Ivanov speaks out!

That is entirely dependent upon which jurisdiction one resides within. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not a universal legal principal. And what rises to the level of legal proof and facts of law differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well. 

However, even granting your point, we are not arguing before a tribunal or a judge. We are looking for sufficiently high quality proof to establish a probalistic determination. 

 

The burden of proof is on Ivanov now. He can prove to the world he isn't cheating by performing that well repeatedly in tournaments where the arbiters are vigilantly working to stop cheating. 

Either he will continue to play at that incredible level and 

a) he is really as good as he says he is

b) he's found a brilliant way to cheat that can't be detected

or 

His play shows that he was cheating. 

I think everyone here expects that his play will deteriorate if he plays in any future events where the arbiters are vigilant. Kenneth Regan said that the odds of him not cheating are more than a million to one. Let Ivanov prove he's that 1 in a million.

I doubt he's that good. He either got extremely lucky (people do win the lotto at 1 in 14 million odds) and will be branded a cheater, or he did cheat (more likely) and will be branded a cheater.

So he's either an extremely lucky, unlucky sod, or a cheater. Either way he's screwed.

Or he's just the best player born.

The problem with that statement is that the best player will not have such an amazingly high correlation with engine moves. Especially not in closed positions where engines are weak.

It's either luck, or cheating.

He also said that engines are weaker in closed positions, so then if Ivanov is such a great player then he would still be good in closed positions.

What if he continues performing and winning at the high level and nothing can be found to indicate cheating other than speculation because of the high quality of his moves?

Who would stand to lose something and would they admit they were wrong and be man enough to apologize?

Or would they merely side step it and say, "well it looked like it after analyzing and others thought so too, so it's easy to see why I'd think that" "I still think he was... just not sure how... but one day we'll know"?

This is what most people who support this argument doesn't understand. Engines are extremely strong, but engines combined with super GMs are much stronger, since the super GM can guide the engine towards better play in those areas where it is weak.

If Ivanov had a super GM behind Houdini, he'd have won outright.

That's something physical. And 99% of physical things in science has been solved so that would be impossible, except if the ferrari has no fuel. But about chess, we use our mind and even neurologist haven't really discovered much about our brains. My point is it's a different case since it involves thinking. And being a human, I know my brain has untapped potential, and maybe Ivanov did it(??). I really don't disprove that Ivanov cheated, I'm just being open-minded.

It seems to me that many people still miss that we are talking about chess, not lotto, lottery or whatever.

The 1 in a million statement is relative to "chess players" not someone who plays golf, run on a bike and so on. Those people also if extremely good in their fields, have not even 1 chance against a professional chess player.

The one playing the lotto don't have a special ability which increases over time if they study, and have the right coaches.

Chess is unfortunately materialistic in this sense. Fischer was the best, because he played, eat, breath chess more than 12 hours a day. He didn't have a life, chess was his life. And he didn't become good in a couple of months of hard studying, he was doing that everyday all his life, nothing else.

Here we have Ivanov, which evidently is not good at chess, and doesn't live only for chess, which has a performance above Carlsen, who does live for chess like Fischer did.

Hope this explains it.

Actually, I can outrun a Ferarri. So can most of you. Just make the course sufficiently short. 




 

If he was the best player born, why was it only recently when he began to show his skills when he had been playing for over a decade? And why would his skills be so inconsistent compared to other GMs?

Matching Houdini with such a high rate could never be considered luck...there has to be something else. It is either skill, or silicon. I believe his recent performance where he has never even beaten a 2200 player before this, along with the fact that he was being beaten by 1900, 2000, 2100 players, and drawing with 1800 players...clearly questions his sudden "computer understanding" of the game. He went from zero to hero in less than two weeks. Unless his body was taken over by an Alien who loves to play chess...I would say he has clearly cheated.

If anything we should learn from the Lance Dopestrong disgrace...it is that there are no superhumans....

All i can say is that i doubt if he really cheated. But if you guys think he did, maybe he had a chip on his head or something that signals the moves. Kinda like that of a  Keanu Reeves movie i saw on dvd a week ago.hehe

Yes, but SOMEONE has to win a lottery. Nobody has to match HOUDINI's moves to better than three-sigma correlation.

Did you play over the Kurajica game? I'm astonished that anyone could look at that game and conclude that it was played by a human being... let alone a 2200-rated human being.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1703505

If he matched any player's moves that closely, he was probably following that player. One of the most telling things about Ivanov's play is that even when Houdini chose less than great moves, he still followed it! In other words, in places where any human master would come up with a more efficient plan, he still followed the engine. 

The burden of proof is clearly on Ivanov to replicate his performance when the whole world is watching.

Good point!. I guess he does really need to replicate such performance to erase all doubts to his credibility.amen

I think that alone is more suspicious than anything else.

This is the place to watch: http://chess-results.com/tnr85628.aspx?lan=1 between Feb 3 and Feb 10.