FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified

Did all events in which he played superhuman have cameras over all boards? I agree that for relaying moves back to him, an ear-piece is at least as plausible as foot-feedback, but I also think that for relaying moves to the computer, shoe sensors such as these:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/information/nike-ipod1.htm

which he could have retro-fitted in his own shoes, are more plausible than cameras.

Which brings up another point. If he's playing Houdini's top choice moves, his record against Houdini should be closer to 0-0-10.

No.  But what would be interesting would be a post game interview like top players give where they explain some of the variations and evaluations they considered during the game.

I don't see how he could beat Houdini 10-0, when he plays the SAME MOVES!

In the world of relative plausibility, it seems that there is a lot of technology available that can readily explain how he may have had moves relayed to him from Houdini in some way shape or form.

The alternate explanation, that he's the only human capable of identifying and selecting top engine move choices almost without fail is nothing short of absurd.

Engines have outclassed human players for quite some time now.  The implication is that Mr. Ivanov is in fact the strongest human player by a significant margin.

One explanation is much more plausible than the other.

I don't get it. If Ivanov trains at home and has a good memory, how could anyone call that cheating? On the other hand, where is the evidence that he cheated? Something is not right...

But Mr. Zilbermintz, he can´t play by memory even on the endgames.

You are a strong blitz player, I´m sure you know that people can´t play at engine level at short time controls (or at any time control, but human play is much worse in blitz as it´s obvious).

I don't get it. If BrilliantONe jumps into this thread at home and rehashes old fantasies, how could anyone call that trolling? On the other hand, where is the evidence that he followed this thread? Something is not right...

brilliantone:

This is exactly the point. If you look at a court case, and the evidence that puts somebody behind bars, it is not more convincing than the cheat detecting program's verdict: 'He cheated, because the probability to copy moves of Houdini in such short time and with such frequency is much lower than 0.00001 '.

How often an eye-witness 'saw' the murderer (and in fact it was somebody else she/he saw), how often the blood sample at the crime scene is the decisive argument for the conviction ?

In fact , some secret service could have planted the device there and erase all traces of their ill-doing.

OK, the probability of such 'perfect murder' (planting evidence against someone who is inncocent) can often be shrunk, with a fair and cautious investigation. But the probability that the accused was in fact innocent will still be very often higher than 0.01.

For those who don't know probability theory: the probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1; 0= probability of the impossible event; 1= probability of the sure event.

The evidence is all there, you need to go back and read the forum topic...

Never been that enthused about 'centaur-chess' as FX will readily testify. Before he comes at me defensively we should perhaps consider that Ivanov has found a method of taking this to a new level?

thus bowing before the people who are sceptical about the Mathematical truth: if it is too complicated for them they dont buy it.

This man needs a better imagination.  Didn't find anything after searching him?  That's true.  And in that game his play returned to sh*t.

Well sure, you'd be rattled and of your superhuman game too if you were subject to such treatment.

Need a James Randy type deal.  Offer 1 million USD if Ivanov can play at a certain level under agreed upon conditions.

Why reward the dishonesty required to qualify for such a deal?

Don't know if this has already been posted, but here is some precedent for the types of technologies that can be brought to bear if someone is determined enough to cheat:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/429609/20130130/loris-cereda-chess-corruption-cheating-italy.htm

Public embarrassment doesn't seem like much of a reward

I don't believe Ivanov is a fool though.  He'd never agree in the first place.

It seems like the majority of people who buy into Ivanov not cheating are the types that post in the forums something like "how many years till I reach grandmaster?" or "if I train 6 hours a day, could I be a grandmaster?". Ivanov's "success" plays on people's hopes and desires of achieving greatness in a short span of time with not too much effort. Greatness never happens like that.

And come on, no one ocsillates between a 1900 tournament performance rating and a 2600+ tournament performance rating. Even a tempermental player like Ivanchuck doesn't get remotely close to a gap like that.

What I read is that Shaun Press is selected as a member of a committee to find out how people can cheat using technology. I think that he is selected to be part of that committee, because he is convinced that someone can only become accused of cheating when there is some device found on him. That attitude precedes his selection.

Members of that committee will of course not say that statistical evidence will suffice. It is like saying that their own committee is not needed anymore. They should belief in their own importance. I think that FIDE should bet on both horses and install two committees, for each method of investigation one.

This is a nice article, thanks for posting.