What if he was the chosen one? Maybe a true genius who just recently discovered he is? Maybe he is the one destined to show the superiority of the human intellect?
Just a thought. Though I have watched the videos t was clearly somewhat biased. He may be cheating but still there is no enough evidence to punish him. Like in Armstrong's case, he wasn't said guilty because he performed well but because drugs were detected. The performance may indicate cheating but it does not prove it.
Ivanov speaks out!
Sort:
Jan 30, 2013
0
#123
mvtjc wrote:
What if he was the chosen one? Maybe a true genius who just recently discovered he is? Maybe he is the one destined to show the superiority of the human intellect? Just a thought. Though I have watched the videos t was clearly somewhat biased. He may be cheating but still there is no enough evidence to punish him. Like in Armstrong's case, he wasn't said guilty because he performed well but because drugs were detected. The performance may indicate cheating but it does not prove it.
I agree, the performance does not prove cheating. However the computer contamination does. How many times shall we repeat this? Ivanov hasn't been said guilty* because he had performed well, but because computer had been detected behind his moves. Some analysts even identified Houdini engine.
The rest is just trolling. The evidence exists and is indeed decisive. Online chess invented not only cheating, but also analytical methods how to reveal it. And this is what Ivanov got caught. The idiot cheater Ivanov didn't expect expert analysis. He thought he would get away with it when no device was found.
*Not by FIDE yet, but by me and other dedicated experts here. No appeal possible.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#124
Yes. Ivanov is the chosen one. He is an Indigo child with a Faustian destiny to unite man and machine, cerbral cortex and silicon, machine numbers and human art. In every age there comes a hero, a mirror to truth, and a true guide. From the blinding light comes the metaphysical, the uncoverer of lies...Ivanov.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Houdine moves does a player of Carlsen's ability make? Would he appear as a cheater if his moves were to undergo the same scrutiny?
Well, Carlsen is 2870~ not 2200. And the article shows the expected stats of top players.
You can go over his game with Houdini move suggestions in Chessbomb if you want a quick idea. He matches the vast majority of top choices and almost always is in the top few moves, but also plays moves which aren't suggested, which just doesn't seem to be the case for Ivanov's middlegame play.
Giacometti wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Houdine moves does a player of Carlsen's ability make? Would he appear as a cheater if his moves were to undergo the same scrutiny?
Benchmarks have long since been made of top human players. Carlsen's games would not look like he was cheating with a computer.
Ivanov's actions really have had a negative effect on competitive chess, at least in the perception of the non-chess playing public.
I've seen the incident discussed in other non-chess related sites and comments like Why is there even competitive chess when computers have solved it? and Maybe he just memorised a mathematical formula being a computer programmer? are very common. Not to mention the hilarious Maybe he just practised like 10 hours a day for a year or something?
Seeing as this is the only chess story in recent history to be reported in relatively mainstream media, those thoughts are what's going to stick in peoples minds when they think about chess. Hurts doesn't it?
Polar_Bear wrote:
mvtjc wrote:
What if he was the chosen one? Maybe a true genius who just recently discovered he is? Maybe he is the one destined to show the superiority of the human intellect? Just a thought. Though I have watched the videos t was clearly somewhat biased. He may be cheating but still there is no enough evidence to punish him. Like in Armstrong's case, he wasn't said guilty because he performed well but because drugs were detected. The performance may indicate cheating but it does not prove it.
I agree, the performance does not prove cheating. However the computer contamination does. How many times shall we repeat this? Ivanov hasn't been said guilty* because he had performed well, but because computer had been detected behind his moves. Some analysts even identified Houdini engine.
The rest is just trolling. The evidence exists and is indeed decisive. Online chess invented not only cheating, but also analytical methods how to reveal it. And this is what Ivanov got caught. The idiot cheater Ivanov didn't expect expert analysis. He thought he would get away with it when no device was found.
*Not by FIDE yet, but by me and other dedicated experts here. No appeal possible.
Just because you know better than me about this topic that doesn't mean I'm trolling.
linuxblue1 wrote:
Yes. Ivanov is the chosen one. He is an Indigo child with a Faustian destiny to unite man and machine, cerbral cortex and silicon, machine numbers and human art. In every age there comes a hero, a mirror to truth, and a true guide. From the blinding light comes the metaphysical, the uncoverer of lies...Ivanov.
But seriously, what if there is one gifted person born and played better than Houdini 3.0! Could he be banned from FIDE because they'll think he cheats?
He wouldn't match Houdini's moves if he's playing better.
The problem is you can't go from zero to hero in chess, not possible. Your improvement progresses at some rate, but not as "spiked" as in his case. Then when the live feed went down, he also went back to his 2200 strength and lost. The whole thing is to suspicious to be anything but a fraud. Of course, there can be anomalies, but not in 19 games (that's why they are called anomalies-once in a while). There is no question that he has cheated, but I am not sure of what protocols FIDE has (if any) to cover this stuff.
Jan 30, 2013
0
#133
Giacometti wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Houdine moves does a player of Carlsen's ability make? Would he appear as a cheater if his moves were to undergo the same scrutiny?
Look here, post #47 by goldendog:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-ivanov-a-cheater?page=3
His opponent's figures are also present. Carlsen, other top GMs and pre-computer GMCs have top3 around 83%. Ivanov's top3 >90% with 300+ non-book moves proves cheating beyond any reasonable doubt.
Yes, Carlsen would also appear as cheater with these figures. Top3 method wasn't designed to measure strength of play, but reveal computer cheating regardless who is scrutinized.
286 or more top3 hits out of 314 moves with 83% probability happens once in 73677 tries, but this is biased a bit, because the distribution is not ideally binomial.
314 moves and 83% probability give sd1 = 2.12%. From my own research two years ago for correspondence chess, the constant additional part of sd2 = 1.07%. That includes the binomial model bias for non-ideal reality (forced moves etc) and human playstyle varying by players.
The pythagorean sum sd = (sd1^2 + sd2^2)^(1/2) = 2.37%
(91.1% - 83%)/2.37% = 3.4
Ivanov exceeded expected top3 match* by 3.4 standard deviations.
* Expected top3 match for players like Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, Topalov, Gelfand, Kasparov, Yusupov, Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Korchnoi, J. Polgar...
The biggest problem with cheating is that there isnt enough done to prevent it and the punishment isnt harsh enough when one is caught to discourage it . Until this changes I think the problem will only worsen. No electronic devices should be allowed in the playing area imo and all broadcast games should be delayed broadcasting . Doing just these two things would help I believe . Also, the penalty for players caught cheating need to be really harsh .
Agree NM Reb.
In fact in this case he could not beat a 2200 player prior to these matches. In 2011 and 2012 he was being beaten by 1900, 2000, and 2100 players. And I believe late 2012 is when the miracle started to happen...and he started checkmating GMs nearly 2700. His chess understanding suddenly became "silicon like"...matching Houdini 3's mostly top move.
Valeri Lilov who is also from Bulgaria stated that University Students in that country was cheating, by using micro cameras along with mini ear-receivers (so small they were undetectable with the naked eye),for about 50 Euros.
Clearly technology has put men without honour ahead of the curve.
If he was using a camera then surely the theory that his moves deteriorated when the live feed went down is nonsense?
FirebrandX wrote:
Here's the point (and Lilov predicts this as well):
You ask ANY titled master to review the games as Lilov has, and every one of them will agree it's an absolute no-brainer that he was cheating. It just boggles my mind that there are people out that are completely unwilling to cede that overwhelming circumstantial evidence MUST be construed that cheating was fact, not a "well probably he did". He DID cheat. Period.
The nay-sayers like chrispret make me absolutely despise the human race at times. I simply cannot fathom such a mindset.
You've said this several times and each time it makes me shake my head. Humanity regularly engages in much more despicable behavior than questioning very strong circumstantial evidence.
It would probably be best if you refrained from leaving the house; otherwise, your head may explode.
If he was using a camera then surely the theory that his moves deteriorated when the live feed went down is nonsense?
.......................................................................................
Remember Scottrf, the "how" of him cheating in these matches has not been revealed. Lilov was suggesting that where there is no live feed, that cheating was still possible with these micro devices. He went on to recommend that a "jammer" should be used in playing halls to stop transmissions.
jesterville wrote:
If he was using a camera then surely the theory that his moves deteriorated when the live feed went down is nonsense?
.......................................................................................
Remember Scottrf, the "how" of him cheating in these matches has not been revealed. Lilov was suggesting that where there is no live feed, that cheating was still possible with these micro devices.
I know that much, but I thought that his play supposedly dropped when the live feed went down?
At first I wasn't convinced that Ivanov cheated.
But after watching Lilov's videos, Ivanov produced such an outlier that it was like a guy in the Olympic 100 metre sprint winning with a time of 6 seconds.
He surely cheated.