Forums

FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified

Sort:
Avatar of dashkee94
dashkee94
Jun 13, 2013
0
#941

This is great--we now have a reverse-ajeeb; where's the machine inside the human?  Classic.

Avatar of bigpoison
bigpoison
Jun 13, 2013
0
#942
Ubik42 wrote:
cookiemonster161140 wrote:

Yawn, more lynch mob stuff. More of the "he beat me therefore he must be a cheat" method of detection.

Gets old fast.

Why not have players go through one of those TSA full body scanners on the way in and out of a tournament hall, and prohibit bathroom breaks? Would eliminate any possible implant issue.

And while we're at it let's use those scanners to make sure men don't play in women's events and vice versa.

Ooops - that woman there? Those breasts are implants with a Rasberry PI computer embedded inside.

Now what?


Hey, jumping into a thread and pretending I have no clue about what happened up to then is my schtick.

I don't think you've been around long enough to remember 'geek. 

If that was his only schtick, his presence would be more palatable.

Avatar of waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Jun 13, 2013
0
#943
bigpoison wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
cookiemonster161140 wrote:

Yawn, more lynch mob stuff. More of the "he beat me therefore he must be a cheat" method of detection.

Gets old fast.

Why not have players go through one of those TSA full body scanners on the way in and out of a tournament hall, and prohibit bathroom breaks? Would eliminate any possible implant issue.

And while we're at it let's use those scanners to make sure men don't play in women's events and vice versa.

Ooops - that woman there? Those breasts are implants with a Rasberry PI computer embedded inside.

Now what?


Hey, jumping into a thread and pretending I have no clue about what happened up to then is my schtick.

I don't think you've been around long enough to remember 'geek. 

If that was his only schtick, his presence would be more palatable.

Sanchgeek?  (something like that).  He's been gone for what... two years?  Three years?

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Jun 13, 2013
0
#944

You sure it wasn't cheese?

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Jun 13, 2013
0
#945
waffllemaster wrote:

Sanchgeek?  (something like that).  He's been gone for what... two years?  Three years?

Schachgeek.

Fitting that his name would come up in this thread though....

Avatar of Ubik42
Ubik42
Jun 13, 2013
0
#946
RandyRhoads wrote:

Those terminator films were way off. It wasn't the future of the human race that was under threat from the cyborgs, it was chess they were after!

Didn't you catch the Sarah Connor Chronicles, they made it pretty explicit.

Avatar of FrankBGambit
FrankBGambit
Jun 13, 2013
0
#947
LoekBergman wrote:

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.

this is wrong as matter of fact prof regan is on this commitee http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/7132-anti-cheating-committee.html    he is a IM and professor of mathematics and very much involved in statistical measurements for proof of cheating in chess  for fide for last 8 years, and is aurthor of http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf the commitee is made up of gm, fm, arbitators, torney orginisors , and prof of mathematics this seems a fair seletion of ppl to work on this problem in modern day chess. :) maybe they could hae also picked a magician or escape artist for this particular case but so far looks a good seletion of ppl to me to sort this problem out in fair and unbiased manor.

 

 

Avatar of Ubik42
Ubik42
Jun 13, 2013
0
#948
RandyRhoads wrote:

I didn't spot those, how did they go ?

The chess storyline went something like 

one of Dyson's assisstant guys from T2 that was in the lab is responsible. Skynet was all his fault, for taking the chip design and making a chess computer that went on to rule the world.

Here in the season 2 opener, we see John's protector terminator surviving an explosion, though perhaps with some damage to the chess playing parts of her brain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlu2AA6mck

If I had my way....

Avatar of SocialPanda
SocialPanda
Jun 13, 2013
0
#949
swellz wrote:

Chess bid to checkmate cheats

 

Last month he subjected himself to CT scans and X-rays, which reportedly ruled out implants in his head or body, as he tries to overturn a ban from competition.

 

The Sidney Morning Herald, by Fleta Page in June 12, 2013

The scans and X-rays where on that TV show where he appeared, of course, he didn´t play against any GM in that moment.

Avatar of bigpoison
bigpoison
Jun 13, 2013
0
#950
TheGrobe wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:

Sanchgeek?  (something like that).  He's been gone for what... two years?  Three years?

Schachgeek.

Fitting that his name would come up in this thread though....

He's not gone...unfortunately.  But, yeah, it's been three years or so since that particular account was closed.

Avatar of Elubas
Elubas
Jun 13, 2013
0
#951

I recently learned "Schach" means "Chess" :)

Avatar of netzach
netzach
Jun 13, 2013
0
#952

Ah,

But what does 'geek' mean? :)

Avatar of JohnnySaysThankYou
JohnnySaysThankYou
Jun 13, 2013
0
#953

I still don't like the principle of the matter, they should be working harder to figure out HOW he was cheating, because the dilemma with this is obviously NOT healthy for chess in general. Here I'll give you an example: My chess teacher should be a GM, there is no dispute about that, why is he not a GM? Well his name is Matthew Looks, he is an amazing player was taught by john W collins who also taught fischer. He is not only my chess teacher but also my global history teacher and friend and the best teacher in our school. At least I think so. The man knows how to teach. He doesn't often have very much time to play chess but when he does he tends to play on yahoo I think it is? Anyway, when he's on yahoo his favorite pastime to scalp high rated players who think they're better than him. For all they know, he's an engine, but honestly in a game like chess the engines are still playing by the rules. They are just so much better than us that we call it "cheating". Isn't it healthier to try and become an engine, instead of crying cause you lost undeservedly, we cannot win every game, perhaps it is an interesting excercize to clearly annotate this man's games, if he is an engine after all, can't his games still be instructive? Can't they still mean something to us? I think yes, and I hope you stand with me on this.

Avatar of gambit-man
gambit-man
Jun 13, 2013
0
#954
GuavaberryGuy wrote:

I still don't like the principle of the matter, they should be working harder to figure out HOW he was cheating, because the dilemma with this is obviously NOT healthy for chess in general. Here I'll give you an example: My chess teacher should be a GM, there is no dispute about that, why is he not a GM? Well his name is Matthew Looks, he is an amazing player was taught by john W collins who also taught fischer. He is not only my chess teacher but also my global history teacher and friend and the best teacher in our school. At least I think so. The man knows how to teach. He doesn't often have very much time to play chess but when he does he tends to play on yahoo I think it is? Anyway, when he's on yahoo his favorite pastime to scalp high rated players who think they're better than him. For all they know, he's an engine, but honestly in a game like chess the engines are still playing by the rules. They are just so much better than us that we call it "cheating". Isn't it healthier to try and become an engine, instead of crying cause you lost undeservedly, we cannot win every game, perhaps it is an interesting excercize to clearly annotate this man's games, if he is an engine after all, can't his games still be instructive? Can't they still mean something to us? I think yes, and I hope you stand with me on this.

wtf?

Avatar of JohnnySaysThankYou
JohnnySaysThankYou
Jun 13, 2013
0
#955

@ gambit-man what don't you get?

Avatar of LoekBergman
LoekBergman
Jun 13, 2013
0
#956
FrankBGambit wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:

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.

this is wrong as matter of fact prof regan is on this commitee http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/7132-anti-cheating-committee.html    he is a IM and professor of mathematics and very much involved in statistical measurements for proof of cheating in chess  for fide for last 8 years, and is aurthor of http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf the commitee is made up of gm, fm, arbitators, torney orginisors , and prof of mathematics this seems a fair seletion of ppl to work on this problem in modern day chess. :) maybe they could hae also picked a magician or escape artist for this particular case but so far looks a good seletion of ppl to me to sort this problem out in fair and unbiased manor.

 

 

You are absolutely right.

Avatar of gambit-man
gambit-man
Jun 13, 2013
0
#957
GuavaberryGuy wrote:

@ gambit-man what don't you get?

Any of what you said...

Avatar of MJ4H
MJ4H
Jun 13, 2013
0
#958

Whether a computer engine's games are useful to analyze is a completely separate topic.  Red herring.

Avatar of numismaticsandchess
numismaticsandchess
Jun 13, 2013
0
#959

I read about this in a chess magazine as well. The article said that allegedly Ivanov had chess engines helping him during the game. What was not clear is why did not the search find anything? On the other hand, it could be argued that he was anticipating a search and therefore made sure nothing was found.

Avatar of Ubik42
Ubik42
Jun 13, 2013
0
#960
gambit-man wrote:
GuavaberryGuy wrote:

I still don't like the principle of the matter, they should be working harder to figure out HOW he was cheating, because the dilemma with this is obviously NOT healthy for chess in general. Here I'll give you an example: My chess teacher should be a GM, there is no dispute about that, why is he not a GM? Well his name is Matthew Looks, he is an amazing player was taught by john W collins who also taught fischer. He is not only my chess teacher but also my global history teacher and friend and the best teacher in our school. At least I think so. The man knows how to teach. He doesn't often have very much time to play chess but when he does he tends to play on yahoo I think it is? Anyway, when he's on yahoo his favorite pastime to scalp high rated players who think they're better than him. For all they know, he's an engine, but honestly in a game like chess the engines are still playing by the rules. They are just so much better than us that we call it "cheating". Isn't it healthier to try and become an engine, instead of crying cause you lost undeservedly, we cannot win every game, perhaps it is an interesting excercize to clearly annotate this man's games, if he is an engine after all, can't his games still be instructive? Can't they still mean something to us? I think yes, and I hope you stand with me on this.

wtf?

For the first sentence - finding out how someone was cheating is becoming more impossible by the day. Tech is going to win this battle in the long run, so it really is a losing fight. Statistics is the only way to do it.

As for everything after the first sentence....say what?

This forum topic has been locked