Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is Ivanov a cheater?


  • 15 months ago · #61

    GeoffUlrich

    Tbh, there is more than enough "evidence" against him that if this had happened on an online chess site he would have been paid a visit by the banhammer.  I expect it would have also came as a very rude shock.

    To use an old saying, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck. Amusingly, in the tournament prior to the one currently in question he lost to an 1850, or so rated player. Then barely eeked out a draw against a 2050, or so, rated player. After that he became the invicible chess prodigy. Prior to this remarkable transformation, he struggled to even draw against 2200 level players and I don't think he even recorded a win against a single player with a rating of 2200 in over 3 years prior to this episode.

    Then poof, he goes from a pretty mediocre 2200 to a player that is posting results a GM would envy? I think not. Something is very fishy here. Actually, it's more like every fish market in the world type of fishy. Sadly, I do not think the smoking gun evidence is ever going to be found, let alone him actually admitting what he did. He stands to lose to much.

  • 15 months ago · #62

    AdamRinkleff

    Chess tournaments should have 1) metal detectors, 2) no electronic devices allowed, 3) no cell phone reception, 4) no spectators.

  • 15 months ago · #63

    nameno1had

    AdamRinkleff wrote:

    Chess tournaments should have 1) metal detectors, 2) no electronic devices allowed, 3) no cell phone reception, 4) no spectators.

    I posted earlier that for the highest level of play, there should be cubicles or booths of some sort, that have amenities for comfort and securities against cheating. I think that if you didn't have to smell your opponents breath or hear him cough or sneeze, that would be great. Lighting and temperature control would be a plus. I am sure many of the past players would have wanted things like this.

    If there was no cell phone service available and a camera that is monitored for each player, there is less likelyhood of funny business. If the players are segregated from not only each other, but the audience who is watching on a monitor screen in a waiting area, no one has to be distracted, nor is there a very good possibility of hand signals passed along. If the booths have adjacent restrooms and the players/rooms are checked for electronic devices prior, it would certainly reduce the likelyhood of problems. I realize these things would cost more, but I am certain many players would applaud such efforts. Though, I think some people would be opposed, because it takes away the personal nature of the game. I think many people have always been at odds over that very issue to begin with. It is difficult to argue with fair circumstances that are somewhat customizable for personal preferences. If the players were able to play through an electronic device, such as computers and see each other on a seperate monitor ( this is even possible to make available reciprocally upon request by each party ) and communicate by typing, even having their languages translated. The latter item could be handled by either translators who monitor, or perhaps there is software sophisticated enough to handle the endeavor.

    I certainly think the WCC for both men and women should be held under this format and perhaps some of the other major tournaments, such as candidates matches.

  • 15 months ago · #64

    Polar_Bear

    AdamRinkleff wrote:

    Chess tournaments should have 1) metal detectors, 2) no electronic devices allowed, 3) no cell phone reception, 4) no spectators.

    Not bad idea.

    What about wooden solitary house deep in the forest, no electricity, only fireplace, mechanical clocks and wax candle's light.

  • 15 months ago · #65

    konhidras

    Fair play eh? Then let them play naked.Wink (llllloooove ittttt)

  • 15 months ago · #66

    Polar_Bear

    pbraham wrote:

    Firstly, the question remains, if he did cheat then HOW. To use the old whodunnit analogy, "It's unlikely that she died of natural causes," is not the same as "you were the only other person in the house so you must have killed her." A good defense lawyer - or even a good cop - would ask: "If it was poison, where are the traces of it? If it was blunt trauma, where are the bruises?" Ditto for cheating at chess. Some have compared his play to Houdini (2 or 3), other to Stockfish. But how was the information relayed to him? He was searched after all and nothing was found.

    Secondly, there is no such thing as statistical proof of cheating. There is only statistical proof of the improbability of an event. But that doesn't mean that there is a default alternative explanation. The chances of guessing a randomly picked card from a randomly shuffled deck are one in fifty two. But if some one gets it right does that mean: (a) they were lucky, (b) they used trickery, (c) they have supernatural powers, (d) the subject clumsily held the card in a way that it could be seen, or (e) the would-be magician had made numerous other unsuccessful attempts but this is the one that stood out because they got it right? Statistics flag up anomalies. They do not proffer specific explanations.

    Thirdly, playing well in open positions and the mid-game, whilst playing badly in closed positions and in the endgame is also the characteristic of inspired but impatient players. It was certainly true of me when I was an enthusiastic young player. (I play very little chess these days.) I did learn some closed-position tricks from a Canadian master, but one of the things he told me is that certain types of player simply don't feel comfortable in closed positions and try to force the issue, ending up losing.

    That said, this is all rather reminiscent of Percival Wilde's story Slippery Elm (reprinted in Chernev's The Chess Companion), where the moves were scratched onto tablets that the player was taking ostensibly to combat his opponent's cigar smoke, or David Kessler's Checkmate at the Beauty Pageant, when the hero plays against the villain's computer wearing special glasses that pick up the electromagnetic resonance (AKA "noise") from the computer and translate it into a voice telling him what moves the computer is considering for both players. Whether it happened in real life, is another matter. But this is the stuff of great stories.

    I smell a fish here: somebody feels sympathy for an idiot cheater and seeks the way to undermine the facts. Let me guess: Perhaps some fellow cheater? Spreading the culture of cheating is unacceptable.

    First of all, there is no doubt about Ivanov: he is cheater. The probability of such event is so close to zero it is actually zero. I don't mean his performance but measured engine contamination in his play. The little technicality (no device was found) can't change anything, it indicates rather an incompetence of the arbiter. HOW did he cheat? Simple: he received advices from an engine and made moves on the board. That is it. (Stupid Question => Brief Answer)

    Second, a 25-years old player is not expected to have extreme fluctuations in playing strength. At the age of 19 players are defacto finished. If he had been capable to beat GMs, he would have been famous as junior years ago. This is not the case. I am actually better OTB player than him. But Ivanov's performance fluctuations are naturally explained by cheating and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Third, in the recent interview he showed complete ignorance and trolling. I fail to see the point of such talk: stupid ignorant arrogant convicted cheater gets a public space to deny it and talk nonsense instead of arrest and strict police interrogation - in fact he committed a crime: stealing a prize is a form of fraud.

    Fourth, it is laughable to think that average club player (e.g. Ivanov) or even some "inspired" unknown amateur player would play better in open positions than a GM. The level of GM play is way higher than amateurs can even imagine and computers don't change it, they can give amateurs only the false feeling of understanding.

    And finally, I don't see cheating cool, cheat stories interesting and cheaters clever and adorable. I feel sad, angry and disappointed about people who devoted themselves into cheating and I regard them as despicable scum. Cheating culture as it settled in top cycling and bodybuilding for some time must not appear in otb chess and it must get driven out from online chess. The "everyone is doing it" phrase can't become accepted as valid. Even legitimate correspondence chess centaurs must realize where is their place: they are the rabble among online and correspondence players until they prove their competence to play unassisted.

  • 15 months ago · #68

    Liart

    An update. He is now playing in another tournament , this time in Bulgaria and guess what? This time he is not cheating. Just check his results here: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr91542.aspx?art=9&lan=1&fed=BUL&flag=30&wi=821&snr=34  . Is it possible for a player who beat four grandmasters two months ago to lose now against two players rated below 2000?  This a shame and final proof. Ok, those people that lost rating points against him while he was cheating will surely regain them, but waht about prize money? There should be some serious penalty for what he did.

  • 15 months ago · #69

    nameno1had

    I think it should be considered fraud and theft

  • 15 months ago · #70

    konhidras

    Liart wrote:

    An update. He is now playing in another tournament , this time in Bulgaria and guess what? This time he is not cheating. Just check his results here: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr91542.aspx?art=9&lan=1&fed=BUL&flag=30&wi=821&snr=34  . Is it possible for a player who beat four grandmasters two months ago to lose now against two players rated below 2000?  This a shame and final proof. Ok, those people that lost rating points against him while he was cheating will surely regain them, but waht about prize money? There should be some serious penalty for what he did.

    Hold your horses, Ljubojevic, Shirazi (to name only a few) had that kind of fluctuating results too in tournaments and they are both grandmasters. Karpov once almost lost a game (mate in two) against then IM Luc Winants (which winants lost).

  • 15 months ago · #71

    AdamRinkleff

    Liart wrote:

     Is it possible for a player who beat four grandmasters two months ago to lose now against two players rated below 2000? 

    Its kind of embarassing. I thought he would have had more sense.

  • 15 months ago · #72

    Liart

    @konhidras: Seriously!? Ljubo's opponents were GM's and IM's and this guy is losing to 2000 ELO players. Since your rating is 1480 , maybe it is harder for you to understand how weak is 2000 player. Any comparison of this sort is just ignorant and sort of offensive.

  • 15 months ago · #73

    konhidras

    Liart wrote:

    @konhidras: Seriously!? Ljubo's opponents were GM's and IM's and this guy is losing to 2000 ELO players. Since your rating is 1480 , maybe it is harder for you to understand how weak is 2000 player. Any comparison of this sort is just ignorant and sort of offensive.

    He's losing to 2000elo rated players coz hes somewhere near the same rating too. Since you opened the 1480 rating, yeah you may be right i probably dont know how weak a 2000 player is. Why dont you play me and show me how weak a 2011 rated player is.lol

  • 15 months ago · #74

    nameno1had

    konhidras wrote:

    Liart wrote:

    @konhidras: Seriously!? Ljubo's opponents were GM's and IM's and this guy is losing to 2000 ELO players. Since your rating is 1480 , maybe it is harder for you to understand how weak is 2000 player. Any comparison of this sort is just ignorant and sort of offensive.

    He's losing to 2000elo rated players coz hes somewhere near the same rating too. Since you opened the 1480 rating, yeah you may be right i probably dont know how weak a 2000 player is. Why dont you play me and show me how weak a 2011 rated player is.lol

    Though your idea doesn't outweigh the original sentiment, that was a really good rebuttal...

  • 14 months ago · #75

    Liart

    Well that is my blitz rating on chess.com  at the same time my fide is 2100 at the moment (although my playing strength is somwhere aruond 2200) judging by last few tournaments i have played in. And I know how weak a 2000 ELO is because I have played against those guys in OTB competitions and they are just weak.

    P.S. I am also not strong,but that was not the point

  • 14 months ago · #76

    pbraham

    Sorry to return to this after all this time, but I have been away. However, as Polar_Bear has written something libelous about me, I feel I must respond.

    Polar_Bear wrote "I smell a fish here: somebody feels sympathy for an idiot cheater and seeks the way to undermine the facts. Let me guess: Perhaps some fellow cheater? Spreading the culture of cheating is unacceptable."

    It is hard to know where to begin in responding to such a libellous (and ignorent) accusation. To suggest that I am a "cheater" without evidence is something that no person of average or above average intelligence would do - or perhaps I should say something that no person with an ounce of honesty and integrity would say. But then again he/she said "let me guess" - so perhaps that offers an insight into his/her method of reasoning.

    "The probability of such event is so close to zero it is actually zero.I don't mean his performance but measured engine contamination in his play."

    Ivanov's other critics, have quantified it as very low but not zero. They base this on comparisons between other players and chess engines. However, they can't all agree on which engine to use as the basis for their respective corelations.

    Other players keep banging on about "ratings" and erratic results, reflecting an exagerated confidence in ratings as a predictor. I personally remember, as a child, an occasion when a teenage player from a rival school to mine beat an international (not in a simultaneous or speed game) whose old BCF grade was more than 50 higher than his own. A 50 difference in old BCF is equivalent to 400-500 in Elo. He won not because of a blunder by his opponent, but because he raised his game and played the game of his life. He was not able however to sustain this level of play. It was a one-off due to tenacity and determination and a few moments of clarity when he spotted opportunities and played to perfection. This was in 1971, so I think we can rule out a computer.

    "The little technicality (no device was found) can't change anything, it indicates rather an incompetence of the arbiter."

    It indicates lack of evidence. They looked, they knew what they were looking for and they didn't find what they were looking for. You can try and sweep it under the carpet all you like, but a search that finds nothing, is just as strong in evidence as a search that finds something. It shows that their suspicions were unfounded.

    "HOW did he cheat? Simple: he received advices from an engine and made moves on the board. That is it. (Stupid Question => Brief Answer)"

    How did he receive these "advises"?

    "Second, a 25-years old player is not expected to have extreme fluctuations in playing strength. At the age of 19 players are defacto finished."

    Joseph Blackburne? Akiva Rubinstein?

    "But Ivanov's performance fluctuations are naturally explained by cheating and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

    "Third, in the recent interview he showed complete ignorance and trolling. I fail to see the point of such talk: stupid ignorant arrogant convicted cheater gets a public space to deny it and talk nonsense instead of arrest and strict police interrogation - in fact he committed a crime: stealing a prize is a form of fraud."

    Now you're going off at a tangent and no longer addressing my arguments - and still offering no evidence.

    "Fourth, it is laughable to think that average club player (e.g. Ivanov) or even some "inspired" unknown amateur player would play better in open positions than a GM."

    Maybe the reason he is an "average club player" is precisely BECAUSE his play is erratic and inconsistent. In my youth I was told by school chess captain that I had the strongest mid-game in the school (in open positions) but was held back by my erratic opening and weak endgame play, as well as my impatience in closed positions (until I was given tuition by a Canadian master).

     

    "And finally, I don't see cheating cool, cheat stories interesting and cheaters clever and adorable."

    I never said it was. I said it made for interesting stories and I cited two examples, including one about a Mossad officer playing against a chess computer and using clever (fictional) eletronics to "read" the computer's "thoughts". Please try to understand the difference between fact and fiction. I am not suggesting that anyone should emulate the methods used by the intelligence officer in "Checkmate at the Beauty Pageant." But then again, I am also not suggesting that an evil billionaire should kidnap a group of beauty queens either!

  • 14 months ago · #77

    Liart

    @pbraham : you could also add the following to your post:

    1) Hitler never wanted anything bad he just wanted to unite us all and then to give us good economy

    2) United states never attacked Vietnam, they were just defending themselfes agaist big red threat

    3) Serbia was rightfully bombed in 1999 by NATO (US, UK,etc) because she tried to stop the terrorists from killing their people in order to achieve separation. It was not ok for a country to fight terrorism inorganized manner before 9/11

    If the above makes sense, then yours makes sense as well.

    P.S. Yes you may find whatever arguments against and in favor of him being cheating, BUT THE FACT IS - He was cheating in Zadar.

    P.SII On his next tournament he showed his real strength (check how he did in Tringov memorial in Bulgaria last month

  • 14 months ago · #78

    Sunshiny

    @Pbraham -While i agree that Polar_Bear shouldn't speculate on the open forum about members being cheaters, i don't think his line of reasoning is wrong.

    Just because critics can't agree on which engine was used, still meant they agreed that an engine was used.

    Ivanov had more than a "one-off" game. He beat multiple players in a tournament. So Ivanov managed to sustain the level of play through more than six games.

    I wouldn't say a search that finds nothing is almost as strong as one that finds something. A search that finds something is strong evidence, while one that finds nothing is inconclusive.

    I think the comparison between amateur play and master level play is hardly comparible. I would think master level play would be very solid and nowhere near as erratic as an amateur. Ivanov's games however, were as solid as a computer casing made of adamantium in that tournament.  

  • 14 months ago · #79

    Polar_Bear

    @ pbraham (aka dpak)

    It is hard to know where to begin in responding to such a libellous (and ignorent) accusation. To suggest that I am a "cheater" without evidence is something that no person of average or above average intelligence would do - or perhaps I should say something that no person with an ounce of honesty and integrity would say. But then again he/she said "let me guess" - so perhaps that offers an insight into his/her method of reasoning.

    The counter-question, however, is "What else did you expect?"

    To make it easier for you to understand, look at the whole thing from my perspective: Somebody creates a blank account with fake name and makes a trolling-like long post telling us the wonderful news Ivanov wasn't a cheater, because it might happen, thus there is no proof. The post ignored all previous evidence and conclusions and brief research showed it wasn't original, the same letter I found here and here, both from anonymous newcommer calling himself "dpak". I could certainly try some amateur "psychoanalysis" of the writer, but to make it short, my experience with online chess cheaters told me something wasn't right. Some caught cheating losers seek the way to undermine public reputation of analytical methods and dpak's letter falls into this category. A lot of talk pretending balanced insight, reference to literature, but clear message. Regarding pbraham I used a question mark, because I know I can't be sure, but one thing is indeed sure: newcommers with fake names aren't trustworthy. To make a clue who may be dpak:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dpakessler

    And now our issues regarding Ivanov.

    Ivanov's other critics, have quantified it as very low but not zero. They base this on comparisons between other players and chess engines. However, they can't all agree on which engine to use as the basis for their respective corelations.

    I also said "close to zero". According to quantum mechanics, everything can happen. A whole planet can escape from underneath black hole's event horizon, thousands years deceased can rise from dead, a man can chastely get pregnant and give birth. But you wouldn't believe such stories, would you? Thus let's do not believe Ivanov didn't cheat. The point wasn't to prove which engine Ivanov used, the point was to prove his play wasn't human. Engine can distinguish human from another engine.

    I personally remember, as a child, an occasion when a teenage player from a rival school to mine beat an international (not in a simultaneous or speed game) whose old BCF grade was more than 50 higher than his own. A 50 difference in old BCF is equivalent to 400-500 in Elo. He won not because of a blunder by his opponent, but because he raised his game and played the game of his life. He was not able however to sustain this level of play. It was a one-off due to tenacity and determination and a few moments of clarity when he spotted opportunities and played to perfection.

    As for Ivanov, we do not talk about ~20 perfect moves in one game, but >300 nonbook moves during the whole tournament. And let's remember Ivanov had unfair access not only to engine, but also to computer's stored opening book.

    Device:

    They looked, they knew what they were looking for and they didn't find what they were looking for. You can try and sweep it under the carpet all you like, but a search that finds nothing, is just as strong in evidence as a search that finds something. It shows that their suspicions were unfounded. How did he receive these "advises"?

    Quite easy to hide wireless bean-like small communication device, e.g. deeper in ear canal, isn't it? Such products are manufactured in China and they aren't that expensive. Students use them sometimes to cheat during tests and exams. It must have been easy to deceive an incompetent old-school chess arbiter.

    Now you're going off at a tangent and no longer addressing my arguments - and still offering no evidence.

    The evidence was presented here (post #154).

    Maybe the reason he is an "average club player" is precisely BECAUSE his play is erratic and inconsistent. In my youth I was told by school chess captain that I had the strongest mid-game in the school (in open positions) but was held back by my erratic opening and weak endgame play, as well as my impatience in closed positions (until I was given tuition by a Canadian master).

    Please, please, please - quit posting such nonsense! Ivanov's opponents were experienced GMs, not some amateur schoolgirls. He faced opposition several orders of magnitude stronger than you.

    I said it made for interesting stories and I cited two examples, including one about a Mossad officer playing against a chess computer and using clever (fictional) eletronics to "read" the computer's "thoughts". Please try to understand the difference between fact and fiction. I am not suggesting that anyone should emulate the methods used by the intelligence officer in "Checkmate at the Beauty Pageant." But then again, I am also not suggesting that an evil billionaire should kidnap a group of beauty queens either!

    I am not an expert on literature, but my grandmother taught literature at high school and despised such novels as "pulp fiction". But you are David Kessler yourself, I guess, aren't you?


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.