beardogjones wrote:
Maybe he had Houdini in his shoes but was not actually using it! I can see
why he would not take the shoes off because of the false accusations that would ensue!
Genius!
Borislav Ivanov is BACK!
Sort:
FirebrandX wrote:
He's not going to play identically to Houdini 3, be caught with the device on him, and it be purely coincidence.
After reading this thread I'm sure there are people who would disagree with that lol.
"He just had it to analyze his games afterwards. It's a shame you people want to defame such a talented young man when you have no evidence. Now excuse me while I transfer my life savings to a gentleman in Africa who has promised me a fortune."
LoekBergman wrote:
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?
The bolding in "venginece" is used to stress that it is a pun rather than a pitiful misspelling. I thought it would be obvious to everyone. You managed to prove me wrong here.
My post never said "Google Glasses", it was "Google Glass" all along, you must have been seeing things. If you like, ask the site staff when that particular post was last edited and what the changes (if any) were.
(I believe that each forum post that was modified after other posts had followed should have information on the number of edits and last modification date, as without that abuse is indeed possible).
As for the "mathematics used in the case of Ivanov", it's still largely speculation that happens to involve some statistics and probability here and there (although that has a much higher relevance here than when making futile attempts at answering the "is chess a draw" question). Whether he has indeed been a cheat or not cannot be stricly proven beyond any doubt in hindsight by using logic alone. Those who had the chance to effectively examine his footwear could have found out with a much greater certainty; that chance is gone now.
As for that older question of yours - I did address that, but you must have either not noticed or ignored it. I said that methods which are bound by a limited calculation horizon (and as such are characterized by a fluctuating position evaluation) are irrelevant altogether as far as determining of perfect play is concerned. An oracle necessary to determine perfect play (such as a tablebase) has an unlimited horizon, i.e. it has information about the eventual outcome of any possible continuation, all the way to the end, always. Apart from that, any engine evaluation threshold values are purely relative. For instance, Fritz happens to use .30 to change from = to +/=, .70 to go to +/-, and 1.60 to go to +-, but that could as well be changed to anything else (higher thresholds for weaker players, lower for stronger players).
DrCheckevertim wrote:
tomk69 wrote:
So this is Shoedini v3.0 hahaha
underrated comment
The comment is brilliant. Alas, the "Shoedini" name apparently has been trademarked already.
Oct 7, 2013
0
#228
as stated before, as a fine a teaching tool that is houdini 3 or an impeding houdini times x power might be.....and, using our games to formulate its calculations.... why would anyone want to use a calculator to play a chess game? maybe...to test it out, ok but would anyone of us want to actually "win" a chessgame without letting the other party know that she/he was using a calculator to play? me?.. no....i prefer my human fallibility i prefer to earn something i value how about you chessmate?
Oct 7, 2013
0
#229
@jaaas: of course I knew it was a pun. :-)
That is why I asked you if I read it correctly.
The evidence is statistically speaking far beyond reasonable doubt. My knowledge of statistics is by far sufficient to tell you that.
I did not try to establish perfect play with my question, I asked about the chance that a draw might change to a win or vice versa with regards to the evaluations in the past. If x number of evaluations indicate a draw, what is the chance that the position is actually a win? I have read it, but I couldn't see it as a relevant answer to the question. I did not talk about perfect play, nor did I try to establish perfect play - we agree on that that that is impossible, I just tried to create a pathway in which both sides could talk and work together. Instead of true or false, I tried to create a pathway rendering an estimation of the question. It is a long and windy road to the truth, so why not start with estimations?
ClavierCavalier wrote:
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.
I somewhat agree, although I do not "suspect" him but I am damn sure he is cheating.
The real proof is the stats, not that article.
pure slanders, i will tell you some reasons of why math doesn´t work all the time. Math doesn´t work with Genious like Kasparov, Borislav Ivanov, Federer even aliens hidden in our society, you can´t explain your birth with mathematics , it´s quite unlikely , too much unlikely ,
Maths doesn´t work with special people and any kind of existential question . This guy is a great friend of mine and i can say with absolute certainty that Ivanov is a genious like was Fischer going crazy russian players. Ivanov has trained hard to defeat houdini , it´s normal he is playin like the machine, when u have a good friend long time you start to speak like him in the same way Ivanov "speaks " like the machine.
the shoe is the stupidest thing i ever heard , you need better excuses to blacken the name of Borislav Ivanov.
Let me put this in "Jock" language... on any given Sunday, any team in the NFL can win, but you don't bet that way (or in the absence of being clairvoyance, statistics is a good predictor)...
jaaas wrote:
Yekatrinas wrote:
Why do we Math people have to repeat over and over again that the comparison of his moves with engine choices since 2012 prove his guilt with probability higher than 0.999 ? (A probability more than high enough to prove someones fatherhood via DNA testing .) Are you all not reading the previous pages, or do you not believe in Math ?
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.
Smack! I'd claim jaaas as my sock puppet if only it were true.
jaaas wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
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?
The bolding in "venginece" is used to stress that it is a pun rather than a pitiful misspelling. I thought it would be obvious to everyone. You managed to prove me wrong here.
My post never said "Google Glasses", it was "Google Glass" all along, you must have been seeing things. If you like, ask the site staff when that particular post was last edited and what the changes (if any) were.
(I believe that each forum post that was modified after other posts had followed should have information on the number of edits and last modification date, as without that abuse is indeed possible).
As for the "mathematics used in the case of Ivanov", it's still largely speculation that happens to involve some statistics and probability here and there (although that has a much higher relevance here than when making futile attempts at answering the "is chess a draw" question). Whether he has indeed been a cheat or not cannot be stricly proven beyond any doubt in hindsight by using logic alone. Those who had the chance to effectively examine his footwear could have found out with a much greater certainty; that chance is gone now.
As for that older question of yours - I did address that, but you must have either not noticed or ignored it. I said that methods which are bound by a limited calculation horizon (and as such are characterized by a fluctuating position evaluation) are irrelevant altogether as far as determining of perfect play is concerned. An oracle necessary to determine perfect play (such as a tablebase) has an unlimited horizon, i.e. it has information about the eventual outcome of any possible continuation, all the way to the end, always. Apart from that, any engine evaluation threshold values are purely relative. For instance, Fritz happens to use .30 to change from = to +/=, .70 to go to +/-, and 1.60 to go to +-, but that could as well be changed to anything else (higher thresholds for weaker players, lower for stronger players).
There's a connection between these two threads about the issue of how perfect is Houdini. If Houdini is playing chess truth and Ivanov plays the same moves as Houdini, statistics may not be relevant. All that they can do is show that Ivanov has played nearly a perfect chess game and that is not evidence of cheating but of perfect play. Who knows where he got that? But nobody believes that Houdini plays perfectly so the statistical evidence of correspondence does mean taht it is likely that his moves were generated by the imperfect Houdini.
Someone who wanted to argue consistently on both threads would think that if the statistical correspondence is meaningful evidence here, then Ponz claim that games by Houdini show something about ultimate chess truth is nonsense. That sentence was likely too hard for that crowd.
I'm hurt. Sniff...
yesterday i played a game in my city with 88% = houdini , i have only 2068 FIDE . Just the move 15 ...Ra3 is not in the top 5 houdini moves.
You can check this game here too --> http://chess-results.com/tnr109727.aspx?lan=2
I´m studying games with houdini every week and you can see the results, you can imagine then how a genious like Borislav Ivanov imitate the moves of the program if a lucky bastard like me can play sasme houdini in 88%.
Re Ivanov. I find it interesting that he often wrote something like "some clown" for his opponents names. It shows to me an arrogant and amoral person. I think he felt superior as he was beating top players per his own cleverness. [I do not think he was so clever, I think they should have examined his shoes long ago]
The question is not does Houdini play perfect chess. The question is "did he copy Houdini?"
ClavierCavalier wrote:
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.
Agreed! The article has a gossipy feel to it. The picture of a phone in a shoe adds to that feeling.
As I said before, it is still not clear to me how a phone full of electronic components could not be detected by a metal detector. I bet that even a simple metal detector app would do the job.
Yekatrinas wrote:
Putting an empty space in front of a question mark is NOT a mistake.
2. I am a Mathenmatician, and yes, we write Mathematics and Math with capital letters.
The "Not sure if trolling, or just (...)" meme pic would hardly fit better anywhere else than here.
The only language I'm aware of where putting a whitespace before a question mark is correct is French, while capitalizing common nouns (such as "mathematics" or "mathematician") is being done as a matter of rule in German. These are most definitely errors in English (and basically any other language). I hate to sound rude, but someone truly believing in what you have said there being true for the English language might be well off returning to grade school.
Yekatrinas wrote:
Those who have taken your side have rarely dismantled themselves as Mathematicians, and those who do not take your side, either.
I have tried to understand what you were intending to say there, but I don't.
I can't speak for the others, but (thankfully) I haven't dismantled myself, I'm still integral (no math pun intended).
Maybe he had Houdini in his shoes but was not actually using it! I can see
why he would not take the shoes off because of the false accusations that would ensue!