Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

...
I don't think anyone can show such remarkable and rapid improvement in such a short time frame. Personally, I believe he is getting computer assistance; I have no idea how, but many speculations seem possible (I liked Peter McKillop's theory about shoes). In any case, I don't see why he would deliberately score poorly in that one tournament - it would be lame as an attempt to introduce some statistical doubt by having such a poor result mixed in with amazing results. Perhaps the computer was down unexpectedly or other technical difficulties resulted in a more mixed result than he was trying to achieve?

It's possible, if he was cheating, he could have deliberately played poorly on occasion to try to mask his overall cheating ways.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

I had no idea how much had been written about Ivanov when I first posted in this thread.

Chesspub.com has 26 pages of postings entitled “Cheating scandals in Croatia and Italy”. The discussion started at the beginning of this year. There are games quoted and analyzed and much gnashing of teeth and renting of clothing:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb...1357693457/376

Ivanov is not a computer programmer. He exhibits boorish behavior, which has raised passions and set everyone against him.

I say invite him to the Canadian Open in July. I would pay to sit and watch all of his games! Of course being the tournament director would be a nightmare.

A few interesting comments from the chess pub forum:

Vass:
Well, I don't know my compatriot, Mr Ivanov, in person, but we live in a small country and I know a thing or two about it.

First of all, he is not a programmer, but a student in the pedagogical institute of his native town, Blagoevgrad (situated one hundred kilometres south of Sofia). And he is also a member of the Blagoevgrad's chess club "Victory".

What amazed me is that Mr Ivanov never wanted to show in public (say, through Internet in these modern times - Facebook, chess forums and alike) to defend himself with analyses of the games or whatever. All we heard from Mr Ivanov were insults and very, very bad behaviour in some of the Bulgarian chess forums.

May I say that sometimes I feel too old when looking at some young men's behaviour?! Some questions arise - such as.. Is it normal now, in these modern times, for some young men to behave like this? Or is it just an exception?

Huggy:
With little time to play tournaments today I spend a lot of time analyzing my repertoire with an engine and then memorizing it via CPT and games vs. Houdini2/3/Fritz. My analysis is quite deep into the endgame in some lines, and my memorization is gradually catching up. Given my limited tournament play, what if I suddenly came back after a 1-2 year break with reams of computer analysis ingrained and delivered a breakthrough performance? If I were to be suspected of cheating then this would be really demotivating for chess opening analysis (what this forum is about!).

ErictheRed:
I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm somewhat of an expert in electronics, and there is absolutely no possible way for a human brain to replicate what a computer does without tons of time and an elaborate filing system to keep track of everything. It's simply not possible.

That doesn't mean that humans can't play extremely good moves, but the way in which a human comes up with which move is good is much, MUCH different than the way a machine does. Any discussion about someone having grown up learning the game from computers, therefore he "thinks" like a computer, is absolutely laughable. Memorizing computer opening preparation? Of course that's entirely possible. Replicating an engine's choice for 40 moves when the difference between the top 5 choices is all miniscule (plus or minus two tenths of a pawn)--not a chance.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

When Georgiev mentioned that Ivanov was making his moves at a steady pace that is a HUGE red flag. No human plays that way. When I used to help catch cheaters for the World Chess Network that was the very first thing we looked at. Eventually there will be a strong player who cheats intelligently and that person will be very hard - if not impossible - to catch. Hey maybe there's someone doing that now! But guys like Ivanov are idiots, at least at cheating, so catching them isn't that hard. Having said that, I don't find Tiger Lilov's analyses particularly convincing. He often contradicts himself when pointing out how "computerish" Ivanov plays.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

When I used to help catch cheaters for the World Chess Network that was the very first thing we looked at. Eventually there will be a strong player who cheats intelligently and that person will be very hard - if not impossible - to catch.

Yes, say an intermittent cheater - someone who cheats only for critical moves and obtains a significant time advantage mostly - would be hard to catch because they would not be suspected.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Yes, say an intermittent cheater - someone who cheats only for critical moves and obtains a significant time advantage mostly - would be hard to catch because they would not be suspected.

A problem with this possibility is that sometimes a position that is in fact 'critical' goes unnoticed, as far as being critical, even by a top level player I would assume.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

The possible problems associated with the suspicion that people may cheat at chess using computers might become more serious as time goes by.

If we hope the public, in North America at least, are ever (again!?) to gain widespread, great respect for chess and chessplayers, the fact that computers now outdo humans puts a bit of a crimp in that. One chesstalk poster noted long ago that average non-playing people he spoke with often had an immediate lower impression of chess and chessplayers upon learning computers were superior at the game to the best humans now.

It's all very well to compare physical limits of people to machines, but one selling point for chess used to be that it demonstrated the glorious intellect of man, as opposed to an unthinking machine for example. Trying to explain to the public that human thinking is better than machine brute force calculation, when it comes to chess, would now normally be a futile exercise. [edit: not to mention the average man might suspect cheating with computers would be hard/impossible to stop]

True, it's a good consolation for people who play chess that it is stimulating to them mentally. As long as the current version of standard chess rules, that is one of its remaining selling points.

Like I wrote, I only 'sometimes' wish a computer-resistant variant became the standard.

[edit: to repeat a point I've made before elsewhere, the rules for the standard version of chess have been 'tweaked' before, if only every so many centuries, for whatever reasons.]

Kevin, maybe now that you've been "put in your place", you're more inclined to believe that organized chess is a cult. I could see that with all your recent posts on Throne Chess, you were well overdue for a reprimand from the standard chess bible-thumpers.

You just can't talk about that stuff on a standard chess forum. These people have been fitted with blinders. Listen to this Nicolas Haynes: on a thread that is literally ABOUT the negative effects of computer engines on chess (someone does considerably better than his rating and is strip-searched for cheating devices, that's really going to make John Q. Public want to come out and join the CFC and play tournament chess), Mr. Haynes writes: "I have no idea how (strong computer programs, opening databases and other chess software raising the strength of human players) can be construed as a negative thing".

Mr. Haynes, shall we assume you are in favor of strip searches and would be glad to submit to one should your own playing strength be so improved BY COMPUTER SOFTWARE as to arouse suspicion?

And out trots Kerry Liles, saying how brilliant Mr. Haynes' reading of the manifesto was, and why? Because Mr. Liles is personally so weary of reading about chess variants. Poor Kerry, I wonder what other sufferings he must endure because the world won't conform to his every wish!

Kevin, isn't it a wonderful thing that we have Mr. Haynes and Mr. Liles to warn the entire world about how reprehensible all these chess variants are? To once again remind us that because chess has survived centuries relatively untouched, that it should remain so for centuries into the future?

Totally oblivious to the credo of the evolutionists: "Adapt or perish".

Ah, but Mr. Haynes and Mr. Liles are so sure of things. Standard chess will surely not "perish". Mr. Haynes brings out the familiar cult argument: the onset of the automobile didn't stop people from running the 100 metres. Or other people from watching people run the 100 metres.

But you know... if tomorrow someone ran the 100 metres in 5 seconds flat officially measured time... that person would be strip-searched for some kind of turbo-jet device or something in their shoes that propelled them forward... or some kind of super-enhancing steroids in their system... and failing any evidence of that, the person would be still found somehow guilty of cheating and banned from future events.

The point is: we ban steroids and any kind of enhancing devices or drugs in athletics because they are tools that can give someone a competitive advantage. No one is going to use a race car to gain a competitive advantage in the 100 metres. Car racing is a totally different activity and offers no threat to human track events. So I say to chess cult members: instead of comparing fast automobiles to strong computer chess engines, you should be comparing human runners on steroids to human chess players using computer chess engines. Then you'd realize that there DEFINITELY IS a problem in chess today. If it turns out that Mr. Ivanov wasn't cheating at all, but simply learned from intensive exposure to computer engines to play like them, chess has an even bigger problem. There are tests to detect steroids, but there are no tests to detect influence of computer chess engines other than the moves you make. And so it turns out that we MUST make mistakes in chess to be considered human enough to play events.

And Kevin, I have to mention it again just to demonstrate the lengths to which cult members will go to defend their beliefs:, Mr. Haynes praises computer engines and databases for raising the strength of human players. No way can there be a problem with that, he writes.

Ah well, Mr. Haynes has one thing right: standard chess will not perish. There will always be people for whom standard chess is an enjoyable mental challenge well worth the time even if they lose to someone better. And this is all fine and good.

But for Mr. Haynes or Mr. Liles or anyone else to pretend to be some kind of high authority and say (with their own personal bias against chess variants speaking for them) that computer chess engines will never prompt any change to standard chess rules by FIDE... this is simple, out and out ignorance and blindness. The brute force mathematical nature of chess has now become its undoing in the face of unprecedented computer power. Local chess clubs may survive, but at the upper echelons, as Kevin has pointed out, there is a loss of respect from the public. This on top of the already-pervasive apathy of the general public towards chess, and the perception that chess is as much fun to watch as paint drying, makes for a deadly combination. Top-level chess needs sponsorship to survive. Sponsors need Return On Investment (ROI). Tournament chess players simply do not provide that because the official and only-recognized form of the game itself is too restrictive, too stifling, to provide the ADULT numbers needed.

And that is the final proof of the status of organized chess. When, in the face of the obvious truth that you are not real enough to be widely accepted by the general population, you refuse to adapt or change, you are a cult.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Like I said in one of my edits to an earlier post of mine in this thread that you allude to, Paul, the basic rules for standard chess have been changed every so many centuries, for whatever reasons. Maybe such a moment of change may come sooner than we think, for whatever reason(s) - I once predicted on chesstalk it would take 100 years, whereas Jean Hebert eventually tacitly conceeded to me that such a change is inevitable (perhaps based on chess history alone), just that it would take 500 years in his opinion.

Chess in its current form is popular enough today (speaking of just organized events, that is), at least in much of the world outside of North America (where organized Poker, which is far less popular worldwide, outdoes organized chess). This could be for any number of reasons. Not enough North American female players, not enough money in chess (as you yourself allude to), or North American chess governance that's overall not entirely astute or abundant with volunteers or funding.

It's true some chesstalk posters can be as fervant as cult members, perhaps, but others are happy to think about or even play variants, at least occasionally, as I pretty much stated elsewhere. Look at my poll on Throne Chess, for example. Not a lot of responses, but some are positive enough. Anyway, that topic/thread has pretty much gone dormant, like the present thread.

[edit: It might be nice if chesstalk had a seperate forum for chess variants, like some servers have variant capability - for now, I made Throne Chess by itself a seperate category in my own blog entries, though it looks like there is or always will be insufficient interest to make many more such entries].

To try to keep on topic at least somewhat, I tend to agree with Tom's analysis that B.I. is cheating. If this analysis is sufficent to kick someone off a chess server for cheating without absolute proof/evidence, why not the same for over-the-board chess cheating where computer assistance is strongly suspected (i.e. the cheater's moves match an engine's choices consistently)? To not ban B.I. for cheating by now seems based on political correctness, or perhaps at least a fear that an ensuing lawsuit might be lost.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Like I said in one of my edits to an earlier post of mine in this thread that you allude to, Paul, the basic rules for standard chess have been changed every so many centuries, for whatever reasons. Maybe such a moment of change may come sooner than we think, for whatever reason(s) - I once predicted on chesstalk it would take 100 years, whereas Jean Hebert eventually tacitly conceeded to me that such a change is inevitable (perhaps based on chess history alone), just that it would take 500 years in his opinion.

I give it 25 years max before FIDE has to do something with the rules, and that's being very generous in allowing that Europe by then hasn't totally exploded into regional wars of the haves versus the have-nots that decimates the chess scene among many other scenes. There's no doubt that Europe together with Russia drives FIDE chess, so if Europe blows up, FIDE and most of organized chess goes kaput. But assuming that is somehow avoided, FIDE still has a ticking time bomb on its hands. In 25 years, a match between the top computer engines of 48 long time control games such as this year's Houdini - Stockfish match is guaranteed to be 48 games drawn, with no one watching or caring because it's already known that will be the result and that the games will be nothing more than equal trades of pieces interspersed between meaningless shuffling of pieces. The damage that will do to chess' image is incalculable. Humans will play more and more daring chess under the standard rules because they won't want to be strip-searched for any kind of interface to a computer engine. But even this will lose its appeal.

You mention Jean Hebert, and it was Jean who wrote something very astute here on Chesstalk some 6 or 8 months ago. Someone had posted a few endgame studies in a new thread, and Jean commented that as much as any individual chess study may be new, the ideas behind it are not and all the ideas have been fully exposed. In other words, even new studies are just rehashes of already-explored ideas. If that is true of something as "wild and free" as a chess study, you can surely agree that all the ideas have been explored within the much more confining space of standard chess games between elite-level players.

So ok, we won't be seeing new ideas and in fact we probably aren't seeing new ideas today. There is still the drama of live matches over the internet, and this year's Candidates matches showed that can drive some fairly good numbers. With everything else remaining equal (i.e. no Europe wars, no global climate crisis, no asteroid impacts, no Yellowstone eruptions, no global economic meltdown, etc.), those numbers will decline and in 10 to 15 years won't be enough to inject enough corporate sponsorship capital to keep the boat afloat. But still, I'll hedge my bets and say 25 years at the max. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 15 years.

Chess in its current form is popular enough today (speaking of just organized events, that is)...

Popular enough for what, exactly? For mere survival and nothing more, I would suggest. And that's for right now... what if someone out there is imaginative and daring enough to bring to the chess-playing masses, via the internet, some form of chess that makes standard, long time control chess matches seem... what's the current expression for something out of date... so 90's? ;)

It's true some chesstalk posters can be as fervant as cult members, perhaps, but others are happy to think about or even play variants, at least occasionally, as I pretty much stated elsewhere. Look at my poll on Throne Chess, for example. Not a lot of responses, but some are positive enough. Anyway, that topic/thread has pretty much gone dormant, like the present thread.

[edit: It might be nice if chesstalk had a seperate forum for chess variants, like some servers have variant capability - for now, I made Throne Chess by itself a seperate category in my own blog entries, though it looks like there is or always will be insufficient interest to make many more such entries].

Kevin, your Throne Chess variant is truly exceptional in that it is simple enough yet (I believe) effective enough at transforming the game that it really could be "the one" that FIDE could live with as something to stem the tide of top-level draws or at least make draws more exciting. Not that I'm saying that will be enough to save FIDE or organized chess from their ultimate fate... but it could buy time and prove to be as invaluable as the castling rule and the en passant rule were in their time.

To try to keep on topic at least somewhat, I tend to agree with Tom's analysis that B.I. is cheating. If this analysis is sufficent to kick someone off a chess server for cheating without absolute proof/evidence, why not the same for over-the-board chess cheating where computer assistance is strongly suspected (i.e. the cheater's moves match an engine's choices consistently)? To not ban B.I. for cheating by now seems based on political correctness, or perhaps at least a fear that an ensuing lawsuit might be lost.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has that become a "politically correct" idea? I think it is far more likely that B.I. has indeed learned how to play just like computer engines than that he has somehow rigged up something in his shoes such that in 10 seconds time and time again, he can tap one heel in morse code to indicate a move just made and then listen for a morse code reply on his other heel, which is delayed by someone not in line of sight inputting a move into a Houdini chess engine and getting a Houdini move response, and make the move so received, all in very smooth fashion and without ever missing a beat.

There are people known to have photographic memories. Perhaps B.I. has that capability, and has learned to play thousands of games against top computer engines, memorize each and every line, and from the stored memories LEARN how computers react to various positional and tactical patterns.

As to the fact that B.I. makes all his moves with the same timing, this is something many poker players have learned to do as a psychological ploy, most famously Chris Ferguson.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
To try to keep on topic at least somewhat, I tend to agree with Tom's analysis that B.I. is cheating. If this analysis is sufficent to kick someone off a chess server for cheating without absolute proof/evidence, why not the same for over-the-board chess cheating where computer assistance is strongly suspected (i.e. the cheater's moves match an engine's choices consistently)? To not ban B.I. for cheating by now seems based on political correctness, or perhaps at least a fear that an ensuing lawsuit might be lost.

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has that become a "politically correct" idea? I think it is far more likely that B.I. has indeed learned how to play just like computer engines than that he has somehow rigged up something in his shoes such that in 10 seconds time and time again, he can tap one heel in morse code to indicate a move just made and then listen for a morse code reply on his other heel, which is delayed by someone not in line of sight inputting a move into a Houdini chess engine and getting a Houdini move response, and make the move so received, all in very smooth fashion and without ever missing a beat.

There are people known to have photographic memories. Perhaps B.I. has that capability, and has learned to play thousands of games against top computer engines, memorize each and every line, and from the stored memories LEARN how computers react to various positional and tactical patterns.
As to the fact that B.I. makes all his moves with the same timing, this is something many poker players have learned to do as a psychological ploy, most famously Chris Ferguson.

My thought is that B.I. can be assumed guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to copying an engine's moves consistently. A photographic memory (which I thought of before making my original post) can only be used to remember exact sequences of moves. Start a new game, and the odds are very high that it will become an unprecidented sequence, as far as previously having absorbed even an enormous number of moves from a computer/database are concerned. [note: as far as my personal ethics are concerned, I would not play chess if I had a photographic memory - in any case I could likely make more money doing something else - as I noted on the old/new chesstalk some years ago.]

[edit: as far as figuring out how computers react to countless tactical patterns goes, tactics (which are king in chess) are normally specific to an exact given position - that's why we must use concrete analysis in chess. Still, it might make for a long and tense case trying to explain all this in court, and the wrong verdict might be reached all the same (e.g. the Scopes trial, or Roe v. Wade... :( ).]

[Ken MacDonald]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/...ntcmp=features

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham

Kevin, your Throne Chess variant is truly exceptional in that it is simple enough yet (I believe) effective enough at transforming the game that it really could be "the one" that FIDE could live with as something to stem the tide of top-level draws or at least make draws more exciting. Not that I'm saying that will be enough to save FIDE or organized chess from their ultimate fate... but it could buy time and prove to be as invaluable as the castling rule and the en passant rule were in their time.

There are countless ways the future of chess, and the world, can unfold. Perhaps even divine intervention might soon make the world a better place, e.g. by reseting it to a less 'advanced' stage technologically (e.g. we'll 'lose' atomic weapons...). Anything's possible.

It's also possible FIDE might do itself in with it's current bent for terrible policy decisions/ideas, but I suppose it could be replaced with another world chess governing body. Or it might survive the current administration until one replaces it.

If we just continue on our current merry ways, as I suppose the vast majority of us expect, my own preference is to at some point transition to a more computer resistant version of chess, as painlessly as possible. One possibility is a 10x10 chess variant that perhaps uses a kind of chess960 rule and/or a kind of Throne Chess rule (i.e. if K to K8 is ever played legally, it wins instantly). There are already 10x10 boards available for International Checkers, and these could then be mass produced. My only concern would be if playing on a 10x10 board, with whatever pieces are added to both sides to start with, would result in games that take too many moves on average.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Interview with Italian IM Axel Romdaldoni from Chessbase

He played against Borislav Ivanov in round seven of the Old Capital Open 2013 in Bulgaria and lost.

It still seems to me like weak circumstantial evidence of cheating, but see for yourself:

Two extracts:

What was suspicious about Borislav Ivanov’s behavior during the game?

From the start of our game until the very end, it was obvious to me that Ivanov was not behaving as a chess player usually does. In my opinion he was never thinking – ever! He was looking at the board, the clock, his score sheet, but he never calculated moves and variations. He was always in the same position whenever I looked at him and he never looked back at me or anyone.

Earlier you mentioned that Ivanov had stayed in the same position throughout the game. What posture did he assume when playing you? Did he stand up to walk around during this long four-hour game?

He never stood up, never during my game and likely never during any of his games at the tournament. He was stubbornly sitting on his chair, even while he was winning by forfeit against players who chose to skip their games against him, leaving him to wait on an empty board for quite some time! For the entire game with me, Borislav assumed one and the same posture, supporting his chin with his hands and staring straight down at the board without looking at anyone.

Do you believe Borislav Ivanov was cheating during your game with him?

Yes, absolutely!

The whole interview can be found at:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/...es-190613.aspx

June 19, 2013

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Hi.

I am very confused. I always thought a person was not cheating until there's any proof of cheating (innocent until proven guilty?).
I don't know who this Borislav Ivanov guy is, but also read some articles and opinions here.
So his opponents (really, who started to accuse him) claim he is using a computer engine. Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon saying he's a cheater. Some people here have even said Ivanov is an idiot for making his cheating "obvious" when it comes to be an engine, picking non-human choice moves at a consistent pace. He also plays rapid chess apparently at the same level. He did have a horrendous performance in one tournament as well.

Now... I was under the impression the reason why the world's top players stopped playing the world's top engines because they could no longer compete (scoring the occasional draw at best). So Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Topalov, etc... all stopped playing matches against computers some 7-8 years ago. If I remember correctly, Milov at his peak (2700+) had an awful result against Rybka when getting material odds against the computer. That was probably one of the last human-computer matches.

Looking at Ivanov's FIDE profile and results records... funny story... the guy concedes draws and losses to players Houdini would never lose points to.

People also talk about his 'pose' during games, with his hands supporting his chin, unperturbed by anything around him. I fail to see how this should be perceived as suspicious. Many players stay still at the board the whole time and have favourite poses. Some people bury their heads in their hands. Others create a focus point by putting their hands around their eyes to limit outside distractions. Other people cross their arms, their legs, have their arms under the table, or over. All suspicious activity clearly if it's a recurring theme.

Apparently B. Ivanov has been a bit of a jerk in some forums and interviews on this subject. Sure... he's not gaining a fan base that way, and perhaps he's very immature. Though I'd imagine any player would be upset if / when accused of cheating. True or not. He's also been searched, nothing found.

In sum, Borislav Ivanov:

- is obviously using a computer by sitting still in the same position and moving at equal intervals
- according to his opponents, uses Houdini or the strongest chess engines out there
- doesn't seem to be able to net a perfect score in ANY event, despite being Houdini in every move in every game
- appears to have no device on him or contact with anyone during his games, as per ACTUAL observations
- is a cheater, a jerk, etc...
- has been searched, nothing found

THEREFORE... he has made a historical breakthrough in science by being able to place a chess chip implant in his brain.


In all seriousness, I am in no way claiming this guy is innocent. But I'd like a little more ACTUAL proof than "the guy has a funny pose, his moves match Houdini and he moves at a consistent pace".
Furthermore, this stuff is / has ruined his "career" (or amateur love for the game), whether he has cheated or not, because of this publicity. And people, news sites and armchair critics never seem to go back on their opinion and / or apologize for negative publicity. Now it's B. Ivanov. Recent cases include V. Topalov as well as I. Kurnosov, two much stronger players than Ivanov who have been accused of cheating and are still actively playing without any boycott (presumably because they were NOT cheating).


Alex F.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Now it's B. Ivanov. Recent cases include V. Topalov

Why did you forget Kramnik? LOL He with B.Ivanov creates a very interesting pair (yin & yang) - one ran from the table every move (and directly to WC (not world championship)), other is a super yoga practitioner who can sit still all game LOL.

Still the main question is alive: How did he do?

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Hi.

I am very confused. I always thought a person was not cheating until there's any proof of cheating (innocent until proven guilty?).
I don't know who this Borislav Ivanov guy is, but also read some articles and opinions here.
So his opponents (really, who started to accuse him) claim he is using a computer engine. Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon saying he's a cheater. Some people here have even said Ivanov is an idiot for making his cheating "obvious" when it comes to be an engine, picking non-human choice moves at a consistent pace. He also plays rapid chess apparently at the same level. He did have a horrendous performance in one tournament as well.

Now... I was under the impression the reason why the world's top players stopped playing the world's top engines because they could no longer compete (scoring the occasional draw at best). So Kramnik, Anand, Adams, Topalov, etc... all stopped playing matches against computers some 7-8 years ago. If I remember correctly, Milov at his peak (2700+) had an awful result against Rybka when getting material odds against the computer. That was probably one of the last human-computer matches.

Looking at Ivanov's FIDE profile and results records... funny storylines... the guy concedes draws and losses to players Houdini would never lose points to.

People also talk about his 'pose' during games, with his hands supporting his chin, unperturbed by anything around him. I fail to see how this should be perceived as suspicious. Many players stay still at the board the whole time and have favourite poses. Some people bury their heads in their hands. Others create a focus point by putting their hands around their eyes to limit outside distractions. Other people cross their arms, their legs, have their arms under the table, or over. All suspicious activity clearly if it's a recurring theme.

Apparently B. Ivanov has been a bit of a jerk in some forums and interviews on this subject. Sure... he's not gaining a fan base that way, and perhaps he's very immature. Though I'd imagine any player would be upset if / when accused of cheating. True or not. He's also been searched, nothing found.

In sum, Borislav Ivanov:

- is obviously using a computer by sitting still in the same position and moving at equal intervals
- according to his opponents, uses Houdini or the strongest chess engines out there
- doesn't seem to be able to net a perfect score in ANY event, despite being Houdini in every move in every game
- appears to have no device on him or contact with anyone during his games, as per ACTUAL observations
- is a cheater, a jerk, etc...
- has been searched, nothing found

THEREFORE... he has made a historical breakthrough in science by being able to place a chess chip implant in his brain.


In all seriousness, I am in no way claiming this guy is innocent. But I'd like a little more ACTUAL proof than "the guy has a funny pose, his moves match Houdini and he moves at a consistent pace".
Furthermore, this stuff is / has ruined his "career" (or amateur love for the game), whether he has cheated or not, because of this publicity. And people, news sites and armchair critics never seem to go back on their opinion and / or apologize for negative publicity. Now it's B. Ivanov. Recent cases include V. Topalov as well as I. Kurnosov, two much stronger players than Ivanov who have been accused of cheating and are still actively playing without any boycott (presumably because they were NOT cheating).


Alex F.

His games were analyzed by Kenneth Regan and there's a statistically significant proof that the games could not have been played by a human. It is not sure at 100%, but the evidence would be strong enough in court, just as a DNA test. So, we can say, with 99.99+% certainty, that he is cheating.