took about 2 hours to analyse to a depth of 20 ply.
How do you do it?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
09 Jan 13

Originally posted by danilop
A bit off-topic, but this caught my attention: does FIDE or tournament organizers even have the right to strip-search a player? That sounds wrong on many levels.
Perhaps someone is just making this all up.

t

Joined
15 Jun 06
Moves
16334
10 Jan 13

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5?

What book is this in?

4...c5 don't look good to me, because after 5. Bxb4 black must recapture away from the center resulting in double pawns. I do not see any advantage in that.

Even a patzer like me can see 4...Bxd2 is the best move and the only one I would consider.

How do you get all this analysis scores and percentages?[/b]
You don't see any advantage in that because your computer tells you it is .4 centipawns worse than 4...Bxd2. Loser.