Chess Player Strip Searched

[Paolo Casaschi]

So nothing is true until it is proven in law?

Nothing is true until it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you claim he's cheating but do not offer any proof and do not even bother suggesting the cheating mechanism, that in my opinion leaves some open issues.

About the cheating mechanism, please note he has actually been subject to searches at previous tournaments; he also has played in tournament jamming wireless signals; he's suspected of cheating at rapid tournaments, making moves at a very quick pace; this creates serious questions about how he can possibly cheat: the latest claim he's hiding a computer in his shoes (that by the way was not discovered during a search with a metal detector) looks plainly ridiculous. Either the stories are not reported correctly or something strange is going on.

There's also something else that does not add up about Ivanov's behaviour: above all the question why does he keep on playing? If what you are saying is true and if he keeps playing, I have no doubt he will be caught sooner or later. He was disqualified by the Bulgarian federation, he even announced his retirement from chess because tired of being harassed. If he wanted an "easy" way out, he had plenty of chances. Instead, he keeps playing: it's certainly not for the "easy money", the current tournament has a first prize of 3000 Euros, he certainly was not invited all expenses paid, so even in the best case of a tournament win (and he has not won all the tournaments where he supposedly cheated), would the financial profit compensate the risk? Even is Elo is recently rather flat around the 2300&something, so it's not personal pride either. What's the point then?

So, you claim evidence of wrongdoing, but there's no credible description of the cheating mechanism and there's no clear motif for (keeping) cheating. You might be proven right, but it's not so clear cut to me. Moreover, I personally believe that it's in the interest of the chess world to get to the bottom of this and clarify all issues: a ban based only on a comparison with houdini's moves would be, I think, very bad for the reputation of the chess world and incidentally, this is why I find unpleasant statements of certain guilt at this point.

PS: it looks like today he made a draw against a 2568 GM; since he's unlikely for the common GM to draw against houdini, how are you going to explain that? Are you going to follow the chessbase articles arguing in previous occasions that when the moves of Ivanov match houdini that's a proof of cheating; but also when Ivanov's moves do not match houdini, that is again a proof of cheating because the mismatch was either intentional or an error reading the houdini suggestion.
I haven't seen the game yet, but how comes a cheater certainly using houdini did not win today against a GM with "only" 2568 Elo? Or, if you suggest that today Ivanov might have switched the engine off, alternatively, how comes that a patzer that grew a 2300 Elo only by cheating with houdini did manage today to draw a GM?

[Nick Burrows]

If you are intending to ban him from playing chess, then at least the "civil courts" test of "balance of probabilities" should be necessary. It's over the board chess with no apparent means that the position can be transmitted to an engine and the engine communicating back its move. In the absence of physical evidence to the contrary, matching moves to a computer engine is a demonstration of skill rather than cheating as is beating GMs whilst being a lower rated player.

I agree that until the means of transmission is discovered, it will prove impossible to prosecute. Fortunately for those of us who have spent years using computers to analyse chess, this part of the picture is not important to understand the truth of the matter. There can be no other explanation.

[Paolo Casaschi]

This matter concerns accusations against an individual which are, in my opinion and that of many much more knowledgeable about these things, very hard to explain by any other means than cheating. But continue with your misguided sense of moral superiority if you wish

It's not (only) moral superiority. It's that accusations come from people with vested interest that mix sensible chess arguments with ridiculous claims. Take Dlugy for instance, a competing GM that refuses to play his opponent and hints at computers hidden in shoes (after Ivanov was searched with a metal detector).

I believe that it's in the best interest for the chess world to get to the bottom of this rather than to close prematurely the issue with so many unknowns. I believe it would damage the chess image to ban a player only on the basis of matching his moves with houdini. In that respect, I'm happy Ivanov keeps playing, if you are right and he keeps cheating sooner or later he will be caught with some credible proof.

[Nick Burrows]

About the cheating mechanism, please note he has actually been subject to searches at previous tournaments; he also has played in tournament jamming wireless signals; he's suspected of cheating at rapid tournaments, making moves at a very quick pace; this creates serious questions about how he can possibly cheat: the latest claim he's hiding a computer in his shoes (that by the way was not discovered during a search with a metal detector) looks plainly ridiculous. Either the stories are not reported correctly or something strange is going on.

Yes, they have come up with a truly ingenious way of avoiding detection. We know the technology is there, we see the evidence, there is a clear financial motive. Just waiting for the method.

There's also something else that does not add up about Ivanov's behaviour: above all the question why does he keep on playing? If what you are saying is true and if he keeps playing, I have no doubt he will be caught sooner or later. He was disqualified by the Bulgarian federation, he even announced his retirement from chess because tired of being harassed. If he wanted an "easy" way out, he had plenty of chances. Instead, he keeps playing: it's certainly not for the "easy money", the current tournament has a first prize of 3000 Euros, he certainly was not invited all expenses paid, so even in the best case of a tournament win (and he has not won all the tournaments where he supposedly cheated), would the financial profit compensate the risk? Even is Elo is recently rather flat around the 2300&something, so it's not personal pride either. What's the point then?

Money is money, not 'easy' money, but enough to motivate someone to pursue it. Once you have embarked down this path then why not continue and enjoy the fruits of your labour? See Lance Armstrong. He might also believe or 'know' that he won't get caught.
Many criminals enjoy the thrill of their crime and repeatedly avoiding capture.

PS: it looks like today he made a draw against a 2568 GM; since he's unlikely for the common GM to draw against houdini, how are you going to explain that? Are you going to follow the chessbase articles arguing in previous occasions that when the moves of Ivanov match houdini that's a proof of cheating; but also when Ivanov's moves do not match houdini, that is again a proof of cheating because the mismatch was either intentional or an error reading the houdini suggestion.
I haven't seen the game yet, but how comes a cheater certainly using houdini did not win today against a GM with "only" 2568 Elo? Or, if you suggest that today Ivanov might have switched the engine off, alternatively, how comes that a patzer that grew a 2300 Elo only by cheating with houdini did manage today to draw a GM?

If he was to simply win every single game, against every player using Houdini's first choice, his actions would be obvious to all. If I were trying to cheat intelligently, and knew my actions were scrutinised I would conced some draws and the odd defeat, and I would not win every tournament. Then you can 'cash in' when you choose. This is his pattern...

[Nick Burrows]

I dont think there was anything special in my games at all. The Croatian GMs made some horrible mistakes during our games. Of course I practiced a lot with the computer, and after beating Rybka and Houdini by 10-0 each, i was absolutelly sure that no-one was gonna stop me winning. After all the arbiters were kind of polite and intelligent, you know, the other players weren't though....

http://en.chessbase.com/post/cheating-s ... speaks-out

Read this quote. What a truly ridiculous statement! He beat a 3200 engine 10-0?? WTF? An engine that would handsomely beat Carlsen - he can beat 10-0

Kenneth Regan, an associate professor of computer science at the University at Buffalo who is also an international master, has spent five years building mathematical models of how players at different levels of skill are expected to perform. The models are based on an analysis of tens of thousands of games.

By comparing tournament results against the models, he comes up with a score of how well players did, move by move, versus how well they were expected to do. He also compares the players’ moves with those of two top-selling computer chess programs.

Regan ran Ivanov’s performance through his system and found that he had the highest move performance score he had ever analyzed — better even than any individual effort by Magnus Carlsen, the player who just rose to the highest chess rating in history, at 2,861.

In an e-mail, Regan wrote that even assuming that Ivanov had a rating of about 2,700, which would make him among the best players in the world, statistically he played well above what a world-class player normally would and more like a computer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/cross ... html?_r=1&

[Paolo Casaschi]

Yes, they have come up with a truly ingenious way of avoiding detection. We know the technology is there, we see the evidence, there is a clear financial motive. Just waiting for the method.

Who is the "we" of the sentence "we know the technology is there". If that includes you, would you mind elaborating further? For example about the accusation of Dlugy of hiding a computer in the shoes that passes a metal detector test.

Money is money, not 'easy' money, but enough to motivate someone to pursue it.

My point is that a 3000 Euro first prize is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a "clear financial motive"; just consider his costs (travelling from Bulgaria to Spain for a week and of course his technology cheating equipment and the likely need to share with a cheating partner) and take into account that for many suspected events Ivanov in the end did not pocket a penny. 3000 Euros are good for an invited GM with expenses paid, but I doubt Ivanov got that kind of support.

If he was to simply win every single game, against every player using Houdini's first choice, his actions would be obvious to all. If I were trying to cheat intelligently, and knew my actions were scrutinised I would conced some draws and the odd defeat, and I would not win every tournament. Then you can 'cash in' when you choose. This is his pattern...

The same point of chessbase articles: Ivanov is damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't (play very well). All possibilities covered: brilliant.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Kenneth Regan, an associate professor of computer science at the University at Buffalo who is also an international master

Kenneth Regan also wrote this http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess ... lfers.html

The policy which I set on this site almost five years ago is that the spot can only be physical or observational evidence of cheating, something independent of the consideration of chess analysis and statistical matching to a computer. Thus the statistical analysis can only be supporting evidence of cheating, in cases that have some other concrete distinguishing mark.

Under pressure to come up with something to get rid of the problem he might have changed position since he wrote this, but in previous times, before the start of the Ivanov case, this was is position.
In Ivanov's case, what is the "other concrete distinguishing marks" other than computer analysis? I stress the "concrete", computer hypothetically hidden in shoes, or very good moves played too quickly, or the opinion of Dlugy and his security expert do not count here.

[Nick Burrows]

Ok i will attempt to amuse you.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/10/inse ... era-video/

To send out the live position to a remote engine, together with a non-metallic antenna to receive some kind of coded radio signal?

Hi tech, but possible - maybe

[Paolo Casaschi]

Ok i will attempt to amuse you.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/10/inse ... era-video/

To send out the live position to a remote engine, together with a non-metallic antenna to receive some kind of coded radio signal?

Hi tech, but possible - maybe

You see, if that is your most likely explanation, then Ivanov might be innocent after all.
Kirsan alien story seems far more likely than your fake eye with a non-metallic (?) antenna.

[Richard Bates]

Surely the most damning circumstantial evidence against Ivanov is not actually the coincidence of moves correlating with those of the computer, but the contrast in strength between when he plays well and when he plays badly? At least if he played at super GM strength all the time you could make a case, however unlikely, that he is genuine. But not when he still on occasion turns up at tournaments and draws and loses to a bunch of 1800s.

[Chris Rice]

Getting reports that Ivanov has been expelled from the tournament, as yet can't confirm it, although the reports say its after he was checked by the arbiters. He was due to play White versus Azeri GM Namig Guliyev (2551) in round 6. As always with Ivanov, chaos reigns.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Getting reports that Ivanov has been expelled from the tournament, as yet can't confirm it, although the reports say its after he was checked by the arbiters. He was due to play White versus Azeri GM Namig Guliyev (2551) in round 6. As always with Ivanov, chaos reigns.

Any link to the info?

[Chris Rice]

Getting reports that Ivanov has been expelled from the tournament, as yet can't confirm it, although the reports say its after he was checked by the arbiters. He was due to play White versus Azeri GM Namig Guliyev (2551) in round 6. As always with Ivanov, chaos reigns.

Any link to the info?

Sorry no link as yet. Getting reports through a friend of a friend but emanating from GM Sergey Fedorchuk who is playing in the tournament but not sure how concrete his info is as yet.

[Mick Norris]

Some Ivanov comment here
https://twitter.com/PattyLlaneza

ESP federation did something good for a change & warned all organizers. He was rejected in some summer opens but sadly not in all.

looks like he is in good shape!!! Though witnesses report he walks somewhat strangely... a stone in his shoe, maybe?

[Leonard Barden]

Chess Results is showing Ivanov losing by default in round 6 and not paired for the final round. So maybe the smoking gun has been discovered at last....