FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified

I can say few bad words here (against Obama, even against women and Black people ...) to let this forum be shut down. I did this before, it works pretty well. Shall I ?

You are more likely to get your own account close or muzzle.

Last time I've heard, nobody was really sure whether it was or was not finite, but perhaps I missed something. Kindly provide a reference to your claim of infinite universe.

ok , i wont do it. but somebody needs to sacrifice himself for mankind and chess...

A new day, a fresh start  Here we go again

Be silent, or say something better than silence ( Pythagoras)

And you already know the answer to that: It would cost to much money. Even creating  Electronic "White Noise"  or some such thing.  Protecting Chess is  important, but not so important as spend money on it to prevent electronic cheating. Far easier to accuse someone of cheating without any sort of PROOF that they actually did cheat than to secure the hall to ensure cheating can not take placer.

It is not difficult to hide an electronic device. That can be accomplished with aluminium foil within a bomberjack for instance. It will show that you have much more metal around then normal, but that is not what is searched for.

Yes there is. It has already been used.

Transmitting is easy, receiving requires a but of organization, but :

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/french-cheating-case-fide-confirms-suspension-feller-hauchard-marzolo

Notice the thing is so obvious that only the fact that one player confessed allowed FIDE to know it. (but on the other hand, he was a decent player, so he could play on his own for a few moves).

This is pretty undetectable, but there is also the hypothesis of an electronic device in the shoe, in the underwear, etc.

I'll grab a cab, never mind...

I think this topic has been discussed to dry. The problem is that some ignorant morons don't accept matching-computer analysis as the main definitive convincing proof of cheating, because they don't understand it, and thus they are going to stupidly prattle on and on. Since I am not ignorant moron, I know the mediocre chess player Borislav Ivanov is cheater and this is also unanimous consensus of all cheat analysts and experienced expert chess players, so there is no dispute around, only stupidity. Nothing else can be said.

time traveller accessing, via brain implant resonance, future perfect chess machine that can emulate any engine.

or he's a cheater.

To say 'Just tell me how he did it, then, only then, we caught him' is ridiculous.

Everybody knows that David Copperfield tricks us, but how he did it, we will never know. Magicians have a codex: never tell anybody how you did it. 

If we once we will know how Ivanov cheated, perhaps it was an  ingenious trick, thus a nice story for the yellow press or even Hollywood .

Yes, you'd think that he'd have the common decency, to put on a good show!

He's playing exactly like a computer. By Occam's Razor, he did cheat.

The reason why no devices were found is because he wasn't thoroughly searched.

It could be done if he had a hidden camera on him, and an accomplice nearby to input the moves, and relay the information to him through a device. 

Is it unreasonable to believe he could have had an hidden camera and an  accomplice nearby? Hidden cameras are getting extremely small. Portable computer chess sets can also be very small. Someone appearing to be using a PDA could go with little attention, when in reality a chess engine is being used.

Not completely. There is still an important point (not the one the morons have done, but I adress it anyways).

If the guy had played naked, in a Faraday cage, under scrutiny from cameras of all possible angles, and still crushed GMs two days after breaking 1500 elo with houdini-like moves, the rational explanation would still be that he did not cheat and was strong / got lucky, because there is absolutely no way he could cheat in those conditions.

The good question is not "how exactly did he do it" but "are there reasonable explanations of how he could have done it" (and we do not care about which one was used). The answer to that question, which is "yes" (accomplice / hidden electronic device for instance) does matter, even at 100% Houdini match.

I can't see that this is reasonable, after all, tiny cameras can cost something crazy like $100 or something insane like that , so no, its not possible.

Yeah, no kidding, right? He'd probably want to split the bill with his accomplice, which would mean no accomplice too!

Ubik lol, 100$ is nothing for him, and a lot of chess.com members either.