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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
I certainly did not mean to support Paul. I meant that such "cheating reports" should be made by people who do understand chess, and things like Felix and Tom mentioned should be included, specially these key moves part that analyzes a specific move and why it is so unlikely it can be found by a human (this again can only be done by someone who has decent chess understanding). Also factors such as previous performances, playing style, whether the suspect plays each move at the same time rate, etc... can be important. Thus I think the proof against Borislav Ivanov is too overwhelming, but I don't think it matters anymore, no organizer will let him play anymore.
From what I've read in some of Paul posts I am quite convinced he barely knows the basic rules of chess, but yet he argues about things he doesn't understand.
Thanks for a well reasoned post. I have read Ken Reagan's analysis of the Ivanov situation and cannot dispute the analysis, but I am not comfortable with the conclusion (that Ivanov MUST be cheating). I have a hard time believing someone without assistance can suddenly play several hundreds of points above their rating - especially when we are talking about players who have a well established existing rating above (say) 2200. I dont believe anyone has demonstrated the ability to mimic a computer program (nor can I understand how that knowledge could be achieved in even a very long time). I do like Paul Bonham's suggestion of RF detection devices but I don't know enough about them to comment - if it can be done at a reasonable cost - to protect top level tournaments (at least the playing area) then I think it is reasonable to do so. In the meantime, Ivanov has NOT been found guilty of anything other than thumbing his nose at the BCF and their kangaroo court and should be allowed to play. The arbiter can forfeit people who refuse to play him - provided reasonable efforts are made to prevent access to devices and to detect the use of devices (wanding at a security pass-thru, passive detectors, random pocket dumping etc.
Thanks for a well reasoned post. I have read Ken Reagan's analysis of the Ivanov situation and cannot dispute the analysis, but I am not comfortable with the conclusion (that Ivanov MUST be cheating). I have a hard time believing someone without assistance can suddenly play several hundreds of points above their rating - especially when we are talking about players who have a well established existing rating above (say) 2200. I dont believe anyone has demonstrated the ability to mimic a computer program (nor can I understand how that knowledge could be achieved in even a very long time). I do like Paul Bonham's suggestion of RF detection devices but I don't know enough about them to comment - if it can be done at a reasonable cost - to protect top level tournaments (at least the playing area) then I think it is reasonable to do so. In the meantime, Ivanov has NOT been found guilty of anything other than thumbing his nose at the BCF and their kangaroo court and should be allowed to play. The arbiter can forfeit people who refuse to play him - provided reasonable efforts are made to prevent access to devices and to detect the use of devices (wanding at a security pass-thru, passive detectors, random pocket dumping etc.
Guilt by statistics strikes me as laughable.
How would you feel if you are a 2500 GM and you have to face Borislav Ivanov in order to make end's meet? Technically speaking there's no proof against Ivanov but the amount of suspicion and evidence from his games and recent history alone should deter you from thinking he's playing without computer assistance. If he can beat Houdini 10-0, he can probably smash anyone if he wants to.
I certainly did not mean to support Paul. I meant that such "cheating reports" should be made by people who do understand chess, and things like Felix and Tom mentioned should be included, specially these key moves part that analyzes a specific move and why it is so unlikely it can be found by a human (this again can only be done by someone who has decent chess understanding).
A big hand clap to our local GM for highlithing some of the fundamental concepts in these chess cheating scandals. My level of play is nowhere near that of a GM but I can sure understand how and why it's impossible for 1900 players to sustainably produce 2600 quality moves.
As I noted in the the Borislav Ivanov "cheat thread", probabilistic evidence is very common. This sort of language is even used when, strictly speaking, no exact percentages are given. "On the balance of probabilities", said one Canadian civil servant, "so-and-so is not a competent parent." And, on the basis of their expertise (and the expertise of others in agreement), a child is taken away from her mother. Happens all the time in this country and, with minor language changes, in dozens of others. And it happens with all sorts of cases and circumstances.
But you're welcome to retain your opinion. I might caution you, however, that DNA evidence is ALSO given in terms of probabilities, so I guess you must be in favour of jettisoning that sort of evidence as well?
Good luck with that. I'm sure David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow and others who spent decades in jail for wrongful convictions in Canada will be happy to go ... back to jail. After all, they were freed based on DNA evidence. To hell with probabilistic nonsense, eh?
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Wednesday, 14th August, 2013, 10:15 PM.
Reason: more precise wording, examples
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
...and things like Felix and Tom mentioned should be included, specially these key moves part that analyzes a specific move and why it is so unlikely it can be found by a human (this again can only be done by someone who has decent chess understanding).
Did it ever occur to you that if someone who has decent chess understanding can analyze a specific move and say, "That can only be a computer move", someone else with decent chess understanding (Ivanov, 2300 level) can analyze that same move over the board, say to himself "That can only be a computer move", and then... MAKE THE MOVE.
It's called "thinking out of the box". Ivanov may simply be the first person to realize something hidden from everyone else: if you play like a computer without cheating, you win like a computer (against humans).
Remember the story of Christopher Columbus, how he watched ships heading out to sea and saw that they slowly appeared to sink below the sea level, and realized... the earth was round. Supposedly no one else made that connection.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Wednesday, 14th August, 2013, 10:21 PM.
Reason: clarification
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Remember the story of Christopher Columbus, how he watched ships heading out to sea and saw that they slowly appeared to sink below the sea level, and realized... the earth was round. Supposedly no one else made that connection.
Please, go and read not only about chess but geography-history too. Columbus was not the first person who had ideas about the spherical Earth.
Remember the story of Christopher Columbus, how he watched ships heading out to sea and saw that they slowly appeared to sink below the sea level, and realized... the earth was round. Supposedly no one else made that connection.
With chess engines it's called the horizon effect.
As I noted in the the Borislav Ivanov "cheat thread", probabilistic evidence is very common. This sort of language is even used when, strictly speaking, no exact percentages are given. "On the balance of probabilities", said one Canadian civil servant, "so-and-so is not a competent parent." And, on the basis of their expertise (and the expertise of others in agreement), a child is taken away from her mother. Happens all the time in this country and, with minor language changes, in dozens of others. And it happens with all sorts of cases and circumstances.
But you're welcome to retain your opinion. I might caution you, however, that DNA evidence is ALSO given in terms of probabilities, so I guess you must be in favour of jettisoning that sort of evidence as well?
Good luck with that. I'm sure David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow and others who spent decades in jail for wrongful convictions in Canada will be happy to go ... back to jail. After all, they were freed based on DNA evidence. To hell with probabilistic nonsense, eh?
I think there is a huge difference between the statistical 'evidence' of DNA or fingerprints and that of the correlation of Ivanov's moves with Houdini. I'm sorry you couldn't make that connection. Perhaps I have to include lots of weasel words in every post? Adjectives to temper every statement so that it is indisputable from any angle? I really don't give a shit whether Ivanov ever plays again. My opinion is that the statistical inference made by Reagan and others is too weak for such an absolute pronouncement. That is my opinion based on nothing more than what I think (at this moment).
How would you feel if you are a 2500 GM and you have to face Borislav Ivanov in order to make end's meet? Technically speaking there's no proof against Ivanov but the amount of suspicion and evidence from his games and recent history alone should deter you from thinking he's playing without computer assistance. If he can beat Houdini 10-0, he can probably smash anyone if he wants to.
I understood that Ivanov claimed he could beat Houdini 10-0, but I don't recall him doing that... Of course a 2500 GM losing to him would be a sore loser and refusing to play him only because he is suspected of cheating is really pathetic I think. Note that I suggested that organizers who DO permit him to play should make sure that they have in place detection methods (at least some of the suggested ones) and they provide reasonable safeguards against the use of electronic devices or other aids. If they do that and someone refuses to play then they should forfeit.
I find it hard to believe he ISN'T cheating (somehow) in some of those games, but the hysteria about it and the knee-jerk reactions to it are over the top. If it was against me, I suppose I might feel the same - I don't know since I am about 2000 away from 2500.
With chess engines it's called the horizon effect.
Which can only mean... chess games are actually played on a sphere! The starting position is illegal, because the Kings are adjacent (and both in check).
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Which can only mean... chess games are actually played on a sphere! The starting position is illegal, because the Kings are adjacent (and both in check).
There is another variant you can propose. It should be at least as popular as the last one you proposed (or have you? - sorry, maybe I missed the announcement?)
As I noted in the the Borislav Ivanov "cheat thread", probabilistic evidence is very common. This sort of language is even used when, strictly speaking, no exact percentages are given. "On the balance of probabilities", said one Canadian civil servant, "so-and-so is not a competent parent." And, on the basis of their expertise (and the expertise of others in agreement), a child is taken away from her mother. Happens all the time in this country and, with minor language changes, in dozens of others. And it happens with all sorts of cases and circumstances.
The fact that it happens doesn't make it right... or laughable. But you obviously approve and appear to want to extend the "balance of probabilities" even further. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The fact that it happens doesn't make it right... or laughable. But you obviously approve and appear to want to extend the "balance of probabilities" even further. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU.
EVERYTHING in the scientific/engineering domain is based on statistics and probability. Do we know 100% the speed of light, no. But do we know it to a high degree of probability ? Yes.
"All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. I'm sure we can find some probabilities that apply to YOU"
What on earth are you talking about. Either you do have something statistically true to a high probability (that doesn't break the laws of probability) or you don't, it's not a question of being able to "find" something on a whim. If you are able to find every chess player guilty of cheating through your "analysis", it is your analysis and premises that are flawed. Not the laws of probability.
Tweet
Comment