Chess Player Strip Searched

[MartinCarpenter]

You've got to remember that you're not sitting at the computer here, but some sort of remote rig with a minimal communication system going both ways. And that they've been doing this for people cheating online who are doing so but think they can catch them quite effectively.

The contention (from a long way further upthread somewhere) seems to be that these things don't disguise the statistical imprint of computer use well enough to actually work. I can probably believe that, although it might increase the number of games you need to gather before you can reliably nail people.

The slightly more worrying things long term are things like only cheating for a few moves/game, or in subtler ways than direct move sharing etc.

[Angus French]

You've got to remember that you're not sitting at the computer here, but some sort of remote rig with a minimal communication system going both ways. And that they've been doing this for people cheating online who are doing so but think they can catch them quite effectively.

The contention (from a long way further upthread somewhere) seems to be that these things don't disguise the statistical imprint of computer use well enough to actually work. I can probably believe that, although it might increase the number of games you need to gather before you can reliably nail people.

The slightly more worrying things long term are things like only cheating for a few moves/game, or in subtler ways than direct move sharing etc.

Most engines provide a standard program interface which allows them to be plugged into different user interface software. The remote rig could be person-free and easily programmed to switch engines and choose a move which isn't the first, second or third choice.

Isn't it true that most engines have their own 'style' and tend quite often to prefer different moves from each other?

[Paolo Casaschi]

And that they've been doing this for people cheating online who are doing so but think they can catch them quite effectively.

The online sites claim to be effective by not telling users exactly what the test procedures are, basically their rules are: "we test your games according to our arbitrary rules that we don't describe to you and if we think you are cheating we ban you without appeal". Fair enough for a private server, but would you accept official FIDE competitions to run tests without disclosing the methodology and banning players without appeal? I guess not, it would be like the Olympic committee to run anti-doping tests without telling which substances are they looking for and which are the threshold level for each substance to trigger a ban.

[MartinCarpenter]

Engine preferences do exist in some positions, but I suspect they're more about which move of the plausible ones ranks first/second/third. Some characteristics are certainly shared. The simplest would be never making 'simple' tactical blunders. Over a long period of time that'll certainly show, but it does also in some positions crunch things down to just one or two choices, which would make it a little more obvious.

Of course, if you were going to apply this for FIDE games you'd (as per poster above) need to do a fair bit of work to establish which statistical tests you really trusted/their precise thresh holds etc. The basic data to do that exists so it isn't a fundamental obstacle as such.

[Roger de Coverly]

but would you accept official FIDE competitions to run tests without disclosing the methodology and banning players without appeal?

You wouldn't want it for political reasons as well. It might become possible for officials to ban players because they didn't like them as in the Atalik case.

One thing that FIDE could and should do, given it was questioned in the chessbase article, is to state that their interpretation of the wording of 12.3 and 13.6 is that it already gives arbiters and organisers powers to default and expel from tournaments, players found to be consulting devices and engines during play.

In over the board play you have never been allowed to consult opening books, game collections or ask spectators for advice and that you can now do this in digital form should make no difference. This differs from on-line turn based play in that consulting opening books, game collections or the digital equivalent is always allowed.

[Paolo Casaschi]

but would you accept official FIDE competitions to run tests without disclosing the methodology and banning players without appeal?

You wouldn't want it for political reasons as well.

Even before going there... you don't want it just for common sense.
However then the issue is, if you specify the testing methodology in great detail (as you should, in my opinion), it might not be too difficult for the next clever guy to fine tune the cheating technique in order to remain safely outside the detection range; he would be even able to claim the game analysis as a proof of innocence!

[MartinCarpenter]

Well yes, but at some stage you're not going to catch really intelligent cheats It's fairly easy to come up with methods which are statistically undetecable, even in principle. Asides from physical detection of course and that'll get exceedingly hard in 10/20 years time.

What you'd be after is catching people cheating in the obvious ways (ie taking moves directly from computer(s)) and, in particular, avoiding the sort of witch hunts involving essentially mass, unrefutable suspicions like you got in the Invanov case.
(Not that I'm saying that he's innocent - no special opinion.).

[Geoff Chandler]

Stealth Cheats. Players who would use a computer to get one, two maybe three moves
would be impossible to detect OTB. (this refers to already good players.)

Getting one or two moves sent to you would be so easy.

I'm stuck, I'm good enough to know this is a very critical postion.
I take off my glasses and rub my eyes. (I have just sent HELP!)

10 minutes later my colleague re-enters the room.
He can send to me via a pre-arranged undetected and practised semifore the move I need to play.

No gimmicks, no electronics or glass eyes. My mate has the computer in his car.

All this was and methods on how it could be done were known in 1978.
The yoghurt was a joke, but other methods how it could be done were discussed.
You could get most ideas from a kids book on magic in the 'Mind Reading' section.
Where you get a pal in the audience to tell you the name of a playing card whilst you are out of the room.

Of course if friend Ivanov is at it then he is using a much faster method.

I still don't like his Nc6.
The banned cheats at RHP would often play these perfect games and then slip in a blunder
to throw the mods of their scent.
All his previous play was geared around that d-pawn, then he blundered it away when he
had much easier moves to play. Moves that fit in with his previous strategy.
Ng6+ and Black resigns. Try the postion on juniors, see what they would play.

The pseudo Queen sac kicking off the pawn promotion combo was human but
Nc6 seemed too deliberate a blunder.
(I've seen 1,000's of blunders this does does not fit into category as to a reason why.)

I wonder if he picked up Nc6 instead of Ng6.
What is Nc6 and Ng6 in Bulgarian, do they sound the same?

All will be revelaed in Borislav's book, it will of course out-sell all other chess books
and be maybe fully endorsed by ChessBase.
It all depends on what computer (if any) Borislav was using.

[Roger de Coverly]

ChessBase again
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 80713.aspx

There's a suggestion by Levy that might be able to deal with conspiracy style cheating using concealed devices. This would be totally over the top if the problem was really players tempted to leave the board in order to consult ChessBase's latest software offerings during the game as opposed to before or after the game.

[Chris Rice]

There is also a massive cost element, I don't suppose airport standard security systems come cheap and is perhaps out of reach of the organisers of a lot of the tournaments Ivanov plays in. If Ivanov is cheating then his motive for doing so will be significant. Money, fame, notoriety, Elo points etc are all possible. If he's just after gaining a bit of publicity or Elo then small tournaments are perfect for him if he is cheating. But we don't have any evidence yet that he is, if it turns out that he is and it is indeed something that can be picked up by airport security systems then fine, the chess world will have to address that. I guess a test of this would be to ask perhaps Sean Hewitt or Adam Raoof whether they would be prepared to invest in such equipment right now and I'm assuming the answer is not until they have to and I don't think anyone could really argue with that.

I thought David Navara's comments were very much to the point on the engine matching moves. ie its almost going to be impossible to know. That's of concern if we think someone has come up with an undetectable method of accessing the chess engines which it's widely alleged Ivanov has.

[Paolo Casaschi]

ChessBase again
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 80713.aspx

It's amazing how much nonsense you can read about the cheating topic.
I hope the following will never be included in any anti-cheating rule:

Even if not demanded by the Chief Arbiter or the tournament organizers, such a check must be carried out on a player in a tournament if at least 25% of the other players in that tournament present a signed request to the Chief Arbiter.

I can see a worse case scenario: at every round, the losers (assuming more than half of the game have a decisive result) join forces and collectively ask for checking all their opponents

[Mick Norris]

There is also a massive cost element, I don't suppose airport standard security systems come cheap

I recollect Bluecoat Oldham playing a school form Northern Ireland at Liverpool Airport when Stephen Gordon was their top board - maybe we should investigate playing tournaments at Airports

I gather there is accommodation air-side at Moscow, so you don't even need a valid passport

[LawrenceCooper]

THE BULGARIAN CHESS FEDERATION CONSIDERS THE CASE BORISLAV IVANOV CLOSED
The chess player did not appear in the headquarters of the Federation to prove his
innocence
The Bulgarian Chess Federation considered the case Borislav Ivanov closed after the
chess player did not appear in the headquarters of the Federation to prove his
innocence.
On 19th June, 2013, Wednesday, Borislav Ivanov had to be subjected to "special tests
with technical resources (lie detector) to prove objectively with scientific means that
the chess player does not use any unfair means during his chess games."
The president of Bulgarian Chess Federation, Mr. Silvio Danailov, the managerial
body of the Federation, officials of the Ministry of Youth and Sports, representatives
of the Borislav Ivanov’s Chess Club "Victory"-Blagoevgrad, chess figures and
journalists were present at the headquarters on this occasion .
In a special declaration dated 22nd May, 2013, addressed to the President of the Board
of the Bulgarian Chess Federation, Borislav Ivanov gave his explicit consent to be
subjected to these tests. Borislav Ivanov was informed promptly, personally and with
the help of his chess club about the date and venue of the tests.
Borislav Ivanov’s failure to appear is a rude violation of the disciplinary code. Тhe
Bulgarian Chess Federation is an associate member of the International Olympic
Committee, according to which rules, if a competitor does not appear for a doping or
other control by the competent authorities, he loses his racing rights for at least 2
years without parole.
The Bulgarian Chess Federation considered the case Borislav Ivanov closed and will
give no further comments on the case.
Be advised also that:
The Administrative Court - Sofia disregarded the appeal of Borislav Ivanov against
the decision of the Bulgarian Chess Federation to impose on him the penalty of
"temporary suspension from participation in competitions under the auspices of the
BChF for a period of 4 months, because of the reason: continuous media interviews © Ecuonline.net Page 10
and other actions that are incompatible with the sports ethics, undermine the
prestige of the BChF and the chess figures as a whole" and disregarded his request to
suspend the preliminary execution of the decision of the Board of BChF.
Official website: www.chessbg.com

[Chris Rice]

Yes not really satisfactory. Didn't turn up so guilty as charged. Has Ivanov got just a four month ban, a two year ban, a two year four month ban or is he banned for life till he turns up for a test? Or will they let him play as long as he doesn't start mocking chess players on TV? Presumably he's just banned in Bulgaria so he can still play in Spain etc? Does the presence of Danailov on the 19th June mean its an ECU-wide ban? Nothing is clear at all as the Bulgarian Chess Federation just don't want to discuss it anymore.

Danny Gormally's comments in a recent article on the Chess Coaching site were interesting:

The sad case of Borislav Ivanov

A player who has been getting far too much attention for all the wrong reasons lately, is the Bulgarian player Borislav Ivanov.

For anyone who has been sleeping under a rock for the last year or so, Ivanov is about a 2300 rated player who has been openly accused of computer cheating, due to the extraordinary results he has been gaining, often finishing his opponents off with some remarkable tactical shots, hence the computer link. It is also clear from anyone analysing his games in any detail, (if you are that sad) that a great precentage of Ivanov's moves coincide with the first choice of the computer.

The interesting thing about all this is that no-one seems to put forward a credible explanation of how Ivanov is getting away with it. How exactly is he cheating?? Some have suggested that he has some kind of sophisticated device attached to his body; perhaps something attached to his eye, rather resembling the plot of a Mission Impossible film.

Or that he has someone working with him, ever present in the playing hall, a mysterious lurking figure, relaying the moves back to Ivanov via some device. But if such a person exists, the identity of him/her is still unclear.

Such has been the difficulty in establishing the method that Ivanov is using to cheat (that is if he is indeed cheating) that there has even calls to disqualify cheats, by using their very methods against them; if their moves are too computer like, then a committee set up can then use their power to disqualify someone, without having to produce any psychical evidence of cheating.

But this is also dangerous, as it opens up another can of worms. Say my opponent plays a great game, displaying great tactical accuracy. Such an event is hardly unusual. He beats me, do I then refer him to this committee? It has been suggested that Ivanov must be cheating, as his moves tally with the computer too often to not be. But the top guys, like Carlsen, seem to display that same kind of computer accuracy all the time. Are they too cheating? Is the chess world populated with mini- Lance Armstrongs?

More likely the top guys are just so accurate because they are so bloody good, or that they are used to working with computers all the time, in preparation for the game. Could it be argued that any kind of work with a computer is a form of "brain doping"? But of course times they are a changing, and the chances of introducing a blanket ban on chess program use is impossible. The real danger lies in the dangers of computers being used in game time.

I think part of the problem has been that in most other computer cheating cases, the cheating has been done in a crude fashion. It's normally someone hiding in a toilet with a smartphone, or in the infamous case of the French national team, someone blagged about it and the secret got out.Clearly, if he is cheating, then Ivanov is being much more subtle about it, at least in regards to actual evidence. If he was just doing it every now and again, I doubt anyone would have even noticed.

But his results have been way above what you might expect of someone of his level. He's wiping 2600 players out using perfect tactics. He's not just beating these guys, he's killing them. That's what has raised suspicions.

Of course you can't help but wonder, if all of this is a form of chess snobbery. "How dare this 2300 pleb wipe out these proper chessplayers." I recall when I gained a 2690 performance in the 2005 Gibraltar masters, when only rated 2470. I gained 30 points and beat Alexey Dreev, as well as drawing with Aronian, Nakamura and Sasikiran. Would such a result be greeted with suspicion now?

But my games were flawed, hardly the perfect tactical chess that Ivanov has been displaying. What also doesn't add up in the Ivanov case, is that shortly after posting these stellar results, he played in a tournament where he dropped several draws to players rated below 2000. In my opinion the spread is too large. You don't smash up 2600's one day and then in the very next tournament drop several draws to 1800 players. I know some players can be very erratic but this is too much. It just doesn't happen. The only conclusion to be drawn, is that somehow Ivanov is using his computer at some events, but not at others.

Another thing that come to light is Ivanov's reaction to all these accusations. He's been quite insulting towards chessplayers in general, calling them "Buttheads" and "Lonely old bachelors"

I'm sure he's right about the second part, but Ivanov rather casts this desperate figure. In photographs I've seen of him he looks rather scrawny, you imagine he was the kind of guy who got bullied at school, and is now seeking to gain revenge on his tormentors. Perhaps he perceives the stronger chessplayers as the bullies; by ridiculing them in their chosen field of excellence, he gets his own back.

I can see this Ivanov case rumbling on and on. It's a pity in a way that it's drawn attention away from those who are much more deserving of attention, but everyone loves a good scandal. Will he be banned from all chess in future? Will he be strip-searched and something found? Or will he eventually reveal that it's all a big joke, and that he was hiding his chess strength all along, that he's really the greatest chess genius to ever grace the planet, and that it was actually his poor performances that were out of kilter? I await with interest.

Posted 5th June by Daniel Gormally

[benedgell]

http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=co ... ew&id=1763

is the link to the article, by the way.