Ivanov speaks out!

This calls for a SPORTS SWAP.

Lance Dopestrong takes up chess. Ivanov takes up pro cycling.

Imagine if they met up a few months later...

Lance: Holy hell Ivan, the secret lunchbox just isn't helping me get the checkmates.

Ivanov: Stop Whining Lance, for the last %^$ climb I turned on Rybka and the climb still had a $%# gradient of 10 %.

...................................................................................

lol.....you had me falling off my chair with this one.

Armstrong vs Ivanov seems a bit unfair to me:

Lance competed in a field already full of other cheaters.

Lance underwent serious health risks.

Lance had to bear needles daily.

Lance still had to work hard.

Meh, I'm from Hell, it's really not as bad as its reputation. 

Also, I've watched the videos and the evidence is too much against him.  For Houdini to match that well is quite suspicious.  A human move can match the top move sometimes, but then it's a strong human move and not the engine's first choice.  When I play through GM games sometimes the game overwrites Fritz's previous primary variation, but even GMs make mistakes and oversights!  In one game I didn't even need an engine to see through attempted tactical tricks of one GM against another although afterward I checked my analysis to see where I went wrong.  Also wanted to do Stoyko exercises for all of the game but was too lazy =( I also didn't take half hour per position but want the training to best emulate a real game (which, doesn't involve skipping moves like I did)

The point is though that the game has flaws and if these guys make mistakes than a 2200 definately should.

True! One hour less on the bike would never give him 7 titles, doesn't matter how much dope were there...

I'm disappointed in Armstrong =(  Still, at his level even 5 minutes less on a bike would severely jeopardize his chances of winning.  At the elite level in any competition even seemingly insignificant things matter, like shaving a quarter of a second off a 100m sprint.  Improvement has diminishing returns the higher we go.  It's also why some people go from 1000 to 1600 ELO just from reading a book (like Silman's Endgame Course), but then they get to 2000 and going from 2000 to 2100 took far more study and effort than going from 1000 to 2000.  It's also because you hit a concentration of people who also study and practice hard and also ironed out their weaknesses, and obviously defeating a less skilled person is easier than defeating a more skilled, so there are many factors contributing to improvement diminishing returns other than one's objective skill set, as your competition likely improves at the same rate you do. 

All joking aside... I say we tar-and-feather him.

Soon to come: Ivanov on Oprah!

Will he confess?

I just fell out of me-chair! 

The appendix to Professor Regan's letter (posted by goldendog at #51) (a difficult read) is better evidence than that in the first youtube video and the Professor's conclusion is that there was a higher correlation between Ivanov's moves and Houdini/Rybka's moves than he has found for people of Ivanov's rating in his database.

But he says the database is, as yet, insufficient for firm conclusions to be drawn.

The argument that no one can suddenly improve so dramatically is contradicted by such feats as Bob Beamon's wonderful leap.

The argument that his play just looked like a computer's play rather than the play of a human being adds little to the argument founded on the high statistical correlation between the moves made and computer suggested moves. If that argument is bad we are going to have to accept that sometimes some human beings can play a bit like the computer programmes. That home preparation has changed since the number crunching programmes came along is obvious. Perhaps we are going to see over the board play affected also.

The tone of Ivanov's interview is a bit odd. He seems to take the allegations against him rather lightly. But he does deny cheating. Unless he or some accomplice says something to the contrary the Professor's appendix makes it pretty clear that suspicions are going to remain just that.

I'm sorry, but I checked Bob Beamon in FIDE, USCF, and my own game database, and there is not such player. I hope you passed your logic exam in college, and know that here we are talking about chess, not something else. So whatever else you introduce which is not related to chess, is a non sequitur. Further it seems to me that you are not able to read a scientific paper, since the Professor is clear, and he says that Ivanov cheated, because there is no human who can achieve that statistical percentage. However, in science, also when you have a tissue biopsy which indicates statistically that the patient has a certain disease, the writer of the report never writes conclusively, since nothing ever reaches 100%, the phrase in these cases is something like: "more tests are needed...". But the doctor who reads the report would be a fool if he would wait to treat a patient ONLY if the sample provides a 100% certainty.

So please ask someone who has the adequate scientific/math reading comprehension to explain to you what is written there, because clearly or English is not your language, or you don't have enough education to understand it, or there is another kind of problem if it is not clear what is written, and you continue to argue uselessly upon something which would give a judge enough evidence to decide upon a case.

Bob Beamon is a long jumper, iacogio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Beamon 

He was quite good at long jump though :-)

I don't know of Bob Beamon but you understand this Ivanov fellow improved in the course of 1 day right?  In the same tournament he played like a 2000 then played like a grandmaster.

But it is not founded on this correlation.  Human-like moves must follow a certain logic because we're unable to force our way though with calculation.  So clear ideas like the control of a file, the superiority of a minor piece, the sacrificing of a pawn for play somewhere, these are all human like moves.  The reason his play looked like a computer's was because it was based on extreme calculation and the moves were unintuitive for a human.  Even with humans do have a high match up rate their moves can still look human.  Ivanov only looked like a computer.

What are you talking about?  From the link:

"Conclusions
The bottom line of the test is that the results are about as strong as one can reasonably expect a statistical move-matching test, done scientically and neutrally and with respect for due process, to produce. My model projects that for a 2300 player to achieve the high computer correspondence shown in the nine tested games, the odds against are almost a million-to-one. The control data and bases for comparison, which are wholly factual, show several respects in which the performance is exceptional even for a 2700-player, and virtually unprecedented for an untitled player. The z-scores I am reporting are higher than in any other instance I have formally tested, which is what prompts me to raise the questions in the cover letter now."

Perfect, non sequitur, now can you make an example related to chess?

Since Bob Beamon has nothing to do with this topic, and it is clearly off topic (in case you don't understand non sequitur).

if you want to learn how to argue "legally" you need to provide a statistical analysis, which refute the one made by the professor, using chess players. E.g. your own database show that in the last 40 years, an array of 10-20 players rated 2200, easily had 4-5 wins against GMs in a 9 or more rounds tournament.

While I agree that it is most likely that Ivanov cheated somehow, I too believe that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Everyone knows that lots and lots of cyclists dope, but that doesn't mean the winner of the Tour de France gets an automatic lifetime ban.

I think the correct approach would be to track his performance over many tournaments, and only then strip him of all titles retroactively. No-one can maintain a high correlation for 50 games, but it could just be blind luck for  5. 

Well, more than 5 actually.  The video shows us 16.  And it was in more than 1 tournament.

But anyway other than this statement leading me to believe you know nothing about chess, the good professor calculated the "blind luck" for the set of 9 games to being 1 in a million.

It seems you are not informed on the topic. There are 2 videos, made by FM Lilov analysing the games, and a scientific paper. This is not a case of "democracy" everyone can have a different opinion let's vote, since 2+2=4 also if your opinion differs.

This is the paper, some math knowledge is needed

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf

These are the videos (at least a 1800-2000 OTB level is needed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jr0J8SPENjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7VvvRX-nOQ&hd=1

This topic cannot be underestimated, because like FM Lilov says, it could bring the death of OTB chess, if someone is behind Ivanov, and next month they begin to win tournaments using that cheating method.

Can you imagine if you pay 100$ to play in a tournament, and you don't have any chance to win, because someone is using Houdini?

"The argument that his play just looked like a computer's play rather than the play of a human being adds little to the argument founded on the high statistical correlation between the moves made and computer suggested moves."

Because it's an obvious "coincidence" that his style of playing and moves just so happens to match computers perfectly!  There are times when it's justified such as with tactical positions where careful calculation is important, but in quiet positions out of many sound moves picking the one the computer just so happens to like best is suspect. 

As far as improvement goes diminishing returns kicks in, and 10 weeks isn't even enough for a  beginner to improve their performance that much, never mind a master at a level where improving is far more difficult.  The higher you go, the slower your progress becomes. 

There was nothing miraculous about Beaman's jump, he was the best long jumper in the world at the time. It was the altitude in Mexico City that allowed him to break 29 feet, after that he never even broke 27 feet. Everybody knew something special was possible, the BBC commentary at the time is amazing 'If he gets this right, he could jump right out of the pit' which is essentially exactly what happened. He also had a 2 metres per second tailwind at the moment he took off, it was just a perfect storm of circumstances. Straight after he jumped a thunderstorm came through Mexico City and nobody else got remotely close.

After that they never allowed jumps at altitude to count for record purposes.

Sorry for rambling but its one of the greatest sporting moments that needs an asterisk next to it..

astonished. he says he defeated houdini 10-0. my GOD . probably , i am a better liar thai him