Chess Player Strip Searched

[John Moore]

Kevin - it's probably about as sophisticated a way of cheating as a 12 year old can manage Nonetheless it's also a fairly awful situation for a kid who was presumably reasonably talented even if not a world beater - 1900 elo.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Nonetheless it's also a fairly awful situation for a kid who was presumably reasonably talented even if not a world beater - 1900 elo."

Did he get to 1900 on his own?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Another of Ivanov's games analysed here:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 90613.aspx

The game against (then) IM Axel Rombaldoni, who had been aiming for his final GM norm but had to wait a bit longer... (he has now got the final norm).

[Roger de Coverly]

Another of Ivanov's games analysed here:

They comment on 8 Bf4 as a computer move when seen in the context of the previous move being b3. It probably is and could have been found by anyone asking Houdini to analyse the position. That's evidence of computer influenced research and preparation rather than advice during the game. The novelty seems to have come off as Black seemingly got a terrible position.

His impression that Ivanov was playing the game without appearing to be thinking adds to the mystery.

[Tim Spanton]

Another of Ivanov's games analysed here:

They comment on 8 Bf4 as a computer move when seen in the context of the previous move being b3. It probably is and could have been found by anyone asking Houdini to analyse the position. That's evidence of computer influenced research and preparation rather than advice during the game. The novelty seems to have come off as Black seemingly got a terrible position.

His impression that Ivanov was playing the game without appearing to be thinking adds to the mystery.

Maybe he's a mind reader

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Another of Ivanov's games analysed here:

They comment on 8 Bf4 as a computer move when seen in the context of the previous move being b3. It probably is and could have been found by anyone asking Houdini to analyse the position. That's evidence of computer influenced research and preparation rather than advice during the game. The novelty seems to have come off as Black seemingly got a terrible position.

His impression that Ivanov was playing the game without appearing to be thinking adds to the mystery.

I agree with you that it is easily possible for someone doing computer-based preparation to come up with 8.Bf4. The mystery to me is his play involving 29.h4 and 31.Qxc5. Though to be fair, the idea of leaving weak pawns such as the one on f3 to be taken later and first taking the one that can be protected by b6 is not that difficult a concept to come up with. Also, if White had played 31.Rxf3, was there something Black might have played that Ivanov would have been trying to avoid? It is surprising that 4 moves after the 'crazy' 29.h4, White is three pawns up!

[Roger de Coverly]

The mystery to me is his play involving 29.h4 and 31.Qxc5.

Engines give 29. h4 an assessment of around + 2.5. It's an initiative move and chases away a piece lurking dangerously close to the King. Equally Qxc5 defends e3 and prevents Black defending with b6. I'm not sure these moves are so difficult, particularly if he analyses with engines outside the game and so gets to see their decisions.

Against the alternative of Qxc5, Black has Ne6 and against Nxf5, there's Bxf5.

I don't think you can demonstrate cheating in over the board play by the logic that someone playing the best move has to have been cheating.

I'd suspect a medical examination is going to be the only way of getting to the bottom of this. So check for magic contact lens ,miniature earpieces, finger cameras, concealed batteries , devices etc. If he comes up clean, then he's found a new and viable path for chess training.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Maybe people are looking in the wrong place? From looking at this summary:

http://www.chessbase.com/Portals/4/file ... -stats.png

Why not examine his four losses to titled players since December 2012. And also examine his draws. The draws may tell you as much as any losses normally would. Who offered the draws, how did the game develop? That sort of thing. Though I suppose others are doing this sort of scrutiny already. It does make you wonder, though. I am currently analysing some games I played recently, using a computer engine, and the process of trying to work out the logic behind some of the suggested computer moves does sort of make you more likely to find such moves in future games (well, in theory).

PS. Those scheduled to play him shouldn't refuse, they should all change something about the conditions and eventually something might become obvious.

[Matt Fletcher]

But if he has trained himself up to 2900 strength (or whatever) then how do you explain his sub-2000 performance in-between two outstanding tournaments? Does any other GM-strength player suddenly start losing to or even drawing with 1900-2000 strength players, even on a serious off day?

[Roger de Coverly]

I am currently analysing some games I played recently, using a computer engine, and the process of trying to work out the logic behind some of the suggested computer moves does sort of make you more likely to find such moves in future games (well, in theory).

How much use can be made of this is a question of the extent to which a player relies on patterns for move selection. If you see the basic idea, it's not so difficult to make it work in positions where you have the initiative. The older style of engine play as illustrated by Chess Genius 3 is to my mind more difficult to emulate. In non critical positions, it will play moves that are solid but unambitious or even deemed positionally bad so when the human tries to put it away, they succumb to a deeply concealed tactic. That's not the style of play used by Ivanov.

[Chris Rice]

Maybe people are looking in the wrong place? From looking at this summary:

http://www.chessbase.com/Portals/4/file ... -stats.png

Why not examine his four losses to titled players since December 2012. And also examine his draws. The draws may tell you as much as any losses normally would. Who offered the draws, how did the game develop? That sort of thing. Though I suppose others are doing this sort of scrutiny already. It does make you wonder, though. I am currently analysing some games I played recently, using a computer engine, and the process of trying to work out the logic behind some of the suggested computer moves does sort of make you more likely to find such moves in future games (well, in theory).

PS. Those scheduled to play him shouldn't refuse, they should all change something about the conditions and eventually something might become obvious.

I would agree with your PS. It would also be interesting if the Bulgarian investigators interviewed Ivanov's opponents from his awful tournament at Plovdiv. If his body language was the same there as you expect from normal chess players then they might be on to something. Even so its difficult to come up with a suggestion as to why remaining absolutely still enables him to cheat unless moving about too much loses the connection?

[Mats Winther]

Rombaldoni: "He never calculated moves"
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 90613.aspx
/Mats

[Geoff Chandler]

I think I have figuired out he does it.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread ... postid=139

[Roger de Coverly]

Even so its difficult to come up with a suggestion as to why remaining absolutely still enables him to cheat unless moving about too much loses the connection?

In order to get the advice of a chess engine, it is necessary to input the moves and receive back the suggestions. A concealed earpiece could handle the problem of receiving moves, but what of transmitting them? If he is videoing the game with a hidden camera, the feed is going either to an accomplice or there's a video image decoder used as input by a device concealed about his person. If a decoder was technically feasible, a necessary condition might be a stable image. Interfaces that announce moves have been available for some years.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Rombaldoni: "He never calculated moves"
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 90613.aspx
/Mats

And yet, after sitting for few hours in front of him he does not offer any clue how the cheating might have possibly happened.