Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified

  • 21 months ago · #1861


    wcrimi wrote:

    I don't think this is a just decision.  If you suspect a player is cheating you should have to prove it before barring him. If you can't prove it, but the circumtantial evidence is extremely strong (as it apparently is in this case) , I think the proper course of action is to change the rules to ensure no one can cheat.  

    Perhaps that means going as far as having players being patted down, scanned to ensure no devices are implanted under their skin, in their mouth etc...

    There is plenty of technology designed to catch terrorists that could handle this. 

    If he's unwilling to submit to that, that's fine. It would be like an admission. He's free to refuse (as would anyone else be).  But barring before proof is clearly wrong and I'm suprised some people don't understand that. 


    But this was the case. He was asked to play against a GM in a room where the outside signals would be jammed, and the day he had to present himself to play he invented an excuse and didn't go.Further we know he cheated, because during one of the games in Zara, the transmission of the moves had problems, he played like a low rated player.

    Honestly I don't think it is fair toward the GMs who lost against him, that the rating points were not given back, and that they maybe lost money because of him. So 4 months suspension is NOT enough.

  • 21 months ago · #1862


    schlechter55 wrote:


    However, no matter, how poor he would present himself there as a chess player, he could have always said 'It ws not my idea, in those torunaments where you accused me of cheating, I was in better shape.' Or: 'The games you forced me to play here where only one (or two), based on these there is no statistical evidence that I am a cheater.'

    There's a difference between "better shape" and playing exactly like Houdini 3 of all chess engines on a consistent basis. In the controlled environment testing room, he would have been forced back into 2000-rated Ivanov mode and he KNEW this. What makes this a difficult point to drive home is it requires expertise in chess to understand how blatant his cheating was. So you have stronger players reviewing his games and having ZERO doubt he cheated, and then you have weaker players that act like it doesn't mean anything in terms of proof.

    Put it to you this way, if they had put Ivanov before a panel of chess masters and presented the games in question for their review on laptops equiped with Houdini 3.0, the vote would have been unanimous to convict him.

  • 21 months ago · #1863


    And I see Schlecter55's account was closed...

  • 21 months ago · #1864


    FirebrandX wrote:

    And I see Schlecter55's account was closed...

    Most likely on his own request, since his posts did not disappear.

  • 21 months ago · #1865


    LegoPirateSenior wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:

    And I see Schlecter55's account was closed...

    Most likely on his own request, since his posts did not disappear.

    Either way, it was a waste for me to debate his points.

Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.