If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
There is no actual firm evidence that the player in question was cheating that would hold up in a court of law, and a picture of a smartphone in a shoe is not evidence, only a means of adding spurious emotionally based "credibility" to the story.
The statistical evidence is good enough to be accepted in court ; after all it has the same precision as a DNA test. If you combine that with the cirumstances, Ivanov would have no chance in a court of law.
Refusing to take shoes off even though it was part of the rules is no contest plea where he wont disclose details.
Legally, that proof is quite strong.
Well, unless he committed a criminal offense by cheating we'll never know will we? I don't see it as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof by the "balance of probabilities" perhaps. I am not a lawyer, are you?
The statistical evidence is good enough to be accepted in court ; after all it has the same precision as a DNA test. If you combine that with the cirumstances, Ivanov would have no chance in a court of law.
I am not a lawyer. Are you? There were no statistics cited in the incident addressed in this thread that I recall reading. DNA results, by the way, can and have been overturned.
Since he never took off his shoes but left, we have no strong evidence that there was anything unusual in them. Plenty of suggestive evidence but not enough, in my judgement, to establish anything "beyond a reasonable doubt". I know there is no way I could operate a smartphone in my shoes with my toes. Heck, I can barely make a cell call with my fingers.
No such proof is required, of course, to expel him from the tournament, which on the evidence given I think was well justified and the outrage, if any, was that they only forfeited him one game in the first place. But a chess tournament is not a courtroom.
Well, unless he committed a criminal offense by cheating we'll never know will we? I don't see it as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof by the "balance of probabilities" perhaps. I am not a lawyer, are you?
If he won prize money via cheating wouldn't that be fraud?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
The statistical evidence is good enough to be accepted in court ; after all it has the same precision as a DNA test. If you combine that with the cirumstances, Ivanov would have no chance in a court of law.
DNA evidence has been widely accepted and the underlying principles are well understood and results replicated in many, many labs.
Dr. Reagan's results, while interesting, are basically the work of one guy and have not been yet fully tested by anyone else. He has a specific model of probabilities as it applies to chess cheating and that model can be criticized as being not valid. It has a long way to go before it can be considered as established as the science behind DNA analysis.
DNA evidence has been widely accepted and the underlying principles are well understood and results replicated in many, many labs.
Dr. Reagan's results, while interesting, are basically the work of one guy and have not been yet fully tested by anyone else. He has a specific model of probabilities as it applies to chess cheating and that model can be criticized as being not valid. It has a long way to go before it can be considered as established as the science behind DNA analysis.
Kudos, well written (except spelling of Dr. Regan). The other aspect to consider is that the expert testimony given to judges by biologists re DNA evidence was of no vested interest to the biologists themselves. There was no money to be made nor reputation to be gained. But Dr. Regan is basically doing a one-man show in which both his professional reputation and possible future remunerations are at stake, and so of course he is going to press his case. He is establishing himself as an expert, and I have duly noted how obtuse his language is, almost as if he is striving to be the only one capable of understanding the mathematical foundations of his own theories. That's not an accusation, because I know some university types are like that almost as a consequence of their long academic background. It's almost as if they can't do anything but academic-speak. So Dr. Regan may not be doing that on purpose. But nevertheless, it does give him a certain "untouchable" property, and if he's reading this, I can only constructively criticize that he should strive to be more accessible in his language, a la Stephen Hawking perhaps.
To add one more thing: in all of Dr. Regan's analysis, covering "the entire history of chess", he is still missing something that an Ivanov defence lawyer (if it came to that) would pounce upon. That is, Ivanov spoke in an interview many months ago that in 2012, he (Ivanov) withdraw from all his social activities and ties, including girlfriend(s), stopped playing chess against humans, and spent several months playing chess hours on end, days on end, against both Rybka and Houdini. This if true makes him exceptional and is a possible explanation of his sudden ability to play "like" the engines he spent so many hours playing and learning against. There is a definite difference playing against computer engines versus playing against humans. As far as we know, no one else has undertaken what Ivanov claims to have done. So his sudden computer-like genius may have an explanation beyond cheating. And a good defense lawyer would plant that seed and Ivanov, IMO, would have a good chance at acquital, because Dr. Regan's analysis has no counterpart to Ivanov. Every player in Dr. Regan's analysis played mostly against other humans and so plays like a human and not like a computer.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Well, unless he committed a criminal offense by cheating we'll never know will we? I don't see it as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof by the "balance of probabilities" perhaps. I am not a lawyer, are you?
No I'm not a lawyer, but.. we don't need to know exactly why, he refused to obey the rules, hence he gets the consequence. No proof is needed and no jury will be seated to think about reasonable doubt. It's a plea bargain of sorts. "I'm not taking my shoes off and I accept whatever the rules say is punishment" he said and walked into the sunset.
If he won prize money via cheating wouldn't that be fraud?
Would it? Do you know the legal definition of fraud? As I said, I am not a lawyer.
In any case we'd have to prove that he cheated first. The tournament directors may have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he cheated, but the article on Chessbase didn't contain it, as Paul pointed out.
In any event I don't think we will be able to detect such cheating after a few more years or possibly decades. Ken Regan's approach seems like a better way to detect it as a probability but his research is still in it's infancy.
I often wonder why there is so little research into chess games using computers being performed. In a couple of decades surely it will be possible to have an in depth computer analysis of every position in every chess game ever recorded, or at least those which have occurred after the opening phase. This is, of course, vastly and even unimaginably less than all the possible positions so the problem is much more tractable. Then we can publish an "accuracy rating" for every game ever played and this will tell us a whole lot of very interesting stuff. At least it would be interesting to me.
Agreed. That's sort of the point of "nolo contendere" aka "I can't be bothered" as a plea. The plea doesn't have to be accepted but it usually is since it avoids all kinds of ugliness on both sides.
From what I'm reading the game had not yet started. Accepting a complaint of "cheating", for lack of the exact rule used, was probably an error by the arbiter. I'd have ruled the complaint before the start of the game premature and frivolous and directed play to start. As in, Play The Game Or Get Out.
Regarding taking off the shoes, possibly a quaint custom in Europe, it would have made me wonder if a foot fetish was involved or if the person making the request wanted someone to join him in eating Chop Suey with his toes.
I read the articles and quotes on Chessbase. Hilarious!!! Great entertainment!!
The cover story of the June 2014 Chess Life is entitled: Catching Chess Cheaters by Dr. Ken Regan. It was thought by the editor to be so important that it is being made available outside the pay wall.
Great piece in Chess Life. Properly used, this is a valuable tool for weeding out suspected cheaters.
Statistical evidence, again provided it is properly performed, is very good evidence indeed. In the absence of a confession (which may itself be unreliable) or eye witness evidence (notoriously unreliable) it is the best we can expect. The choice is to identify suspects on a solid statistical basis or allow them to ruin the game.
Tweet
Comment