FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified

"Perhaps I overemphasized the idea of a "mob mentality". I just want to caution people so that they avoid acting like a mob. Some people even think they are a mob.

If someone legitimitely plays as good as houdini, they should be able to without being accused of cheating. If someone learned chess by only playing a computer, they would probably play moves that a computer usually makes which a human doesn't. That being said Ivanov has no excuse like that. Online I think it is totally justified to ban someone based on statistical analysis. Although, I do think they should be able to protest about getting banned, especially in a tournament basis. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we have the technology to catch the cheaters in all of their methods. So on that, using statistical analysis to catch cheaters is not the best solution we could some up with, but it is the most practical solution we have know. I believe for today you have convinced be that it is the best solution. We should not be asking tournament participants to go through unreasonable searches, like some members suggest.

The fact that no one is playing for money doesn't matter. We should have the same rules whether money is involved or not. However, when money is involved it makes it all the more important to make sure that cheaters don't ruin the game of chess. I do not think statistical analysis should be enough to criminally prosecute someone. However, it may be enough to ban someone. However, there is enough civil evidence in statisical analysis to not let someone come back and continue their cheating."

Fist of all I would like to thank you for being reasonable and changing/explaining your points instead of just repeating them and refusing to listen. It's not an easy thing to do, and it shows that you are intelligent and respectible debater. Unfortunately playing like a computer is close to impossible. It has been said to death in this fourm but the way a computer plays is through sheer calculation. It goes move by move and does a whole bunch of number crunching. Humans could not effectively do this at a high level. A good example would try to see how far you could do the 2 times itself pattern. 2x2 is 4 4x2 is 8 8x2 is 16 etc and see how far you can get through sheer calcuation. You could do alright for a long while if you are good at math, but no where near as far or as fast as a computer could. Every grandmaster plays with certain rules and positional ideas instead of this method. That is why they are better than comptuers in endgames because they know the winning concept instead of calculating it. The computer which is thinking just 20 moves deep doesn't understand a 30 move win in theory. 

You could say that it's not impossible, but at the likely hood it might as well be. Just like how  it's not impossible to beat a computer in math calculations, do you really think someone could? I suppose This is harder to explain than it is to understand, because I don't seem to be doing a good job at it. Do you really believe that all those people who are performing statistical analysis on this are lying or are just wrong? Do you really think Ivanov is the first chess genius who was able to mimic a chess computer? Do you think that mimicing a chess computer is like a flip of a switch? We have to remember that before he was playing like a very average human player. He went from making a lot of mistakes to making no mistakes and playing flawlessly. I would think it would be a more gradual process, especially since he would be the first to do this. 

1) don't despair, keep up the good work. The human brain is just not hard-wired to understand probability -  we all have to be taught, or work on convincing ourselves.

2) don't forget that there were tournaments after his first suspicious success when he went back to lose against 1900s rated players. He seems to play in two different modes, either his pre-Zadar strength or at the Super-GM level, and it goes up-down-up-down. No idea why that could be ...

Finally, I agree with schlechter that there's about all that has to be said in this thread, go and lock it, chess.com!

Playing a game like a computer requires more than just playing against the computer all the time. The computer arrives at its moves by exhaustive analysis of millions of positions. it would be like someone claiming to play football like Tom Brady because he plays in the same stadium with the same jersey #.

The same chess program comes up with different moves at different times.

Flint,

Do you have a link with details on this? I'd like to read up.

Do you think this guy could be stupid enough to be really serious ? Or is this humoristic ?

Especially to see if statistics still show the high correlation with engine moves.

Winning isn't in and of itself sucpect -- matching engine choices is.

Regarding locking this thread...

There have been a whole bunch of mindless posts here, so I can understand why people would want this locked.

But...

This is an ongoing story. As new developments arise, it would be useful to refer to a single thread about it rather than look for new threads every time there is a development in the story. I hope chess.com doesn't lock the thread.

Would be interesting to make it to the endgame of this story agree.

There's at least another forty-eight pages in this mutha!

And everybody has 6-months streak where he plays with a Houdini match percentage 20% higher than any other player in history, just after having had 10% less in the previous 6 months. How that, "no" ?

Plausible theories have been put forth.  I could put one forth now if you haven't read any.

He could have put a clicker in his shoe attached to his big toe.  When the opponent moves e2-e4, he taps 5 times (e) pause, then twice (2) pause, then 5 times (e), then four times (4).  Thus e2e4 has been transmitted to a computer.  There doesn't even need to be an operator for the computer.  After a set amount of analysis time, the computer sends a move back using vibrations in the same format.  He makes the move on the board, the computer then awaits the next series of taps.

This is very primitive.  I believe Ivanov is a computer programmer and could probably invent ways to shorten this process, as well.  This is hardly an impossible task.  He could even do it by clenching muscles in his body. There are countless ways he could transmit and receive.

Not that different, if you take settings within a reasonable scope (ie Houdini version from 5 years or more recent, with a computing power that is between 10 and 1/10 times a standard computer, with at least 10s per move).

I predict that whatever settings you choose within this reasonable scope, Ivanov will be a significant statistical anomaly compared to all other OTB players.

Again, the device used is not an issue in that case, as long as there are reasonable possibilities. They have been discussed in extenso in the thread (my guess is a mix between accomplice in the audience and electronic connections for when the accomplice is unpractical). You can ignore them and compare them to "Morse code flatulences", but it does not change the reality.

Oh, yes, and for all those who think that communication between two persons is not possible without obvious ways to detect it, look this, you might reconsider : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS0YSTAQF3Q (yes, the blindfold is for real, and no, they have no real magical powers).

@Irontiger: She reacts so fast, that he is not signaling her. That guy must have a camera in his jacket. Julian is really seeing it.

Nope.

Trust me, I know how it is done, and there is absolutely no gimmick. She can even be completely blind.

I cannot tell more... Magician's secret, all that.

Ivanov could have a video camera in his eye that records what he sees and then he could have a friend watching that live  streaming from Ivanov's eyes in the comfort of his own  home with houdini running. His friend could then simply tell ivanov what move to play via a super tiny ear piece that is deep inside his ear so that it is undetectable.

But not deaf, I presume?

Some of the theories being bundied here are rediculous... a camera in his eye, thin enough to be an optical lense... too much science fiction. Tapping the toe to signal a move?!... the chances of error are high enough already... 5taps, suppose he feels 4 taps, and thinks they are 4... how does he engineer against that... suppose an illegal move is mistakenly tapped, how does the other party (machine or whoever) communicate "Hey you tapped an illegal move or hey you tapped a patzer move, possibly  think this is an error, could you re-tap again?"... lets be real folks, and holywood doesn't help.

I use Ocams razor to say that the more complex the theory the higher the chances that it has flaws. The simplest theory is that the guy has trained himself to follow certain computer lines, and used computer algorithm to play OTB. His style is not consistent yet but it will get there... maybe our greatest FEAR is that he is NOT cheating... because that would turn chess  on its head as we know it... better if we caught him with a micro-device in his a$$ than fathom that chess is being disrupted by trained cyborgs.

How is that complicated?  Could just have a way to have it repeat the move string and a way to tell it you are starting over sending the move.  It is far from ridiculous, it's trivial and took 30 seconds of thought.  He could've been planning this for years.

May be, but hopefully I can make that obvious to others that may be reading and aren't sure of the topic.  I would hate for readers to be dissuaded by silliness like that.