Chess Scandal - the videos

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Look at his face. He looks like a snake

😀

but how does he do it?

could it be a ...... puter 😀

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
"Boris set at trap using the isolated d5 pawn as bait."

That would be quite an ambitious trap against such a highly ranked opponent. That's one even my unranked self would likely have seen.

I thought the same thing.

Originally posted by e4chris
but how does he do it?

could it be a ...... puter 😀

the thing is no one really knows as yet.

Hi Paraguy

'Boris set at trap using the isolated d5 pawn as bait.'

"That would be quite an ambitious trap against such a highly ranked opponent. That's one even my unranked self would likely have seen."

Hi Woody

"I thought the same thing."

What part of "Of course all this is 100% tongue in cheek...." do you want me to explain?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paraguy

'Boris set at trap using the isolated d5 pawn as bait.'

"That would be quite an ambitious trap against such a highly ranked opponent. That's one even my unranked self would likely have seen."

Hi Woody

"I thought the same thing."

What part of "Of course all this is 100% tongue in cheek...." do you want me to explain?

That one small comment may have been 100% tongue-in-cheek, but the other 100% of your comments seem to defend Ivanov...

Besides, "That would be quite an ambitious trap against such a highly ranked opponent. That's one even my unranked self would likely have seen."

and

"I thought the same thing."

were also made tongue-in-cheek. It just wasn't mentioned because it was obvious. 😉

Hi Woody

"....but the other 100% of your comments seem to defend Ivanov... "

Not really, I'm yankng the chain of all those are calling him a cheat
without proving how he does it.
Innocent until proved guilty is how it works in a free democracy.

Getting 100% match up here and you can be 99% sure the lad is using a box.

But this lad is doing it infront of everyone, they are studying his every movement,
they have stripped him to the waist. He is matching up at 10 seconds a move.

It's actually quite alarming!
If he is cheating then what is to stop other players using the same undectable method?

When and if they discover his method what lengths will tournaments
have to go to prevent it happening again.

Lead walls, strip searches, medical examinations (complete with one pair of
rubber gloves for every player to so they can inspect their rectums.)
I don't mind handing over my mobile, or even getting searched but I don't
think I'll be too keen on having a tournament controller sticking his gloved
finger up my arse before every game.

Originally posted by woodypusher
The problem here is that Ivanov matched Houdini 99% of the time. That would seem to lead to an even record against it, not "beating it regularly".

But he was not playing against Houdini, so we don't knows what he would have played then. But I do think his story seems highly unlikely. I guess that we can't prove anything at this point and will have to wait for more developments to clarify the issue.

The Instructor

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Woody

"....but the other 100% of your comments seem to defend Ivanov... "

Not really, I'm yankng the chain of all those are calling him a cheat
without proving how he does it.
Innocent until proved guilty is how it works in a free democracy.

Getting 100% match up here and you can be 99% sure the lad is using a box.

But this lad is doing ...[text shortened]... having a tournament controller sticking his gloved
finger up my arse before every game.

If this is a form of cheating, it could have the potential of harming the game like steroids did to baseball and the Olympics. Once a player is determined to be a cheater, all his wins must be suspect and those victories must be removed from the records.

The Instructor

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Woody

"....but the other 100% of your comments seem to defend Ivanov... "

Not really, I'm yankng the chain of all those are calling him a cheat
without proving how he does it.
Innocent until proved guilty is how it works in a free democracy.

Getting 100% match up here and you can be 99% sure the lad is using a box.

But this lad is doing ...[text shortened]... having a tournament controller sticking his gloved
finger up my arse before every game.

We're not in a court of law. This forum is but a court a public opinion.

But even if it were a court of law there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. I'm curious. What do you suppose the mathematical probability of someone playing 115 moves, on their own, while matching Houdini 2 move per move?

I don't know the answer but it has to well over 1 in a Trillion. That extends way beyond reasonable doubt.

I really hope we find out how he's doing it, not only to satisfy my curiosity, but to prevent others from doing the same.

I guess the point concerning the computer 'up his bum' is

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Originally posted by woodypusher
I guess the point concerning the computer 'up his bum' is

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Well... in the interest of justice we can start with my 17.3 inch ASUS laptop.

Originally posted by woodypusher
I use the most scientific way to determine if he cheats. Look at his face. He looks like a snake 🙂

Seriously though, at the Zadar Open 2012 where he mated Croatian grandmasters Bojan Kurajica, Robert Zelchic and Zdenko Kozul and won the tournament, GM Zlatko Klaric said that he believed that Ivanov uses the most common chess tricks, and that he had ...[text shortened]... grandmaster.

All 115 moves matched Houdini 2. That's compelling enough evidence for me.

No, thats heresy. Provide the game and match up rate because what is more unbelievable is that some second class GM lasted 115 moves against a 100% match up with Houdini. The probability, in this case, is this GM is fabricating his own facts.

I dont disagree that it seems impossible to match up with houdini all the time but the simple fact is they have yet to find concrete proof and someone successfully cheating under heavy scrutiny seems just as impossible.

The whole world is split on this.
The view is innocent until proven guilty.

The Canadian GM Kevin Spragett.

http://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/saturday-coffee-4/

Read further down after the bit on coffee.
He is in the innocent until proven guilty camp.

Re the 115 move match up?

How many times have the cheat hunters on this site say you must look
at more than one game.

Has anyone here run this 115 move game through their own test.
We have heard all kinds of rumours about this lad. Is this true?
I'm thinking if I ran it through Fritz 6 I'd get a lower match up.

Cherry picking one game to match up to a particuliar computer is not good enough.
For every computer you can get a match someone else can match up
with up with different kit and get a different reading.

You can say you know he is at but you must prove he is at.
Knowing is not enough, the proof how he is doing it is needed.

If they catch him using any device during any game the that's it.
Game over.
But until then it's all specualtion.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The whole world is split on this.
The view is innocent until proven guilty.

The Canadian GM Kevin Spragett.

http://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/saturday-coffee-4/

Read further down after the bit on coffee.
He is in the innocent until proven guilty camp.

Re the 115 move match up?

How many times have the cheat hunters on any device during any game the that's it.
Game over.
But until then it's all specualtion.

[The whole world is split on this.]

Not sure about the whole world but the split is in overwhelming favor of guilt. Kind of like the Casey Anthony case.

[ The view is innocent until proven guilty.]

What part of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' needs further explanation?

[Has anyone here run this 115 move game through their own test.
We have heard all kinds of rumours about this lad. Is this true?
I'm thinking if I ran it through Fritz 6 I'd get a lower match up.]

Absolutely you would. He's not using Fritz 6. He's using Houdini. Houdini is a stronger engine and is the current World Computer Champion.

[Cherry picking one game to match up to a particuliar computer is not good enough.
For every computer you can get a match someone else can match up
with up with different kit and get a different reading.]

No argument there. 100% match with Houdini in one 'cherry-picked' game is a lot different than a 90% match up overall 😉 See next thread.

[You can say you know he is at but you must prove he is at.]

What part of "I'm not saying I'm '100%' positive Ivanov cheats, but I'm 99% sure." do I need to explain?

[Knowing is not enough, the proof how he is doing it is needed.]

I'm 99% sure the proof will come 😉

It would be easy for Ivanov to have his buddies send him Houdini's second, third, and fourth best moves to throw people off if those moves still win.

One more time though -
Matching all 115 moves of Houdini (not Fritz 6 or Atari) is humanly and statistcally impossible.

Ivanov later played in another tournament and had a TPR of just 1942.

From chessbase:
[ The most prominent opinion was that of the second-best Bulgarian player, GM Ivan Cheparinov, who stated that if paired with Ivanov, he would offer him a draw to avoid a dramatic loss later on. The organizers were quick in their actions and announced that as part of the tournament rules, players will be subject to unexpected searches before and during tournament games. Ivanov was aware of that beforehand and started his tournament with a win over a 1696-rated opponent. Nevertheless, as soon as the second round was over, Ivanov lost dramatically to a 1969-rated Greek teenager, FM Ioannidis Evgenios. After this game, Ivanov went on to draw 1985-, 2069-, and lose to 1983- and 2094-rated players, while winning only against sub-1850 opponents. All of that earned Ivanov an overall tournament performance of just 1942, exactly 400 points lower than his expected strength of 2342 FIDE at the time.]

It's not just one game his cheating accusations are based on.

Remember: Beyond a REASONABLE doubt. For some I guess 'statistically impossible' is not reasonable enough.