Ivanov speaks out!

@johnyoudell: Bob Beamans record was amazing indeed, but he was already in the final of the Olympics. It was a miracolous jump made by a top GM in his sport. Just like the game with Octopussy in that match between Karpov and Kasparov.

Anyhow, you have a big phallacy in your reasoning when you state that the evidence of the Professor is worth more then the comment of Lilov. Please, tell me, who is the expert in chess? The one with the higher rating or the one with deep knowledge in statistics? If you say that the opinion of a chess expert is not that important with regards to the defamation of your client that he is not a real chess expert, what is then the value of being a chess expert? Nothing? How can there then be a case of defamation? You can only state a case of defamation if it is worth the trouble, hence if the opinion of experts in the field are considered reliable. You can only have a case of defamation when there is a dispute between acknowledged experts in chess who say that Ivanov was cheating or not. As long as there is no dispute among acknowledged experts and the opinion of experts is not considered worthwile (compared to the opinion of experts in another field of knowledge), then is there no case for defamation. To establish a case for defamation you would have to find a GM who is believing in the honesty of Ivanov.

I watched the videos and scanned over the article before, thank you.

My problem is not with the statistics or the analysis, As I said, he probably did cheat. The issue I have is the evidence, it is circumstantial. No-one caught him red-handed, so it becomes open to interpretation.

But since we're on the topic, was this "scientific" paper peer reviewed? I can prove many things using statistical modelling and get a very good correlation. Just because it is presented as good science doesn't mean it is.

Next week the next guy who puts in an amazing performance (and actually wins) only has a mild correlation with an engine, but he obviously also cheated, because if you build the right case the statistics doesn't lie, or does it? How about a guy who gets two GMs and an engine to feed him moves that do not correspond to typical engine play?

The world needs more critical thinkers, not less. You're spouting opinions as if it is the truth. Yes, it is unlikely, but can you prove it is 1 in 1,000,000? Let's look at DNA, that's solid right? Read this: http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/08/19/are-the-fbis-probabilities-about-dna-matches-crazy/

But even that was sourced of the internet, not a real source of reliable information at a long shot.

Finding the devices would have been pretty conclusive evidence against this specific individual. Even with such evidence, it becomes a lawyer fight. These can be won or lost on basis other than truth.

However, I think the author was clear, the point was to argue that counter-measures should be taken at tournaments, like jammers. Those measures seem reasonable.

Yes, that's the bigger problem.  Ivanov didn't even attempt to hid his cheating.  No, he wasn't caught at a computer terminal while on the toilet, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.  When there is abundant circumstantial evidence it makes a strong case.  Even in criminal cases you rarely have absolute proof... something like video evidence and 10 eye witnesses.  I'm not sure what you're on about "but can you know for sure" stuff.

But anyway, when someone decides to cheat intelligently, it wouldn't be possible to detect.  Of course this is why it jeopardizes professional chess everywhere.  Not that Ivanov invented cheating, but this the first blatant and widely publicised case that I'm aware of.

The first well known hoax in chess is exactly the opposite of today. Then it was the miracle that an automaton could play chess like a human, nowadays it is unbelievable that a human can play like a computer:

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

I'm saying the methods used to investigate should be much more than a single GM comparing the games to his chess engine and an article that has not been scrutinized by peers. The process here is: "Let's form a lynch-mob!" I guess that's my biggest problem.

Anyway, I believe the focus should be on prevention. If you can't directly prove he is at fault, follow due procedure. Don't post youtube vids as evidence, write up your assertions in a way that is repeatable and present it to the relevant authorities.

That's true.  Unfortunately the videos he made did not use any strict method and Lilvov was too enthusiastic about his personal conclusions throughout.  Mostly a video for chess players that made the circumstances obvious without being objective in any way.  Oh well.  It's fitting that he closes the video with prevention suggestions.

The paper is nice because it adds an air of objectivity to it, you're right that it doesn't prove anything by itself with no peer review.  The lynch-mob mentality is a result of players being upset over what they take as an affront to the game they love.  It's unfortunate again that it takes a case like this for objective tests and prevention to be put into place.  The evidence could not be more clear, but we're left without a means to demonstrate the conclusion in a rigorous way to those who know nothing about chess or chess engines.

It may satisfy some pedantic itch to come onto a chess forum and say "but you can't prove it to me" but don't expect much sympathy when playing the devil's advocate here.

Again, I doubt you understand the reality of this situation, and what is really at stake.  But if you are honest, and not a troll, please answer the following questions:

1. When did a lynching-mob ever took the time to write a 10 pages statistical analysis to present to the Association of Chess Professionals, using mathematical and modern databases as tools?

2. Where in such paper has been proposed to bodily harm the cheater? Something must be done about this situation, and generally the players speak of banning cheaters.

3. The games have been analyzed by many people (just check in chess.com, there are tons of analysis both in the forum, and in the staff blog which informed of the case) who have found the same correspondence between Houdini and Ivanov's moves, not only by 1 single person. FM Lilov is quoted because he is a respectable professional who took out his time (and he generally makes money doing videos and as trainer) to point out what most people knew, and didn't have the authority, and for this reason were criticized as not reliable.

4. You don't want to answer the real question posed by FM Lilov: if someone is behind Ivanov, and tomorrow they start to cheat in many tournaments using the same system, against also lower rated players. What will you do? Because maybe you never played OTB or don't care, but imagine those who pay 100-200-300 dollars as EF, plus travel expenses, and train seriously for months, and don't stand a chance to win the prize, because someone is using an engine.

Only raising awareness of this problem, will stop/limit the cheating, but justifying or defending the cheaters, will only destroy chess as a sport.

It is clear that "cheating" is increasing in chess at the pro level. This is not the first case, and I am sure that many sheep will follow. I remember hearing about a survey where 100 Olympic Athletes were ask,"if you were certain to win gold, and not get caught, will you take Performance Inhancing Drugs?" I believe 70-80 % agreed. Other studies show that most people will cheat / steal if they are not watched.

The above data is well known, what troubles me is that nothing is being done to prevent these things...it is like FIDE does not care.

lol. Lynch-mob was used as a simile.

I haven't played OTB in years and really wish I could do it often. I don't think this isolated case is somehow the "end of OTB chess" in any way. Just like Lance Armstrong won't be the end of pro-cycling and Major League Baseball survived their doping scandal. It's simply a wake-up call.

Anyway, since now I'm being despised for stating that the process is kind-of dubious (even though I have repeatedly said that he's probably cheating), I think I'll stop here.

I don't see 'playing well' as proof of cheating. This whole idea of comparing his moves to the computer is just stupid. The computer changes its moves the longer it thinks, so its nonsense to say, "Oh, he played the top move every time!"

Besides, how hard would it be for a cheater to deliberately make mistakes? If I were cheating, I certainly would. Is Ivanov so stupid that he couldn't intentionally make a few minor blunders?

Apparently.

AdamRinkleff -- what is clear here is that you really don't know how easy it is to detect engine use. Top GM's don't play the best engine choices every move. 

This is not merely just a case of playing well, it's a case of playing exactly like a computer over a prolonged series of games.

That doesn't happen except perhaps in games that follow well-known theory from start to finish -- which these games did not do.

And, frankly, it's not a matter of legal proof or scientific proof. The question is: is there enough evidence to convince knowledgeable people (that is, titled players and chess officials) that the guy most likely cheated: and the answer is 'Yes!'

A few minor blunders against a GM would probably cost him the game.

Haha

Is there also a computer of similar strength whose moves Ivanov's

move differ quite often?

Does it matter when it is shown that his moves closely matches a computer?

Yes. He should not be punished for making the strongest moves in

each position. He should be punished if it obvious he mimics a specific

computer consistently in positions in which there were equal alternatives

(selected by other machines).

I haven't looked at the evidence, but from what i believe others have said, his moves were similar to Houdini 2.

Being similar to Houdini 2 may simply be the result of playing at that

level - I think one needs to show that he also played Houdini2's

specific preferences among nearly equal moves . I assumed this happened

(he cheated) but this form of evidence would be stronger.