Borislav Ivanov is BACK!

People like this still exist?

+1

I think the people who don't think Ivanov is guilty can be seen in two ways:

but prior to stating that, it is important to point out that the 'seeing' is done by us. The categories are ours, whether they actually think in the way we think they are thinking, or not; whether we are projecting, and labeling them with our own labels.

So the two ways:

1.  They are ignorant, and are purposefully blinding themselves to believe B.I is guilty. That is, they know what the evidence are, they are aware of all that has been said, and therefore, despite their reason, they don't want to believe in his guilt. They are not only ignoring the evident evidence, but their own reason.

2. They don't believe he is guilty, because no one has said he is guilty. A lot of evidence, but no conviction. This distinction is important. It may not change our attitude toward B.I, but one has to admit to the reality of the situation, and the facts, there was no judgment. 

 Just as the facts and statistics show reason to believe in his guilt, I think it is important to follow reason , and not be seduced by own abilities and intellectual prowess and say that what we think is sufficient. That our call, that our verdict has weight, that regardless of everything else, our pronouncement is sufficient, that our truth is the Absolute.

What is that called? Hubris? 

We can say all we want, but in the end we must know what this really is, and not make it equal to something else.

And there has been a lot of that going on in this case. One thing getting passed off as another. Take for example GM Dugy's personal narrative as factual journalism. People trying to be what they are not. OF course there is free speech, and you have to speak up etc, but to call something what it is not is dangerous. Becuase once it is accepted as permissable, that we can solve problems in this manner, everything else crumbles.

It is easy to succumb to the reason of Authority, those who know more and wear 'badges'.

What does that mean, do I mean rebellion? disregard for law and order, and reason?

No, in fact that is the exact thing we need to establish. The opinion and authorities and badges have to submit themselves to Reason as well, to law and order, so that each is given DUE and PROPORTIONATE consideration.

What happens often, and has happened, often is the undue focus on one side. 

If this doesn't seem to be a problem then your balance of reason is overweighed, and that is fine and ok, and that is your personal choice; but to say that balance is not important, and that what is right for you is right for everyone else, that is a serious abject failure.

Legally someone is innocent until formalities like a trial are done.  Morally a person is wrong the moment they commit the act.  I don't need a judge to tell me Ivanov was wrong.  I don't need a special investigation to tell me he played Houdini's moves.  Gossip condemning an innocent person is terrible.  Luckily for those proclaiming Ivanov's guilt there was no attempt at subterfuge.  Ivanov's cheating was painfully obvious.

Luckily most people won't elevate the painfully obvious beyond anything other than what it is. Guilty or not guilty, thankfully legal process exist in the sane and free world that supersedes personal convictions.

In the end it is good to know that one can rely on those processess and that we are not at the mercy of the few who abandon reason.

I agree!

I somewhat agree.  When "personal convictions" is code for bias, then yes, I'm very thankful.

But the law is at the service of the people, not the other way around.  For that reason I dislike the phrasing "legal processes that supersede personal convictions."  There is more good than bad, but no system is perfect.  There is also injustice under any legal system.  Whether falsely accused or falsely vindicated, it's morally responsible to speak in opposition to the system when it fails to serve its purpose.  These personal convictions supersede the legal process.

In Ivanov's case the system hasn't succeeded or failed, but left Ivanov as indeterminate.  Regardless of whether you believe him a cheater or brilliant you have to agree this "indeterminate" is merely his legal status, not his moral status.  And while judgement from personal bias is wrong, judgement from morally aligned personal convictions actually supersedes any artificial system.

Not to say I believe vigilante justice is in order.  We can suffer fools like Ivanov for the sake of the established order... but when you try to excuse him on grounds of his legal status I'll argue this is counter to what is morally correct.

well said waffle. very well said. 

Whether or not it is factual journalism, do the facts still not remain that Ivanov had been searched, and was willing to forfeit because he did not want to remove his shoes? 

Do you have any evidence that says/shows GM Dlugy's personal account was not factual?

Unfortunately the law is not there to serve anyone except justice. Because if you say people, then which people? The innocent? The victims? The plaintiffs? That may be hard to take, especially when an obvious criminal gets defended with tax payers money for free.

So in that way the Law does not serve anyones interest. That is whatever your personal beliefs and convictions are, the Law supersedes them. You are welcome to present them, but they will be given an appropriate hearing, no less no more.

In cases where injustice has occured, JUST measures must be used to correct and restore such miscarriages. So that even when we correct a moral defect, one has to know what is reasonable and just, and not to exceed beyond what would correct the mistake.  Reason must regulate ethics and morality. Otherwise in the process of helping one only deludes oneself and unconsciously does more harm. Personal preferences and feelings do not qualify as the criterion for judgement. Personal convictions never supersede, and are not Absolute.

Unfortunately in this narrative anyone who says anything is considered to be taking Ivanov's side, and people have convinced themselves that anyone who does not unequivocally say that Ivanov is guilty is only trying to make excuses for him. 

The unfortunate side effect of that is that causes people to dig their heels and in.

In Ivanov's case the system hasn't succeeded or failed, but left Ivanov as indeterminate.  Regardless of whether you believe him a cheater or brilliant you have to agree this "indeterminate" is merely his legal status, not his moral status.  And while judgement from personal bias is wrong, judgement from morally aligned personal convictions actually supersedes any artificial system

He would have a legal status if there was a legal process. It is foolish and naive to think that this is anything than other than what it is, to believe that it carries the weight, and integrity of a system that has been examined by men and women for few hundred years, that youtube videos, chessbase, Dr.Keegan, and forum posters, are somehow on the same terms as the  Supreme, Federal and State courts. That they possess the same know-how, impartiality, acumen, and rigor of the latter.

Ivanov definitely may have cheated, but let us not fool ourselves about legal systems.

All law is supposed to be moral. Stealing is wrong, cheating is wrong etc

It is confuses the issue when you split morals and laws to serve the argument. Morals are the basis of law.

Suppose he didn't cheat, then how is he morally wrong? 

And if he did cheat then of course he is morally wrong and legally.

But why in this case doesn't he have any criminal convictions?

Because people thought they knew what they were doing, and were taking matters into their own hands. 

And that is what law tries to determine. You may believe personally what his moral status is, and in this is case, it is not unjustified to believe he is a cheater, but to believe that your word is law, is presuming too much.

Because then when can start climibing the moral ladder, and a find a world full of evil doers.

u have to give BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!!!!

u would be a terrible judge!

He does not have any kind of legal proceedings against him [that I know of]

Legal proceedings against him would be difficult.

He is arrogant. He very probably cheated.  Too bad if he is allowed to still play. 

Of course, if he didn't cheat then he would not be morally wrong. [He would still be not a nice person]

@ProfessorProfessen
It seems like you're approaching it from a purely practical standpoint while I'm arguing more abstractly.  I think there's a good chance we don't disagree, we're just choosing to emphasize different points.

I'm reading you're arguing the point that in order to protect people from the injustice of things false accusations we have a justice system which takes individual desires (bias) out of the equation.

I'm arguing the point that the system is just a tool used to approximate absolute justice, and while its detachment from people may be called its biggest strength in terms of our attempt to approximate this absolute justice, it's also its biggest weakness when we start talking about the food chain including absolute justice itself.

By necessity, society's justice must be detached, but the absolute justice it models itself after it irrevocably intertwined with communities and individuals.

No one thinks their word is law here.  And it's quite natural for people to seek justice themselves after the law has failed them.  You say the people have failed the law:

But these people will say the law has failed to bring justice.

It seems it's a catch-22 when the law is ill equipped to serve justice.  If the people wait for the law to catch up, then they must suffer the immoral acts of others.  If they take justice into their own hands, it undermines a system which is very practically useful.

When we talk about the situation in general, I can respect the practicality of taking the side of law... just don't think yourself too righteous.  After all others are arguing the side of an absolute morality.

I think the reason why you think that way, that the law failed, is because the law was never APPLIED in the first place. From what I know, no one took a recourse to legal action, but instead waited somehow for things to magically fix itself.

One cannot pin this as the failure of law, if one does not appeal to the law. If one suffers from some disease and never seeks medical help, then it is insane to blame Medicine for not being effective.

It is easy to dismiss the law as ineffective, that all created things are artificial, and cling to view that ones own morals to be transcending all mundane earthly constructs. The danger is that one can quickly slip into the messiah complex.

That kind of thinking has a place, that the reason why people SEEK justice is because something unjust has happened. That someone has done something wrong. That some ethical boundary has been crossed. Some personal moral stepped on.

But becuse our moral indignation is aroused before the law acts, this sequence does not mean our personal moral to overarch the justice system.

  Society keeps changing, and it may seem that the law is always playing catch-up, and often it is passive, that is, it waits for the problems to be brought before it before it acts; that is, it does not actively participate, seeking to right wrongs in all facets of society, but sits on its butt, making judgements and acting like it is doing some awesome good. I can understand that thinking, that god-like complex, that simply by the virtue of their existence, nothing bad can ever happen in this world. 

I think what I understand from your argument is that if the Law was perfect, it would be there to prevent all infringements.

I would agree with that. It is often slow to act, and has limited powers, getting bogged down in long-drawn litigations.

I would like to say that as much as I am in favor for the law functioning in that way, that is, ever-present, omniscient, watching over us, and it should, I cannot help but think that it sounds like one is looking for a superhero, a superman or batman, a strength, might, and moral, that supersedes all law, justice systems and police.

Of course I would any day prefer to have something like that as well, but it may be my childish wish to br taken care of and protected from all harms and perils.

I understand why you say the law is practical, it is because the above scenario is a fantasy. And it that way it falls far short from the ideal. I would agree with if you said the Law should be taken for what it is, and nothing more.

But even in the superhero case, the superhero doesn't serve himself but the needs of others and justice, he doesn't do it for personal gain or glory. He always has to be clear about this.

So if you look at the I.B case (again I don't want to you misunderstand that because I am poking holes in the long running discussions and arguments that I am on the side of Ivanov), people were cheated, but instead of serving justice, it was all about personal loss. 

I am not saying that one shouldn't do anything if one suffer personal loss and injury at the hands of others, but one must seek appropriate action. You can talk to your friend, gain support, and then ask for compensation, and the courts of law are exactly there to do just that.

Often however the feeling that the law is inept, incompetent, and impotent to carry any justice, and that people suffer and go uncompensated for misery, and the wrong doers often get away with their actions, laughing all the way to the bank.

This loss of hope and faith that the world is unjust and that seeking or asking for help, or putting your hopes in a system is eventually going to end in a letdown, is what causes the system to fail. The system works as long as we use it, it fails, if everybody abandons it.

YOU DO OF COURSE REALISE THAT ENGLISH MAY NOT BE HER FIRST LANGUAGE RIGHT?!?!

She may have done her Ph.d in some other country. I know that in France you can do your Ph.d completely in french, and it is the same in Russia. You don't have to have perfect english to understand maths.

this is ridiculous. very thoughtful and intelligent people have gone through every little detail and degree of various immoral/harmful acts. they have them catergorized in fact. fyi it all comes down to whether or not an act caused greivous physical injury as well as if there was clear malice and intent. law/legal statutes just need to be applied and interpreted correctly. 

the problem is when people are committing crimes, causing greivous physical injury to others with clear malice and intent, in manners that escape legal scrutiny because of lack of evidence. by using some advanced technology for example that no one knows about or has any evidence of officially existing. or even if they have concrete evidence that it exists, it can't be proven that it was used because it leaves no trace. and a million other scenarios that can come about where there's no evidence that can be used in a court of law despite it being more than obvious to anyone with a working brain that one person caused another person greivous physical injury with clear malice and intent.

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the devil?

Well, again, I was arguing more abstractly.  In day to day life I certainly don't go around thinking about how I personally (or others) are above the law.

In the Ivanov case I don't want to take a hard line one way or the other... what I mean is in an imperfect world I don't think there was an ideal solution.  No matter whether people lynched Ivanov or spent time and money to resolve it legally there is loss.

When we talk about minimizing loss, bringing the greatest good to the greatest number, serving justice, or however you want to say it, I'm willing to agree what happened was not best.

As far as extremes go (mob justice vs court) I think what actually happened was pretty middle of the road.  He wasn't brought to court and he wasn't banned, beaten, or denied money.  There was a voluntary search, and Ivanov walked away from the tournament.

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

Indyfilmguy wrote:

Yeah, that Yekatarinas "woman" is a total troll.  First in that "Chess is a Draw" thread she boasts of having two Ph.Ds although its clear her grasp of grammar and spelling is sub-grade school level.  More interestingly, she was arguing against the mathematical side of the issue.  Now in this thread she claims to be a "Mathenamatician" (which she never said before in the other thread) and is arguing for a mathematical interpretation of the known facts.

Bizzare behavior.

YOU DO OF COURSE REALISE THAT ENGLISH MAY NOT BE HER FIRST LANGUAGE RIGHT?!?!

She may have done her Ph.d in some other country. I know that in France you can do your Ph.d completely in french, and it is the same in Russia. You don't have to have perfect english to understand maths.

Sorry, but what is all this? She is no troll. Suppose she has a Phd in nulear physics, then she can still call herself a mathematician. She defends herself so much, that it is clear that she is defending something in which she has invested a lot and that is dear to her. Indy you are a troll :-)

Which mathematical side of the issue? Mathematics has no side in chess, mathematics can take no side in anything. Please do not let us think that you do not understand the meaning of the word mathematics and you confused it with people proclaiming they were mathematicians. (I do not claim they were not, but I can't remember them showing their credentials either. Not that I would ask them nor discredit them for not showing it.) Everyone else know the distinction between the words 'mathematics' and 'mathematicians'. Now you.

People are not bound to any side of an issue due to their profession. You are not compelled to tell your credentials when you are on a website that is supposed to be your hobby. Did you tell your credentials so far? Are you using your real name? Are you going to tell your credentials in all threads you have posted in? Are all of your opinions in line with your profession?

You are very funny. Bizarre behaviour indeed. :-)