I think it was 25 min time control (http://www.ajedreznd.com/2013/Ziganda.pdf)
Is Ivanov the strongest player of all times?
Sort:
What if there's really a microchip implanted into Ivanov's brain, so that it has become an inseparable part of himself? From an ethical viewpoint, would that still be considered as cheating?
Scottrf wrote:
I suggest a new strategy, Garry. Let the wookie win.
trumpeting wrote:
someone should examine the games. I wonder if he's doing the same thing as he was doing in the previous tournament where every single move matches houdini (carlsen normally only matches 80-85%), which is just stupid, or if he's using a more sophisticated method where he only uses houdini at critical junctures, which also is many times decisive in chess.
Kasparov realized this back in the 90s, even went as far as promoting a chess variant "advanced chess" with the then much weaker computer engines. the idea was to enable people to use fritz, what must it have been?, 1? 3? while playing. however it didn't quite work as he planned, what it did really was level the playing field between himself and everyone else (he must of been 50-75 elo points above everyone else at that time). he played an "advanced chess" against Topalov and it was 3-3 all draws, a couple months prior in a normal match he had beaten Topalov 5-1. In another "advanced chess" match Anand played Karpov with what ensued being rather comical. Karpov wasn't very tech savvy, didn't use engines at all I presume, while Anand was very well versed in such things. it basically ended up just being Karpov (not even really using the engine at his disposal) vs Anand armed with Hiarcs playing at an above 3000 level. "advanced chess" isn't even imaginable today because the engines have just gotten way too strong. but back then it was a conceivable idea as it would just be like having a basic pocket calculator while taking the sat.
If you check the youtube post earlier in the thread you will see an FM analyze each game and essentially prove that Ivanov cheated in the tournament.
Also, advanced chess is not quite dead. I think these days that it goes under the name of "centaur chess". But as it turns out humans are still capable of boosting a computers long term strategic view. I don't know a lot about it, but some other players on the site do. I think that I have heard that prawnseatsprawns is an experienced centaur player. Im not trying to say that humans are as good as engines--they aren't. But there are still a couple things we can see a little more clearly, especially in closed positions. It does help to have our strategic vision bolstered by the perfect tactical vision of the computer.
trumpeting wrote:
1) I'm sorry but jammers would make no difference. Today we've got digital receivers with so narrow bandwith and dynamic ranged agc it would demand your jammer to fry all the contestants before the signal is lost. If you want effective protection against cheating you need to place both players inside a Faraday cage. which protects against frequencies up to 1000 Thz. Only solid metal plates in all six directions welded together, air tight, can do that.
That comment just proves ignorance of the physics.
1- A perfect Faraday cage (basically a closed surface of metal) protects against all frequencies, I don't know where the 1000 THz comes from. An otherwise, as the cage is not perfect but the metal is some imperfect conductor it kills more the highest frequencies - so it would be protection down to XX Hz.
2- Although this is true that any bandwidth could be used in theory, in real life many of them are already occupied, or more importantly impossible to achieve for technical reasons (air is absorbing most of the infrared frequencies for instance ; other frequencies need a telescope to be observed). So the bandwidth we need to jam is relatively narrow.
3-If eventually the cheaters find a devilish frequency that is not already occupied and that still can work technically, and have the knowledge to use it, then a simple measure could be just to have a receptor in the room that searches the bandwidth and determines whether signals are noise or information. The drawback is that all parasite sources will have to be given at the entrance : cell phones, etc. So maybe in fine the faraday cage option is better (ie put metal everywhere in the playing room's walls), but not for the same reason.
And eventually, the real solution to that problem if it gets worse and worse is a good old metal detector like in airports at the entrance, plus banning cell phones in the play room. It will need a bit of organisation, but it's 100% safe.
trumpeting wrote:
What I know is that there is much technology that is being kept hidden from the majority so that it's power can be leveraged by the few who are in possession of it. some people have claimed that this tech cannot be stopped by traditional means, i.e. that faraday cages don't do the trick.
"Ha, ha, ha" should be my only anwser.
My post is cutting-edge research... For the nineteenth century.
There is no way any electromagnetic signal can get past an ideal Faraday cage. No way, as not even dreaming of it. Anyone that has a licentiate's degree in physics in convinced of that.
And, if anyone knew a way to transmit a signal that is not electromagnetic in the same basic conditions of an electromagnetic one (which is in this case being undetectable by a human observer placed nearby) he would not try to hide it but make it public and get the Nobel prize the next year.
Yes, people do that claim - for instance Uri Geller and the herd of his believers. But not one single serious scientist.
Finally the "ooh the bad scientists keep the truth for themselves / for the army for their evilish purposes" is just laughable. 99% of today's scientific research, if not more, works by publishing papers in scientific publications (that anyone can buy).
trumpeting wrote:
I just take in all information as it comes to me, not dismissing anything until it's conclusively proven false. if something seems plausible and likely to me based upon personal experiences, then I cannot just ignore it.
Well, if you think that "telepathy exists" is a plausible claim, that's your business.
For my part I generally reject everything until it has been conclusively proven right.
and he goes on (in fast chess):
http://chess-results.com/tnr93301.aspx?art=4&lan=2&fedb=SRB&turdet=YES&flag=30&wi=984
(either with cheating or with playing in god mode - who am I to judge ^^)