10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you're in the top 2, then aren't you in the top 4? 😏
{ Game Summary }
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: Bojan Kurajica }
{ Top 1 Match: 12/25 ( 48.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 20/25 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
I do not understand how it is possible to get 100% match on the top 2, the top 3, and the top 4 move.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsNo, I am talking about the moves. The way I understand it is that there are four different moves the computer sees. One is rated #1 best move, the next one is rated #2 best move, the next move is rated #3, and finally there is another move the computer sees that is rated as the 4th best move of choice by the computer. A person can not play 3 moves at one time, that is illegal.
If you're in the top 2, then aren't you in the top 4? 😏
So if a person plays the number 2 computer move 100% of the time then the number 1, 3, and 4 should be 0% These percentages should add up to a total of no more than 100%. If someone did not play a move in the top 4 then the total percentage should reflect this by the total % being less than 100% the way I see. The math just does not add up right.
11 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsFFS
No, I am talking about the moves. The way I understand it is that there are four different moves the computer sees. One is rated #1 best move, the next one is rated #2 best move, the next move is rated #3, and finally there is another move the computer sees that is rated as the 4th best move of choice by the computer. A person can not play 3 moves at one ...[text shortened]... ct this by the total % being less than 100% the way I see. The math just does not add up right.
11 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnother reason we know you suck.
No, I am talking about the moves. The way I understand it is that there are four different moves the computer sees. One is rated #1 best move, the next one is rated #2 best move, the next move is rated #3, and finally there is another move the computer sees that is rated as the 4th best move of choice by the computer. A person can not play 3 moves at one ...[text shortened]... ct this by the total % being less than 100% the way I see. The math just does not add up right.
If you play the first move 100% of the time then your move falls in the top three and four 100% of the time. I you only play the top move 50% of the time and the second move 100% then your moves still fall in the top three and four 100% of the time.
capice.
11 Jan 13
2 edits
Originally posted by ZygalskiThat's a heck of a dip in form.
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/27 ( 51.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 17/27 ( 63.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 20/27 ( 74.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 21/27 ( 77.8% )
11 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's how we know he was cheating. He was playing four moves at once! 😲
{ Game Summary }
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: Bojan Kurajica }
{ Top 1 Match: 12/25 ( 48.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 20/25 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
I do not understand how it is possible to get 100% match on the top 2, the top 3, and the top 4 move.
11 Jan 13
He could have been sending the moves as they happened but the
fact he played his bad game when live transmission stopped kind of hints
this is how it was done. Either that or he slipped in a bad game in an effort
to throw of the hounds.
What worries me is this lad is 2200 at best so his score sticks out.
How do we know some GM (or GM's) are not doing the same. Then it would not
be so obvious.
Maybe they are all at it 🙂
Originally posted by tomtom232Okay, but it is misleading the way it was presented and there was no need to list the top 3 or 4, because they were never played.
Another reason we know you suck.
If you play the first move 100% of the time then your move falls in the top three and four 100% of the time. I you only play the top move 50% of the time and the second move 100% then your moves still fall in the top three and four 100% of the time.
capice.
It would be more clear to say that his moves matched the #1 choice of the computer 21 out of 25 times for 84% and the remaining 4 moves were the #2 choice of the computer for 16% to equal a 100% matchup for the first two choices of best moves by the computer.
Then the math adds up correctly. There is no need to confuse the issue by even mentioning choice 3 and 4, which were never played.
That is:
{ Top 1 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
{ Top 1 or 2 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: Bojan Kurajica }
{ Top 1 Match: 12/25 ( 48.0% )
{ Top 1 or 2 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 1, 2, or 3 Match: 20/25 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 1, 2, 3, or 4 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
Notice his last game matchup results:
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/27 ( 51.9% )
{ Top 1 or 2 Match: 17/27 ( 63.0% )
{ Top 1, 2, or 3 Match: 20/27 ( 74.1% )
{ Top 1, 2, 3, or 4 Match: 21/27 ( 77.8% )
He still had a better matchup rate for the #1 choice than the grandmaster had in his first game. That gives support for my claim that the grandmaster may not have been playing up to his normal strength in that first game.
11 Jan 13
Hi RJ.
"That gives support for my claim that the grandmaster may not have been
playing up to his normal strength in that first game."
Forget the GM's match up, the point you are failing to see is that his opponents
moves were of a high box percentage. A very high percentage.
If you watch the vid you will see all the evidence against this lad including the
game in question looked at in great detail and other facts. Just prior to this tournament he lost to a 1916 player.
This is the first time I've seen such an attack on a fellow player.
This was not a post in a chess forum hinting at cheating, this is a 70 minute
well researched video.
11 Jan 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34I understand that this 2200 OTB rated player had an extremely high matchup rate and makes the possiblity of cheating with a computer very suspicious. I was just trying to clarify the issue.
Hi RJ.
"That gives support for my claim that the grandmaster may not have been
playing up to his normal strength in that first game."
Forget the GM's match up, the point you are failing to see is that his opponents
moves were of a high box percentage. A very high percentage.
If you watch the vid you will see all the evidence against this lad ...[text shortened]... not a post in a chess forum hinting at cheating, this is a 70 minute
well researched video.
The point I was getting to was that this player was already near or at master strength and this may have been the reason the second choice of the computer was played on four of the 25 moves analyzed. Perhaps he liked the second choice better because of his understanding of the game. I think anyone else, of lower level, who was cheating would try to make sure of a victory by playing all the best moves recommended by the computer. Of course, this was not necessary because the grandmaster was not playing at his best.
I agree that video was very incriminating and with no defense presented, I would find him guilty. However, the accused needs to have the opportunity to face his accusers and present his defense if he has one.