Borislav Ivanov is BACK!

Let's make it happen!

Are there any published papers by statisticians about cheating in chess? It isn't rocket science, is it?

Okay, I found this: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/

fixed

I can understand why a tournament player would cheat. Avarice. There is prize money at stake. He or she cheats to steal the purse. I don't agree with that action, but I can understand it. What I can't comprehend is why a player on an internet site would cheat at a game? There is no prize money at stake. There certainly can't be any glory in winning when you know you cheated to do so. You're not learning anything along the way. One gains no experience or insight from using an engine to play moves. It actually hinders one's growth as a player. I see no discernible reason for cheating under these circumstances. In the immortal words of Jim Morrison and the Doors, “People are Strange”. :)

Before I found chess.com I thought chess online was a waste of time due to cheaters.  I read a long blog written by a cheater saying he would not accept the tyranny of the rules that do not allow him use his PC, and that his PC was just one of the tools he used to play like his mouse.  Apparently he felt like he played chess well (probably did using houdini) and that his use of a computer did not really detract that much from how awesome he was.  I still did not get it and it was a long freaking blog.

Let's make it happen!

This in particular is interesting and relevant to the Ivanov case:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf

Edited to add: Two key quotes from this letter/report...

"In these reports, and in posts by other bloggers and commenters [4,5,6,7], the main evidence comprises tests of moves with computer chess programs, and assertions about the frequency of the played move `matching' the program's first choice (or first few choices), alongside ideas about unlikelihood of rating-performance fluctuations.

None of these tests so far presented meets scientic needs of regular methodology, reproducibility, bases for comparison, or condence intervals for conclusions."

and

"The bottom line of the [letter author's] test is that the results are about as strong as one can reasonably expect a statistical move-matching test, done scientically and neutrally and with respect for due process, to produce. My model projects that for a 2300 player to achieve the high computer correspondence shown in the nine tested games, the odds against are almost a million-to-one. The control data and bases for comparison, which are wholly factual, show several respects in which the performance is exceptional even for a 2700-player, and virtually unprecedented for an untitled player."

"Ego is the main cause. Then again there is Marketing as another reason" 

How does one achieve an ego boost from using an engine to beat an opponent? My engine is better than your brain doesn't seem to prove one's ability at anything other than downloading an engine properly :) I suppose if the cheater is trying to sell a book or pass himself off as a teacher.... though it wouldn't be long before true chess masters would announce the book or teachings as frauds.

Like it or not, status on gaming sites is proportional to rating (all other things being equal). People value status like they value money, and some will resort to unethical means to secure either. The online cheater steals status from those he cheats, just as the OTB cheater steals money from those he cheats.

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf

this thread is about Ivanov not Lilov but for those who are interested, this just posted on chess.com

 http://www.chess.com/blog/TigerLilov/how-i-became-an-international-master

@Umberto: not clear about that wiki activity. All of the postings are Oct 16 2013, and one Oct 15 2013. Somebody has been posting repeatedly in the past two days, using different wiki handles, to create some interest, apparently an Ivanov supporter or a Lilov detractor or just someone with an undetermined interest in creating spurious postings and deletions. In any case, the absence of a wiki article is insignificant to the discussion of Ivanov. To my mind, Ivanov is def a cheater, and the Ken Regan document shows that with sobriety and rigor.

The only news about Lilov that is of interest is that he attained IM status; a lot of chess.com paying subscribers (I'm not a paying subscriber) like Lilov's lessons. There isn't new news about Ivanov, and my guess is we won't be hearing about him for awhile; he's either going to withdraw from chess, or open a chess school. He's apparently an Education student in Bulgaria. Maybe he'll be like one of those people who, convicted of fraud, end up helping the FBI detect fraud. Maybe Ivanov will become a specialist in detecting chess fraud. Seems like chess fraud will become a growth industry in the next years, with bionic contact lenses and whatnot. 

Like Nick Leeson, who broke Barings Bank with fraudulent activities and make a living speaking about risk, controls and the need of transparency.

That would mean some kind of "He who laughs last, laughs best" for you?

Because in the end, Ivanov will just dissapear from chess playing and Lilov is an IM.

yes.

You people should try to work on expressing your ideas more clearly.  Writing and communication skills do not seem to be very common here.

Let's make it happen!

Not a few players attempt to use en.wikipedia to self promote themselves or their products. 

Should chess.com have an article on Wikipedia?

How many chess.com accounts are you up to now?  In spite of our poor communication you can't seem to stay away heh.

There is some massive sockpupetting going on in the Valeri Lilov deletion discussion on Wikipedia.

what's sockpuppeting?