Key difference between Kotainy and Ivanov: Kotainy was caught with a smoking gun, so the statistical evidence just "added to the suspicion" in this case, but was not the determining factor in his being banned.
FIDE still needs to come up with guidelines for the use of statistics in determining whether a person cheated.
Key difference between Kotainy and Ivanov: Kotainy was caught with a smoking gun, so the statistical evidence just "added to the suspicion" in this case, but was not the determining factor in his being banned.
FIDE still needs to come up with guidelines for the use of statistics in determining whether a person cheated.
The "smoking gun" is not so clear. OK, a cell phone that vibrates when turned off is suspicious, but without an expertise on that phone to understand why it does so, it could be pretty much anything.
Without the high Houdini match-up, it would just be a hint to watch the player more closely. But with the high matching rate (though on a small number of games, hence why I would not call it "proof" at that point), the hints add up. (plus the ridiculous excuse for the vibrations - "anti-stealing device")
I think it would've been easily proven whether the vibrations were caused by an anti-theft software or not. Have someone turn off the phone and see if it still vibrates. Second, can the vibrations be translated into chess notation? Third, does it happen exactly the same time, and the same way? Fourth, have him show the app.
i mean that's kind of unfair. they suspect him of cheating? I mean, how can he cheat ring a game without his opponen noticing him. he's probaly just a very har working playr
It was based on this:
"Even though it appeared to be switched off, it suddenly buzzed in the hand of the arbiter, upon which he decided to disqualify the player."
Edit: I took the "appeared" to mean it wasn't actually switched off. If it was actually switched off, then the "appeared" wouldn't be necessary.
Filippov also noted that some of Kyrgyz players were deliberately losing their games against Markov's opponents in order to rise up his Buchholz score:
"I haven't seen anything like that in my entire career! And all that can be calculated and controlled. So many players being involved in this... That is "unfair play." People demonstratively lose and say that they will do anything only to help their compatriot to qualify for the World Cup. That was a "corporate" deed organized for supporting the Kyrgyz player."
All I can say is you guys live a sheltered life. The Soviet Union would do this all the time in the '60's, '70's and '80's: Amongst themselves they'd play and accept draws; but when a non-Soviet player -- such as a Bobby Fischer -- would come along then they'd pull out all the stops.
Advance the clock to 2013 and a national team wants one of their own to play in the World Cup, an InterZonal, what-not, and someone now screams, "He (they) cheated". Welcome to the Real World: Cheating has been going on long before the advent of electronic cheating was devised and it was done out in the open in plain sight.
Ivanov: accused of cheating because his moves matched those of Houdine, though NO electronic device was found on him. Verdict: GUILTY!!
Kotainy: Caught with a vibrating cell phone, and his moves matched those of Houdini. Verdict: GUILTY!!!
Now Markov. His countrymen accused of throwing games so Markov could qualify for the World Cup. Verdict: GUILTY!!!
And we are only now seeing the very tip of the iceberg. Accusations of "cheating" are going to become the new normal, regardless if cheating actually took place. We havn't even got a basic working definition of what "cheating" is, or even what constitutes "Proof" of cheating. We have yet to implement a single common sense protocol to minimize the risk of cheating, such as electronic wanding and the banning of ALL electronic devices -- including MonRoi and eNotate -- in the tournament hall, and banning "spectators" from the tournament hall. Yet the second a vastly under rated player knocks off some GM, the hue and cry goes forth, "He cheated". Again, Welcome to the Real World.
(1) : maybe you haven't. I have. And FIDE has, it's article 12.3a of the FIDE laws of chess :
During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
Will anybody claim that computer analysis is neither "information" or "advice" ?
(2) It has never been a matter of beating GMs, it has always been a matter of matching Houdini's moves. GMs and IMs beat other GMs with big but not huge match ratio. You know it fully well.
From what date is the accusation of Koteiny ?
I read about some accusations in Spring, and he was not disqualified, because all what they had at hand was that he played well, and won against some strong players. Nothing like too high match with Houdini.
So my question is, when was this tournament played ?
Btw, a cell phone that is witched off and still makes noise, is a possibility. IF they got that far to accuse him of using the cellphone as a transmitter of help, why they don't inspect the cell phone ? A cellphone stores the calls of the last few days.
--------------
I have no doubt that Ivanov cheated.
But at the same time it seems to me that there is some sort of paranoia going on now: I have never heard of so many suspicions as this year. It just can't be cheating in every case.
It is so good to blame exterior circumstances (cheating) for a loss...
(1) : maybe you haven't. I have. And FIDE has, it's article 12.3a of the FIDE laws of chess :
During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
Will anybody claim that computer analysis is neither "information" or "advice" ?
(2) It has never been a matter of beating GMs, it has always been a matter of matching Houdini's moves. GMs and IMs beat other GMs with big but not huge match ratio. You know it fully well.
Oh, come, come: The hypocracy of it all. Do you have any idea what a "Second" is?? If so please explain it, then tell me how that is not "cheating". Hypocrites!!!
And since *you* brought it up in all your self rightiousness, FIDE 12.3a (whoopy -- you can tell I'm impressed, right??) please tell me how making a note on a score sheet of several moves a player wants to consider, and eliminating them one by one to select the best option is making use of "notes"?? Did the player walk into the tournament hall with a packet full of notes they constantly consult?!? Did the player whip out Houdini , punch in your move, get computer feedback, and say "Gotcha"?? Yet the idiots at FIDE (and the USCF -- can't leave them out, as it might make them feel neglected) put consulting the product of ones *mind* during the course of play in the same catagory as walking into a tournament hall with outlined notes that they consult throughout play.
And here is another interesting tidbit for you to consider: It has been shown that those who have electronic scoresheets -- approved for use in both FIDE and the USCF -- have a significant advantage over those who simply use paper and pen/pencil.
And since you were all so kind to whip out FIDE article 12.3a on me. Let me return the favor: According to FIDE 12.3a you are NOT permitted to:
"... or analyse on another chessboard."
And what *is* an electronic scoresheet? The person with the electronic scoresheet has a VISUAL birdseye view of the chess board (ie another chessboard outlawed under FIDE 12.3a ) that the person who only has paper and pen/pencil does NOT have access to.
So... should we throw the use of electronic scoresheets in with the mix of "consulting notes" under FIDE 12.3a -- after all it clearly gives the person with the electronic scoresheet an "Unfair Advantage" -- as such are they "cheating"?!?
But wait!! For a limited time only we'll throw in the following: I know the USCF and I *think* FIDE as well -- don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me -- derives income from the sales of MonRoi for sure, and maybe eNotate. Thus if you can pony up the $300+ for a MonRoi , the USCF will wink and nod to the fact they are permitting you to have an advantage over a player who is not as well off finacially and can afford one -- ie if you have the bucks, you are permitted to cheat with the blessing of the USCF!! But God forbid you make notes on your paper scoresheet of your *thought process"!!! You self-rightious Hypocrites!!!
I say BURN THE WITCHES!!! I saw them "cheat"!! I also saw them fly through the air!! I also saw them change into a BLACK CAT!!! I say BURN THE WITCHES!!!
And here is another interesting tidbit for you to consider: It has been shown that those who have electronic scoresheets -- approved for use in both FIDE and the USCF -- have a significant advantage over those who simply use paper and pen/pencil.
Shown by whom and where? Kindly provide a link to this valuable information.
Even if true... less time recording notation, more time for thinking.
From what date is the accusation of Koteiny ?
I read about some accusations in Spring, and he was not disqualified, because all what they had at hand was that he played well, and won against some strong players. Nothing like too high match with Houdini.
So my question is, when was this tournament played ?
Btw, a cell phone that is witched off and still makes noise, is a possibility. IF they got that far to accuse him of using the cellphone as a transmitter of help, why they don't inspect the cell phone ? A cellphone stores the calls of the last few days.
--------------
3 august 2013, it was in the open section of the Dortmund tournament. I posted the source 
That wasn't published a week ago, it was published ~ a month ago, and has been commented on in this thread.
So far FIDE totally fails on this field. In 2004, when 2 players from Papua New Guinea and Bermuda refused to take anti-doping tests, their personal results were modified to defeats in all games and the final standing of the Olympiad was changed accordingly. In 2010, when GM Feller was caught on electronic team cheating, the personal results were adjusted according to another, more sophisticated procedure, whereas the final standings of the team of France at the Olympiad was left unchanged!
Such an inconsequence is not acceptable and definitely does not look professional at all!
Oleg Korneev's arguments also need to be taken into account.
With my full respect to the actions taken by the French federation, I wonder if the result of France would be left unchanged if they finished on the first place...
10. The conclusion
Figthing cheating in chess is relatively easy by prohibiting everything and applying severe sanctions.
That's, however, not a practical solution, with a lot of drawbacks. The common sense needs to prevail. And that's the difficult part!
I wish the newly created Anti-Cheating Committee a fruitful work.
Source: http://www.chessvibes.com/fighting-cheating-in-chess
Anti doping .... in Chess?!? Then there is the issue of what constitutes "proper dress for women"?!? And there are more such bizarro rules. God forbid someone say or do something that...
"2.2.10 In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.
"2.2.11 Any conduct likely to injure or discredit the reputation of FIDE, its events, organizers, participants, sponsors or that will enhance the goodwill which attaches to the same."
It is the total blatant disregard to common sense that poses the greatest threat to chess. FIDE brings more disregard on chess by the issuance of lunacy rules.
What this post points out are some of the very flaws I have been pointing out. We *think* we know what cheating is, but when you actually try to define it it gets much, much harder to do. In order for anti-cheating rules to be adheared to 1) they have to make sense (anti doping rules and proper "dress" -- Please. Just two examples of stupid rules). 2) They must apply uniformally to EVERYONE, not just SOME players. The GM's who refused to play Ivanov to "protest" him... THEY CHEATED!!! And they should have been SANCTIONED. After Ivanov finishes his 4 month suspension. He should be permitted to play in ANY FIDE event -- the TO and TD have NO RIGHT to deny him entry.. other wise THEY ARE CHEATING!!!!!
I suggest someone re-read number 10:
"10. The conclusion
Figthing cheating in chess is relatively easy by prohibiting everything and applying severe sanctions.
That's, however, not a practical solution, with a lot of drawbacks. The common sense needs to prevail. And that's the difficult part!"
Currently?!? It is a mob rule mentality, "I say BURN THE WITCH!!! I saw them "cheat"!! I saw them also fly and even change into a BLACK CAT!!! I say BURN THE WITCH!!!"
How SAD!!!!
(1) : maybe you haven't. I have. And FIDE has, it's article 12.3a of the FIDE laws of chess :
During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
Oh, come, come: The hypocracy of it all. Do you have any idea what a "Second" is?? If so please explain it, then tell me how that is not "cheating". Hypocrites!!!
You know what "during play" means ? Are you asserting that taking input from another player during play is not cheating ? Or that taking input before or after the game is cheating ? Don't bother mentioning the adjournment, this does not exist anymore.
As for a visual scoresheet being a separate analysis board, do you know what "analysis" means ? You know, like moving pieces around in your head or on a board. Or write some lines on the paper. It helps to play better, trust me, compared to just staring at a position. Do any of the Monroi and stuff do that in tournament ? If yes, then I agree this is cheating. But the answer is no for the tournament settings.
And of course, as you claimed that "it has been proven" that Monroi and stuff make people better at chess, I will claim the opposite has been proven by a peer-reviewed neuropsychology article, and until either of us provides a reference it's just wind.
All I can say is you guys live a sheltered life. The Soviet Union would do this all the time in the '60's, '70's and '80's: Amongst themselves they'd play and accept draws; but when a non-Soviet player -- such as a Bobby Fischer -- would come along then they'd pull out all the stops.
Advance the clock to 2013 and a national team wants one of their own to play in the World Cup, an InterZonal, what-not, and someone now screams, "He (they) cheated". Welcome to the Real World: Cheating has been going on long before the advent of electronic cheating was devised and it was done out in the open in plain sight.
Ivanov: accused of cheating because his moves matched those of Houdine, though NO electronic device was found on him. Verdict: GUILTY!!
Kotainy: Caught with a vibrating cell phone, and his moves matched those of Houdini. Verdict: GUILTY!!!
Now Markov. His countrymen accused of throwing games so Markov could qualify for the World Cup. Verdict: GUILTY!!!
And we are only now seeing the very tip of the iceberg. Accusations of "cheating" are going to become the new normal, regardless if cheating actually took place. We havn't even got a basic working definition of what "cheating" is, or even what constitutes "Proof" of cheating. We have yet to implement a single common sense protocol to minimize the risk of cheating, such as electronic wanding and the banning of ALL electronic devices -- including MonRoi and eNotate -- in the tournament hall, and banning "spectators" from the tournament hall. Yet the second a vastly under rated player knocks off some GM, the hue and cry goes forth, "He cheated". Again, Welcome to the Real World.
Again, you seem to go back to 'cheating has been done in the past' argument to support cheating now by stating "Welcome to the Real World: Cheating has been going on long before the advent of electronic cheating was devised and it was done out in the open in plain sight."
Now we have a smoking gun with the cell phone, and as been said before, you'd find an excuse to dismiss it.
The reason why i mentioned what they should have done when he was caught was to call him on his BS.
I've never heard of any cell phone showing activity, other than possibly having a continuous signal when it was completely turned off. Add-on software especially shouldn't be working.
I find the evidence they presented in the case of J. Koteiny insufficient.
What if such cell fones with a continuing signal (booz) exist ?
What does up to, or sometimes 100 % coincidence with Houdini's moves mean ?
It is not impossible for a good player (elo 2300 and up) to find the first choice of Houdini's propositions many times during a game. What matters is the overall percentage of such coincidences. The research that was made with hundreds, even thousands of games in GM practice shows that NO player has EVER played better than about 70 % coincidence of first choices (with horizon 17 half moves) during one single long game.
IF J. Kotainy played during his seven games with, say, 75 % percent coincidence, it would convince me. The fuzzy statement by the tournament officials does not convince me.
-------------------------
I read evrything available on the web about this.
A continuing signal is different than an add-on software/app that causes a phone to vibrate. A cell phone that is completely turned off would turn off the software/app.
oh no not in the chess world as well .anti doping? expresso? tobacco? do steroids help in playing chess? redbull? no herb? i know a player of tennis who won the state...usa...highschool final tennis match on LSD he played college football games in the same stae of mind .i thought that was brave of him .maybe he deserves an bravery asterick noting .but seriously,chessmates, which substances were they tested for in the above example? anybody know?
This is about "Ivanov 2.0" IM Jens Kotainy:
In other news, IM Jens Kotainy was disqualified today from the open tournament, where seven rounds had been played. Christian Goldschmidt posted the following text in the Facebook group against cheating in chess:
Soon afterwards an official statement in German was put up on the homepage of the Sparkassen Chess Meeting which confirmed the above. It mentions that Kotainy was leading the tournament with 7 out of 7, and because he had been accused of cheating at previous events, the arbiters and organizers had him under special observation.
In the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Goldschmidt is quoted:
The fact that Kotainy's moves were close to 100% of Houdini's choices, added to the suspicion. Before the 8th round, the arbiters asked Kotainy to hand over his cell phone. Even though it appeared to be switched off, it suddenly buzzed in the hand of the arbiter, upon which he decided to disqualify the player.
According to the WAZ, Kotainy denies that he cheated. He claims that his brother, a trained computer scientist, has written anti-theft software for mobile phones which would make it vibrate "every ten seconds without internet connection".
Source: http://www.chessvibes.com/dortmund-kramnik-half-a-point-behind-adams-cheating-in-the-open