I say it's not improbable that a spotter is being used to relay moves, which are sent back to Ivanov via a wireless embedded earpiece. Something like the tiny spy camera above from somebody in the audience. Also it would be battery run, which explains why Ivanov sometimes makes the wrong move (or has to rely on his own judgement) late in a long game.
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
Sort:
Nimzoditch wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NTSC-Wireless-2-4GHz-CMOS-380TVL-Spy-Tiny-Camera-Transmitter-Receiver-Full-Kit-/280901422383
I say it's not improbable that a spotter is being used to relay moves, which are sent back to Ivanov via a wireless embedded earpiece. Something like the tiny spy camera above from somebody in the audience. Also it would be battery run, which explains why Ivanov sometimes makes the wrong move (or has to rely on his own judgement) late in a long game.
This is why I'm saying the organisers are patzers. A reall full-scale investigation would be looking at everyone in attendance, not just Ivanov.
Jun 14, 2013
0
#964
Nimzoditch wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NTSC-Wireless-2-4GHz-CMOS-380TVL-Spy-Tiny-Camera-Transmitter-Receiver-Full-Kit-/280901422383
I say it's not improbable that a spotter is being used to relay moves, which are sent back to Ivanov via a wireless embedded earpiece. Something like the tiny spy camera above from somebody in the audience. Also it would be battery run, which explains why Ivanov sometimes makes the wrong move (or has to rely on his own judgement) late in a long game.
I think it's likely there's an accomplice because of the time he played poorly after the broadcast went down. Since then, he would've fixed the problem and had the accomplice at the events, and not depend on the broadcasts. However, that doesn't mean he won't change methods again and go back to using broadcasts to make it difficult to determine how he did it.
FlintLockwood wrote:
Perhaps he is a medium for the departed spirits of GM's past. Because they are in chess heaven they now play like engines and have chosen Ivanov as the instrument through which they exact revenge on living GM's plus they get him to hurl all the insults at GM's they always wanted to do but couldn't.
What FIDE really needs is The Ghostbusters.
Still more likely than his games being played legit, without engine use.
I don't think it's possible that he acted alone either. Someone has to be sitting in front of a computer running Houdini 3 and entering in Ivavov's oppenent's moves, and then contacting Ivanov to let him know what Houdini's repsonse was. I can't see it happening any other way.
RandyRhoads wrote:
There should be a film about this. It's all a FIDE ploy to get chess current. Ivanov is just a pawn in this chess thriller. The accomplice may even be an alien.
Now I really think you are on to something. It could be an alien with telepathic abilities running Houdini 3 and relaying Houdini's responses to Ivanov telepathically.
I believe Steve Austin could have been the best chess player ever. Better, stronger, faster...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofoK_QQxGc
Jun 14, 2013
0
#969
kkbell420 wrote:
RandyRhoads wrote:
There should be a film about this. It's all a FIDE ploy to get chess current. Ivanov is just a pawn in this chess thriller. The accomplice may even be an alien.
Now I really think you are on to something. It could be an alien with telepathic abilities running Houdini 3 and relaying Houdini's responses to Ivanov telepathically.
And Kirsan had contact with aliens in the past... so this closes the circle.
Case Closed!
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.
Your teacher is not a GM because he is not good enough to be one. I'm not being unkind, I'm just pointing out reality.
You are saying that it is okay to use engines and to cheat. It is not okay because everyone has agreed that it is not fair and it is prohibited by the rules except in cases like Advanced Chess and the freechess competitions, in which it has been expressly allowed by the rules. If someone in your history class cheats by looking at notes during the test and gets a higher score than you (and doesn't tell anyone he used external assistance during the test), I don't think we should say that is okay, why should it be any different in chess?
sisu wrote:
Nimzoditch wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NTSC-Wireless-2-4GHz-CMOS-380TVL-Spy-Tiny-Camera-Transmitter-Receiver-Full-Kit-/280901422383
I say it's not improbable that a spotter is being used to relay moves, which are sent back to Ivanov via a wireless embedded earpiece. Something like the tiny spy camera above from somebody in the audience. Also it would be battery run, which explains why Ivanov sometimes makes the wrong move (or has to rely on his own judgement) late in a long game.
This is why I'm saying the organisers are patzers. A reall full-scale investigation would be looking at everyone in attendance, not just Ivanov.
One cannot search random persons in the audience without any suspicion. An argument could be made for searching his associates.
Marcokim wrote:
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.
If a person runs faster than a car, do we suspect the person of cheating? Or could it be that he has trained himself to move his legs such that he is able to run faster than a car? The argument is the same but most persons in this thread don't seem to be strong enough in chess to understand that it is the case.
With evidence like the above (if teased out and developed a bit more), do we really need to know the mechanism? Magicians have been fooling the public for centuries and highly intelligent individuals generally have no idea how tricks are done. There are many tricks by famous magicians today that are still unexplained. So if knowing the mechanism is necessary to convict someone, we will always have cheaters who go unpunished.
As I've mentioned a while ago, all I think needs to happen is that after a game in question, Ivanov is searched by a physician and then questioned in a private room with his opponent during which he is asked to analyze the game. If the analysis is nonsensical, it is clear evidence of cheating.
Still the same idiotic discussion: A large nunber doies mot accept the verdict of a cheat detecting algorithm, although it gives certainty more than you usually have in convctions during murder trials.
For the mere reason, IT IS A MACHINE (the computer which runs the cheat detecting algorithm) and not HUMAN witness(es).
IF yoiu are honest, you have to admit that I am absolutely right.
mocking, because you are afraid that I am right.
hard to distinguish between compliments and insults when the same people sometimes says one thing and a few threads later something contradicting to it.
schlechter55 wrote:
Still the same idiotic discussion: A large nunber doies mot accept the verdict of a cheat detecting algorithm, although it gives certainty more than you usually have in convctions during murder trials.
I can't agree with that statement (yet). Regan admits a gap in his statistical model -- correlations between moves are not taken into account. This may not matter for ratings, but for a cheating analysis it matters a great deal and the omission (if indeed it is an omission) would not pass review by a competent statistician.
However, I have not read all of his work and there may be an attempt to address the problem which I haven't seen.
I also have not (yet) seen evidence of peer review by the statistical community; his work is published in artificial intelligence journals.
Not to the slightest saying 'he is right', but instead accusing me of being 'odd' is again bad.
Jun 14, 2013
0
#979
schlechter55 wrote:
mocking, because you are afraid that I am right.
Not mocking, I couldn't have put it better myself. I agree with you entirely
The how is incidental since it's indisputable that he did.