Borislav Ivanov is BACK!

This is the most important question to ensuring this doesn't happen again.  Yet its the one that has not been answered.  This player was very stupid in the way he just completely copied the top computer moves.  But less crude cheaters would surely only occasionally use the computer moves.    Since we really have no clue how Ivanov did it the only thing we know for sure is other players likely can do it as well.  

(Yet I concede it appears that the set up simply involved him playing a game against the computer and for his part he was just plugging in the moves of his human opponent as his own moves against the computer.  He would then play the moves of the computer.     Actually having the computer only give moves on occassion might be a more complicated matter.)

We see pictures where he was searched by handheld metal detector.  The statement by Max Dlugy that he was searched with the metal detector.  Mr. Dlugy suspected it was in his shoe so I presume the metal detector was positioned by his shoes in a thorough manner or Mr. Dlugy would not have said "They have metal detectors and go over every place very carefully if it beeps, and show that there is nothing there." 

We hear that there were ways to block cell phone signals.  

So how was it done?

I don't know... maybe Ivanov wrapped the device hidden in his shoe in some coating that confuses the detection (I have no idea which type of coating would - rubber maybe, or aluminium foil... really not my specialty)

Gathering more information shows me that people tend to be stronger in their side of preference. So your use of the word strong is correct.

Well... the big mystery here is HOW he comunicates with the computer. 

Why do we inquisitive people have to repeat over and over again that we want to know the way he sends the position to the computer and gets back the moves?

It kind of goes both ways. The math group seems to have decided he was already guilty, the math was prefunctory, and just an extra bonus confirmation, but which wouldn't have made any difference either way. It is the zeal and enthusiasm with which they want to punish him is what is worrying, not whether B.I. is guilty.

I'm not excusing him, not at all. Where does it say that I'm excusing him?!

And of course I don't expect any admission of guilt from him. I expect normal people to solve this thing before he has the chance to laugh at everybody and say "This is how I've done it, idiots!" Or before he has the idea to sell his "invention" to a more subtle cheater...

True. What has happened is that these guys are so hell bent to see him fry that they hear what they want to hear. It is freakin scary. What was that thing they say, beaware fighting monsters lest you become monsters yourself?

I get you're doing the devil's advocate thing, but this is just silly.  If it shows the moves match more than any player in history (and a lot of this analysis has been done already, esp. of world champions) then that means something.  Especially considering his rating is nowhere close to world champion level.

It doesn't take much imagination to think of a way.  Taps for input haptic feedback for output.  All that's required is technical know how.

THIS THREAD IS ESSENTIALLY DONE.

It all comes down to this:

If you are an idiot then you think he's not cheating.

If you use logic and probability then you think he's guilty.

Then there are the other (idiots) who say since you haven't proven that he's not guilty you must assume he's innocent. (Disregarding all the facts and probabilities.)

This sums up this thread. The rest is mental masturbation, which you will see posted below this comment.

A pit boss in a casino probably wouldn't hesitate to do precisely that (except that he wouldn't need to hire anyone, as they routinely have a pack of goons at their disposal as part of their job). As someone else mentioned, chess isn't (yet?) as "cut-throat".

I thought as much when Ivanov was forfeit from the tournament and announced his retirement from chess the next day.

Several hundred posts later, I realise I was wrong.

Oh, so you're a "math person" all of a sudden...? That's very interesting, given that in another (rather notorious) thread you have been consistently clinging to the idea of the supposed opinion/beliefs of an unspecified number of GMs being of much higher relevance than an objective, sober, and precise mathematical approach (where, I might add, the matter discussed was a purely logical/mathematical issue at its core), and you were taking a stance vehemently oppositional to the mathematicians taking part in that discussion.

Furthermore, those who you're presumably referring to as "Math people" would hardly refer to themselves in that way. They also probably wouldn't capitalize the word "math" in the middle of a sentence for no good reason, and given the formalism they're used to, they most likely would know that most punctuation symbols, such as a question mark, are not to be preceeded by a whitespace. Perhaps nowadays you need three PhDs to know that, though.

underrated comment

This is the kind of rubbish we need to rid the world of. People who take it on themselves to decide for others wielding their personal demands dressed up as reason and logic.

More mental masturbation from the professor.

Apparently we won't hear much about the guy from now on: according to a Bulgarian site, he is quitting chess for real (you could use Google Translate if you are not familiar with Russian/ Bulgarian).

http://www.blitz.bg/sport/article/197385

Some old school wisdom trying to control the forum. Let us know when you publish "My Struggles".

Yeah... once Google Glass contact lenses are available, he'll be "back with a venginece". :P

@jaaas: in the case of Borislav Ivanov I am on the side of the people using mathematics. In the question if chess is a draw, I am still the same person with the same kind of logic. I did not see any convincing math from people pointing out why the question is undetermined. When I did ask a mathematical question, nobody of those people calling themselves mathematicians could or did answer my question. At least I had a concrete mathematical question. I am the only one in that other thread who at least tried to use mathematics. This does not mean that I claim to be a mathematician. I am not. I am good in software engineering, but that is in my case more logic then mathematics.

BTW, I thought that mathematicians would never make some letters within a word bold and it is Google Glass, not Google Glasses. This ipse dicit argument was to tasty to let it go. :-)

EDIT:

@jaaas: Hey, were you too quick for me and did you edit Google Glasses into Google Glass?