13865 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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.
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.
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.
Who is the best chess player of all time ?vote here !
by Reb a few minutes ago
Faking a LOW rating to win !!
by slimcheffy 2 minutes ago
by MichiganEagle 3 minutes ago
by Feufollet 6 minutes ago
How many of the youth actually like chess?
by incantevoleutopia 8 minutes ago
Catharsis: Post your most heartbreaking game(s) here.
by incantevoleutopia 11 minutes ago
Standard games too fast?
by VULPES_VULPES 13 minutes ago
House of Chess
by loubalch 13 minutes ago
by Reb 19 minutes ago
3/29/2015 - Front And Center
by cyclopsam 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!