Borislav Ivanov is BACK!

whoa

LoveYouSoMuch  You have to admit jurassicmc has a point there! He is sticking up for his maligned country man.

Did you notice he looks like he came from Juriassic Park [except in truth dinos and humans never lived at the same time]

So, apart from your gut feelings and your dismissal of statistical evidence, you have as proofs...?

Ha ha ha ha ha. Funny.

I honestly thought the article read like a sensationalist article out to prove someone's own pet theory while ridiculing their opponent.  This idea of it being in his shoe just seems crazy.  There is a lot of force exerted in shoes, and they bend a lot when moving.  Surely a phone would break.  How does one operate the phone when it is under their feet?  How do you hide the vibrating sound while still keeping the vibration setting?  Seriously, I'm sensing a Mythbuster's episode about this.

I personally suspect him of cheating, but I'd like to see better evidence than a flimsy theory about a phone in someone's shoe.

It's easy enough to have the app look at the point differential on the top 3-4 moves and, when they are close together, randomly choose one, but when the 2nd move is distinctly worse than the top move, send the top move, etc.

I do hope you are not being serious :-)

Agreed, and I've been using the same example about comparison with DNA testing in other threads.

The matchup rates are more than enough evidence on their own, and coupled with the circumstantial evidence of Ivanov's behaviour during the games I find it incredible how anyone can still want more.

Nobody cares about your superstitions, SO, and it's against site rules to spout such crap in the forums.

Geez, is it full moon or something? All the idiots are creeping out of there holes tonight.

AMEN

seems that it didn't occur to you what the intent of his post was

Someone can suck at blitz and still be a legitimate top GM. Not everyone has to blitz out the moves quickly. That all current top GMs also excel at blitz is probably a lucky coincidence... however, for example it is well known that Topalov doesn't. 

Every top GM has been good at blitz since blitz was invented. Topalov might not be as good as other, but he is probably very,very good at it. 

Did anyone think to look in the shoe?

To the mathematicians, what is the probability the special secret device was in his left shoe vs. right shoe?

Based on the probability that Ivanov thinks to use his stronger foot to control the implement, conditioned over the probabilities of Ivanov's stronger foot being his right or left, I'd put the probability it was his right at 75%

@learningthemoves: 10 percent of the people is lefthanded and 90% righthanded. That same preference is found in the leg. That means that 90% of the people will have a preference to use the right side for actions that require precision and 10% will prefer to use the left side.

If Ivanov has to make precise movements with one of his feet and has to remind to walk strangely with that same foot, then will he use his foot of preference for that. Hence the chance that the special secret device is in the right foot is 90%.

Aha, you see I did actually use probabilities - I only had the probability of Ivanov using his stronger foot as 95% (5% chance for there to be a reason it's not possible or he didn't think of it) and a cursory internet search gave me 81% of people as being stronger in the right foot, giving a prob of around 77% it's a right foot job.

@waller: haha, our posts cross each other. It depends on perspective which leg is stronger. I am left and shoot preferrably with my left too. That leg has more explosive power. My right leg on the other hand(foot) is stronger in lifting weight.

I used statistics of left and right preference too and thought about that kind of 5% too. But I did not think it was that important that I would use it. That same 5% should also be applied to the use of the other side.

Thanks for the response.  First as to whether it is something that happened in the past.  I agree this might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  I also agree that a false statement of fact about the present might also qualify.  But here are the problems with also including future events:

1) Every breach of contract case might turn into a fraud case.  You stated that if I gave you these goods by date y, you would pay by date X.  I gave you the goods on date y, yet you failed to pay by date x.  Therefore your statement was a false statement of fact.  Did you know it was false?  Well here lots of circumstantial evidence would come into play.  

It is not to say that I don't think some people enter contracts knowing they do not intend to keep their end of the bargain and that this is just as culpable as fraud.  But I can see reasons why courts would want to limit things for more practical concerns.    

2) More philosophically, generally a "fact" in the law at least has been understood as an actual state of reality.   Things that happen in the future are potential reality perhaps even "almost certain to be" reality.  But even that the sun will rise tomorrow does not seem to be actual reality.  

Quoting only part Blacks Law 6th edition: ".....Elements of a cause of action for "fraud" include false representation of a present or past fact made by defendant, action in reliance on thereupon by plaintifff, and damages resulting to plaintiff from such misrepresentation....."  

This is only part of the discussion in Blacks law and some of it supports a wider view but I think this might be a fair understanding of the proof of fraud in federal and many state courts.    However this is clearly intended as the elements for a civil fraud claim.  Criminal courts might have different standards.  

As far as making cheating illegal that is a decent idea.  Prosecutorial discretion may be warranted.  Cheating at monopoly is wrong but it might be one of those wrongs that need not be criminalized. What about the soccer player who screams his ankle hurts when it really doesn't?    Or the football player who knows he touched the sidline chalk but still claims he scored a touchdown?

It seems the black sox had indictments filed against them but they were acquited.  I am not sure of the details but it might shed some light on how this issue might be treated in criminal court.  

The reasonable reliance is easy to prove if we remove the requirement that the representation be of some fact that happened in the past of present and include misreprentations about future occurances.   He promised that he would not use electronic aids to help him in his chess in the future and he violated that promise.  (again it just sounds more like a breach of contract)  But if he signed his score sheet with the statement he did not use any electronic means to win this game (a fact which occured in the past) then he would indeed be committing fraud.  

What reliance could the organizers claim?  The choosing of his next opponent would be one thing.  But again the reliance element might not be that important in a criminal case. (as opposed to a civil case)  The point is not to make the plaintiff whole from the lose incurred by the fraud but to punish the criminal.  

Yeah, I was unsure about the stronger foot thing too. Why are there no statistics as to which foot people prefer to use for manipulating small electronic devices?