Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

He's just had the best result of his life 7.5/9 not bad for a player rated 2067.

Looking at the opposition, it was only a "Major Open" of a tournament using the term to refer back to when that tournament had 2200-2250 rated players in it.

What FIDE's anti cheating committee/commission could or couldn't do was never resolved when the GA ran out of time, but the test of reliability of play viz a viz an engine could be made. Incidentally, what do the tests make of the play in St Louis? I've seen comments that Caruana move choices were endorsed by a commentating engine for almost the whole game.

[Matt Mackenzie]

He did miss a fairly simple way to finish Nakamura off in his last game, though. Not that it made any difference in the end......

[Ian Thompson]

There is also a young guy, Ivan Tetimov, from Blagoevgrad (ring any bells?) in Bulgaria who also played in Pamplona and for the same club team as a certain other guy we all know. Ivan plays quickly, doesn't look at the board and always looks nervous. He's just had the best result of his life 7.5/9 not bad for a player rated 2067. I'm sure its all a coincidence.

To put it in perspective, he played no-one rated over 2255 and no-one rated more than 200 points above himself. 2.5/3 against players rated up to about 100 points above himself and 4/5 against players in the 2200-2255 bracket. Very good results, but hardly in the same league as Borislav Ivanov.

Are we going to end up in a situation where everyone who has a good result is suspected of cheating?

[Stewart Reuben]

Anybody scoing 100% in a tournament is awarded a Tournament Performance Rating = 800 + the average rating of the opponents. Thus Bobby Fischer in the US Championship 1963-4 still holds the record at 3300+. It becomes very artificial at the very high percentages. Still, for Bobby's record to have stood for 50 years is very impressive. It is also impressive that nobody was willing to give me more than 3/1 after 3-4 games. I wanted 4/1 and thus never got the bet down.
I don't think the FIDE Anti-cheating committee had the intention of resolving the match of moves played against the best engine. They are still collecting data and then will resolve what to do about it. Initially the committee thought that a high match by a weak player was a sure sign that something was 'wrong'.

Iam Thompson is correct. Whenever I ran grading restricted tournaments the winner would score perhaps 5.5/6. This would give a TPR way above the grading limit. So somebody would complain the winner MUST be a sandbagger.

[Chris Rice]

So far there is no evidence that Tetimov was cheating but it was clear at the tournament that a number of players thought he was. It looks as if its the way he wasn't looking at the board, playing quickly in combination with the great result prompted the speculation.

The Organiser of the tournament (Eftim Stefanov) stated: "Ivan Tetimov, is a young guy from Blagoevgrad, who plays quickly, doesn't much look at the board and looks nervous... and has a relatively low rating that's suspicious, but this is not enough in itself. The first signal I got was from Biser Georgiev, in Round 7. We were ready to search Ivan before or after the game, but we first let them play. Meanwhile, a hi -tech expert I hired came in the hall and scanned the spectrum for frequencies that could be used for transmission of signals. The playing hall was clear, no signals were detected. As the game progressed Ivan turned a pawn down, but saved the endgame and after the draw there was no point to search him. The next round he played against Mario Livaja, who at one point got very nervous because of these symptoms -ie the quick play, looking away from the board etc so he said - "I'm not going to play on if you don't search him".

Although I was sure, that the boy was ok we asked him to come in one of the rooms at the back and he took off his T-shirt. I investigated him, ears, everything and there were no wires to be seen. The guy was quite ok with the inspection, which itself, is a very positive sign. So, he won his game only because Mario decided to go for a win and also Delchev devoted his last class to Tetimovs' games and it's obvious from the analyses that there were both good and bad moves according to Stockfish.'

However, later Mr. Stefanov was still very surprised to discover that a test by Kenneth Regan confirmed the case to be very suspicious. Ken Regan I understand was at pains to point out that this didn't necessarily mean anything in itself.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Are we going to end up in a situation where everyone who has a good result is suspected of cheating?

The Organiser of the tournament (Eftim Stefanov) stated: "...The first signal I got was from Biser Georgiev, in Round 7. We were ready to search Ivan before or after the game, but we first let them play...The next round he played against Mario Livaja, who at one point got very nervous because of these symptoms -ie the quick play, looking away from the board etc so he said - "I'm not going to play on if you don't search him".

It seems Ian's fears could be confirmed, at least in Bulgarian tournaments. The fact that our hero was co-operative does not make the suspicions of his opponents any more acceptable, in my view, and to insist on a search, while the game is in progress, beggars belief.

[Roger de Coverly]

It seems Ian's fears could be confirmed, at least in Bulgarian tournaments.

If you play against reasonably competent opposition, the positions you reach are going to look normal. Is it plausible then that if you train intensively with an engine in "normal" positions, that provided you have good pattern recognition and memory skills, that you can play by recall rather than calculation?

It's been reasonably demonstrated that practical players don't recall the exact positions of all 32 pieces, rather they recall the position in chunks. So a game that went 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. d4 c6 can be recalled that both sides castled with a fianchettoed Bishop, that White played c4 and d4 whilst Black played c6 and d6. To recall an exact move order rather than the position reached, it needs some element of bluff and counter bluff.

[MartinCarpenter]

Suspecting anyone based on just one good tournament is getting very dangerous. Hopefully just based off the association/recent history in Bulgaria.

Youngish people can sometimes improve in more or less junior style - take Matthew Webb (late 20's) say who has gone from 180 to 224 in one year while scoring +22,=3 in his ECF rated games. Now the 180 was a little low for various reasons and the 224 must have a large element of outlandish form/confidence combined with a bit of luck because no one scores that well to order! Definitely up a chunk though.

Mostly in Yorkshire for the moment, and the games really haven't been at all suspicious. Hopefully he won't get glared at when he (likely) substantialy improves on his current <2100 FIDE rating at the European club cup/some continental opens which I think he's planning to enter.

[Lewis Martin]

"Ivan Tetimov, is a young guy from Blagoevgrad, who plays quickly, doesn't much look at the board and looks nervous... and has a relatively low rating that's suspicious...

A relatively low rating that's suspicious? Surely its not that inconceivable that a young player improves relatively quickly. Looking at his results, while they are very good, it is not exactly "out of this world". In fact, without trying to be too big-headed, I'd say I'd also be capable of the same result, beating 6 players and drawing 3, with the wins against some 2200s. My last 9 FIDE games of White brings in a score of 8 and a performance at over 2500 ( No! A sub 2100 performing at 2500 with one colour, cobblers!). No doubt had my Black results been similar some people may be more suspicious of my performances rather than simply crediting one's performances. Of course, as is typical of many situations, there is far less praise and more accusations and criticisms these days. Why can't people be more positive?

Michael Fernandez shooting up 167 points in one month is enough to raise an eyebrow or two, but no-one really bothers to complain or anything, since we are quite aware juniors or young players are very capable of improving much quicker. (I am not accusing Michael of any wrongdoing by the way)

[Chris Rice]

"Ivan Tetimov, is a young guy from Blagoevgrad, who plays quickly, doesn't much look at the board and looks nervous... and has a relatively low rating that's suspicious...

A relatively low rating that's suspicious? Surely its not that inconceivable that a young player improves relatively quickly. Looking at his results, while they are very good, it is not exactly "out of this world". In fact, without trying to be too big-headed, I'd say I'd also be capable of the same result, beating 6 players and drawing 3, with the wins against some 2200s. My last 9 FIDE games of White brings in a score of 8 and a performance at over 2500 ( No! A sub 2100 performing at 2500 with one colour, cobblers!). No doubt had my Black results been similar some people may be more suspicious of my performances rather than simply crediting one's performances. Of course, as is typical of many situations, there is far less praise and more accusations and criticisms these days. Why can't people be more positive?

Michael Fernandez shooting up 167 points in one month is enough to raise an eyebrow or two, but no-one really bothers to complain or anything, since we are quite aware juniors or young players are very capable of improving much quicker. (I am not accusing Michael of any wrongdoing by the way)

That's selectively quoting the organiser of only one of the "red flags" ie that of the low rating. The guy's manner at the board, the string of wins, moves coinciding with Stockfish, the history with Borislav Ivanov in Bulgaria and the fact that he knew Ivanov and was from the same team were other "red flags". Red flags are not evidence and shouldn't typically be used in isolation to show wrong doing but taken taken together they can form a basis of suspicion that Tetimov might have been accessing outside assistance. Even then a string of red flags is not evidence, or at least only circumstantial evidence, but could be grounds for further investigation. As far as I can see in the Tetimov case there was a legitimate basis for suspicion and to his credit the organiser used sound judgement and a well thought through procedure and Tetimov was subsequently cleared. There doesn't seem to have been any more fall out since so perhaps we could venture to say the incident was well-handled?

Of course your main point is that you don't want a situation where everyone who performs above their grade is automatically suspected of cheating and I fully agree with with you that there should be a line drawn somewhere. That's why it's so crucial to have proper procedures in place and if you're going to accuse someone you had better have some proper grounds for doing so. People simply can't go around accusing players of cheating when they have no reasonable grounds for doing so like Mamedyarov did to Kurnosov in 2009 which to me was completely unacceptable.

When a police make an arrest they are supposed to have reasonable grounds for suspicion otherwise the subsequent case against the person arrested can be jeopardised. What constitutes proper grounds is a debate in itself I would have thought. Do a series of red flags constitute proper grounds? I honestly don't know, it probably has to always be a judgement call by the officials at the end of the day. For example the red flag in one case was that a German player kept putting his left hand is his pocket after his opponent's move and it turned out he had a mobile on. Another was the Irish kid where the red flag was that he kept getting up to go to the toilet. Then there is the well documented Ivanov case with his wildly fluctuating results, his trance like state, the way he walked, the things he said, the cable he had on etc.

Anyway congratulations Lewis on your fine wins with the White bits and looks like you just need to sort out your Black openings and you could be in line for a GM performance rating.

[MartinCarpenter]

The history is a reason why there might be a bit of suspicion but it certainly isn't a good one. The rest weren't really grounds at all. The result is very normal indeed - people simply do have good tournaments - especially if all his opponents were quite as freaked out as it sounds!
(Computer checking only counts if done very carefully etc of course.).

[Lewis Martin]

That's selectively quoting the organiser of only one of the "red flags" ie that of the low rating. The guy's manner at the board, the string of wins, moves coinciding with Stockfish, the history with Borislav Ivanov in Bulgaria and the fact that he knew Ivanov and was from the same team were other "red flags".
...
Anyway congratulations Lewis on your fine wins with the White bits and looks like you just need to sort out your Black openings and you could be in line for a GM performance rating.

I appreciate that I was selectively quoting, but you can see the issue I have with that comment. Of course, the behaviour is part of it, but if this guy was a 2300 instead of a 2070-odd, would the same suspicions have been raised?

We all know that Jack Rudd moves quickly and depending on how interesting the game is and/or how long his opponent is thinking, he probably would walk around for longer than the time spent on the board! Is this behaviour suspicious enough? I'd like to see that happen in Bulgaria! (unfortunately Jack, I don't have the means to sponsor you touring around the chess tournaments in Bulgaria! )

With regards to my performances, thank you! I am still a long way from GM performances, but at least it is reasonably obvious where I have to improve!

[Paolo Casaschi]

So far there is no evidence that Tetimov was cheating but it was clear at the tournament that a number of players thought he was. It looks as if its the way he wasn't looking at the board, playing quickly in combination with the great result prompted the speculation.

The Organiser of the tournament (Eftim Stefanov) stated: "Ivan Tetimov, is a young guy from Blagoevgrad, who plays quickly, doesn't much look at the board and looks nervous... and has a relatively low rating that's suspicious, but this is not enough in itself. The first signal I got was from Biser Georgiev, in Round 7. We were ready to search Ivan before or after the game, but we first let them play. Meanwhile, a hi -tech expert I hired came in the hall and scanned the spectrum for frequencies that could be used for transmission of signals. The playing hall was clear, no signals were detected. As the game progressed Ivan turned a pawn down, but saved the endgame and after the draw there was no point to search him. The next round he played against Mario Livaja, who at one point got very nervous because of these symptoms -ie the quick play, looking away from the board etc so he said - "I'm not going to play on if you don't search him".

Although I was sure, that the boy was ok we asked him to come in one of the rooms at the back and he took off his T-shirt. I investigated him, ears, everything and there were no wires to be seen. The guy was quite ok with the inspection, which itself, is a very positive sign. So, he won his game only because Mario decided to go for a win and also Delchev devoted his last class to Tetimovs' games and it's obvious from the analyses that there were both good and bad moves according to Stockfish.'

However, later Mr. Stefanov was still very surprised to discover that a test by Kenneth Regan confirmed the case to be very suspicious. Ken Regan I understand was at pains to point out that this didn't necessarily mean anything in itself.

Who should be trusted in assessing such incident?
- a disgruntled player that can't see any other justification for his loss other than a cheating opponent
- a player claiming he did not cheat
- the tournament manager/arbiter that investigated and could not find any evidence of cheating
- Kennet Regan running through the games from thousands of miles away and finding them very suspicious
Who should be trusted?

I think is a VERY BAD IDEA to allow disgruntled losing players to initiate a search on their opponent; even more so during a game. The number of chess players desperately looking for clumsy excuses for a loss vastly exceeds the number of cheaters.

On a side note, in an interview published June 1st KR is quoted saying:

“Again, there’s no physical evidence, no behavioral evidence,” he says. “I’m just seeing the numbers. I’ll tell you, people are doing it.”

After few months of KR monitoring worldwide games constantly and claiming that "people are doing it", has there been any case flagged by KR that has actually been confirmed with physical evidence? Anything at all?

[Lewis Martin]

Surely one solution to all this is for the player to explain his moves, and to demonstrate his understanding of the game? If there is obvious hesitation or explanations that don't make any sense, then suspicions of cheating are more justifiable.

[JustinHorton]

It's chess, not Just A Minute.