I think other GMs would notice, because he will show a lack of understanding in the post mortem with respect to his level of play.
That's actually the part that would be the easiest at this level...nobody on the planet is qualified to state with authority whether Carlsen understands his own moves ;)...
It's a scary what-if.
I think other GMs would notice, because he will show a lack of understanding in the post mortem with respect to his level of play.
That's actually the part that would be the easiest at this level...nobody on the planet is qualified to state with authority whether Carlsen understands his own moves ;)...
It's a scary what-if.
Except the people that give him tough games and draw or beat him.
Don't criticize a fellow until you've walked a mile in his shoes -
because then you'll be a mile away from him and he will have no shoes!
You mean to say you don't find anything wrong with the flagrantly slanted reporting on chessbase? The only source of ALL our information? Little girl open your eyes...
It's sad if you only get all of your information from Chessbase. You should open your mind and look at alternate sources.
The people who believe that Borislav Ivanov didn't cheat are the same people who purchase ocean front property in Ohio.
But I don't understand how they hesitated to get off his shoes !
And IF they thought that it would be intimidating to do it on only one player, why didn't they make a vote among all participants , that they would agree on metal detection for everyone, plus taking off everyone's shoes for all the remaining rounds ? Surely, the majority of players would have voted YES.
It could have been a good sample for future tournaments around the globe.
It was of course obvious to everyone why he refused to take his shoes off, and I don't think they had any rights to grab him and force them off him anyway.
Not to mention the fact that Dlugy had to take his shoes off as well, which he willingly did. Ivanov freaked out when they asked for his shoes, even though he'd been fine with other searches that didn't get that far. It's blatantly obvious he had no choice but to refuse to take off his shoes, or they would have found his method of cheating.
I still shake my head in disgust at people that disregard move-comparison evidence, and write in to Chessbase complaining that Ivanov is completely innocent and being unfairly targetted. Things like this just don't suddenly happen to one guy for no reason. People can choose to be ignorant about that, which seems to be the case for quite a few of them.
These people are very odd to me too. I don't understand their reasoning at all. Not only is it actual evidence, it's also sufficient evidence, but some claim it's neither of these.
There is a reason why we don't appoint just everyone to the Supreme Court. The understanding of what constitutes justice requires faculties that is not developed in everyone. IT goes beyond mere intellectual ability, it extends into wisdom.
Everyone just assumes they know what is right and wrong, or how things that they have no REAL knowledge of work. This is not about evidence; evidence forms PART of the whole. IF you don't understand the whole, you cannot build a justice system piecemeal.
You can be the greatest Police Investigator in the world, but you don't count as the most brilliant Judge.
They are completely two different things. In a democracy we seperate these powers for a reason. We don't have judge, jury, excutioner all wrapped in one.
I can't speak for everybody else, but that is what I would oppose in any situation. You may disagree, but that is how the REAL democratic world works.
Everyone who 'defended' Ivanov perhaps were not clear as to what they were defending.
And it appeared, as if, they were defending a cheater.
The weird thing is that how quickly people take offense whenever this is brought up, and start playing the victim of being accused of a mob mentality, or witch hunt.
Instead of taking their head out, and not making everything about themselves, and understanding what is going on, they let their imperious righteousness dictate reason.
Now all we get is people who have become good at shaking their head in disgust, and will not see anything else other than their own disgust.
This myopia is what exactly court systems a designed to counter. Not the evidence, court systems admit good evidence, but not your disgust, or your other emotions that make you think you are so great.
Hate to tell you this professor, but I don't think there is a single country in the world that practices real democracy. Besides, democracy and the separation of powers are not related - a true democracy might set up their court system so that one person is the judge and the jury, for example.
You mean to say you don't find anything wrong with the flagrantly slanted reporting on chessbase? The only source of ALL our information? Little girl open your eyes...
It's sad if you only get all of your information from Chessbase. You should open your mind and look at alternate sources.
Chessbase is quoted the most often, and linked to than most websites. It is the default go to for the majority, and it sets the tone for discourse. Opening my mind won't help, it has nothing to do with me. Sorry.
Hate to tell you this professor, but I don't think there is a single country in the world that practices real democracy. Besides, democracy and the separation of powers are not related - a true democracy might set up their court system so that one person is the judge and the jury, for example.
hunh?
There are two unclear things in the Dlugy article, though:
First, Dlugy is convinced that the device is in his shoes, then he writes: "It was clear that there was something in the jacket. They did not check the jacket, because we did not get to it. He gave up before." So, where is Houdini, in the shoes or in the jacket?
Second, is it really possible to tap on a smartphone with your toes?! I make tapping mistakes when I use my fingers and see the screen, so I don't think that the picture that appears in the article with a smartphone inside a shoe makes any sense at all.
You wrote:
They are completely two different things. In a democracy we seperate these powers for a reason. We don't have judge, jury, excutioner all wrapped in one.
I can't speak for everybody else, but that is what I would oppose in any situation. You may disagree, but that is how the REAL democratic world works.
So because Chessbase is quoted most often it is the ONLY source for information? Sorry, no.
I said with authority ;). Sure, any strong GM could question whether Carlsen understands his own moves were he to actually come out with some dubious explanation that didn't seem to jive...but it would be speculation.
So because Chessbase is quoted most often it is the ONLY source for information? Sorry, no.
Do you know what is authoritative ?
That is what they have become. Almost everone is getting their info from there! That's what I meant, they have been setting the tone for the debate all along.
Of course it is easy to say in hindsight ,'Nah I never believed everything they said.'
... your mind has nothing to do with you?
... your mind has nothing to do with you?
lol no!
So because Chessbase is quoted most often it is the ONLY source for information? Sorry, no.
Do you know what is authoritative ?
Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable: "clear, authoritative information". (of a text) Considered to be the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon.
That is what they have become. Almost everone is getting their info from there! That's what I meant, they have been setting the tone for the debate all along.
Of course it is easy to say in hindsight ,'Nah I never believed everything they said.'
Yes, I do. And Chessbase was far from the only trusted, reliable source reporting on this story. Your complaints are without merit, here.
There are two unclear things in the Dlugy article, though:
First, Dlugy is convinced that the device is in his shoes, then he writes: "It was clear that there was something in the jacket. They did not check the jacket, because we did not get to it. He gave up before." So, where is Houdini, in the shoes or in the jacket?
Second, is it really possible to tap on a smartphone with your toes?! I make tapping mistakes when I use my fingers and see the screen, so I don't think that the picture that appears in the article with a smartphone inside a shoe makes any sense at all.
What they were implying is that he had written an app (remember he is a programmer) that could take morse code taps as input, and then vibrate for output. But sometimes he moved in 10 seconds, which is impressive tapping.
But detective Dugy was right, not taking his shoes off was something he should have done to prove his innonce.
Assuming he is innocent, I too would have said enough is enough.
shoes catching fire!! lol