10901 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!
That's what I am saying: What the Bulgarian Federation did , is not what a judge in a democracy is usually doing. A judge would NOT allow any of those 'indications' during the meeting as relevant.
Yes, but here, the BCF was not trying to convince rational minds (those have the match-up stats), but the irrational crowd that makes a lot of noise on the forums.
I would be the first to rage if that was all the proof they use in another case, but this case has gone so long into madness that I am not even surprised.
Again, Bulgarian Federation has done the world community a very bad favour. Arbitrariness in cheat detection will only lead to an inflation of (wrong) accusations, and at the same time it allows (actual) cheaters to present themselves as victims.
In fact, the handling of the Kotainy case ('Sparkassen Open 2013') was very bad, too:
The tournament director threw him out only because he had a mobile phone in his pocket that started vibrating after it was handed out to him.
This raises several questions:
Why didn't they refer at all to the analysis of many of Kotainy's games that show (too) high coincidence with Houdini's suggestions ?
Why was it allowed to have a mobile phone during the game ? (As many smart people suggest, mobiles should be handed out to the dircetor before each game.)
Why is then the vibration of the mobile phone a proof that it was not set off during the game ?
Kotainy claimed the vibrations came from a software, installed by his brother. They are just a periodic alarm signal, meant to detect the actual location of the phone. Why did the referees not check on this claim (they just did not belive him)?
Why didn't they check on Apps on the mobile phone of Kotainy, like chess programs etc. ?
Given the fact that one was allowed to have a phone during the game (set off), the doing of Kotainy is only illegal, if someone called him, and the bell was wringing (because making noise during a game is a violation of rules in many tournament halls by now; this includes bell wringing of phones). Or worse, if he accepted a call (the provider would allow to have a look at accepted calls, if it becomes a crime investigation).
It is therefore no surprise that the case of Kotainy is not yet closed.
For those of you who missed it, Nigel Short talked about this while commentating the last game of the world cup today. He said the evidence that Ivanov is cheating is overwhelming and that he was scheduled to be tested in a place where the controls would not allow any cheating but he did not show up.
I would like to listen to this bit of video is too late here in uk (2.30am) for me to go through all the days video at
If u could tell us whih part 1, 2 or 3 that this comment is made on this cheats case, and where in the timeline this is said i would be thankful for the time saved in searching for this comment from nigel short.
thanks will check for reply later sometime :).
Final game 4, part 3 of 4, the topic of cheating comes up at the 28 minute mark and then they start talking about Ivanov at the 30 minute mark.
Thanks seen it now prob would taken me ages to find otherwise was on wrong page for one thing :).
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.
The manners of ... people(!).
by RG1951 a few minutes ago
Hello GM, Penguin is Carlsen
by mike_tal 2 minutes ago
8/20/2014 - Cheparinov vs Branko Macanga, Vukovar, 2001
by kyleevon 4 minutes ago
sharpest reply against d4
by Mainline_Novelty 11 minutes ago
i don't like Carlsen, he's fake. Anand is honest
by Ptolemy2 20 minutes ago
Can we protect our site from hackers?
by chess_kebabs 20 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps
by SirArren 22 minutes ago
Acceptable or Unacceptable
by RG1951 25 minutes ago
by The_Ghostess_Lola 33 minutes ago
best way to play against queens gambit.
by blueemu 33 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!