Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

I don't think that cheating necessarily requires leaving the board...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

I don't think that cheating necessarily requires leaving the board...

I was looking at the 2012 game with Kurajika which is one in the set I dloaded. I thought move 10 by Ivanov, 10 RXa3 was interesting. Black's 12. .. e5 didn't look like the best try. After 15. Qh6 white stands good and my copy of stockfish gives it a +1.69 at 22 plies.

At move 18 black hasn't move his queen rook or queen knight. So white attacked there and got a pretty good game. One which almost played itself. The game lasted 35 moves but black could have resigned earlier.

So the question if he used a computer program? I don't know why a 2200+ player would need one in view of his opponents play.



[Event "19th Zadar Open A"]
[Site "Zadar CRO"]
[Date "2012.12.17"]
[Round "3.12"]
[White "Ivanov, Bor BUL"]
[Black "Kurajica, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E11"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2565"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2012.12.16"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "CRO"]
[Source " "]
[SourceDate "2012.12.24"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5 5. Bxb4 cxb4 6. Bg2 O-O 7. Nf3 d6 8.
O-O Qe7 9. a3 bxa3 10. Rxa3 b6 11. Nc3 Bb7 12. d5 e5 13. Nh4 g6 14. Qd2 Nh5 15.
Qh6 f5 16. e4 Ng7 17. exf5 gxf5 18. Nb5 Rf6 19. Qg5 Qf7 20. Rxa7 Rxa7 21. Nxa7
f4 22. Ra1 Na6 23. Nc6 Bc8 24. Nf5 Bxf5 25. Rxa6 h6 26. Qh4 Bd3 27. Rxb6 e4 28.
Rb7 Qxb7 29. Qxf6 e3 30. fxe3 fxe3 31. Ne7+ Kh7 32. Qf8 h5 33. Qg8+ Kh6 34.
Qh8+ Bh7 35. Be4 1-0

[John Coleman]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

I suspect Black was using a computer, maybe a Commodore 64

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

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.

But still, Mathieu, even though it seems highly improbable, it is at least possible that there could be one or more players for whom the computer interaction produces a very dramatic improvement in their playing strength over a relatively short time frame. Even if the odds were a million to one against such an occurrence (somebody in this thread mentioned a million to one), there would still be at least 7,000 people in the world for whom the Ivanov situation would be a possibility.

In any event, the main point I wanted to make was that we shouldn't be convicting someone without any hard evidence - in this case, catching Ivanov in the act. Catching Ivanov, if he's cheating, would be beneficial for the chess world; one more cheating technique exposed and therefore no longer useful to other cheaters.

Here's something interesting that Sammy Reshevsky wrote:

"When I was a child prodigy many years ago, chess players were amazed at the ease and accuracy of my play against the veritable giants of chessdom. To be perfectly frank, I was no less amazed, and I have thought about this over and over again. What was it that I had which has been variously described as talent or genius or the divine afflatus which enabled me to select the proper move or line in a given situation? The answer to this question, of course, should prove enlightening. I discovered that I had the happy faculty of being able to spot weak and strong points in a position merely by a glance at its contour. Having done so, I could go on to the next step and enhance my strong points, while surveying my weak ones and/or contain my opponent's strong points and exploit his weak ones. [para.] I fear that I cannot account for this fortuitous bounty. I do know, however, that the foundation of chess logic is the perception of weak and strong points on the board or projected a few moves from possibility to reality." - S. Reshevsky, 'Point Count Chess' 1960

Now, just for the sake of discussion, what if Ivanov had the same potential for prodigious play that Reshevsky had but, for whatever reason, the events required to trigger his chess genius didn't happen when he was 4 or 5 years old, as they did for Reshevsky. What if the events needed to trigger Ivanov's genius only happened recently as a result of his study with the best chess software? I know this doesn't prove anything; I'm just saying catch Ivanov cheating first, then convict him.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

First, I don't know if Reshevsky is a good example either. This guy played thousands of games at an early age. This is training, not some form of god-given talent.

He was intuitive by style, yes, a little bit like Mikhail Tal or Paul Morphy. These guys could produce brillancies that were hard to explain on the spot. But Reshevsky could give a plausible explanation for his positional feelings (spoting weak and strong squares rapidly).

We're dealing with something completly different here. Ivanov is, literally, producing computer moves. And some of these are anything but intuitive. They are the product of calculations well beyond our physiological capacity. And his only explanation is that he trained with a computer until he could beat the engines 10-0.

Come on. The guy smells fraud all the way.

[Tom O'Donnell]

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!? ...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Eudaemonic.../dp/0595142362

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

The one I had that I liked the best was the Commodore SX-64. It had the computer, screen and disk drive built into one case. The drive was sturdy and the unit held up very well.

I don't think black had a reasonable chance of winning that game from around move 20 and I think he knew that. While I have no idea if white was using a computer, I can't see why he'd have to use one. I didn't see anything brilliant. Only an advantage which was converted to a win.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Keeping off-topic:

What do the Commodore 64 and The Littlest Hobo have in common?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvCeQhfv7dM

[Garland Best]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

My computer David and Goliath moment - 1985, and my Sinclair ZX81 with 16k RAM pack beats a C64 running Sargon III in a chess game.

Anyone remember the ZX81? The screen had to blank out while it was thinking.

Ahhh memories...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

I had my Commodore 64 hooked up to two SFD 1001 drives via an IEEE connection. Used it to run a BBS. Each drive had a 1 MB floppy. A lot of storage for the times.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

And his only explanation is that he trained with a computer until he could beat the engines 10-0. Come on. The guy smells fraud all the way.

I did not know about this. So why not ask him to do this in public? Why not arrange an official 10-game match between Mr. Ivanov and Houdini? He could hardly refuse, because if he can actually beat Houdini with an overwelming score, this is a clear indication that he is NOT cheating (any cheating would only produce a 5-5 score or a close match).

[David Gordon]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Yep ZX81 Sinclair was my first computer. I used to program in basic and had to press enter after completing each line of code. Each line of code also needed a number at the beginning so the computer would know which line of code to run first. Then I used a Cassette Tape recorder to record my programs. I think I was about 10 years old at the time. Everytime I wanted to "load" a program from my tape to the ZX81 I had to do something with the computer and hit play on the cassette recorder. It made an awful screeching sound while loading until it was done.

[Garland Best]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Borislav Ivanov and Rapid Chess

Remember how the memory was so limited that if your program got too large, text would disappear one character at a time at the bottom of the screen?
My favorite effect in a game was one where a (0) represented a tie fighter on the screen, and you had to type its co-ordinates (H9 or A3) in time. Otherwise it shot and to simulate getting hit it would blank the screen on and off.

[Paul Bonham]

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.

Come on, Tom, you're better than that. The only thing I'm speculating a defense lawyer would argue right now is that Ivanov has found himself specially gifted to learn to play like Houdini in all situations by means of immersion training against Houdini. I'm speculating that because that is what Ivanov himself is claiming in so many words.

The whole telepathy / alien technology / time travel bit is what you are left with if (1) no RF emissions can be detected during Ivanov's matches, plus no physical signalling, and (2) we simply deny that Ivanov could be a learning genius. If you have other more plausible explanations that don't involve either RF communication nor physical signalling, please indulge us.

So it comes down to this: to prove cheating, you MUST prove some means of communication.

Otherwise it's telepathy or aliens or time travel or learning genius. I know which of those 4 I'd pick as most likely and believable.

[Paul Bonham]

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?

Yes, Peter, you do understand me correctly. It's nice to see someone else with common sense.

And it's important to note that nowhere do I claim Ivanov is innocent of cheating. It is quite simple to prove his innocence or guilt with the use of RF frequence scanners, but nobody is taking this step.

I'm starting to wonder if the chess establishment is afraid Ivanov may be the real deal. Their worst fear would be that he's not even something special: that anyone of reasonable chess strength, say 2200, could simply take 3 to 6 months and during that time completely shut themself off from all social activities (no girlfriends / boyfriends, no Facebook) and do nothing but play chess against Houdini, as many games as can be fit into a day, every day on end, until you can dominate Houdini or at least hold equal.

I see Anton Kovalyov has posted that this is not possible. "Trust me," he writes. Maybe he's tried it, who knows. Even if he has and failed, it only proves it doesn't work for HIM. For him to extrapolate that to everyone else is... well, I think it's jealousy of Ivanov, but at the very least it's unscientific and irresponsible. He'd rather believe Ivanov is an alien. I think that says much more about Kovalyov that it does about the actual Ivanov learning theory.

Can you imagine if it turns out Ivanov has found the magic charm for chess masters to turn themselves into human Houdinis? It means the future of competitive chess is for everyone to become Houdini-like, and that means a future full of dull, dreary 150-move draws or technical wins, with no tactics whatsoever. That is a death knell for competitive chess at the elite level.

FIDE will be forced to change the rules of the game and introduce something of a random nature into the game.

What I think will happen is the chess establishment will refuse to do the RF test for fear of this scenario, and instead, they just encourage this route of suspending Ivanov, of GMs refusing to play him... basically squeeze him out of chess, and leave the real answer "out there". That seems to be their safest route because as this thread shows, most are willing to just proclaim him guilty despite a void of evidence (which is a scary commentary on current society).

(Cue Rolling Stones "Gimme Shelter"... "It's just a shot away")

Look at Mathieu Cloutier: dissing Mozart, dissing Reshevesky, calling their prodigic talents "a myth", and with no backing evidence, a la Felix Dumont. He simply WON'T believe anything but what he believes now. The cult of chess creates... cultists.

The only thing that would expose this further is if others, many others, took up Ivanov's actions and a sizeable fraction of them achieved the same results. But that takes dedication.

On the optimistic front, there's a LOT of unemployed youth in Europe.... of which many may be 2200 strength in chess.... a lot of time on their hands.... Ivanov is young and they can identify with him... 3000+ level chess engines are freely available...

The genie may be out of the bottle.