Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Here is the thing about theory in chess; it is thoroughly tested before it becomes accepted as mainline theory. These are not novelty lines or one off uses. What theory actually is; is the best move, or series of moves for a specific position. Now, theory is refuted all the time, especially opening theory but, those lines are included in books because they can be used upon an unwary or unsuspecting opponent.

A very good example of a very tested opening with a lot of theory is the Petroff's Defense. This is an opening GM's play when they are looking for a draw, or only need a draw. In many of it's lines, because it has been played so much, the result is almost always a draw at high level play. In many ways this opening hasn't seen a lot of theoretical improvement because deviating from the established "best moves" almost always results in an inferior position or an outright losing one.

Anyhow, theory for chess is not the same as say, the theory of flight. Current theory for chess is the result of hundreds of years and millions of games. It is always evolving and growing and master level players must be aware of this.

Xanex:
Don't know how else to say it but evidently chess is serious buisness!

Ninja'd. But seriosuly, this is hilarious. Even if he did cheat, chess players are so butthurt over losing to computer, that it's really sad in a funny kind of way. While I never was more than an occasional player (and didn't play in many years now) I never had any qualms about losing to AI. I could never beat those fuckers anyway. I could beat real people that beat AI but the same AI that was badly beaten by a player I beat would destroy me...

Treblaine:
Chess used to be considered the pinnacle of thought

I always wondered about this mentality with shougi and go being around...

He's doping.

Give him a few months and he'll confess all to Oprah.

DoPo:

weirdguy:
they may have to check to see if he's a robot

That got me thinking - what if he is? Is there a rule that only living people can be in the tournament? Imagine that "Sir, we just found out that half the people on the tournament are robots, what do we do?

actually yes, the tournament was open to grandmasters, this implies humans. Symbiotes, cyborgs and Computers all run code to perform tasks which gives them distinct advantages (or disadvantages) over human competitors. Chess like poker is both mathematical and intuitive. The latter skill a handicap that can be exploited by grandmasters which computers do not have.

dpak:

Secondly, there is no such thing as statistical proof of cheating.

Chess isn't only a number Game. And its very easy to analyze previous games styles of players and come up with games styles. The human element. Whats more likely? That an average chess master increased his IQ by 40 points and now beats grandmasters? or there's an elephant in the room? Chess is as old as civilization itself. we know every single way to play the game. All we do now is refine endings, openings and theories. And this mans predecessors didn't display this sort of jump in potential mid life (hell even the plasticity of the brain decreases as you get older i.e. the ability to learn new things)

The Wykydtron:

Maybe he just studied the best chess playing computer patterns towards all the chess strats and learned/copied them from memory.

Right, because no one's ever tried that before....derp. How do you think you become a grandmaster? Everyone studies my friend. The C- High school student doesn't suddenly start performing better than a NASA enegineer because he "studied harder" Lolwut?!

DiamanteGeeza:
He's doping.

Give him a few months and he'll confess all to Oprah.

I concurr =p

Either way I'd like to know how this plays out. Lots of people cheat at chess. He's probably just found a way to perfect it.

There are only a couple people here who've demonstrated a likely background in chess, and I would encourage others to listen more than speak when they're dealing with a topic they actually have no background in, or, as in my case, at least defer to those with the requisite experience and acknowledge our own limitations. Of course, this is the internet, so the opposite approach is the norm. I'm speaking as someone with only a very limited background in professional chess who had quite similar misgivings about the suggestion of foul play. Of course my initial reaction to the accusations of cheating was that a bunch reactionary, grumpy old farts were angry that this new guy discovered the secret new training method that has all the chess doctors angry (lol internet ad), but after hearing from DoPo and electric method I was encouraged to look into it myself. The game analysis DoPo posted (and the response video linked in its description on youtube) was very informative and those, along with a couple trips to some chess forums for a little additional reading convinced me of the improbability of someone accomplishing this without some illicit aide. Specifically, when that video examines specific moves and describes how and why humans would be unlikely to make such moves, the point really comes through.

Look, it's a common reaction in situations where we don't really know what people are talking about to try and establish a comparison to something we -do- know, but that approach almost always leads to us trying to compare apples to oranges and asserting a false equivalence. I don't think anyone here is saying that they know beyond any doubt this guy cheated, but it's really not looking good on the "reasonable" doubt front. The odds of someone suddenly being able to play like a computer would to such a great extent beyond what other players have been able to accomplish, and to then use that type of play to perform so uncharacteristically well appear so minuscule that, at the very least, our default assumption SHOULD be that he cheated. This isn't a courtroom; nobody's going to jail if we're wrong, but we'd be fools to bet against the claim of cheating. The odds just don't swing that way.

What's apparent from this instance is that professional-level chess needs to adapt and find ways to prevent repeat occurrences, because if they don't it will keep happening. Whether that involves building transmission-proof rooms or using jammers or having the damned players go at it naked, there needs to be a new standard for this, and it needs to start with a conversation between players and organizers about where the line for intrusiveness goes. Being such a "civilized" and storied game, chess has, it seems, lagged behind in keeping up with modern cheating efforts. I think we all agree that needs to be remedied.

I never thought it was possible to cheat at Chess. You learn something new everyday I suppose.

Garrett:

Treblaine:
Chess used to be considered the pinnacle of thought

I always wondered about this mentality with shougi and go being around...

Shogi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi

hitheremynameisbob:
I don't think anyone here is saying that they know beyond any doubt this guy cheated, but it's really not looking good on the "reasonable" doubt front.

Still condemning the man without evidence. Without even trying to look for evidence or even admitting that evidence would be desirable.

Look, these Chess tournaments can just go on as they might have been with a nice relaxed laissez-faire attitude, and not put any effort into preventing anything but overt cheating and not being particularly concerned if it could be happening unless it's super obvious and proof is right there. It's just a game after all, shake hands afterwards and just depend on good sportsmanship.

Or they can take it seriously with actual measures to prevent the player making outside communications, such as discrete screening which will add to the player's privacy and surely enhance their concentration as well as eliminate any worry on their mind of possible outside communication. And other simple methods like asking them to take off their shoes before or after a tournament.

What they can't do is have it both ways, do nothing to help prove their players are not cheating then become grand inquisitors accusing people of cheating based on spurious and subjective interpretation of player trends.

Because at the moment they are putting EVERY SINGLE CONTENDER'S REPUTATION in jeopardy to be accused of cheating if they happen to perform too well in the wrong way, and no mechanism to dispel accusations of cheating.

You work around something long enough you tend to emulate it. Maybe he just got better?

Next time just shoot them all with an EMP pulse cannon.

problem solved

:genius:

DoPo:
snip

Thanks for the video. It's kind of interesting, how he matched up with the engine perfectly at times. What did you think about this?

Once again, thanks for the video, DoPo. :-)

Viking Incognito:
I never thought it was possible to cheat at Chess. You learn something new everyday I suppose.

MegaManOfNumbers:
....

Hold on, how the hell do you cheat at chess? Unless your fucking psychic or robotic, that shouldn't even be possible.

Use an analysis engine. It's damned good at tactics, but will fail you in the endgame (something that any Grand Master worth their rank already is damned good at). Due to digital notetaking, it's possible that a person could have it running in the background while he's playing the game and notating his moves.

Treblaine:

electric method:
trying to apply math to how a GM approaches chess isn't quite a good idea.

Yes, on the surface - to someone who has never really tried it - it may seem that way.

Have you ever played chess against a computer and compared it to a person? You cannot simply think chess algorithms and beat a game that relies on tactics: advanced ones at that.

Computer's way of thinking[1] =/= Human brain's way of thinking

But attaching giant fan to an oversized kite and riding the thing over the Kittyhawk dunes expecting the thing to fly equally "isn't quite a good idea", yet controlled flight was invented in America thinks to some Brothers trying precisely that. All aeroplane control systems descend from their solution to the flying problem.

And you know what, when they first did it EVERYONE thought they were frauds. They thought it was all faked, it was all a marketing stunt, and they said it was categorically impossible for them to succeed where other inventors with the funding of rich Industrialists and monarchies had repeatedly failed.

I don't want to be the modern equivalent of the person who called the Wright Brothers frauds, not over a matter of evidence, but refusal to recognise such lowly ones could achieve above that of the elites.

However he won, he deserves the respect and honour of all his victories till it is proven that he cheated.

Invalid, invalid comparison. Chess has been around for a couple thousand years (and has been refined quite a bit) while flight as we know it has been around 100 years. Also worth noting is that the Wright Brothers were the first known successful people to build a plane. Try again.

Going back to the Wright Brother's achievement, there were entire libraries full of books on aerodynamics that the Wright Brothers consulted.

Turns out it was a whole load of writing but most of it was useless, all the complexities and theories weren't backed up and over-complicated the problem. Over complicated. If it takes 800 pages to summarise your opening strategy, then that is such a fiendishly convoluted strategy it's always going to favour the raw power of a machine.

There's no such thing as useless information. Everything has it's place, especially in books like those. The reason that they were 'worthless' as they gave too much information not relevant to them (Wright brothers). And just because information is worthless to you doesn't mean it's worthless for other people.

What if he's not trying to think like a machine, but think like a human.

Right then, he's cheating (if a guy makes moves that SOMEHOW manage to match up with a chess analysis engine and be the best recommended move, he's cheating) to think like a human?

image

What are you trying to imply here? I'm genuinely confused.

Remember, this guy designs chess-beating computer algorithms, he knows chess.

Computers do not think the same way as humans. Computers are quite dumb at assumptions, while the human brain is a master at assumptions. It's what makes developing software of any kind a nightmare; learning the programming languages may be easy, but telling the computer that you want X output is the difficult part.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Old elites all reading the same same 800-page books thinking in the same way have been made fools of before...

You seem to miss that a good part of chess is improving previous strategies to try something new. And ever heard of the phrase, "old is gold"? Sometimes the old stuff is the best as it has survived the times.

[1] Such a misnomer, think calculating if you really are picky. I just needed something to explain it better.

WWmelb:
Could it be that, as a COMPUTER CHESS PROGRAMMER he may have devised a relatively easy (for him anyway) algorithm or some such to think somewhat like a computer?

I don't see why this is implausible.

I think its kind of disgusting that because egos he must be cheating because he can't possibly have improved to win a couple of games against GMs.

Or maybe he just had a string of good luck?

How about innocent until proven guilty? How about any physical evidence that he was cheating? No there isn't any?

I know it because it's "just a chess tournament" but imagine shit like this was pulled in a high profile sport? OMG this basketball player is so good he must be on drugs. Lets figure out a way to prove his on drugs, even though there isn't any real evidence that he is...

Much the same and would cause a fucking UPROAR.

Oh well, maybe i'm reading too much into it

But when he only loses when the games are not broadcast live??? If he won when the cameras were off, fine.

Something smells fishy in Denmark.

thesilentman:

DoPo:
snip

Thanks for the video. It's kind of interesting, how he matched up with the engine perfectly at times. What did you think about this?

It's damn suspicious at best, is what I think. I mean, coupled with the fact that he came second just a couple of months ago in a torunament between Bulgarian universities, then...it gets worse. It's an improvement that's beyond remarkable for a mere month. Oh sure, Ivanov has had first places in tournaments but none of them featured grand masters - they were mostly amateur level and Balkan ones - the tournament in Zadar is really on higher level than those. He can compete there (as he has before) but with a consistent track record of being good but not the best (first and second places in smaller tournaments, some perfect wins, sure, some not) beating chess masters somehow doesn't seem that believable.

And I've got no idea where that "chess programmer" came from. I'd assume it's probably a slight mistranslation of what the Croatian (or other?) media have said (it was probably originally something like "chess player who is a computer programmer" but turned into "chess programmer") - the Bulgarian media makes absolutely no mention of that being the case (except in two instances, where they just translated the piece of news word for word, so it can be ignored) and there is no other evidence anywhere of that being the case. He is referred to as a programmer but no mention what he works on. Other Google searches turn up a Borislav Ivanov who is a web developer but I'm thinking it's a different person. Ivanov, the chess player, could be doing stuff with chess software but that would clearly be on the side and not his actual profession.

Also, I feel somewhat bad for saying this, but if he is really that good and capable of that level of improvement, I don't see why he's studying in the university he's currently in. It's not the worse by any stretch but incredibly mediocre. Maybe slightly leaning on the side of bad but I am not sure how the pedagogy is actually, might be one of their better courses. However, it's another thing I am not quite confident but I still I'll bring forth - he's doing pedagogy there, and started this year. I dunno, for a person with talent, that seems like quite an underachievement - a very mediocre course in a very mediocre university.

Wait, who even has the authority to strip search a person over allegations of "chess cheating"? This doesn't seem like something the police would be involved with, so either he agreed to it I guess or some random "chess authorities" are facing some sexual harassment I think....

I confess, as someone who spends only a small amount of time around chessboards and considerably more time tinkering with electronic devices that can transmit data in discreet and indiscreet manners, this starts to resemble one of those locked-room mystery novels, which ends up fascinating me on a very basic 'whodunit' level. Or perhaps 'howdunit' might be a better phrase.

We have here an individual whose behavior, while enormously suspect, has no hard evidence behind it to justify those suspicions. There's correlations, including the parallels with Houdini's move determination and the broadcast failure, but no hard proof of causation. The interesting question, to me, isn't 'did he cheat?' but 'how would he cheat?' What ways could he accomplish the discreet transmission of data necessary, relayed between himself and a theoretical accomplice, digital or otherwise?

The correlations already suggest someone with familiarity with the Houdini engine, but that's conjecture. Using it as the basis, we have make a few assumptions; live televising with no delay in the broadcast or at least the presence of someone who could read and convey the actions quickly, reasonable transmission range and medium, etc. etc.

Operating on the notion that there's something mechanical involved, it has to be extremely discreet. As most 'silent' vibration systems in our electronics are operated via mechanical means, via gearing, reciprocation, or some other similar function, this obviously makes a relatively small amount of noise, just as a rule. This can be muffled however, but being able to quickly and discreetly, discretely read Morse code on the fly can be tricky enough (though being limited to only a handful of letters and numbers simplifies matters somewhat), and any means of transmission would be highly suspect.

The failure in the match that was not broadcast in turn casts doubt on the use of a system with more than one accomplice or the presence of said accomplice at the same match. Beyond that, I suspect that anyone breaking out a cell phone or other signal reception/transmission device at such a match would be ejected with haste.

The failure at the 100 move mark mentioned before suggests a small or inefficient battery system. Phone batteries sound optimal on the first hand, but depending on the manufacturer and model there's some degree of camouflaging difficulties. Using a coin or button cell battery sounds like a better idea, but I suspect those are probably not going to provide the same degree of longevity alongside some kind of mechanical device.

For discretion's sake, a likely cheat would use a tactile device; the feet would be an obvious choice for such a device as the feet are both sensitive enough to discern between 'dots' and 'dashes' in Morse as well as often surrounded by an article of clothing that would not be as likely to be checked. A simple telegraph-like system hidden in the sole of the shoe, tapping at the sole of the foot in turn, is not an impossibility, though finding an actuator small enough may be an issue and a simple electromagnet would probably be out of the question. Still, not entirely impossible.

I'm most curious on the matter of reception. If it's a battery powered device, what's powering its theoretical antenna? Furthermore, due to such strong correlation of Houdini to Ivanov's moves (A reported 98%! I've known more than a few people couldn't match that in audio cues), it seems like he wasn't getting reception issues more than once or twice as a result. Other locations, such as the back, are poor in regards to tactile sensory input and would probably have led to lower move correlation, based on the previous operating assumptions.

I'm wondering what he could have hidden and where; in this case, perhaps the careful gutting of a very small phone, and a system to receive from his accomplice. However, even the smaller phones I can imagine that would be cheap and easy to take apart and modify, such as the LG 300g, battery life doesn't seem like it should be an issue, unless he was very inefficient in the build...not impossible, since he's a programmer, not an engineer (and engineers aren't exempt either).

While a Faraday cage would probably be the end of this potential scandal in the making, solutions will vary in difficulty and cost. Above and beyond the simple measure to turn out the pockets and examine pens and other articles in detail, they could always lose their minds just a little bit and offer a pair of comfortable, warm fuzzy slippers to all participants in the tournament and mandate their use, but I imagine that could be seen as a slippery slope to chess in hospital gowns.

Ok, I am not quoting here... it would end in a massive huge wall of text and what I am going to type is probably going to be, uh, longish. Thank you to all who quoted me or referenced something I said. For Hitheremynameisbob, Chess is a wonderfully intricate and interesting game. Understanding it at a master level may take years but, is a worthwhile investment. I haven't, as of yet, looked at the review/post-mortem of the game posted yet as I have been very ill lately. However, I expect to find that the player in question played best moves per ply. In case you are wondering 1 ply is one move. Computers tend to do this in open or extremely sharp positions. This is true even after years of development of chess engines. The why's are extremely long and get techincal fast and I'd end up losing most of you in the explination.

For Treblaine, I am going to use an example of cheating that did not involve a computer but, happened none-the-less at an otb tournament about 10 or so years ago. This was a game between juniors with the names of Sam and Dane (last names omitted for obvious reasons). What happened is this, Dane was an up and coming intermediate player Sam was very close to breaking into the master level of play. Over the course of the game Sam obtained a losing position and when Dane walked away from the board to get additional score sheets Sam moved one of his pieces to obtain a winning position. Sam went on to win the game costing Dane a prize. Ultimately his foul play was discovered and was stripped of the win. Point here being that cheating happened before, and will continue to happen in OTB play.

The thing about Comp Assisted play is that it can be easily detected in the opening at lower levels as computers tend to not play theory (mainline) unless instructed to do so. They will either play best ply moves or oddball theory. Meaning they willplay an amalgamation of lines together for best position, whereas a human will understand the thematic ideas behind an opening and play for them and adapt to the situation (almost always with a thematic idea in mind especially at high level play).
A good e.g. of this is in the King's Indian Defense. There is a neat line that I like quite a bit where black plays a5 around move 4-6. It's a thematic fit with blacks long term plans and is intended as a profylatic move to slow down or discourage whites play on the queen's side of the board. I have never played an engine that played this move mainly because a computer "thinks" this move is not a best move but, a wasted one that does not enhance it's position.

WWmelb:
Could it be that, as a COMPUTER CHESS PROGRAMMER he may have devised a relatively easy (for him anyway) algorithm or some such to think somewhat like a computer?

I don't see why this is implausible.

I think its kind of disgusting that because egos he must be cheating because he can't possibly have improved to win a couple of games against GMs.

Or maybe he just had a string of good luck?

How about innocent until proven guilty? How about any physical evidence that he was cheating? No there isn't any?

I know it because it's "just a chess tournament" but imagine shit like this was pulled in a high profile sport? OMG this basketball player is so good he must be on drugs. Lets figure out a way to prove his on drugs, even though there isn't any real evidence that he is...

Much the same and would cause a fucking UPROAR.

Oh well, maybe i'm reading too much into it

To be fair, this has just happened with Cycling :P

OT: While I do agree as a programer he has the potential to develop decent tactics, sudden shifts from the norm have always been used as a highlight for potential cheating. It is not a he is guilty issue, it is just too sharp a change not too vigorously investigate.
To put it into perspective, it is like Usaian Bolt running 0.5 second faster. Doesn't sound like a lot but he is so high in the game that even 0.5 is a massive difference from the expected training development and will be examined. Doesn't mean he is guilty of anything, just incredible feats need to be carefully checked before being accepted. To go back to cycling, I am sure now at the second win in a row they will start to double and triple check the winner.

For those of you wondering why cheating happens in chess, well there is big money at stake in some of these events. Although, to be honest, one generally has to be in the top 10 of all players world wide to make a living off of just tournament playing.

Yeah well I'll send him up against my GTX 580 running a GPGPU program.

YOUR MOVE, PUNY MEATBAG PERSON.

Garrett:

Xanex:
Don't know how else to say it but evidently chess is serious buisness!

Ninja'd. But seriosuly, this is hilarious. Even if he did cheat, chess players are so butthurt over losing to computer, that it's really sad in a funny kind of way. While I never was more than an occasional player (and didn't play in many years now) I never had any qualms about losing to AI. I could never beat those fuckers anyway. I could beat real people that beat AI but the same AI that was badly beaten by a player I beat would destroy me...

Treblaine:
Chess used to be considered the pinnacle of thought

I always wondered about this mentality with shougi and go being around...

You do realize when you get to large scale torni level Money is involved (not sure the exact figures but I am sure someone could make a living off of it as they do in other games), such as Magic The Gathering where torni prizes can get into the $10,000+ range). So yea, if that was your pay check I am sure butthurt doesn't begin to describe the issues involved.

sapphireofthesea:

Garrett:

Xanex:
Don't know how else to say it but evidently chess is serious buisness!

Ninja'd. But seriosuly, this is hilarious. Even if he did cheat, chess players are so butthurt over losing to computer, that it's really sad in a funny kind of way. While I never was more than an occasional player (and didn't play in many years now) I never had any qualms about losing to AI. I could never beat those fuckers anyway. I could beat real people that beat AI but the same AI that was badly beaten by a player I beat would destroy me...

Treblaine:
Chess used to be considered the pinnacle of thought

I always wondered about this mentality with shougi and go being around...

You do realize when you get to large scale torni level Money is involved (not sure the exact figures but I am sure someone could make a living off of it as they do in other games), such as Magic The Gathering where torni prizes can get into the $10,000+ range). So yea, if that was your pay check I am sure butthurt doesn't begin to describe the issues involved.

Heh, you are right. At the top level of play you are talking much more than 10k... try more like 100k+ purses. just saying.

And a good lol, that dude was in fact cheating. No questions about it. The review DoPo posted makes it painfully obvious when one can see the actual moves. Often he plays odd nonsensesical moves that are best move for the current position, completely abandoning any previous plan. The real kicker was the 2nd game with the closed position. Wandering aimless play... then a massive blunder that no one above the 2200 level would ever make, let alone someone that is "performing" at a 2670 level (his rating for the tournament). Btw, in case you are wondering that is a rating like oh, Kasparov or Carlson. Again, not possible for a 2200 level player to suddenly be performing at a super GM level in a months time.

Jadak:
Wait, who even has the authority to strip search a person over allegations of "chess cheating"? This doesn't seem like something the police would be involved with, so either he agreed to it I guess or some random "chess authorities" are facing some sexual harassment I think....

Did you read anything other than the title? Did you even read the title properly? "Strip search" is in quotes to begin with. It is then explained that Ivanov was made to empty his pockets and his pen was taken away. He also took off his shirt. Shirt.

DoPo:

Jadak:
Wait, who even has the authority to strip search a person over allegations of "chess cheating"? This doesn't seem like something the police would be involved with, so either he agreed to it I guess or some random "chess authorities" are facing some sexual harassment I think....

Did you read anything other than the title? Did you even read the title properly? "Strip search" is in quotes to begin with. It is then explained that Ivanov was made to empty his pockets and his pen was taken away. He also took off his shirt. Shirt.

Many thanks again, DoPo, for the link to the post-mortems and analysis of those games. They were highly fascinating. Makes me really miss playing competitively.

"Is that a knight in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

Perhaps the spirit of one of the greatest players of chess possessed his body, or the spirit of a Great Pharaoh.

electric method:

DoPo:

Jadak:
Wait, who even has the authority to strip search a person over allegations of "chess cheating"? This doesn't seem like something the police would be involved with, so either he agreed to it I guess or some random "chess authorities" are facing some sexual harassment I think....

Did you read anything other than the title? Did you even read the title properly? "Strip search" is in quotes to begin with. It is then explained that Ivanov was made to empty his pockets and his pen was taken away. He also took off his shirt. Shirt.

Many thanks again, DoPo, for the link to the post-mortems and analysis of those games. They were highly fascinating. Makes me really miss playing competitively.

No problem, you sounded like somebody who would be interested in it :) While I've never been into competitive chess (I'm not that good, either), I do appreciate it - my father used to be into amateur chess tournaments, he had gone to the nationals, too, my neighbour (younger than me) is a competitive chess player - he has even gone to international competitions (not in the same heights as Ivanov there but could conceivably play him at some point in the future), one of my classmates was into amateur chess, too - he went to some national competitions. So yeah, I can at least appreciate the game.

Asuka Soryu:
Perhaps the spirit of one of the greatest players of chess possessed his body, or the spirit of a Great Pharaoh.

...I'd have to see footage of the game to believe it.

"Rook to H6"

"Aha, you've activated my trap card!"

DoPo:

Asuka Soryu:
Perhaps the spirit of one of the greatest players of chess possessed his body, or the spirit of a Great Pharaoh.

...I'd have to see footage of the game to believe it.

"Rook to H6"

"Aha, you've activated my trap card!"

LOL! Actually it would be more like... (from game 2) Bd6??... possessed by the spirit of GM Patzer the Great.

DoPo:

Asuka Soryu:
Perhaps the spirit of one of the greatest players of chess possessed his body, or the spirit of a Great Pharaoh.

...I'd have to see footage of the game to believe it.

"Rook to H6"

"Aha, you've activated my trap card!"

DoPo:

electric method:

DoPo:

Did you read anything other than the title? Did you even read the title properly? "Strip search" is in quotes to begin with. It is then explained that Ivanov was made to empty his pockets and his pen was taken away. He also took off his shirt. Shirt.

Many thanks again, DoPo, for the link to the post-mortems and analysis of those games. They were highly fascinating. Makes me really miss playing competitively.

No problem, you sounded like somebody who would be interested in it :) While I've never been into competitive chess (I'm not that good, either), I do appreciate it - my father used to be into amateur chess tournaments, he had gone to the nationals, too, my neighbour (younger than me) is a competitive chess player - he has even gone to international competitions (not in the same heights as Ivanov there but could conceivably play him at some point in the future), one of my classmates was into amateur chess, too - he went to some national competitions. So yeah, I can at least appreciate the game.

Absolutely was interested in it. I used to look over almost every game from every major tournament when I was playing as well as old ones as well. I have always been partial to Petrosian, occassionally Fischer and Kasparov. It's nice to run into someone else that appreciates the game.

Edit: oops. apparently I should not try quoting late at night because I end up quoting things I don't want too. Apologies to all for that one.

thesilentman:

There's no such thing as useless information. Everything has it's place, especially in books like those. The reason that they were 'worthless' as they gave too much information not relevant to them (Wright brothers). And just because information is worthless to you doesn't mean it's worthless for other people.

Yes there is. It's information that claims one thing works when it actually doesn't. Just gives the illusion of success.

Wright Brothers found this, that many of the formulae for aerodynamic flow were just plain wrong, to spite the equivalent of BILLIONS of dollars being spent by so many other competing scientific agencies they all used the same wrong presumptions.

You can literally be better off having that page torn out and having to work it out from scratch as at least then they would waste less time and effort applying that assuming it was right.

PS: it's an analogy, not an equivalence. Yes, chess is a very old game, but equally kite flying is a very old pastime which was the fundamental principal behind controlled flight shaken up by light powerful engines. And chess has been shaken up recently by new maths and machine reasoning.

electric method:

For Treblaine, I am going to use an example of cheating that did not involve a computer but, happened none-the-less at an otb tournament about 10 or so years ago. This was a game between juniors with the names of Sam and Dane (last names omitted for obvious reasons). What happened is this, Dane was an up and coming intermediate player Sam was very close to breaking into the master level of play. Over the course of the game Sam obtained a losing position and when Dane walked away from the board to get additional score sheets Sam moved one of his pieces to obtain a winning position. Sam went on to win the game costing Dane a prize. Ultimately his foul play was discovered and was stripped of the win. Point here being that cheating happened before, and will continue to happen in OTB play.

HOW THE HELL IS THAT RELEVANT?!!?

Moving pieces while the other person is looking away... that's not relevant at all. It couldn't have possibly happened in this case.

And I find it interesting that we all here, as humans, say "ooh, that's such a machine move" in the recognition that machine's method of winning games usually beats the best Chess players. Yet a human couldn't make that move. So a human can recognise a "machine strategy", yet cannot use it themselves.

Look, we all know machines have number crunching strengths that no human can come close to.

But it's also a fact that humans have huge abstract processing power that leaves the most advanced computer and machine processing in the dust, if you can take the strategies that confound grand masters and learn to apply them using human reasoning then you have overnight a huge advantage.

Again WHERE IS THE HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD!

Being too good, or using a winning strategy is not evidence.

PsychicTaco115:
I can see this taking a dramatically different turn:

Cop 1-"Sir, hands in the air!"

Cop 2- "HE'S GOT A ROOK, TAKE HIM DOWN!"

Ivanov: "Sh*t, castle with me!"

Accomplice: "You can't castle when in check."

At which point a passing member of the clergy dives in front of him, assumedly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OT: I'm kinda surprised they'd even go to those kinds of measures. I always imagined them being rather subdued in there disputes, just sort of shaking hands and dealing with it. That or leather gloves start flying.

What happened to him just being good? Cant a man just be a rising star, able to think on his feet and predict ahead of time whats gunna happen? Its not like he went from programming chess games to doing Olympic back flips during the 100m dash.

The guy might just be really smart and really good.

If you dont believe that, why not just walk him through some nice strong magnets, fry anything that might be inside his skin and be done with it? If you really think hes cheating in that way, its a simple fix. Put the next chess match in a lead room with a CCtv to watch it.

Treblaine:

Garrett:

Treblaine:
Chess used to be considered the pinnacle of thought

I always wondered about this mentality with shougi and go being around...

Shogi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi

What's the question? If it's about spelling, it's not hard 'o' (hence shōgi) so I soften it with 'u'.

I never knew the world of chess was so hardcore. Is it really so implausible that he just had a good game, or discovered some new strategy that let him win? Before anyone accuses him of cheating they should at least go through the game move-by-move and see what went down.

Treblaine:

electric method:

For Treblaine, I am going to use an example of cheating that did not involve a computer but, happened none-the-less at an otb tournament about 10 or so years ago. This was a game between juniors with the names of Sam and Dane (last names omitted for obvious reasons). What happened is this, Dane was an up and coming intermediate player Sam was very close to breaking into the master level of play. Over the course of the game Sam obtained a losing position and when Dane walked away from the board to get additional score sheets Sam moved one of his pieces to obtain a winning position. Sam went on to win the game costing Dane a prize. Ultimately his foul play was discovered and was stripped of the win. Point here being that cheating happened before, and will continue to happen in OTB play.

HOW THE HELL IS THAT RELEVANT?!!?

Moving pieces while the other person is looking away... that's not relevant at all. It couldn't have possibly happened in this case.

And I find it interesting that we all here, as humans, say "ooh, that's such a machine move" in the recognition that machine's method of winning games usually beats the best Chess players. Yet a human couldn't make that move. So a human can recognise a "machine strategy", yet cannot use it themselves.

Look, we all know machines have number crunching strengths that no human can come close to.

But it's also a fact that humans have huge abstract processing power that leaves the most advanced computer and machine processing in the dust, if you can take the strategies that confound grand masters and learn to apply them using human reasoning then you have overnight a huge advantage.

Again WHERE IS THE HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD!

Being too good, or using a winning strategy is not evidence.

It is relevant because cheating in chess has a long, and not so storied past.

Where is the evidence? Did you watch the review that DoPo posted? If not I suggest you check it out. Game 1 is a PRIME example of computer assisted play. There are moves he plays that NO GM would play because they give up huge positional advantages AND are just not thematic with the opening he has played.

In Game 1, this is a Kings Indian btw, he plays dxe very early on opening up the d file and leading to an early exchange of queens. Almost every master level player is NOT going to play this move. A computer, however will. Why won't a master play dxe in that position, that early in the game? Well, it's like this. White's plan in that line of the KID is simple. Central control. It's all about central control. dxe sacrifices the huge positional adv that pawns on c4, d4 and e4 and gives up control of the center of the board, opens up the diagonal for black's fianchettoed bishop on g7, and loses control of the important central squares of c5 and e5 that the pawn on d4 controlled.

Add to it that in that position white has not castled, has not developed many minor pieces and then plays dxe? This is not a normal move at all for the position. Also, and furthermore, dxe removes the threat white has of a timely f4! later in the line signaling a pawn steam roller on the king's side of the board AND increases white's central control. dxe also removes the possibility of white playing d5, closing the board and locking down the center of the board plus seriously cramping black's position. It also leaves black in a bind bc if they want to break that central structure via a pawn push it either has to be a c6 or f6 push, both of which leave black with pawn structure issues. If f6, it weakens the King's side of the board. This is bad bc in most lines of the KID black castles king side. All of that taken together shows that this is NOT the play of an experienced and knowlegable GM but, that of a computer.

Only a comp would play dxe at that time, with those time controls in that position because the computer does NOT think positionally. It thinks tactically. An early exchange of queens makes a lot of sense for a comp in that position bc it's tactical vision is PERFECT. Also, ran through the engine dxe is the number one suggested move of the engine as well as almost every move past move 6. Humans and computers do NOT think alike. For a human to play almost every suggested move in a ever changing position is not only unlikely but, darned near impossible.

In the game where he loses in the endgame around move 104, 105, he has a drawn position. Any 2200+ player, and any GM worth their title would realize they have a drawn position. Immediately play Ke6 and offer a draw. However, playing Bd6? is a massive blunder no GM would ever play. Bd6 is the one move that immediately ends the game as a loss for black. And I do mean instantly. It coughs up the backwards pawn on the d file, allows white to gain a pawn majority and from there it's just a matter of time before white promotes a pawn. Again, NO talented GM would ever make that blunder in an endgame.

In the lost game too, that is a closed position, and if you know what to look for, clearly see that a comp is playing that game, not a human. It wanders aimlessly with no plan. Goes down a road of exchanging pieces instead of a plan until he ends up in almost = position that is going to draw if played properly. However, in the end game you see him playing even more nonsensical moves, repeat moves and stuff that is screwy. All of that followed with the one human move of the game... Bd6. Insta loss. I could go on and on and on. Trust me, I used to catch folks like this for a living. And if the above analysis isn't enough to convice you, go check out chess base and look up the KID.. then look for games where white plays dxe early on in high level play. Better yet, go find a GM, IM or FM and ask them if that is a good move or even one they'd play. I would put money on the fact they'd say no they wouldn't then launch into something like what I just posted.

Edit: My apologies to all that do not understand chess at this level. I specifically tried to avoid having to do something like this as most people are not going to get what I posted. Again, my apologies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here