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.
-It was rumoured that you strip-searched him...
- This is not true. Ivanov voluntarily took off his shirt, we looked in his pockets, took the penl, with which he wrote down the moves and it was all over. We apologized to Ivanov.
- Did the arbiter take your clothes off, or did they just check your pockets?
- Well, i know my body is handsome and beautiful but I didn't find it enough to show them the real sexual affection i have for other people around me so i just said no, although they checked my pockets very slowly and my jacket and after they found nothing.... well, may be they were a bit disappointed, cause they were 100% sure I was cheating and of course that's a total lie
What are you trying to prove? You suddently have a ridiculous idea, and because nobody can disprove it (there are tons of ridiculous hypotheses we can't disprove), it's true?
Not necessarily true, but possible. The fact that you outright dismiss it means you are NOT a scientist.
There are ridiculous posters on this board. But I'm afraid you probably beat them all. You just lose your days arguing with everybody, writing non-sense and pretending you know everything on every single subject. What are you doing of your days beside arguing on Chesstalk? I have no time to refute every single of your garbage posts, because I spend my days doing real, useful research, not making the fool on this board. I won't lose hours trying to prove that the human brain CANNOT learn everything from a machine that is only good at calculating billions of variations and has no real instinct. And if you can't read the very first post of this thread or use Google, then why the hell would we lose time arguing with someone like you?
What a bunch of hyperbole. Pretending I know everything on every subject? That's just sore-loser talk. I'm sorry, but you HAVE made yourself the fool on this board. Calling yourself a scientist, not providing evidence for your claims, proclaiming someone guilty when there is reasonable doubt.
Do you know the concept of reasonable doubt? Any judge / jury would agree with me that Ivanov could personify a new breed of player who can learn to play like Houdini, even if s/he isn't performing billions of calculations per second. It is a reasonable possibility, and I've already mentioned the only way to disprove it, but that would take months, so "to heck with it, I, Felix Dumont, proclaim him GUILTY! I use STATISTICS that aren't relevant, that don't include the type of player Ivanov turned himself into... but the numbers agree with me, so there it is! GUILTY!"
And now we see you're anti-machine. Must be tough working with a supercomputer that you loathe.
Useful research... that must mean research that "proves" something you already believe in.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Any judge / jury would agree with me that Ivanov could personify a new breed of player who can learn to play like Houdini, even if s/he isn't performing billions of calculations per second.
Do you have a term for this new breed of player you are referring to? I've tried to google this description but I have not found anything of relevance so far. I think it's probably quite difficult to play like Houdini and especially for a computer programmer way past his prime to alternate between 2600+ performances and 2000 performances. I can personally attest to the notion that it's quite possible to play like a 2000 or lower when drunk or high on some illegal substance but beating up GM's round after round after round is also pretty tough. I applaud you for playing devil's advocate with such devotion and passion. Imagine how good you could be if you applied that work ethic towards chess. Maybe you could start an experiment and see if you could play like Houdini!
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
There's been some mention of a polygraph. Useless, and misleading, in my opinion. Paul B. may be totally wrong but this sort of thing would be no good in Canada because the results of polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence in Canada.
I mean, presumably Borislav Ivanov is cheating. It's important to find out how. And use evidence that will stand up.
Hell, for very expert computer hackers, the government HIRES them to catch other hackers. Sounds good to me.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
No it doesn't. I was starting to wonder what kind of tournaments they run in Europe. :)
I expect some tournament director will one day want to remove a players fillings from his teeth to make sure there is no receiver under the filling.
The good part is while the over the board players are accusing their fellow players of cheating they haven't got time to accuse correspondence players.
There's been some mention of a polygraph. Useless, and misleading, in my opinion. Paul B. may be totally wrong but this sort of thing would be no good in Canada because the results of polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence in Canada.
I mean, presumably Borislav Ivanov is cheating. It's important to find out how. And use evidence that will stand up.
Hell, for very expert computer hackers, the government HIRES them to catch other hackers. Sounds good to me.
Nigel, your first paragraph implies that I mentioned polygraph testing. I did no such thing.
I'll repeat again the simplest way to catch Ivanov if he is in fact cheating. Do not waste time on strip searches for devices. Instead...
What does he absolutely need in order to cheat, given that no one has seen him making any physical signals to a possible collaborator?
He absolutely must have a transmitter / receiver that emits and receives electromagnetic radiation.
Lack of any detectable and unusual EM radiation, verifiably repeating during each time interval starting with Ivanov's opponent's move and ending with Ivanov's reply... plus lack of any detectable physical signals during that same interval... means he cannot be cheating.
Do you have a term for this new breed of player you are referring to? I've tried to google this description but I have not found anything of relevance so far. I think it's probably quite difficult to play like Houdini and especially for a computer programmer way past his prime to alternate between 2600+ performances and 2000 performances. I can personally attest to the notion that it's quite possible to play like a 2000 or lower when drunk or high on some illegal substance but beating up GM's round after round after round is also pretty tough. I applaud you for playing devil's advocate with such devotion and passion. Imagine how good you could be if you applied that work ethic towards chess. Maybe you could start an experiment and see if you could play like Houdini!
"Universenium"... no, wait, that's my term for the age of our Universe. Ok, how about "Ivanova"? Kind of like "prima donna" except using Borislav's last name.
I don't suggest what Ivanov purportedly did was easy. If others tried it and all failed, then the only possibility left is that he is a learning genius, and that might not pass the "reasonable doubt" test. But right now, because he did this and apparently no one else has done it, it is definitely within the realm of possibilty and would imo hold up in court as casting reasonable doubt on even Kenneth Regan's evidence.
Somebody has to play Devil's Advocate, because otherwise this is the Salem Witch Hunt, Nazism, McCarthyism all over again. Everyone here who is pronouncing Ivanov guilty are themselves unworthy of ever performing jury duty... and that sadly includes our supposedly impartial forum moderator. None of this is to say that Ivanov is innocent, only that he isn't yet proven guilty.
Bindi, I am applying that work ethic towards chess. No, not playing chess... bringing chess into the 21st century. You'd be a much better person to try that experiment, aren't you already over 2400? Seriously, dude, go for it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Yes, certain others have registered similar stats, and two of them have been the subject of confessions, two more "dealt with". The time unit used for the most conservative numbers in my Ivanov report is vigintennium: twenty years of TWIC.
The one unprecedented development I know is robots capable of optically recognizing a chess position on a generic tournament set: one by Alexandra Kosteniuk's father (http://www.chessblog.com/2013/05/one...ch-sergey.html) and one I lost to in Toronto last summer (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/r...e-of-the-turk- which links to this BBS). The latter required me to center the pieces, but my CS departmental colleagues tell me that a more-robust system capable of viewing a position and outputting a FEN position code is well within the capacity of an advanced amateur hobbyist.
To answer those in this thread asking "how might he do it?", and despite much talk of "bionic contact lenses", the "Occam's-razor hypothesis" to consider first IMHO is that he has a button-sized camera concealed on his clothing, which transmits a FEN to a processor in his shoe that delivers 3 Morse code pulses for the file and 3 for the rank of the destination square. At least the "shoe" part was the M.O. for a privately-confessed case last year.
Last edited by Kenneth Regan; Friday, 21st June, 2013, 11:20 PM.
Reason: fixed italics
"None of this is to say that Ivanov is innocent, only that he isn't yet proven guilty.
Still, Ivanov's own comments may be why the Bulgarians suspended him.
He claims that he can beat Houdini 10-0. But he has been playing EXACTLY LIKE Houdini. I can't see why then he doesn't
lose to it at least 50% of the time.
Lack of any detectable and unusual EM radiation, verifiably repeating during each time interval starting with Ivanov's opponent's move and ending with Ivanov's reply... plus lack of any detectable physical signals during that same interval... means he cannot be cheating.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Other groups have suggested that a person with a possible concealed transmitter/receiver be placed in a Faraday Cage.
This is an enclosure formed by conducting material or a mesh of such material.
Faraday Cages cannot block static electricity or the Earth’s magnetic field (a compass will still work inside) but they can shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation. The reception of external radio signals within the Cage can be attenuated or even completely blocked by the Cage itself.
I have read that the Vatican has had one installed as a security measure
To ascend one step higher in paranoia, there is a suggestion that the can’t-lose chessplayer be administered the Voight-Kampff test to see if he is a replicant.
Yes, certain others have registered similar stats, and two of them have been the subject of confessions, two more "dealt with". The time unit used for the most conservative numbers in my Ivanov report is vigintennium: twenty years of TWIC.
The one unprecedented development I know is robots capable of optically recognizing a chess position on a generic tournament set: one by Alexandra Kosteniuk's father (http://www.chessblog.com/2013/05/one...ch-sergey.html) and one I lost to in Toronto last summer (http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/r...e-of-the-turk- which links to this BBS). The latter required me to center the pieces, but my CS departmental colleagues tell me that a more-robust system capable of viewing a position and outputting a FEN position code is well within the capacity of an advanced amateur hobbyist.
To answer those in this thread asking "how might he do it?", and despite much talk of "bionic contact lenses", the "Occam's-razor hypothesis" to consider first IMHO is that he has a button-sized camera concealed on his clothing, which transmits a FEN to a processor in his shoe that delivers 3 Morse code pulses for the file and 3 for the rank of the destination square. At least the "shoe" part was the M.O. for a privately-confessed case last year.
Mr. Regan (or is it Dr. Regan?), my question to all of this is: what if Ivanov continues to play on, fearless, continues to play at Houdini-like levels, and no test or search or EM radiation analysis comes up with anything? The issue rages on, and eventually there is a lawsuit in which your Ivanov report becomes the central crux of the argument, because there is simply nothing else.
I would very much like you to directly and in layman's terms answer a few important questions that a decent defence lawyer might use against your evidence. (No, I am personally no such lawyer, nor do I know one.)
Do you consider it at all possible that Ivanov, by means of removing himself from any chess activities against human opposition for months at a time, and by during those same months spending considerable man-hours playing chess games against Houdini 3 and Rybka engines, could possibly have learned to play at the level of those engines, and in fact learned how to, in any chess situation, replicate the top move choices of those engines at the rate your statistics indicate?
Would you consider such possibility admissible in a court of law and sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on Ivanov's guilt on the charge of cheating, on the grounds that your evidence is based on comparisons against other human players who have NOT undertaken Ivanov's steps indicated above?
More succinctly: is it even remotely possible in your view that Ivanov could be a "different animal" that makes your statistical methods of detecting cheating not applicable in his particular case, because of the steps he took?
If your answer should be that yes, this theory is enough to cast such reasonable doubt in Ivanov's particular case, then do you think that the only way to then prove any guilt on Ivanov's part would be for others of similar rating level (~2300 ELO) to undertake his methods for the same amount of time and then attempt to replicate his Houdini-level play against human opposition? I personally would have no idea how many such individuals would have to take such steps, nor what the statistical results would have to be... if N such rated players took the steps, and only 1 of them achieved Ivanov's results, how low would N have to be to prove Ivanov's innocence on cheating? It's a fascinating question!
(Of course, I also considered the possibility of simply having Ivanov himself play against Houdini and Rybka in controlled conditions. But rememeber we are talking about a scenario much like where we are now, in which we simply have no knowledge as to how any cheating is being done. Thus Ivanov, if he is somehow capable of cheating say via telepathic means or using some reptilian alien technology (undetectable) to communicate with the cloaked mothership in geosynchronous orbit directly above the White House, would simply do what he's been doing and play like Houdini. Nothing would be proven.)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Thanks. But it was even mentionned in the very first post...
In any case, I don't see why I should continue arguing. The guy is cheating, there's not a single doubt. I spend my days with a supercomputer. Last time I checked, I could not do calculations that required 46 TB of RAM by myself. Maybe I don't learn fast enough? No doubt I should hire Borislav Ivanov to do my calculations... After all, he learned how to calculate billion of positions per second by playing against houdini!
Houdini is not perfect, is stronger tactically than positionally [e.g. not understanding which is the best piece exchange to go into the endgame with that pawn structure], and it still occasionally makes strange-looking computer moves. When I use the computer for analysizing, it often has 2, 3 or 4 moves ranked almost the same and it does change its first choice after 3 or 6 minutes [on my quad core computer], sometimes it will change after 20 minutes. Given that this player moves every 10 minutes, it would be interesting to see if he had a position where the computer changed its ranking of the best move and after what time. Of course, playing the 2nd or 3rd Houdini listed move with a similar value is not the same as the common human blunder, losing the game.
Assuming a player has access to such a device, he could decline the suggested computer move in quiet positions and only use the computer to fine sharp tactical lines, hence all his moves won't match Houdini.
Tweet
Comment