Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Treblaine:

........snip..........

You need evidence. Find it.

Gravity. I need evidence why it exists.. not just superfluous observations. Evidence. FIND IT!

Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're just ignorant on competitive chess.

The evidence is gone now. They barely searched him. The fact is that when his games were no longer streamed, his performance plummeted.

You seem to be a person who likes evidence, I'm surprised that you can't come to the obvious conclusion that is offered by the mountains of evidence in front of you.

Science, Law... these are just some of the fields you should perhaps avoid.

More evidence... On chessbase there is a series of articles about cheating in chess. One can get to them from the chessbase link in the original article here on the Escapist. The articles will be on the bottom of the page of the chessbase article on this matter.

The one, in specific, people should look at is the german player who had an established FIDE rating of 1900. Enters a tournament and poof... is playing at 2650+ level. The two greatest minds in chess at the time Garry Kasparov and Vishy Anand got interested in this guy. They BOTH realized he was cheating with an engine called fritz. The article goes on to explain how computers do certain things. I'll apologize right now, it does get fairly techincal and has some very complex lines involved.

The bottom line here is that this has happened before. What is more, the player in question played in one more tournament before completely disappearing from tournament chess. You know what his performance level was for that last tournament? Hint, it wasn't 2650. It was exactly what you'd expect from a... wait for it... 1900.

Dopo, thesilentman, himynameisbob and jovack22.. you all will probably be interested in these articles. Also there is an anticdotal reference in one of the articles about a Fischer game where the wife of a GM, hearing the analysis of her husband and another GM walked up to Fischer's opponent and told him that analysis. The move Fischer is planning is just brilliant and very clever. That he was unable to play it bc of what happened is sad.

jovack22:

Gravity. I need evidence why it exists.. not just superfluous observations. Evidence. FIND IT!

[We actually know why Gravity exists: Einstein's evidence backed Theory of Relativity.]

Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're just ignorant on competitive chess.

The evidence is gone now. They barely searched him. The fact is that when his games were no longer streamed, his performance plummeted.

You seem to be a person who likes evidence, I'm surprised that you can't come to the obvious conclusion that is offered by the mountains of evidence in front of you.

Science, Law... these are just some of the fields you should perhaps avoid.

So I should avoid science and law because I think conclusions should be based on evidence?!?!?! Just because the authorities cannot or did not get evidence doesn't mean they don't need evidence.

I'm fucking fed up with these forums, to spite all the effort the mods have gone to they are utterly let down.

electric method:
More evidence... On chessbase there is a series of articles about cheating in chess. One can get to them from the chessbase link in the original article here on the Escapist. The articles will be on the bottom of the page of the chessbase article on this matter.

The one, in specific, people should look at is the german player who had an established FIDE rating of 1900. Enters a tournament and poof... is playing at 2650+ level. The two greatest minds in chess at the time Garry Kasparov and Vishy Anand got interested in this guy. They BOTH realized he was cheating with an engine called fritz. The article goes on to explain how computers do certain things. I'll apologize right now, it does get fairly techincal and has some very complex lines involved.

The bottom line here is that this has happened before. What is more, the player in question played in one more tournament before completely disappearing from tournament chess. You know what his performance level was for that last tournament? Hint, it wasn't 2650. It was exactly what you'd expect from a... wait for it... 1900.

Dopo, thesilentman, himynameisbob and jovack22.. you all will probably be interested in these articles. Also there is an anticdotal reference in one of the articles about a Fischer game where the wife of a GM, hearing the analysis of her husband and another GM walked up to Fischer's opponent and told him that analysis. The move Fischer is planning is just brilliant and very clever. That he was unable to play it bc of what happened is sad.

You don't get this do you.

You keep providing circular conclusions as evidence.

No. Evidence is something like an exposure of exactly what happened that is clearly against the rules, unequivocal link between them and a computer. Not simply subjective opinions. Him leaving doesn't prove he's a cheat, if everyone treats him like shit and calls him a cheat and let him know he's not welcome and he leaves... well that's why he left whether he's a cheat or not.

Don't you think if he found a brilliant way to cheat then washed his hands of Chess... he wouldn't tell ANYONE how he did it without anyone detecting his link to any machine??? That it wouldn't leak out? That's usually what happens when cheats quit the game. I mean OJ Simpson couldn't even shut up about something far worse, the murder of his estranged wife, he had to go write that book "IF I did it, this is how I would have done it".

This doesn't apply for any other field of competition, no where else is someone's mere PERFORMANCE compared with that of a cheat to be considered evidence of cheating. Oh Usain Bolt is way way ahead of everyone else? Automatically a cheat. Strip him of all his gold medals, he can't deserve it because his performance is literally too much better.

Treblaine:

electric method:
More evidence... On chessbase there is a series of articles about cheating in chess. One can get to them from the chessbase link in the original article here on the Escapist. The articles will be on the bottom of the page of the chessbase article on this matter.

The one, in specific, people should look at is the german player who had an established FIDE rating of 1900. Enters a tournament and poof... is playing at 2650+ level. The two greatest minds in chess at the time Garry Kasparov and Vishy Anand got interested in this guy. They BOTH realized he was cheating with an engine called fritz. The article goes on to explain how computers do certain things. I'll apologize right now, it does get fairly techincal and has some very complex lines involved.

The bottom line here is that this has happened before. What is more, the player in question played in one more tournament before completely disappearing from tournament chess. You know what his performance level was for that last tournament? Hint, it wasn't 2650. It was exactly what you'd expect from a... wait for it... 1900.

Dopo, thesilentman, himynameisbob and jovack22.. you all will probably be interested in these articles. Also there is an anticdotal reference in one of the articles about a Fischer game where the wife of a GM, hearing the analysis of her husband and another GM walked up to Fischer's opponent and told him that analysis. The move Fischer is planning is just brilliant and very clever. That he was unable to play it bc of what happened is sad.

You don't get this do you.

You keep providing circular conclusions as evidence.

No. Evidence is something like an exposure of exactly what happened that is clearly against the rules, unequivocal link between them and a computer. Not simply subjective opinions. Him leaving doesn't prove he's a cheat, if everyone treats him like shit and calls him a cheat and let him know he's not welcome and he leaves... well that's why he left whether he's a cheat or not.

Don't you think if he found a brilliant way to cheat then washed his hands of Chess... he wouldn't tell ANYONE how he did it without anyone detecting his link to any machine??? That it wouldn't leak out? That's usually what happens when cheats quit the game. I mean OJ Simpson couldn't even shut up about something far worse, the murder of his estranged wife, he had to go write that book "IF I did it, this is how I would have done it".

This doesn't apply for any other field of competition, no where else is someone's mere PERFORMANCE compared with that of a cheat to be considered evidence of cheating. Oh Usain Bolt is way way ahead of everyone else? Automatically a cheat. Strip him of all his gold medals, he can't deserve it because his performance is literally too much better.

Treblaine, unless and until you prove a rudimentary understanding of chess I will not answer you. Again, you have been given evidence. That you don't understand that you have been given it is your fault. You are out of your element here. I can point to a series of moves and go those are almost certianly a computer because I know exactly how computers play and masters play. You have not even shown a basic understanding of chess at all. Oh, and in the article I am talking about it was CONCUSIVELY proven that the 1900 did cheat. They found the shop where he bought the equipment for his nefarious plans from. Also, his next tourney he did not play at a GM level... wait for it, he played at a 1900 level which is exactly the rating he had earned.

Prove to me you understand chess. The shown position in the post DoPo linked from an FM tell me what is going on in that position. Who is better? Who is winning? What is black's plan, what is white's? Can you even do that? Tell me what are black's plan's in the sicilian schevenigen opening or the dragon? How about the italian opening.. every chess player learns that opening at some time. Can you tell me these things? If no, then you have no logical reason to be involved in this discussion because you cannot understand anything that is being said about it.

My bet would be on something along the lines of a microear invisible earpiece.

image

Inside the ear canal, pretty much invisible, wireless comms with an outside source over, say, bluetooth relayed by some unknown third party present. I would assume the helpers - at least two, maybe more - to be human, just because that's the most probable scenario.

If he had actually programmed a routine to grab the status visually and spit out instructions to him over some hidden proxy (smart phone, laptop), it would be somewhat impressive.

Whatever he did, it's highly probable it wasn't kosher.

Zen Toombs:
Wait, you AREN'T supposed to strip while playing chess?

Oh.

Only if alone or other sexy people are around, then no problem.

electric method:

Treblaine, unless and until you prove a rudimentary understanding of chess I will not answer you. Again, you have been given evidence. That you don't understand that you have been given it is your fault. You are out of your element here. I can point to a series of moves and go those are almost certianly a computer because I know exactly how computers play and masters play. You have not even shown a basic understanding of chess at all. Oh, and in the article I am talking about it was CONCUSIVELY proven that the 1900 did cheat. They found the shop where he bought the equipment for his nefarious plans from. Also, his next tourney he did not play at a GM level... wait for it, he played at a 1900 level which is exactly the rating he had earned.

Prove to me you understand chess. The shown position in the post DoPo linked from an FM tell me what is going on in that position. Who is better? Who is winning? What is black's plan, what is white's? Can you even do that? Tell me what are black's plan's in the sicilian schevenigen opening or the dragon? How about the italian opening.. every chess player learns that opening at some time. Can you tell me these things? If no, then you have no logical reason to be involved in this discussion because you cannot understand anything that is being said about it.

I can point to a series of moves and go those are almost certainly a computer because I know exactly how computers play and masters play.

You know exactly how a computer plays, you know computers beat Grand Masters, you are a human.

So how does this prove that an unaided human couldn't have made these moves?!?!? If you as a human "know exactly how computers play".

CONCUSIVELY (sic) proven that the 1900 did cheat.

Oh, so it was revealed exactly how he was able to get assistance from a machine that knew the position of all the pieces and relayed him every next move? The communication devices were presented and it was all explained who the confederates were?

NOPE.AVI

They all just accused the rising champion of cheating and ran him out of town then high-fived that they'd burned the witch. Because you know witches are witches because they get burned at the stake.

Fact: cheating is using a computer

Fact: there is no evidence of any link to a computer

I know you can feel very strongly about this, that you can know how computers play yet the accused cannot apply what you know, but you still need actual evidence otherwise you are just being a load of inquisitorial jerks.

So they did a strip search instead of a drugs test...There's no logic in chess regulations.

DoPo:

kouriichi:
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?

image

Gee, for a rising star he really has a rather weird way of rising - from not changing much for a couple of years to beating chess grandmasters.

kouriichi:
Its not like he went from programming chess games to doing Olympic back flips during the 100m dash.

You know he's not the only programmer who plays chess, right? There are thousands of them, and no other programmer manifested the magical powers this guy showed. No other programmer in the world as a whole. Ever. Also, he isn't a chess programmer but that's an aside.

kouriichi:
The guy might just be really smart and really good.

He held second place on a way, way lower ranked tournament the previous month. And suddenly he became that smart and good?

kouriichi:
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?

I assume the organisers didn't have any at hand. As you would expect, to be honest - industrial strength electromagnets aren't anything anybody happens to have at hand.

kouriichi:
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.

And that may very well happen.

Jimmy T. Malice:
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?

Yes, it is.

Jimmy T. Malice:
Before anyone accuses him of cheating they should at least go through the game move-by-move and see what went down.

Yes, they did. Aside from the mathematician guy mentioned in the article, there is this one, too

Seriously people, do you not know anything about chess at all?

Sigh, going to break my statement about not responding to Treblaine. Anyhow Treblaine, I am going to give you a hand here. What is going on in the position shown here? I asked you to tell me what was up. We are going to do this in a fill in the blanks way. Also, anyone that understands chess, you are more than welcome to participate in this.

Ok, in the position shown... black's last move has not been played but, is shown in the sidebar. That move is Qf3 prompting white to resign. To understand why white resigns here requires a bit of analysis of the current position.

In the shown position white has a weak_____ square problem on the King's side of the board. He also has a ______ pawn on the f file which invites the move____ from black. Hint, I already stated the move black plays, forcing resignation.

Also of note is white's knight on b3. Is white's knight the better minor piece or, does it lose out to black's minor piece on ____? Can white think of moving that Knight on b3? If so why? If not, why not? Hint, take note of Black's pawn on b6.

Black's queen on d5 controls____. White's queen on c2 controls_____. Which queen is better positioned? Can white move his queen? Or after Qf3, can white play e4? Or does e4 cause huge problems?

Black's pawns on g6, f7 and e6 are on white squares, is this a problem for black? or is it beneficial to him? Hint, take note of the ____ of black's Bishop. Which leads to does black's ___ on ____ factor into the move, Qf3? If so, is it going to be used tactically, or positionally?

This was just a quick down and dirty analysis of the current position. It highlighted the major features and some of the major ideas. However, if someone with a chess engine would plug this position in.. I am going to bet that Qf3 is the number one move on it's list. Why? It is the most tactical move on the board... and from there, it's probably going to list a series of moves that are very sharp and extremely tactical. This also abandons the thematic idea of playing on the Queen's side for black, pushing the pawn on the bfile forward and eventually promoting it. WHy? because white really has no good answers to that line of play. In all honestly, that line of play is less sharp, carries a lot less risk for black and is thematic with the position. Black is going to win in the above position... a human would probably go for the longer, safer bet. Not our guy... he plays the extremely sharp Qf3 risking it all... and it pays off with white resigning then and there.

electric method:

Sigh, going to break my statement about not responding to Treblaine. Anyhow Treblaine, I am going to give you a hand here. What is going on in the position shown here? I asked you to tell me what was up. We are going to do this in a fill in the blanks way. Also, anyone that understands chess, you are more than welcome to participate in this.

Ok, in the position shown... black's last move has not been played but, is shown in the sidebar. That move is Qf3 prompting white to resign. To understand why white resigns here requires a bit of analysis of the current position.

In the shown position white has a weak_____ square problem on the King's side of the board. He also has a ______ pawn on the f file which invites the move____ from black. Hint, I already stated the move black plays, forcing resignation.

Also of note is white's knight on b3. Is white's knight the better minor piece or, does it lose out to black's minor piece on ____? Can white think of moving that Knight on b3? If so why? If not, why not? Hint, take note of Black's pawn on b6.

Black's queen on d5 controls____. White's queen on c2 controls_____. Which queen is better positioned? Can white move his queen? Or after Qf3, can white play e4? Or does e4 cause huge problems?

Black's pawns on g6, f5 and e6 are on white squares, is this a problem for black? or is it beneficial to him? Hint, take note of the ____ of black's Bishop. Which leads to does black's ___ on ____ factor into the move, Qf3? If so, is it going to be used tactically, or positionally?

This was just a quick down and dirty analysis of the current position. It highlighted the major features and some of the major ideas. However, if someone with a chess engine would plug this position in.. I am going to bet that Qf3 is the number one move on it's list. Why? It is the most tactical move on the board... and from there, it's probably going to list a series of moves that are very sharp and extremely tactical. This also abandons the thematic idea of playing on the Queen's side for black, pushing the pawn on the bfile forward and eventually promoting it. WHy? because white really has no good answers to that line of play. In all honestly, that line of play is less sharp, carries a lot less risk for black and is thematic with the position. Black is going to win in the above position... a human would probably go for the longer, safer bet. Not our guy... he plays the extremely sharp Qf3 risking it all... and it pays off with white resigning then and there.

This was just a quick down and dirty analysis of the current position. It highlighted the major features and some of the major ideas. However, if someone with a chess engine would plug this position in.. I am going to bet that Qf3 is the number one move on it's list. Why? It is the most tactical move on the board

Here's the problem, you know it's the "most tactical move" so why couldn't he know that and make that move?!?!?

I mean it you give me a maths problem and I give the same answer as a calculator, that doesn't mean I used a calculator. Especially if you didn't see me use any calculator or can even conceive of any way I could have used a calculator.

a human would probably go for the longer, safer bet. Not our guy

That does not equate a computer program was feeding him moves.

Where is the tell tale trace of "a human cannot do that". Risk taking isn't proof of that.

An example would be in detecting aimbots. If a player reacts under 150ms to a visual input, that IS beyond the capability of human reaction times, this is a fact. They would then have to prove in a controlled experiment they were one of those humans who has a reaction time faster than the established human performance limits.

The thing is any human can make any of those moves. YOU recognise it as a "most tactical move" so why can't he?

Treblaine:

electric method:

Sigh, going to break my statement about not responding to Treblaine. Anyhow Treblaine, I am going to give you a hand here. What is going on in the position shown here? I asked you to tell me what was up. We are going to do this in a fill in the blanks way. Also, anyone that understands chess, you are more than welcome to participate in this.

Ok, in the position shown... black's last move has not been played but, is shown in the sidebar. That move is Qf3 prompting white to resign. To understand why white resigns here requires a bit of analysis of the current position.

In the shown position white has a weak_____ square problem on the King's side of the board. He also has a ______ pawn on the f file which invites the move____ from black. Hint, I already stated the move black plays, forcing resignation.

Also of note is white's knight on b3. Is white's knight the better minor piece or, does it lose out to black's minor piece on ____? Can white think of moving that Knight on b3? If so why? If not, why not? Hint, take note of Black's pawn on b6.

Black's queen on d5 controls____. White's queen on c2 controls_____. Which queen is better positioned? Can white move his queen? Or after Qf3, can white play e4? Or does e4 cause huge problems?

Black's pawns on g6, f5 and e6 are on white squares, is this a problem for black? or is it beneficial to him? Hint, take note of the ____ of black's Bishop. Which leads to does black's ___ on ____ factor into the move, Qf3? If so, is it going to be used tactically, or positionally?

This was just a quick down and dirty analysis of the current position. It highlighted the major features and some of the major ideas. However, if someone with a chess engine would plug this position in.. I am going to bet that Qf3 is the number one move on it's list. Why? It is the most tactical move on the board... and from there, it's probably going to list a series of moves that are very sharp and extremely tactical. This also abandons the thematic idea of playing on the Queen's side for black, pushing the pawn on the bfile forward and eventually promoting it. WHy? because white really has no good answers to that line of play. In all honestly, that line of play is less sharp, carries a lot less risk for black and is thematic with the position. Black is going to win in the above position... a human would probably go for the longer, safer bet. Not our guy... he plays the extremely sharp Qf3 risking it all... and it pays off with white resigning then and there.

This was just a quick down and dirty analysis of the current position. It highlighted the major features and some of the major ideas. However, if someone with a chess engine would plug this position in.. I am going to bet that Qf3 is the number one move on it's list. Why? It is the most tactical move on the board

Here's the problem, you know it's the "most tactical move" so why couldn't he know that and make that move?!?!?

I mean it you give me a maths problem and I give the same answer as a calculator, that doesn't mean I used a calculator. Especially if you didn't see me use any calculator or can even conceive of any way I could have used a calculator.

a human would probably go for the longer, safer bet. Not our guy

That does not equate a computer program was feeding him moves.

Where is the tell tale trace of "a human cannot do that". Risk taking isn't proof of that.

An example would be in detecting aimbots. If a player reacts under 150ms to a visual input, that IS beyond the capability of human reaction times, this is a fact. They would then have to prove in a controlled experiment they were one of those humans who has a reaction time faster than the established human performance limits.

The thing is any human can make any of those moves. YOU recognise it as a "most tactical move" so why can't he?

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong. Not just any human would make those moves. This is demostrably provable fact. In order to recognize that paticular move would require a level of ability that the he has never demonstrated before playing Qf3. This line of reasoning can be applied to all of his moves in all of these games. He is making moves that he has never shown any aptitude for recognizing, let alone playing prior to this spectacular showing. I also note, you didn't even bother to fill in the blanks. Furthermore, I said I recgonized Qf3 as the most tactical move on the board, I never said that I would play it. Tbh, after analyizing the position Qf3 was like the 4th line I considered. I saw it immediately but, recognized the risk that came with it.

I just don't think you get chess at high level play. Humans almost always go with the safe, sure bet. It may take longer to achieve the win and this is due to the limitations of the human mind. I don't think you understand the level of difficulty involved in keeping all the different positions and variations in ones head and the subsequent analysis of them as well. From this position alone I was keeping over 5 variations with about 8 moves for each side in my head and each position resulting from each move. People have to be trained to do this, computers do not. It goes back to the 1st game... after dxe the resulting position and play is so sharp that keeping all the positions that could arise is physically impossible for a human mind. It is, however, not impossible for a computer. A comp can keep hundreds of thousands of lines in memory and the analysis for each one as well then extrapolate the best move per position. Human minds do not work this way at all.

electric method:

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong. Not just any human would make those moves. This is demostrably provable fact. In order to recognize that paticular move would require a level of ability that the he has never demonstrated before playing Qf3. This line of reasoning can be applied to all of his moves in all of these games. He is making moves that he has never shown any aptitude for recognizing, let alone playing prior to this spectacular showing. I also note, you didn't even bother to fill in the blanks. Furthermore, I said I recgonized Qf3 as the most tactical move on the board, I never said that I would play it. Tbh, after analyizing the position Qf3 was like the 4th line I considered. I saw it immediately but, recognized the risk that came with it.

I just don't think you get chess at high level play. Humans almost always go with the safe, sure bet. It may take longer to achieve the win and this is due to the limitations of the human mind. I don't think you understand the level of difficulty involved in keeping all the different positions and variations in ones head and the subsequent analysis of them as well. From this position alone I was keeping over 5 variations with about 8 moves for each side in my head and each position resulting from each move. People have to be trained to do this, computers do not. It goes back to the 1st game... after dxe the resulting position and play is so sharp that keeping all the positions that could arise is physically impossible for a human mind. It is, however, not impossible for a computer. A comp can keep hundreds of thousands of lines in memory and the analysis for each one as well then extrapolate the best move per position. Human minds do not work this way at all.

"Furthermore, I said I recgonized Qf3 as the most tactical move on the board, I never said that I would play it."

You're not explaining yourself. How can you recognise a move is so good yet not play it?!?!

"Humans almost always go with the safe, sure bet."

This is the foundation of why he's cheating?

Well that is a HECK of a stepdown from "impossible" that was touted by someone earlier, to broad and obviously untrue statements like that.

All you had to do was point out the telltale evidence of computer logic, and you showed me the telltale trace of risk taking, and the spurious leap that that is proof of a computer determining the moves.

You can explain things. Richard Dawkins can explain things as complex as evolutionary biology to schoolchildren. Not enough to practice it, but enough to illustrate the relevant point under discussion. Actually, not just Richard Dawkins, many many others. You have to explain it, not demand that I know everything already and I should trust you and your special knowledge otherwise.

" From this position alone I was keeping over 5 variations with about 8 moves for each side in my head and each position resulting from each move."

This is obviously not insurmountable. Obviously if you try to processes this with simplistic computer reasoning it falls apart, but human reasoning can prioritise and "card count" for the best option. And of course he'll have an advantage against GMs with this as he's not playing predictably, it rewards risks by him acting in an unexpected yet possibly fruitious way.

They used to say card counting was impossible without machines, that it's just too complicated, and all the anti-fraud laws for casino patrons focused on devices, then from NOBODY EVER DOING IT BEFORE of card-counting just in their head, people started doing it. And more and more people started doing it and the casinos got PISSED! They were absolutely sure they HAD to have a device on them, they had the law on their side to search every inch of them and were confounded. Eventually they changed the law to even forbid card counting... in their head. Though of course unenforceable in terms of prosecutions, the practice was simply legally blacklisting anyone who won too much at the tables.

Remember, just like chess, they said the only way to beat the establishment was with machines.

That's why I need hard evidence.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. But if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better.

Treblaine:

electric method:

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong. Not just any human would make those moves. This is demostrably provable fact. In order to recognize that paticular move would require a level of ability that the he has never demonstrated before playing Qf3. This line of reasoning can be applied to all of his moves in all of these games. He is making moves that he has never shown any aptitude for recognizing, let alone playing prior to this spectacular showing. I also note, you didn't even bother to fill in the blanks. Furthermore, I said I recgonized Qf3 as the most tactical move on the board, I never said that I would play it. Tbh, after analyizing the position Qf3 was like the 4th line I considered. I saw it immediately but, recognized the risk that came with it.

I just don't think you get chess at high level play. Humans almost always go with the safe, sure bet. It may take longer to achieve the win and this is due to the limitations of the human mind. I don't think you understand the level of difficulty involved in keeping all the different positions and variations in ones head and the subsequent analysis of them as well. From this position alone I was keeping over 5 variations with about 8 moves for each side in my head and each position resulting from each move. People have to be trained to do this, computers do not. It goes back to the 1st game... after dxe the resulting position and play is so sharp that keeping all the positions that could arise is physically impossible for a human mind. It is, however, not impossible for a computer. A comp can keep hundreds of thousands of lines in memory and the analysis for each one as well then extrapolate the best move per position. Human minds do not work this way at all.

"Furthermore, I said I recgonized Qf3 as the most tactical move on the board, I never said that I would play it."

You're not explaining yourself. How can you recognise a move is so good yet not play it?!?!

"Humans almost always go with the safe, sure bet."

This is the foundation of why he's cheating?

Well that is a HECK of a stepdown from "impossible" that was touted by someone earlier, to broad and obviously untrue statements like that.

All you had to do was point out the telltale evidence of computer logic, and you showed me the telltale trace of risk taking, and the spurious leap that that is proof of a computer determining the moves.

You can explain things. Richard Dawkins can explain things as complex as evolutionary biology to schoolchildren. Not enough to practice it, but enough to illustrate the relevant point under discussion. Actually, not just Richard Dawkins, many many others. You have to explain it, not demand that I know everything already and I should trust you and your special knowledge otherwise.

" From this position alone I was keeping over 5 variations with about 8 moves for each side in my head and each position resulting from each move."

This is obviously not insurmountable. Obviously if you try to processes this with simplistic computer reasoning it falls apart, but human reasoning can prioritise and "card count" for the best option. And of course he'll have an advantage against GMs with this as he's not playing predictably, it rewards risks by him acting in an unexpected yet possibly fruitious way.

They used to say card counting was impossible without machines, that it's just too complicated, and all the anti-fraud laws for casino patrons focused on devices, then from NOBODY EVER DOING IT BEFORE of card-counting just in their head, people started doing it. And more and more people started doing it and the casinos got PISSED! They were absolutely sure they HAD to have a device on them, they had the law on their side to search every inch of them and were confounded. Eventually they changed the law to even forbid card counting... in their head. Though of course unenforceable in terms of prosecutions, the practice was simply legally blacklisting anyone who won too much at the tables.

Remember, just like chess, they said the only way to beat the establishment was with machines.

That's why I need hard evidence.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. But if you want to convince me, you'll have to do better.

How can I recognize a move as so good yet not play it? You show your extraordinary ignorance of chess here. There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed. If black plays this and misses just one part of the line he leaves his position in tatters and goes from completely winning to losing at worst, allows the opportunity for white to draw at best. Again, it is an unneccesary move. Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this. It is best kept in reserve as a threat... black keeping that pressure with the threat of Qf3 is the choice a human would make because of the position on the board. This demonstrates the huge difference between how a human thinks and a computer thinks.

Btw, I don't know what it would take to convice you. You have no understanding of chess, period. I have repeatedly shown you lines, the logic and reasoning behind how humans approach things and computers. And because you do not understand chess at this level cannot see the forest for the trees. The evidence is right in front of you but, because you are blind, cannot even recognize it for what it is. I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point you have absolutely zero knowledge of. Actually, that is painfully obvious. I gave you the analysis of a position and you couldn't even fill in the blanks. Even a 1600 level player would have been able to do what I asked you to do. That you have not been able to answer even the most rudimentary questions posed about these games is totally damning evidence that you have no knowledge of chess. And at the heart of it, an understanding of the game is necessary to see what's been laid out before you.

electric method:

How can I recognize a move as so good yet not play it? You show your extraordinary ignorance of chess here. There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed. If black plays this and misses just one part of the line he leaves his position in tatters and goes from completely winning to losing at worst, allows the opportunity for white to draw at best. Again, it is an unneccesary move. Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this. It is best kept in reserve as a threat... black keeping that pressure with the threat of Qf3 is the choice a human would make because of the position on the board. This demonstrates the huge difference between how a human thinks and a computer thinks.

Btw, I don't know what it would take to convice you. You have no understanding of chess, period. I have repeatedly shown you lines, the logic and reasoning behind how humans approach things and computers. And because you do not understand chess at this level cannot see the forest for the trees. The evidence is right in front of you but, because you are blind, cannot even recognize it for what it is. I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point you have absolutely zero knowledge of. Actually, that is painfully obvious. I gave you the analysis of a position and you couldn't even fill in the blanks. Even a 1600 level player would have been able to do what I asked you to do. That you have not been able to answer even the most rudimentary questions posed about these games is totally damning evidence that you have no knowledge of chess. And at the heart of it, an understanding of the game is necessary to see what's been laid out before you.

Look, you don't have to be a PHD Evolutionary Biologists to understand and accept the principals of Evolution, equally you don't have to be a high level chess player to understand the principals of chess. All you have to do is explain the relevant aspects which ONLY NOW are you beginning to touch on.

You seem to revel in obtuse and unhelpful explanations, it's taken you this long to put it in anything approaching relevant terms.

I'm not an idiot just because I just so happen to have not learned all the tactics and strategies and advanced theory of competitive chess. So how about you get off your high horse and give more constructive responses and explanations. Because "shut up and blindly accept my claims, you lowly non-chess-expert" won't convince anyone but the meek and gullible.

I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point...

I'm convinced you completely skipped over half of my last post where I outlined why I was making this stance. The part about card-counting, supposedly "impossible" without machines. How I think you are being unjust and myopic on human capability.

I have knowledge of chess, I just haven't played it to this level. If you are going to exclude everyone who isn't a high level chess player then WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN ESCAPIST FORUMS!!!!?!?! Hardly anyone on these forums plays chess competitively to that level. It's not like this is a simple thing you can pick up, I have done as much research as is reasonable on this, but you could at the very least explain yourself rather than boast of how much more you know about your hobby than I do.

Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it.

You may know chess better than me but we all know humans as well as each other. You can know as well as I that while with age comes wisdom and experience the memory is reduced somewhat. A younger player can run interference, and keep track of the many more variables, play a wild risky game just so that a he can't but put into a wise old trap of trying to play it safe. Couldn't he just be recognising an aspect of how computers confound Grand Masters so emulates it.

There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed.

Okay, but he is playing against a Grand Master. It's obviously not safe enough as no matter how good an established strategy it is, the Grand Master will probably know and recognise this well enough to have the perfect response. Surely, his best strategy against a seasoned veteran would be to do the unexpected, the unusual as the risks with trying to keep track of increasing complexity that are better than going by the book and falling into a trap.

"Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this."

No. If you can recognise that, then he can too and he can decide to make that decision. Obviously if he tries to do it EXACTLY like a computer his brain couldn't do it, but it's not an absolute one-or-the-other approach, surely.

You have to admit, even playing the "obviously safe" way... that's no guarantee to beat the Grand Masters is it? Come on, tell me if I'm wrong, if you always take the obviously safe and conservative moves, you're odds against the Grand Masters are still terrible.

Now he was playing against the Grand Masters, was he playing against them knowing he'd losee? Or did he want to actually win? What's the point in keeping reserves and staying safe if you're being so predictable that a more experienced player will easily see an established conservative strategy?

And NOTHING YOU'VE SAID HERE says computer, it outlines a series of decisions that a human could just as easily have made. Either that or you have done a terrible job of explaining the situation. I can explain my profession, hobbies and interests to those who are not well versed in them to the point of understanding a few relevant principals, I don't see why you can't either.

sibrenfetter:

Zen Toombs:
Wait, you AREN'T supposed to strip while playing chess?

Oh.

Only if alone or other sexy people are around, then no problem.

Come now, just because they're not as sexy as me doesn't mean I can't share the love. :P

Sigh... bloody sigh. re-sigh. argle blargle blargh snort sneeze and bleeeeeeeeeeck. I've posted as much as I could in a way that was a simple as possible for the situation at hand. Listen Treblaine, to honestly explain why this guy is cheating and for you to totally understand it would require myself, or another master level player, to bring you up to our level of play. Do you seriously have 5-20 years to get that good? The basic issue here is that this is cheating at a GM level. To fully grasp what this guy has done and catch him requires another master level player. This is something that lower level players are going to look at and realize something is waaay off but, because they lack the knowledge needed are not going to be able articulate why it is wrong.

I never intended to be obtuse at all. Your lack of a frame of reference, when I referenced lines and positions, made it seem obtuse to you because you don't understand chess at this level. Dopo, thesilentman and others, however did. DoPo went as far to post an analysis of a FM.

I will have to try another method here. I will attempt, in the simplest terms possible to explain to you the differences between computers and humans and the relevance here. Maybe then you'll start to grasp this.

In the simplest terms possible, computers think in terms of material. Material in the case means pieces. They evaluate a position on a board from 2 ways. These ways feed back upon each other and is always about material. When you look at how an engine expresses who is winning/losing/drawing in a position it gives a numerical expression for it. That expression is how many pawns (material) either white or black is a head, behind or, expresses it as 0.0 which is an equal position. Secondly, because of this material obsession computers have, and how they are programmed they only think in tactical terms. Tactical terms that gain them the most material. This obsession, and flaw in how they think can be exploited by players by closing up a position because the computer lacks the sophistication necessary to properly account for the positional elements and make a proper plan. This is expressed on the board, in play, by wandering aimless moves, repeat moves or exchanging pieces in a vain hope to gain a material advantage.

Now, add what I am about to say to the above comments. Since computers play for material and tactics that gain them material they never account for the position or positional elements. Ever. Never. This can lead them to not play a move, or series of moves that gain them a positional advantage that could, or can, result in a won position. In short, they lack the intuition to evalute a position. This obsessive behavior with material, and lack of positional insight, causes computers to walk a knife's edge of very sharp tactics where one mistake leads to destruction. This leads to a lot of all or nothing moves that a human would not play as they evaluate the position and move via the lense of risk/reward.

When human players look at a board during a game the first thing they do is evaluate the position. Then they move on to the key positional elements and weaknesses (or how to create them) then formulate a plan. Then and only then will a master level player start considering moves that are thematic and fit with what they have planned. Computers skip all of these steps and go straight to considering moves always in the light of the tactics and gaining more material. Computers always think more captured material = win. This can be proven false within the context of the game from a number of positions where a master level player would sacrifice a piece, pawn or make an uneven exchange for a huge positional advantage. Such as trading a bishop in a closed position for a knight, or conversely, a knight for a rook in an open one or soon to be open position.

Now, in the context of the discussion here. When one looks at the moves of the guy being accused of cheating in this thread, almost every one of his moves do not take into consideration the positional elements on the board. They often only take into consideration the material aspects and tactics. As stated above, masters analyize, find a theme and weakness, or how to make one, then plan and finally move in accordance with the plan they came up with. When looking at his moves, they often express that no plan is being used but, only the tactical options are being considered. Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times. One would expect to see maybe a handful of moves from any player being expressed by the computer. In all honestly, the % of moves this guy makes that have a direct correlation with the engine are over 90%. The possibility of that actually happening, without his using a computer to play for him, are so astronomically low as to be non-exsistant.

Onto the positional side of things, in an earlier post I ran down the positional elements of game 1. before and after white (our subject of conversation) playing dxe. The salient point here is that dxe ignores all of the positional advantages he has and long term positional options open to him with dxe. A human player would weigh this in terms of risk vs reward. The risk of losing the long term positional advantages is so huge that most master level players discount dxe and opt for a more positional move. A computer, however, plays dxe because it is only concerned with material and tactics. The rest of that game, the outright ignoring of the positional elements and the obession with material and tactics is all pervasive in each every move white makes. That can lead to only one conclusion; white was not a human player but, a computer. This can be applied to every single game played by this gentleman in the tournament, again, with the only conclusion being, he used a computer to assist his play. Q.E.D. he cheated.

I bet it was a shoe computer like they use for counting cards. You input your own moves with your right foot and your opponent's moves with left foot. Sends out information to a computer which can analyze the game from just that and sends back information though morse code/vibrations to the heel of his foot. BAM cheated.

Treblaine:

electric method:

How can I recognize a move as so good yet not play it? You show your extraordinary ignorance of chess here. There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed. If black plays this and misses just one part of the line he leaves his position in tatters and goes from completely winning to losing at worst, allows the opportunity for white to draw at best. Again, it is an unneccesary move. Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this. It is best kept in reserve as a threat... black keeping that pressure with the threat of Qf3 is the choice a human would make because of the position on the board. This demonstrates the huge difference between how a human thinks and a computer thinks.

Btw, I don't know what it would take to convice you. You have no understanding of chess, period. I have repeatedly shown you lines, the logic and reasoning behind how humans approach things and computers. And because you do not understand chess at this level cannot see the forest for the trees. The evidence is right in front of you but, because you are blind, cannot even recognize it for what it is. I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point you have absolutely zero knowledge of. Actually, that is painfully obvious. I gave you the analysis of a position and you couldn't even fill in the blanks. Even a 1600 level player would have been able to do what I asked you to do. That you have not been able to answer even the most rudimentary questions posed about these games is totally damning evidence that you have no knowledge of chess. And at the heart of it, an understanding of the game is necessary to see what's been laid out before you.

Look, you don't have to be a PHD Evolutionary Biologists to understand and accept the principals of Evolution, equally you don't have to be a high level chess player to understand the principals of chess. All you have to do is explain the relevant aspects which ONLY NOW are you beginning to touch on.

You seem to revel in obtuse and unhelpful explanations, it's taken you this long to put it in anything approaching relevant terms.

I'm not an idiot just because I just so happen to have not learned all the tactics and strategies and advanced theory of competitive chess. So how about you get off your high horse and give more constructive responses and explanations. Because "shut up and blindly accept my claims, you lowly non-chess-expert" won't convince anyone but the meek and gullible.

I am completely convinced you are arguing just to argue a point...

I'm convinced you completely skipped over half of my last post where I outlined why I was making this stance. The part about card-counting, supposedly "impossible" without machines. How I think you are being unjust and myopic on human capability.

I have knowledge of chess, I just haven't played it to this level. If you are going to exclude everyone who isn't a high level chess player then WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN ESCAPIST FORUMS!!!!?!?! Hardly anyone on these forums plays chess competitively to that level. It's not like this is a simple thing you can pick up, I have done as much research as is reasonable on this, but you could at the very least explain yourself rather than boast of how much more you know about your hobby than I do.

Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it.

You may know chess better than me but we all know humans as well as each other. You can know as well as I that while with age comes wisdom and experience the memory is reduced somewhat. A younger player can run interference, and keep track of the many more variables, play a wild risky game just so that a he can't but put into a wise old trap of trying to play it safe. Couldn't he just be recognising an aspect of how computers confound Grand Masters so emulates it.

There is no need to play it. None. It is overkill. Black has a completely won position. Qf3 is an escalation and a risk that is just not needed.

Okay, but he is playing against a Grand Master. It's obviously not safe enough as no matter how good an established strategy it is, the Grand Master will probably know and recognise this well enough to have the perfect response. Surely, his best strategy against a seasoned veteran would be to do the unexpected, the unusual as the risks with trying to keep track of increasing complexity that are better than going by the book and falling into a trap.

"Only a computer, which thinks tactically, and has perfect tactical vision would escalate the position like this."

No. If you can recognise that, then he can too and he can decide to make that decision. Obviously if he tries to do it EXACTLY like a computer his brain couldn't do it, but it's not an absolute one-or-the-other approach, surely.

You have to admit, even playing the "obviously safe" way... that's no guarantee to beat the Grand Masters is it? Come on, tell me if I'm wrong, if you always take the obviously safe and conservative moves, you're odds against the Grand Masters are still terrible.

Now he was playing against the Grand Masters, was he playing against them knowing he'd losee? Or did he want to actually win? What's the point in keeping reserves and staying safe if you're being so predictable that a more experienced player will easily see an established conservative strategy?

And NOTHING YOU'VE SAID HERE says computer, it outlines a series of decisions that a human could just as easily have made. Either that or you have done a terrible job of explaining the situation. I can explain my profession, hobbies and interests to those who are not well versed in them to the point of understanding a few relevant principals, I don't see why you can't either.

Treblaine, above this post is my answer to you, in the form of a very lengthy discourse on the difference between how computers and humans think in chess.

"Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it." You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you? I have used my knowledge and talent repeatedly in this thread. I have given more than generously of my time, talent and insight. Both as a experienced and knowledgable player as well as someone that caught computer assisted players.

In fact I've spent about 6 hours, give or take, on this thread. That was time spent reading, posting and more importantly doing analysis. In that same period of time I could have prepared and given a number of lessons and earned cash for my efforts. I could have prepared for 2-3 games of play at a tournament level. Then you have the bright idea to suggest I use my talents to educate you... for free. For free, after I have given an exceptional amount of my time already. Would you work for free? Let me blunt, the time required to bring you up to a level where you could understand a good potion of these games and subsequent analysis is huge. Let's say it's one year, it's not, but lets say one year. For that period of time let's assume 2 lessons per week at 1 hour a lesson. You have literally just asked, or implied, that I give you roughly $4,160 in lessons for free. Now do you get it? What you've done is obscenely disrespectful, offensive and outright rude.

To get me, a player that has always believed it is the responsibilty of titled and master level players to give back to others with their time, talent and insight. Offer advice, reviews, analysis and yes, even a lesson or two for free, to advance the knowledge of players so they play better because it benefits all players so upset and offended that I am done with you is a pretty impressive feat. (if you doubt that claim, thesilent man asked be, rather politely, if I would review with him. Look at my answer; no, I didn't mind at all reviewing with him.) You have accompished something that nobody else in my over 30 years in competitive chess has ever done. Most players at my level would have not even bothered to post or explain anything to you at all. If they had, the second you started being offensive, rude and obnoxious they would have stopped and left the thread, as I am doing now, after being subjected to your willful disregard of the obvious, the advice and analysis I offered. Not once did you ask a question about a position or a move. Not once. I cannot help you if you are unwilling to be helped.

For DoPo, thesilentman, himynameisbob, the gentleman at the top of page 5 (sorry I forgot your SN) and anyone else that would like my insights, thoughts or analysis feel free to PM me. For those that play, may you never have to tip your king and if you do, ask for a post-mortem review and learn. Good luck, it is a 64 squared jungle out there.

After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Your research is correct. This doesn't happen. This has never happened. This never will happen.

This isn't football, where a team can go on an unprecedented run based on luck, energy and sheer force of will. This is chess. It's not possible to accomplish what this man has done.

Rabish Bini:

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Your research is correct. This doesn't happen. This has never happened. This never will happen.

This isn't football, where a team can go on an unprecedented run based on luck, energy and sheer force of will. This is chess. It's not possible to accomplish what this man has done.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. For this to be POSSIBLE, he'd have to have both a perfect memory AND the ability to process data in a completely different way from everyone else on the damn planet. Odds of this? Incredibly low. Odds of him cheating? Much higher.

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Actually, chuckle, this did happen once before in recent times. It was either 1993 or 1999 (can't recall the date precisely however, the date and article is on chessbase. You can get there from the linky in the main article here, then look for chessbase's articles on cheating in chess at the bottom the page the link directs you too.)

What happened is a german, aged 55, with an established FIDE rating of 1900 entered a tournament where both Kasparov and Anand were playing. During the course of the tourney this lowly, humble 1900 player went on to post some seriously impressive tournament results. So impressive, he drew the attention of Anand and Kasparov. So absolutely stunning; his rating for that tournament was well over 2650.

As with all things that seem to good to be true, it was proven that our intrepid 1900 did, in fact, cheat.

Then there is the recent cheating scandal involving 3 titled French players at the 2010 Chess Olympiad. Yanno, that most prestigious of FIDE tournaments? These geniuses, all very good players 2 GM's and one IM I believe, decide upon using a code, cell phones and text messages to have one guy, the IM, be away from the tournament with a computer and chess engine. He was to watch the games broadcast over the internet the pass along the moves the engine suggested to his partners at the tournament. Shenanigans were suspected by other players at this event (all titled players) and the French Chess Federation stepped up and talked to all 3 of these folks. They *gasp* admitted what they did, then back peddled and denied, denied, denied. FIDE got involved and woops, all 3 of these players were suspended from competitive FIDE rated tournaments. One for 3 years. Another for 2 years 9 months and the last one 1 year 6 months. Oh, forgot to mention, one of the GM's involved in these hijinks was none other than the French teams captain. Shocking, I know right?

Long and short of it, yes you are correct. This has never happened before and will, probably, never occur.

electric method:
This leads to a lot of all or nothing moves that a human would not play as they evaluate the position and move via the lense of risk/reward.

Accepting all you've said about computers I cannot accept that about a human player. Nothing in human psychology stops them taking that risk, especially the situation where he seem to have been set up agaisnt Grand Masters knowing he is of such a low level he's "not supposed to win". He has everything to gain from trying such a thing and little to lose.

Computers always think more captured material = win. This can be proven false within the context of the game from a number of positions where a master level player would sacrifice a piece, pawn or make an uneven exchange for a huge positional advantage.

Well they must be doing something right as computers doing that consistently beats grand masters.

They often only take into consideration the material aspects and tactics.

No, unless you are a psychic or you have him a lie detector test and he told you, you don't know what he was considering. You are making assumptions on his considerations.

As stated above, masters analyize

As stated before, he's not a Grand Master... why should he play like one?

It's an unsupported assertion that the only way a human can beat a grand master is playing like all the other grand masters.

When looking at his moves, they often express that no plan is being used

That could be the entire benefit for such a strategy, not that there is no plan, but no DISCERNABLE PLAN!

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you?

No. It's not like you ever explained that.

In fact I've spent about 6 hours, give or take, on this thread. That was time spent reading, posting and more importantly doing analysis.

No, you've spent 6 hours insisting - of your own free will - on something only now you've given me a 5 minute explanation. No one is going to pay you for this.

Would you work for free?

Yes.

You have accompished something that nobody else in my over 30 years in competitive chess has ever done. Most players at my level would have not even bothered to post or explain anything to you at all.

This IS a discussion forum, you know. You do know how these things work, right? If you want to persuade people, you have to post and explain.

your willful disregard of the obvious

You go on about how special your chess expertise is, how I cannot understand, then say your jargon filled and convoluted advice and analysis is "obvious".

Not once did you ask a question about a position or a move.

Because that is completely the wrong place to start. That's like a child curious about where all the animals on earth came from asking an Evolutionary Biologist about the chemistry of DNA molecules.

There's one question which I don't believe you've quite answered properly Treblaine.

How much do you actually know about chess, including FIDE tournaments and the like?

Rabish Bini:
There's one question which I don't believe you've quite answered properly Treblaine.

How much do you actually know about chess, including FIDE tournaments and the like?

Read my comments and you'll find what you "believe" I haven't answered.

Also enough justification for why I deserve a useful explanation if you expect me to change my mind.

I'm going to help Treblaine a little. What you're arguing about is "conclusivenes" of evidence. Treblaine wants something that would actually hold value in real court. What you, electric method, are providing is something that would at most justify getting full search warrant. A real evidence would be something like finding computer with chess engine installed with log consising his tournament games timed at exactly tournament time and ofcourse player moves would be identical to this guy's opponent. Now THAT'S an evidence.

electric method:

I will have to try another method here. I will attempt, in the simplest terms possible to explain to you the differences between computers and humans and the relevance here. Maybe then you'll start to grasp this.

Get a grasp on this. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE THINK. Our knowledge of human brain is still in fairly basic form. We don't know how everything works. You can say what is the difference between AI and existing game masters based on solely on experience of analysing their games. But that doesn't mean some gm wouldn't suddenly change his game style. You can't just say "human would definitely play this move over that one"

electric method:
"Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it." You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you? I have used my knowledge and talent repeatedly in this thread. I have given more than generously of my time, talent and insight. Both as a experienced and knowledgable player as well as someone that caught computer assisted players.

Oh really? Then let me enlighten you, how do you look in some eyes:

electric method:
Oh, so you lowly, talentless, idiots want to know why am I, the grand master of everything that is intelligent, sure that piece of a trash cheated. (here be some moves explanation). What, to hard for you? Oh silly me, I forgot that even fraction of my intelligence is too much for common people.
image

I might've overcolour it a bit (but only a bit!) for shit'n'giggles but you get a drill. You "sound" like a pompuos dick. And please note that it is not because of your games explanations (well actually I don't know since I didn't read them) but it's mainly because of your prologue to them like "I apologize in advance but I will say complicated stuff". That and continously asking other to present knowledge on certain level which IS NOT REQUIRED. You act like we really need to understand chess at certain level to get this but it's simply not true. You don't need to know advanced physics to understand why MotoGp racers don't fall off their bikes every turn. And if you're so worried that you're giving your "knowledge" for free then you should stop writing here and go look somewhere where people will appreciate you for the self proclaimed god you are.

Treblaine:

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

Actually it's not that simple. I'm not sure but chess engines should be using neural networks at least a bit. So for example if two moves have same "move strength", AI would use its own "experience" to choose one over another (or just choose randomly). Also one game is divided in three parts (both for AI and humans I believe). Opening, middle and end game. For opening part, computers have installed gigabytes of data (well, at least specific computers made specifically to play chess, chess programms available to common public have some compromises here) on opening moves from games played since chess games started to be archivised. Basically, in opening part, AI would rely on this data comparing board pattern with its data and choosing "best" moves. This is where possibility of different moves made even with exact same chess engine should be greatest.
Then in the middle part you have your normal tree reading game when AI would try to read as much possibilities and go with the move that returned highest "move strength" (this is counted pretty much how electric method described "computahrz wayz of tinkin'" in his post before getting upset for being called on hiding behind his knowledge).
Then we have end game, which is different for man and machine. Machine will enter end game mode when it knows the outcome of the game. That is if it knows, beyond any action of the opposing player, that it will 100% win. Or if it doesn't see the way to win, knows it can at least get a draw (and possibly a win thanks to opponent mistake). If such board pattern won't materialise AI will be stuck in middle game untill such pattern materialise, it will get mated, left in a position in which even three year old could mate it (then it will resign by itself) or being in losing end game pattern itself and learnt that its opponent is no pushover and likely won't make any mistake and then too it will resign (albeit much earlier). End games pattern are also stored as data from the get go. So no, 100% match would be hard to get even with the same programm on the same machine.

Please note, that I'm not sure of everything I wrote above about chess AI. It's been a while since I've been in a loop about that and even then, I was only partialy interested so don't call me on that.

Garrett:
I'm going to help Treblaine a little. What you're arguing about is "conclusivenes" of evidence. Treblaine wants something that would actually hold value in real court. What you, electric method, are providing is something that would at most justify getting full search warrant. A real evidence would be something like finding computer with chess engine installed with log consising his tournament games timed at exactly tournament time and ofcourse player moves would be identical to this guy's opponent. Now THAT'S an evidence.

electric method:

I will have to try another method here. I will attempt, in the simplest terms possible to explain to you the differences between computers and humans and the relevance here. Maybe then you'll start to grasp this.

Get a grasp on this. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE THINK. Our knowledge of human brain is still in fairly basic form. We don't know how everything works. You can say what is the difference between AI and existing game masters based on solely on experience of analysing their games. But that doesn't mean some gm wouldn't suddenly change his game style. You can't just say "human would definitely play this move over that one"

electric method:
"Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it." You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you? I have used my knowledge and talent repeatedly in this thread. I have given more than generously of my time, talent and insight. Both as a experienced and knowledgable player as well as someone that caught computer assisted players.

Oh really? Then let me enlighten you, how do you look in some eyes:

electric method:
Oh, so you lowly, talentless, idiots want to know why am I, the grand master of everything that is intelligent, sure that piece of a trash cheated. (here be some moves explanation). What, to hard for you? Oh silly me, I forgot that even fraction of my intelligence is too much for common people.
image

I might've overcolour it a bit (but only a bit!) for shit'n'giggles but you get a drill. You "sound" like a pompuos dick. And please note that it is not because of your games explanations (well actually I don't know since I didn't read them) but it's mainly because of your prologue to them like "I apologize in advance but I will say complicated stuff". That and continously asking other to present knowledge on certain level which IS NOT REQUIRED. You act like we really need to understand chess at certain level to get this but it's simply not true. You don't need to know advanced physics to understand why MotoGp racers don't fall off their bikes every turn. And if you're so worried that you're giving your "knowledge" for free then you should stop writing here and go look somewhere where people will appreciate you for the self proclaimed god you are.

Treblaine:

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

Actually it's not that simple. I'm not sure but chess engines should be using neural networks at least a bit. So for example if two moves have same "move strength", AI would use its own "experience" to choose one over another (or just choose randomly). Also one game is divided in three parts (both for AI and humans I believe). Opening, middle and end game. For opening part, computers have installed gigabytes of data (well, at least specific computers made specifically to play chess, chess programms available to common public have some compromises here) on opening moves from games played since chess games started to be archivised. Basically, in opening part, AI would rely on this data comparing board pattern with its data and choosing "best" moves. This is where possibility of different moves made even with exact same chess engine should be greatest.
Then in the middle part you have your normal tree reading game when AI would try to read as much possibilities and go with the move that returned highest "move strength" (this is counted pretty much how electric method described "computahrz wayz of tinkin'" in his post before getting upset for being called on hiding behind his knowledge).
Then we have end game, which is different for man and machine. Machine will enter end game mode when it knows the outcome of the game. That is if it knows, beyond any action of the opposing player, that it will 100% win. Or if it doesn't see the way to win, knows it can at least get a draw (and possibly a win thanks to opponent mistake). If such board pattern won't materialise AI will be stuck in middle game untill such pattern materialise, it will get mated, left in a position in which even three year old could mate it (then it will resign by itself) or being in losing end game pattern itself and learnt that its opponent is no pushover and likely won't make any mistake and then too it will resign (albeit much earlier). End games pattern are also stored as data from the get go. So no, 100% match would be hard to get even with the same programm on the same machine.

Please note, that I'm not sure of everything I wrote above about chess AI. It's been a while since I've been in a loop about that and even then, I was only partialy interested so don't call me on that.

What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

With his performance he "earned" a GM norm. All he'd need is a few more performances like this and he would be granted the title "Grand Master". FIDE takes this, and all international titles, very seriously. They are not just handed out like candy. Futher, the games of masters, during the tournaments where they earned their norms, are reviewed. If anything odd or suspicious is present, an investigation takes place. What he's done with this shenanigan is to tarnish the title of Grand Master.

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

During the reviews of these games, with a few exceptions and the removal of the opening sequence, his correlation rating (often it is multiple moves in sequence) reaches over 90% with the first move choice of the engine Houdini3 (the strongest chess engine). 88+% with another not as powerful engine and over 90% with an engine called fritz 13. Also, the likelyhood of a 100% correlation across multiple engines is very low due to things like their AI, how their programing is written and the like. Each engine approaches the "crunching" a lil differently. However, they all share the same material obsession and tactical vision.

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

electric method:
What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

Nothing, we just like court like evidence because in its idea it proves criminal beyond any doubt. If I were to be tried for something I didn't do I would very much liked to be judged based on this kind of evidence. If I did commit some crime I would like this type of evidence very much as it would be harder to bent judgment :P

electric method:

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

electric method:

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

I didn't write "100% with multiple engines". I meant it wouldn't be 100% even with the exact same engine.

electric method:

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

"conclusively proven" And there we go again ┐(-。ー;)┌

Today, I learned there are a lot of people in this thread who don't understand "Correlation = Causality" is a logical fallacy, and that Chess is so mathematically derived it isn't worth playing.

Oh, and I also learned that conclusive evidence is useless, because figuring out how someone cheated isn't as important as banning them.

Good fucking God this topic got stupid.

Garrett:

electric method:
What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

Nothing, we just like court like evidence because in its idea it proves criminal beyond any doubt. If I were to be tried for something I didn't do I would very much liked to be judged based on this kind of evidence. If I did commit some crime I would like this type of evidence very much as it would be harder to bent judgment :P

electric method:

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

electric method:

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

I didn't write "100% with multiple engines". I meant it wouldn't be 100% even with the exact same engine.

electric method:

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

"conclusively proven" And there we go again (-;)

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently. Just the fact that he goes from 2200 - 2700 level play is the grounds for suspicion. The fact that he played exponetially better than the best world champion the world has ever seen( his level of play would beat Garry Kasparov soundly and make Kasparov look like a 1200) and the over 90% correlation in two engines and 88%+ correlation in another is plenty to strike his tournament results and GM norm. Add in comparison of his older games, where he is barely holding his own against other 2200's the wandering play in game 2 and the horrid blunder of Bd6? in game 2. Going from 2650 level of play to like 1850 with one move is evidence. Couple that with his other loss where his performance rating is 2200 or below, after playing above world champ level, and it seems like he is more than one person playing his games and FIDE has enough to perma ban him from chess.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

As to the things you posted about my "behavior". It's like this. It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole? Treating me like a dog with comments that come across as "you need evidence! Go fetch the stick boy!" As well as outright asking a master level player to teach him for free in a insanely disrepectful way and that's ok? It's ok that he repeatedly crapped all over other posters and been obscenely inflammatory and disrespectful to all of us but, when I get upset because of his ridiculous behavior it's not ok? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

I have a lot of patience, a pretty thick skin and am pretty tolerant but, I will be damned before I roll over and let someone not only be that disrespectful but, also treat me like I am some personal lapdog to hunt down his precious "evidence". To hell with that.

electric method:

Garrett:
snip

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently. Just the fact that he goes from 2200 - 2700 level play is the grounds for suspicion. The fact that he played exponetially better than the best world champion the world has ever seen( his level of play would beat Garry Kasparov soundly and make Kasparov look like a 1200) and the over 90% correlation in two engines and 88%+ correlation in another is plenty to strike his tournament results and GM norm. Add in comparison of his older games, where he is barely holding his own against other 2200's the wandering play in game 2 and the horrid blunder of Bd6? in game 2. Going from 2650 level of play to like 1850 with one move is evidence. Couple that with his other loss where his performance rating is 2200 or below, after playing above world champ level, and it seems like he is more than one person playing his games and FIDE has enough to perma ban him from chess.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

As to the things you posted about my "behavior". It's like this. It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole? Treating me like a dog with comments that come across as "you need evidence! Go fetch the stick boy!" As well as outright asking a master level player to teach him for free in a insanely disrepectful way and that's ok? It's ok that he repeatedly crapped all over other posters and been obscenely inflammatory and disrespectful to all of us but, when I get upset because of his ridiculous behavior it's not ok? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

I have a lot of patience, a pretty thick skin and am pretty tolerant but, I will be damned before I roll over and lets some not only be that disrespectful but, also treat me like I am some personal lapdog to hunt down his precious "evidence". To hell with that.

You know, reading your responses is quite funny. It's like you get only about 1/3 of the whole post and respond to this part completely ignoring the rest. Since I'm tired of dividing up your response so it would be easier to read, I'll do this ine one block.

Ok, form my standpoint this part of the discussion was finished. We know he is not going to be tried in the court. We just like the kind of evidence in ANY situation were someone is being accused of something. And we're not talking with your FIDE or whatever. This discussion is completely unrelated to what's going to happen to the guy. Just because FIDE won't bother with real evidence doesn't mean noone should. We know he is not going to the real court. Ok? And why did you feel to made another explanation? It's completely unrelated to this part of statement. My "Nothing, we just like court like evidence" was a direct response to yours "What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court.". It meant that it is in fact NOT hard to understand this case is NOT going to court BUT nontheless we LIKE that kind of evidence. And out of this pretty straight and I thought conclusive answer you went with another analysis. And now you're also claiming that chess AI get to the point where it's got complete upper hand over people (and downgraded Kasparov to the amateur level, I hope he'll read this topic) which is not true. And why "Bd6" again? It's like you have a grudge on that guy over it. You repeat it continously. I might just start calling you "Bd6 Qf3"...

"It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole?"
xD That made me laugh. I might not remember it correctly (and I'm not going to bother with reading the topic again) and since I more or less get what he mean and can't get your logic I might be a bit biased, but it's something like this:
Everyone (except some random "geez, maybe he just really is that good" guys that left after that) agrees that this guy's a cheat. Treblaine asks for hard evidence. You "attack" him with your "evidence is here: game analysis". Then he's like "but you do realize it's not hard evidence?". To which you respond whith analysis again (which is probably the same as the first one) this time imposing on his intelligence "do you really know how to play chess"? And the it's "but dude, it's really not hard evidence, there exist possibility that it wasn't due to cheating". And you go again another analysis (probably same as first two) with yet again asking about his competence (which btw. Treblaine was quite nice in that regard, because if I was in his place I would ask if you're a fucking moron for not understanding the concept of "probability is not flat 0" and that I'm not asking you for game analysis). And you did few rounds of it (seriosuly, why did you feel the need to present this game analysis multiple times (I'm sure I read 3 or 4 of your posts that were identicall in terms of content). It's not like he's going to accept it if you repeat it over and over again.
And he didn't ask you (master level player, lol, you really have are pompous, probably why you're not working with chess anymore :P) to teach you chess. He asked you to explaing what you believe is conclusive evidence in terms which is possible to understand by non professional chess players. Which if you understand the game so well, shouldn't be that much of a problem. That's how good teachers are found, by their ability to explain things to idiots.

electric method:

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

There is real value in finding "hard evidence" here, even if it isn't in a court room.
If he can cheat in such a manner, and doing so is detrimental to the game, would it not be sensible to figure out exactly HOW he cheated so others don't follow suit? Banning him might fix the symptom, but it doesn't cure the problem (and a problem you've gone to great length to discuss already).

Personally, the fact they couldn't conclusively prove or show how he cheated suggests to me poor standards of officiating at their tournaments; it really does hurt their reputation and the integrity of their competitions if I know that someone can ruin an otherwise great match, even if they are later banned.

Reading over this farce, I have to say that Method has given hard evidence of cheating. Seeing as he cant go to the man's house, pull back the curtain and say "HERE IS THE MACHINE BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!", this is the best evidence he can give. He has posted previous game statistics of the person, game history, ranking, as well as the current playing level exhibited in the match...they all lead to one simple fact..he cheated. As a low level player myself, I have a bit of a hard time following all of what Method posted in regards to positioning, however, it does make a lot of sense. I don't think he was trying to be MR. Ego Cock, he was just explaining that some of this would go over lower level players heads; which it does. There is also the fact that he is ranked as a 2200 level player, however he played the competition at a 2700 level. I know from experience that it takes about a couple years of hard study to raise your playing level just 50 points. to raise your level damn near 500 points in an instant, screams cheating.

As far as the comment about the reasons behind Method not reffing chess anymore, as well as saying he may not actually have the skill he says he has...that was uncalled for. I happen to have seen Method play chess, and have known him for awhile; he is as good as he says. He has the positional understanding of a grand master, though he may not be ranked as a grand master. He is however ranked right around the international master level. As far as him reffing chess, that was his choice not to do it anymore for reasons of his own. This is why you don't make those type of comments about someone you don't know or have never met.

In ending (to bring this back to the original topic), Yes there is no doubt that this guy cheated somehow. The only question is what method did he use to cheat.

Garrett:

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

More or less, yes.

You can go back in this thread find all the quotes of; absolutely "impossible", "definitively", "conclusively" and so on but when you actually persuade them to give an explanation for them saying such things it turns out to be much less than that.

I don't like being expected to find a man guilty yet not being given an explanation of how he is guilty. Nothing but insistence that he is.

It is affront to my deepest and most important values on justice, as a principal.

 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