Every chess professional uses engines to prepare for their tournaments. Ivanov is the only player who has these astronomical match-up rates, despite players such as Patrick Wolff, Hou Yifan, Ipatov, Giri, and others who have shown they have incredible memories. Having a fantastic memory does not help so much once the position leaves all preparation.
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
Sort:
You don't get it, do you ?
There is no need to produce the device, the cheat is already proven.
The cheat has NOT been proven. You have statistical data ONLY. Get it through that thick head of yours. NO ONE has actually SEEN him cheat, even though he has/is subjected to intense scrutinization every seond he is in the tournament hall. Even FIDE -- you do know who they are I trust?? -- has not accused Ivanov of cheating. In order for him to cheat he needs a way to transmit and receive signals. Most of the suggestions on how Ivanov magnaged this are things that can't even be seriously be considered: Clicking tongues?? Devices in his shoe?? Brain implants?!? Morse code?!? People who sugget these things probably should be rounded up and locked away in the nearest funny farm. And he accomplished this all WITHOUT BEING SEEN ?!? IF he cheated (the statistical data SUGGESTS he did) then it is up to his accusers to come forth and PRODUCE THE DEVICE that allowed him to cheat.OK it might be too late to nail him for past events, but you are all so sure he is a cheater, you have concluded he will continue to cheat in the future. OK intense scrutiny is not enough: I suggest that TO's and TD's "wand" him the next time, and the next time after that, and the next.... if he has NO ELECTRONIC DEVICES UPON HIM please EXPLAIN how he manages to cheat. If you can't do that your argument falls flat on its face. There is no logical explantion that he can be using an electronic device to transmit and receive singnals, but NOT have an electronic device on him which could be easily be detected. If he is using a METHOD then tell us what it is, but beware of the trap of how he does this in 6 seconds or less. The easiest way to back up your argument that he is using some type of electronic device is to PRODUCE THE DEVICE. If you CAN NOT produce the device, the conclusion is he is NOT cheating. Occam's Razor.
So CHILL dude. No need to get upset. Now that you have stopped throwing a temper tantrum PLEASE tell us all how Ivanov manages to cheat right under everybody's nose while they are looking right at him without getting caught.
I am looking forward to your explanation, as I suspect it will be quite creative and entertaining if nothing else.
Maybe he is indeed the reincarnation of the REAL Houdini!!!
Yawn. Please learn to write concisely, @BobbyKatz.
You induce eye strain and brain drain. 
azbobcat wrote:
The cheat has NOT been proven. You have statistical data ONLY. Get it through that thick head of yours.
Mr. Troll, I have statistical data, and it proves the cheat, period.
I will ask you a simple question.
Suppose you are a juror at a murder trial, and you know there is a probability 'X' that the defendant did commit the murder. What is your inferior bound on the number 'X' to vote guilty ?
If your answer is below 99.9999%, you just contradicted yourself. If it is over it, you are the only juror to think that way, but I want to hear it.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1346
azbobcat wrote:
PRODUCE THE DEVICE. If you CAN NOT produce the device, the conclusion is he is NOT cheating. Occam's Razor.
PRODUCE THE DEVICE. If you CAN NOT produce the device, the conclusion is he is NOT cheating. Occam's Razor.
You see an antenna loop under his shirt, don't you?
wat
Derpface2000 wrote:
wat
Trolls get trolled, sometimes.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1349
Irontiger wrote:
Derpface2000 wrote:
wat
Trolls get trolled, sometimes.
Actually - there is something. It is not a pocket and it looks like belt attached underside his T-shirt by velcro.
The original photo is here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsroom/TabId/270/PostId/4009997/the-show-goes-on-ivanov-in-kustendil-030613.aspx
Polar_Bear wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Derpface2000 wrote:
wat
Trolls get trolled, sometimes.
Actually - there is something. It is not a pocket and it looks like belt attached underside his T-shirt by velcro.
The original photo is here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsroom/TabId/270/PostId/4009997/the-show-goes-on-ivanov-in-kustendil-030613.aspx
Come on. Could be a reflection / a trace of dirt / anything.
If woodheads considers this a proof, but not statistics, they are even more stupid than I thought.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1351
Irontiger wrote:
Come on. Could be a reflection / a trace of dirt / anything.
Look also higher and in more detail. Hint - his left shoulder between throat and arm. A clear rectangle is outlined there with wire outlet leading down to the loop shown before.
Polar_Bear wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Come on. Could be a reflection / a trace of dirt / anything.
Look also higher and in more detail. Hint - his left shoulder between throat and arm. A clear rectangle is outlined there with wire outlet leading down to the loop shown before.
I think you're reaching there PB. The correlation between his moves and Houdini's is enough.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1353
Irontiger wrote:
azbobcat wrote:
The cheat has NOT been proven. You have statistical data ONLY. Get it through that thick head of yours.
Mr. Troll, I have statistical data, and it proves the cheat, period.
I will ask you a simple question.
Suppose you are a juror at a murder trial, and you know there is a probability 'X' that the defendant did commit the murder. What is your inferior bound on the number 'X' to vote guilty ?
If your answer is below 99.9999%, you just contradicted yourself. If it is over it, you are the only juror to think that way, but I want to hear it.
WRONG!!! There is "no pre-existing probability" someone commited murder. A juror is suppose to weigh -- I know this is a foreign word to you -- the EVIDENCE in order to reach a verdict. People have gotten caught with a smoking gun in their hands, but based upon other EVIDENCE presented it was determined they did NOT pull the trigger and were exonerated. A juror is suppose to have an OPEN mind, not one that is hermetically sealed shut like yours is. You have presented NO EVIDENCE upon which to arrive at a conclusion. If you ever walk into a courtroom with the idea that someone commited murder without first weighing ALL the EVIDENCE .... well that is exactly why there are 12 people on a jury. That you are prejudiced against Ivanov is clear. You have ONE (1) piece of data -- the statistical data produced by a chess engine -- and based upon that data you will convict him, while conveniently ignoring the other data -- in this case that no one has ever seen him cheat, nor have they ever found some electronic device on or even near him. Until you can EXPLAIN that paradox Ivanov is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
I'm out of here. I'm done dealing with people of such petty and closed minds such as the vast majority displayed in this particular thread. I'm use to dealing with ADULTS who have an IQ vastly higher than their age.
Irontiger wrote:
crownedbishop wrote:
It is entirely allowed for someone to use engines before playing a game (as preparation), so it is possible for Ivanov to do that.
Yes. And ?
"And he might have memorized lines..." : NO. Like, no, that is not possible, he could as well have learnt by heart all the European literature between years 1000 and 1900.
"And he might train himself to play like houdini..." No, like no, that is not possible. If it was true, it would imply it is possible to improve just by trying to "think" (?) like a computer, and all strong players would be doing the same right now, which is not observed in the match percentages.
Trust him on this! When I was new to chess this was my method of "improving" and didn't work. The odds of the memorized positions actually coming up are very small, and you'd be out of luck whenever you reach a new position.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1356
azbobcat wrote:
WRONG!!! There is "no pre-existing probability" someone commited murder. A juror is suppose to weigh -- I know this is a foreign word to you -- the EVIDENCE in order to reach a verdict. People have gotten caught with a smoking gun in their hands, but based upon other EVIDENCE presented it was determined they did NOT pull the trigger and were exonerated...
So you say people have been exonerated even when they have been caught with the smoking gun in their hands? What's stopping you from using this defense if we did produce the device? Now, if people had been exonerated based on the evidence, then would it be fair to say that the evidence is more valuable than the smoking gun?
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1357
Sunshiny wrote:
azbobcat wrote:
WRONG!!! There is "no pre-existing probability" someone commited murder. A juror is suppose to weigh -- I know this is a foreign word to you -- the EVIDENCE in order to reach a verdict. People have gotten caught with a smoking gun in their hands, but based upon other EVIDENCE presented it was determined they did NOT pull the trigger and were exonerated...
So you say people have been exonerated even when they have been caught with the smoking gun in their hands? What's stopping you from using this defense if we did produce the device? Now, if people had been exonerated based on the evidence, then would it be fair to say that the evidence is more valuable than the smoking gun?
+1, awesome.
^Yep, not a single chess game played by the troll.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#1359
owltuna wrote:
socialista wrote:
owltuna wrote:
LegoPirateSenior wrote:
azbobcat wrote:
Getting back to Ivanov he probably the quintessential prototype human of tomorrow: He is a COMPUTER PROGRAMER, he has the ability to hold long strings of "code" in his mind [...]
Ahem, I've been programming computers for over 30 years. Your imagination about how programmers' minds work is utter nonsense....
Sorry to quote a quote, but I could not dig up the orignal. I want to second what Lego Pirate is saying. I was a software engineer for twenty years before I crossed into telecom. People that produce software are most assuredly not walking around with "strings of code" in their heads; nor are they any more familiar with how the assembled product of their algorithms is doing the calculations than a neurologist who plays chess is precisely aware of how his or her plans and calculations are being processed by the billions of neuron connections in his brain.
You just have to program your brain like a chess engine, is kid´s play for a programmer like you according to that poster.
Ok, this is just my opinion, but it is an expert opinion because I was recognized as an expert in my field, that is, among the top performers in my profession as a software engineer. Or conversely, go ahead and follow the opinion "according to that poster" in a largely anonymous internet forum. Anyway, here goes:
You cannot program your brain like a chess engine.
I know that. I was joking. 
Sunshiny wrote:
azbobcat wrote:
WRONG!!! There is "no pre-existing probability" someone commited murder. A juror is suppose to weigh -- I know this is a foreign word to you -- the EVIDENCE in order to reach a verdict. People have gotten caught with a smoking gun in their hands, but based upon other EVIDENCE presented it was determined they did NOT pull the trigger and were exonerated...
So you say people have been exonerated even when they have been caught with the smoking gun in their hands? What's stopping you from using this defense if we did produce the device? Now, if people had been exonerated based on the evidence, then would it be fair to say that the evidence is more valuable than the smoking gun?
Don't you know? Statistical evidence can only be used to cast doubt. An uncertainty of 1 in a trillion is still an uncertainty after all....
...and he is proven guilty, by statistical analysis.
Please read my #1496, then either refute my maths, or state explicitly that you consider 99.9999% to be too far from "certitude". To give an order of magnitude, the probability not to die from a house fire each year in the US is a bit smaller. (Source : this, plus 300M inhabitants in the US, plus rough rounding)
If this is not enough for you, then I suggest you stop ever cooking. You could create a fire and die from it.
Then please PRODUCE THE DEVICE!!!
Read my previous post. Literally you could have the device in his shoe, with a recording of every game he played in the tournaments he excelled in. You could also have Anand, Carlsen, Obama, his mother, his best friend all testifying in court that they saw him put in his shoe and heard him talk about it in the washroom. You could have the manufacturer of the device testify that he built it specifically to circumvent FIDE cheating tests and to transmit the best Houdini move to Ivanov using a scanner to watch the game and nothing more.
And guess what? It's 100x more likely that every single one of those people are framing him and someone planted the device in his shoe than it is that he played the moves he did without cheating.