Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Laugh away.

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.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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?)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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.

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.
-- George Santayana

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Laugh away.

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).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

...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.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Guilt by statistics strikes me as laughable.

Laugh away.

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?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: 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).

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.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

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.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: 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.

Guilt by statistics strikes me as laughable.

[Dan Scoones]

Re: Chess Cheating on Superficial Evidence: Time to Put Up or Shut Up

how about just do away with money prizes, reduce incentive to cheat at any one event

Take away the money prizes and people will still cheat in order to gain rating points and achieve titles.

[Kovalyov Anton]

Re: 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.