So you have a 100% match up with one game from Houdini.
(I've not seen this game. I've heard about it, I've heard an awful lot about it.)
But you are only 99% sure he is cheating.
You need to explain the 1%.
What 1% are are you not sure of?
Consider what the judge says to the jury before they retire for a verdcit.
"If there is any doubt then you must find the defendant not guilty."
So you have a 100% match up with one game from Houdini.
(I've not seen this game. I've heard about it, I've heard an awful lot about it.)
But you are only 99% sure he is cheating.
You need to explain the 1%.
What 1% are are you not sure of?
Consider what the judge says to the jury before they retire for a verdcit.
"If there is any doubt then you must find the defendant not guilty."
Even if it's 1%. 🙂
The 1% is a combination of maybe him being the 1 out of a quadrillion who can match Houdini for 115 consecutive moves and like some said if you play a program enough, you will play like it (!!), and maybe he's evolved into a super genius, or maybe 'one day he just got good' 😉 Hey, if someone can beat 18 million to one odds and match 6 numbers in the lottery, then it would not be impossible to match 115 consecutive Houdini moves, right?
99% sure was just a rough estimate. I was too lazy to type 99.999999999999999% 😀
Does anyone remember Lance Armstrong? Remember people defended him because he found a way to cheat undetected? Like Armstrong, Ivanov will be caught eventually.
So you have a 100% match up with one game from Houdini.
(I've not seen this game. I've heard about it, I've heard an awful lot about it.)
But you are only 99% sure he is cheating.
You need to explain the 1%.
What 1% are are you not sure of?
Consider what the judge says to the jury before they retire for a verdcit.
"If there is any doubt then you must find the defendant not guilty."
Even if it's 1%. 🙂
In civil trials in the USA, there is only a need for more than 50% of the evidence pointing to guilt to find the defendant guilty.
Whoa! Don't go quoting something else you don't know about. A civil trial is not a trial regarding guilt or innocence, it is a lawsuit concerning liability. A subject of a lawsuit can be found liable for damages if the judge or jury finds a preponderance of evidence. Liability is a long way from guilt.
Guilt can only be found (in US courts) in a criminal trial.
Originally posted by byedidia Whoa! Don't go quoting something else you don't know about. A civil trial is not a trial regarding guilt or innocence, it is a lawsuit concerning liability. A subject of a lawsuit can be found liable for damages if the judge or jury finds a preponderance of evidence. Liability is a long way from guilt.
Guilt can only be found (in US courts) in a criminal trial.
I believe the difference is in the type of punishment. If a person is innocent, he is innocent regardless of which court the trial is being held. It is true that the legal term "quilt" is only used in criminal cases and "at fault" or "liable" is used in civil cases. However, one that is found "at fault" or "liable" in a civil case is certainly not considered innocent of wrong doing.
Without being so technical in the language, the chess cheater could be brought to trial in a civil court, since putting him in jail is probably not what we would be looking for in a way of punishment anyway. Even if cheating in chess could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I doubt if the case would ever be heard in a criminal court anyway.
You will have to post this 115 move game. Until then I do not believe it happened.
If he is at he will get caught.
I'm swinging daily back and forth, (that is the trouble with having an open mind)
today it's 75% he is at it due to the mixture of openings he is playing spot on.
As Valeri says, he is an expert in all openings.
But there again if you come in from the angle he has a photo-graphic memory...
....back to 50/50 again.
And now a legal arguemnt has started.
This lad has certainly brightened things up.
Hi RJ
"I doubt if the case would ever be heard in a criminal court anyway."
The Bulgarians banned him from tournaments and he threatened legal
action so they unbanned him.
Good, if he was banned we would never know for sure and keep arguing
about it.
We have to keep him playing to find out one way or the other.
You will have to post this 115 move game. Until then I do not believe it happened.
If he is at he will get caught.
I'm swinging daily back and forth, (that is the trouble with having an open mind)
today it's 75% he is at it due to the mixture of openings he is playing spot on.
As Valeri says, he is an expert in all openings.
But the ...[text shortened]... and keep arguing
about it.
We have to keep him playing to find out one way or the other.
greenpawn, just suppose you had a magic wand and could know for sure if he is cheating. If you HAD to bet, would you bet he is, or is not cheating?
I'm not asking if you think there's proof, just your best guess based on what we know.
Originally posted by woodypusher .... "He's just a chess programmer and this is best seen in the game with Jovanic when all 115 moves were the ones selected by the computer, and this is impossible for a human" - said the Croatian grandmaster.
All 115 moves matched Houdini 2. That's compelling enough evidence for me.
Originally posted by DeepThought Two words: Vicarious liability.
I am not a Lawyer so I don"t know all the legal jargon. I am just stating my belief on the subject, wrong or right. In my book, there is no need for 100% certainty to find a person guilty of doing wrong. O.J. Simpson was found quilty by public opinion, even though he was found not quilty in a court of law. The not quilty verdict does not mean he was found innocent either. It only means the evidence against him was not enough to convince the jury of his quilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He was later found liable for the wrongful death of two persons and it was not by way of negligence or accident either. It was by way of murder.
Chess Scandal - the videos
09 Jun '13 22:513 edits
Back to Top