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.
Many people on this board have me on their "ignore list" because I tent to ask questions and raise points that make them feel uncomfortable.
Paul, I hope you don't think I have you on ignore. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I hope for the day when I can understand one of your lengthy posts in its entirety. :D
Do you have any idea how engines work? You surely need to stand up from your armchair and go play real chess with real people! LOL
If this 'case' went to court with the evidence as it stands at the moment, I wonder if the ability to play chess strongly would need to be a requirement for jury selection.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 24th June, 2013, 05:50 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Intensive training with Rybka/Houdini has been possible for almost 5 years, since Rybka 3 in August 2008 had a 150--200 point jump on all other engines in strength. Lots has been said anecdotally about how players have thereby become more "engine-like", including by Kasparov who did it himself with the older and weaker Fritz, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the main reason I measure the whole big lot of 2650+ players today the same as the elite few of yesteryear. In a courtroom situation I might need to procure more details than are publicly known, but I would bet Malcolm Gladwell's "10,000 hours" have been approached by quite a few of the top players with engines going (20 hrs./week counting back to 2004). This plus the largeness of the gaps I measure between B.I.'s performances and what these players do (see e.g. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/ch...nikCompare.txt) are enough to contra-indicate your hypothesis. Remember that B.I. has made a positive claim that he can do this regularly, and has been given incentives to demonstrate it including a spot on the Bulgarian national team.
Intensive training with Rybka/Houdini has been possible for almost 5 years, since Rybka 3 in August 2008 had a 150--200 point jump on all other engines in strength. Lots has been said anecdotally about how players have thereby become more "engine-like", including by Kasparov who did it himself with the older and weaker Fritz, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the main reason I measure the whole big lot of 2650+ players today the same as the elite few of yesteryear. In a courtroom situation I might need to procure more details than are publicly known, but I would bet Malcolm Gladwell's "10,000 hours" have been approached by quite a few of the top players with engines going (20 hrs./week counting back to 2004). This plus the largeness of the gaps I measure between B.I.'s performances and what these players do (see e.g. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/ch...nikCompare.txt) are enough to contra-indicate your hypothesis. Remember that B.I. has made a positive claim that he can do this regularly, and has been given incentives to demonstrate it including a spot on the Bulgarian national team.
Thank you again, Dr. Regan.
I won't press the matter any further, as it's clear that only time might bring out the true solution. Either he'll be caught cheating or he'll lose the ability to play at Houdini level due to some sort of EM isolation or (worst of all) he'll just stop playing and we'll never know for sure. And the final possibility is that he'll keep performing at Houdini levels and not be caught cheating. In that case, you have either telepathy, undetectable alien technology, or my hypothesis.
The last thing I would say has to do with the mentioned gap between B.I's performances and what the other players do: my hypothesis is that that corresponds to a similar gap between the study and training methods of B.I. compared to those of the other players.
As an illustration: if you wanted to learn to speak, read and write Mandarin Chinese having no previous knowledge of it, you could learn from DVD's and / or software. After N hours spent on that, you would be reasonably proficient. But if you spent those same N hours in China, totally immersed in the culture and society and refusing to use English at all, you would end up orders of magnitude better at all aspects of the language. That's why people do immersion language learning.
The question is, did B.I. really do "immersion" learning of Houdini / Rybka in the way he describes (basically giving up girlfriends and social life to do nothing but play against Houdini)? And if so, is he the only one who took it that far?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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?
Saying that Ivanov is a new breed of chess player that can intuitively play computer moves just doesn't make sense. He has, at some point, to calculate the variations. And he's obviously not doing that.
Do you actually play chess, Paul? That's an honest question. If you started playing chess more seriously, it would probably answer 90% of the absurdities that you come up with over here.
Saying that Ivanov is a new breed of chess player that can intuitively play computer moves just doesn't make sense. He has, at some point, to calculate the variations. And he's obviously not doing that.
Amadeus Mozart didn't make sense either. From Wikipedia: "Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood. Already competent on keyboard and violin, he composed from the age of five and performed before European royalty."
The fact is, even a one-in-a-million shot DOES appear. So Kenneth Regan saying the odds are a million-to-one against Ivanov being a real genius doesn't mean we totally discount him being a real genius.
Ivanov was a 2200-level player before any of this alleged cheating started occurring. So he HAS learned how to calculate variations. Whether he's doing that now is part of what everyone is wondering about. He apparently is at least trying to give the APPEARANCE of calculating variations. He's staying at the board, staring at the positions, etc. I'm not sure where you're getting "he's obviously not doing that". That seems a huge and unprovable presumption. Certainly a court of law would not allow that presumption.
And the other question is: if he isn't calculating variations, is he perhaps visualizing patterns? Calculation of variations is a computer engine skill; visualizing and evaluating patterns is a particular human skill. What I'm suggesting is that he has uniquely learned the patterns of Houdini / Rybka play.
It is fine if you believe that a 26-year-old who has already had some intensive chess exposure cannot engage in "immersion learning" against Houdini and come out of it with an ability to "think" like Houdini. But believing it doesn't make it true.
Be a scientist (and don't follow Felix Dumont's very poor example): conduct proper research and try to indisputably prove your hypothesis. As I've suggested, the only way to do this, given Ivanov's unique immersion approach, is to have many others emulate what he did and tabulate results. However, this would take at least 3 months of intensive immersion learning for the participants, something not likely to entice volunteers.
And even if none of the participants achieve Ivanov's results, that still leaves open the possibility that he is a unique learning genius. The fact that he was only 2200 level at chess might only indicate that the diversity of human opponents actually stunted his learning. But the constant and exclusive exposure to Houdini, day after day, month after month, may have triggered a learning based on pattern matching that he has a special skill for.
Statistics such as those of Kenneth Regan can only say that the odds of Ivanov achieving his results without cheating are a million to one. That's the number he has quoted in this thread.
But in human history, we have had million-to-one geniuses: I've already mentioned Amadeus Mozart. Albert Einstein, an even better example because he didn't really start showing his genius until his 20's (1905 has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis (miracle year), when he earned his PhD and published four groundbreaking papers, in his - coincidentally with Ivanov - 26th year).
Even today, there are a few teenage kids with PhDs in math or physics who could make your head spin.
It is not impossible that Ivanov is a budding chess genius. If he continues to play at Houdini levels, and no RF communication can be shown to be happening, then cheating is impossible. And...
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
You have left telepathy, undetectable alien communication technology, time travel, or budding chess genius who learned from Houdini. Out of these, the latter is the least improbable, especially given he did do immersive training against Houdini.
Preventing him from playing is possibly removing the greatest human chess player ever from chess because he's "too good".
Do you actually play chess, Paul? That's an honest question. If you started playing chess more seriously, it would probably answer 90% of the absurdities that you come up with over here.
I've never lost the pleasure of chess. The reason I left tournament and club chess in 1996 was that playing tournaments was giving me severe headaches. I didn't know openings, having not taken up chess until my 20's, so I had to calculate everything from the beginning, and most of my losses were in the opening. Most of my wins were come-from-behind: I learned to outplay in the middlegame and endgame. This still influences me now; it is why I am so against the entire memorization aspect of chess, and favor chess960 as a better test of chess creativity and calculation, and some other variants as even better for that purpose.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I didn't know openings, having not taken up chess until my 20's, so I had to calculate everything from the beginning, and most of my losses were in the opening. Most of my wins were come-from-behind: I learned to outplay in the middlegame and endgame. This still influences me now; it is why I am so against the entire memorization aspect of chess, and favor chess960 as a better test of chess creativity and calculation, and some other variants as even better for that purpose.
I never tried to memorize any long opening variations, and I don't think anybody has to do that below master level. And there is very little actual calculation in the opening, general opening principles should be more than good enough at amateur level. Of course, several amateurs memorize opening variations, but it is their choice.
I remember a 1000-rated guy who learned by heart a whole repertoire opening book, including many traps. When I refused to play the losing move (the only move considered in the book), he complained that I did not know the openings and said that I should have played the moved allowing him to win brilliantly.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Hi Paul. I haven't read all of your posts in this thread so please excuse me if I've overlooked something. Your basic position seems to be that a) Ivanov should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and b) it is not reasonable to assert guilt on the basis of probabilities that can't be calculated (not at this time, at least) with any accuracy. If I've understood you correctly, then I agree with you. Ivanov should be allowed to play - the onus should be on organizers/directors to prove guilt, not for Ivanov to have to prove innocence.
I happened across a bit of support for your position on p. 49 of the recent book 'Fighting Chess with Hikaru Nakamura'. The book's authors refer to a paper prepared by a Dr. Dirk Jordan, the title of which, translated into English, is: Some remarks on the discovery and development of talent in top-level chess. The authors say, "...according to Dr. Dirk Jordan, many of the representatives of this new generation owe the enormous progress in their playing strength to the rapidly developing exchange of information and the powerfully increased technical possibilities dependent on the ever-increasing spread of computers." Further, "...Hikaru Nakamura himself explained in his interview with Chess Chronicle (December 2005) that the explosion of grandmasters can clearly be attributed to computers..."
So, is it possible that there could be one individual (or more) who absorbs his computer learning particularly well and experiences a huge leap in his playing strength in a very short time frame? Why not? (until proven otherwise) Wasn't it Fischer who said something like, 'and then I just got strong', in reference to his huge jump from talented junior to gm?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Amadeus Mozart didn't make sense either. From Wikipedia: "Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood. Already competent on keyboard and violin, he composed from the age of five and performed before European royalty."
The young Mozart was very poor at actual composition. His father was arranging Mozart's early pieces, actually. He became good in his late teens early 20s, after hours and hours of practice. Bad exemple, IMO. Mozart had to learn how to do the hard work, he did not became good by this elusive concept of 'immersion'. That's a myth.
Chess calculation requires so much work to get the right answer that I don't think we'll ever see somebody learn to emulate chess engines simply by 'immersion'. A chess engine does not pop moves out of thin air, it calculates a ton of variations and select what looks to be the best move at a certain depth. Humans do the same thing, with much slower calculation and much higher selectivity.
Ivanov is clearly not doing any of this, especially in his rapid games where he pops computer moves at a constant rate. There's nothing to prove or disprove here. The simple explanation is that he's getting some outside help and that's what we should try to prove (or disprove) first.
In science, you always look for the simplest explanation first and if it doesn't work, then you look at more elaborate possibilities.
I didn't know openings, having not taken up chess until my 20's, so I had to calculate everything from the beginning, and most of my losses were in the opening.
As Louis wrote, if you are below master level, your losses are not from the opening. Or at least, not because of 'calculation' in the opening. It's too bad that calculation gives you headaches, otherwise you could probably enjoy chess much more than you actually do.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Paul Bonham likes to speculate on what hypothetical defense lawyers would argue in hypothetical courtrooms. I haven't spent much time in actual courtrooms myself but I would be rather surprised if a defense attorney tried something like, "Sure my client was the only other person in the locked room with the murdered victim BUT it was: the devil / a time traveller / someone with hypnotic or telekinetic powers / a space alien who was the real culprit! Prove me wrong!" I am thinking this would not be a very successful strategy. Not all "explanations" are equally credible.
"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.
Further, "...Hikaru Nakamura himself explained in his interview with Chess Chronicle (December 2005) that the explosion of grandmasters can clearly be attributed to computers..."
So, is it possible that there could be one individual (or more) who absorbs his computer learning particularly well and experiences a huge leap in his playing strength in a very short time frame? Why not? (until proven otherwise)
That's the point, actually. All the younger grandmasters that learned to play since the late 90s/early 2000s had access to computers. They all benefited from it and it shows in their games.
Thus, Ivanov is not the only guy to have been exposed to computers. All professional players (and a lot of amateurs!) were exposed as well and we never saw this magical 3000 elo player that can intuitively emulate a chess engine.
Saying that Ivanov is an alien that can calculate as fast as our computers is also a likely explanation. And it would not hold in court either.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
I don't think Ivanov is cheating. In two recent games presented on chessbase.com, where he defeated GM Kiril Georgiev and GM-elect Rombaldini, both losers stated that Ivanov never left the board during the game, so how could he be cheating!? He has apparently learned by playing Houdini for many hours, and the computer has 'taught' him to play strong moves. In the Rombaldini game, Ivanov played a new 8th move in a Stonewall Dutch, and Black just got ground down. Yet, Rombaldini maintains that Ivanov was cheating.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
You can play Houdini as much as you please, it won't give you superpowers, trust me. If Ivanov somehow proves he's not cheating, then the most likely theories would be he's whether an alien or a sorcerer, and only after several other quintillions of absurd theories, I would pay attention to Paul's one.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess
Nice to see titled players replying with their insights.
And Frank: the most likely explanation is that Ivanov has a device somewhere in his lower body that uses simple code to transmit moves back and forth with his accomplice.
The movie Casino by Scorcese actually showed two guys doing something similar for Black Jack, with one guy playing and the other peeking from behind at the dealer's cards.
Tweet
Comment