Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Morse code vibrating receiver in the foreskin and a butt-plug that transmits morse-code or some other similar protocol to relay the moves made.

Lots of ways you could configure this and make it difficult to actually confirm.

Make him play in a metal box to block wireless transmitters? bug-scanner?

Steven Lahey:
this is the best evidence he can give.

Best evidence is not automatically good evidence. Best is a relative thing.

The best evidence for bigfoot... isn't very good evidence.

electric method:
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.

"is"

if that's his status now then he really has nothing to lose if he did cheat, at least he can impress people which how he was so good at cheating at chess he had to tell them how he did it. But having all the downsides of being considered a cheat, yet not even the satisfaction of "here's how I did it".

You've clearly demonstrated how adamant the chess community is, it's not like him staying silent would convince anyone that's involved in competitive chess.

And realise, I'd be totally fine if he came out and said how he cheated. Because I'm not saying that I know for certain he didn't do it, I'm saying evidence is needed to prove one way or the other.

His staying silent doesn't prove anything by the way.

The black kid in the new Karate Kid learned enough Kung Fu in the space of about 4 weeks to beat a bunch of Chinese kids who had been learning and studying Kung Fu for their entire lives...

And he did it with a broken leg.

Maybe he got the chess version of that kid's training.

Er... how is it even possible to cheat at Chess in the first place?

I mean... its not like say... poker where someone might be hiding cards up their sleeves or counting the cards...

so, what the hell?

So when this guy cheats at chess, it's strip searching..

But when Harry Potter cheats at chess, no one gives a damn? wtf.

DoPo:

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

I think between the maker of that video and the suggestions in the artical Chess players have some wild imaginations when it comes to where people can put radio transmitters or willing to put them.

Its not just normal things like a hearing aid. Nope he had surgery(tooth filling/ under the skin). Or he had spy glasses that showed him what to do from 2km away(Despite him not using glasses).

I get that it highly unlikely that the guy did not cheat.

I just find it funny what people come up with some times

TheDoctor455:
Er... how is it even possible to cheat at Chess in the first place?

I mean... its not like say... poker where someone might be hiding cards up their sleeves or counting the cards...

so, what the hell?

Erm, it says right there in the article - they suspect Ivanov was playing the moves fed to him from a computer. Did you read the article? I thought it was obvious, seeing how it was directly stated.

Garrett:

electric method:
[quote="Garrett" post="7.398722.16341761"]snip

snip

There's a difference between teaching to someone who simply lacks understanding, and trying to explain something to someone who is being willfully ignorant.

Treblaine either lacks the mental capacity to understand the evidence he demands (and at this point, I'm leaning towards this option), or understands it and is deliberately staying on this thread in order to annoy and harass other players.

Treblaine:

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.

Stop fighting a losing battle. Since you are ignorant on the topic you are clearly missing the fact that there is irrefutable evidence. The authorities acted correctly.

Chess.com
Chessgames.com

excellent websites to learn chess and the chess community by the way.

fapper plain:
to someone who is being willfully ignorant.

Treblaine either lacks the mental capacity to understand the evidence he demands (and at this point, I'm leaning towards this option), or understands it and is deliberately staying on this thread in order to annoy and harass other players.

How am I being wilfully ignorant? By repeatedly asking for useful explanations rather than data-dumps followed by personal assertions?

No, the evidence I demand is NOT another more strongly put forward opinion. Analysis is too spurious, it's based on things like "no human would ever take that risk" which he can't say and "what he was considering was" when he couldn't possibly read the players mind and knowing what they were considering. And expecting him to play a conservative game that he was almost certain to lose to a Grand Master with.

I'm not being wilfully ignorant. To call me that for asking pertinent questions and not gullibly and meekly accepting his unexplained claims... I just don't know, what is YOUR agenda?

Treblaine:

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.

Which has been done, over and over again; humans and computers think differently, these games were played by someone who thinks like a computer (which is impossible to a human).
Furthermore, the player demonstrated knowledge of things he hadn't months before and that would have required years of study, at best.

electric method:
snip

I don't know much of chess, but was able to understand what was going on, and it has been interesting reading the analysis of the game. Makes me want to start playing chess again. (I used to play it a lot with my cousin, but on a very basic level, with neither one knowing anything about tactics)

A Smooth Criminal:
So when this guy cheats at chess, it's strip searching..

But when Harry Potter cheats at chess, no one gives a damn? wtf.

When did Harry Potter cheat at chess? I'm absolutely sure he only played against them in the first book. Or is this some joke I'm missing? 0.o

Treblaine:
How am I being wilfully ignorant? By repeatedly asking for useful explanations rather than data-dumps followed by personal assertions?

They are all useful explanations. I don't see what's the issue against seeing a game and saying "He's cheating because there is no way that his moves make any sense." because that's a valid way of finding cheaters in chess.

We're human, if you noticed. Humans do not think the same way as computers. In fact, computers only have an advantage over humans when it comes to computation. But other than that, computers are quite dumb. In chess, the reason that computers can beat us is that computers can calculate many possible moves which are the best and put them into action. No human player can think of hundreds of moves in the time a computer can.

No, the evidence I demand is NOT another more strongly put forward opinion. Analysis is too spurious, it's based on things like "no human would ever take that risk" which he can't say and "what he was considering was" when he couldn't possibly read the players mind and knowing what they were considering. And expecting him to play a conservative game that he was almost certain to lose to a Grand Master with.

Analysis in other fields where needed, you meant to say. Knowing what analysis that DoPo and electric method put up requires a knowledge of intermediate to advanced chess.

I'm not being wilfully ignorant. To call me that for asking pertinent questions and not gullibly and meekly accepting his unexplained claims... I just don't know, what is YOUR agenda?

electric method's explained a couple of times. As have I, DoPo, and many others.

thesilentman:

A Smooth Criminal:
So when this guy cheats at chess, it's strip searching..

But when Harry Potter cheats at chess, no one gives a damn? wtf.

When did Harry Potter cheat at chess? I'm absolutely sure he only played against them in the first book. Or is this some joke I'm missing? 0.o

Ya, he played it...

AND HE CHEATED AT THE GAME!!

A Smooth Criminal:

thesilentman:

A Smooth Criminal:
So when this guy cheats at chess, it's strip searching..

But when Harry Potter cheats at chess, no one gives a damn? wtf.

When did Harry Potter cheat at chess? I'm absolutely sure he only played against them in the first book. Or is this some joke I'm missing? 0.o

Ya, he played it...

AND HE CHEATED AT THE GAME!!

:) off topic here, and in response to the Harry Potter comment. IM Jeremy Silman was the chess consultant for that scene. He is a pretty "famous" International Master. In fact, he wrote two incredible books that have helped tons of players improve. Those being, "How to Reassess Your Chess" and "The Amateur's Mind". Both are fantastic and I cannot recommend them enough. Lieju, you would almost certainly be interested in these books.

For DoPo and TheSilentman, you would probably enjoy them as well but, I would offer up "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (that is A. Nimzovitch if I recall properly") And Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors".

I congradulate the person who has managed to create a chess-playing Android. It's like Data from Star Trek TNG, but configured soley for chess.

thesilentman:

A Smooth Criminal:
So when this guy cheats at chess, it's strip searching..

But when Harry Potter cheats at chess, no one gives a damn? wtf.

When did Harry Potter cheat at chess? I'm absolutely sure he only played against them in the first book. Or is this some joke I'm missing? 0.o

Treblaine:
How am I being wilfully ignorant? By repeatedly asking for useful explanations rather than data-dumps followed by personal assertions?

They are all useful explanations. I don't see what's the issue against seeing a game and saying "He's cheating because there is no way that his moves make any sense." because that's a valid way of finding cheaters in chess.

We're human, if you noticed. Humans do not think the same way as computers. In fact, computers only have an advantage over humans when it comes to computation. But other than that, computers are quite dumb. In chess, the reason that computers can beat us is that computers can calculate many possible moves which are the best and put them into action. No human player can think of hundreds of moves in the time a computer can.

No, the evidence I demand is NOT another more strongly put forward opinion. Analysis is too spurious, it's based on things like "no human would ever take that risk" which he can't say and "what he was considering was" when he couldn't possibly read the players mind and knowing what they were considering. And expecting him to play a conservative game that he was almost certain to lose to a Grand Master with.

Analysis in other fields where needed, you meant to say. Knowing what analysis that DoPo and electric method put up requires a knowledge of intermediate to advanced chess.

I'm not being wilfully ignorant. To call me that for asking pertinent questions and not gullibly and meekly accepting his unexplained claims... I just don't know, what is YOUR agenda?

electric method's explained a couple of times. As have I, DoPo, and many others.

Thanks to all who have quoted me recently. I am just going to post what will be, pretty much, my final thoughts on this.

Almost everyone has heard the term; "The proof is in the pudding." This has a special significance here. The "pudding" in this case are the games he played, both at this tournament, and before. The "proof" are the moves he (and to some degree his opponents) played in these games.

Trying to use anything other than chess to explain his moves, or these games is a fool's errand. Trying to see relevancy between flight and chess, chemistry and chess, or pretty much any other field and chess is, well, ridiculous. Would one use geometry to explain a concept like love? No, there is no relevancy between the two. This is chess. Chess has to be explained by chess. The only field of study that can remotely come close to explaining chess is math. And this is only because of things like statistical models, probabilities and how math can be used to assign values. Math cannot be used to explain an opening, nor why a move is played. It cannot be used to show an insightful plan or an idea being expressed on a board. Chess, however, can explain all of that happens in chess.

Saying something like "well maybe he learned to think like a computer and then used that to befuddle a Grand Master." is preposterous. It presupposes that a human can make complex calculations, each one growing exponenially larger to include millions upon millions of possible outcomes, changing with each move played. If human's could do this we would have no need of computers to do complex calculations for us. So the argument of "maybe he learned to think like a computer" is shown for what it is; completely specious and spurious, holding no water and is so ridiculous as an argument because it can be demonstrably be proven to be false.

Edit: If we as humans were capable of this miraculous feat of thinking like computers we would be so far beyond where we are a society it is hard to envision. We would, most likely, be out in the universe exploring. Have discovered flight, space travel, biology, chemestry and other very complex fields long before we did. We would have created things like microscopes, cars and rockets hundreds of years before we did. We would, probably have eradicated things like war, famine, disease and murder because they are not logical. We would have long ago done away with such silly things as emotions, being social and falling in love. In short we would resemble a much more machine like society than one comprised of intelligent, emotional social beings.

electric method:
Saying something like "well maybe he learned to think like a computer and then used that to befuddle a Grand Master." is preposterous. It presupposes that a human can make complex calculations, each one growing exponenially larger to include millions upon millions of possible outcomes, changing with each move played.

That was precisely what people said about card-counters in casinos.

I remind you, even back then the experts said it was impossible and for years blindly asserted they must have some sort of implausibly small and totally undetectable communication or calculation device.

You've ignored this point I've made to you enough times and made further summaries excluding it, an attempt to retcon my input from thread?

You can say "it's preposterous" without explanation but who would believe you knowing it's been done before and you're sweeping that under the rug?

I don't understand what the big deal is. He got better at chess and beat a bunch of guys at it, it happens in every other sport. They even searched him and found nothing to indicate he was getting outside help. To me this is just an amazing level of sour grapes from his opponents, and possibly spectators who were betting against him. Just because you've been declared some sort of grand master doesn't mean you're unbeatable.

Treblaine:

electric method:
Saying something like "well maybe he learned to think like a computer and then used that to befuddle a Grand Master." is preposterous. It presupposes that a human can make complex calculations, each one growing exponenially larger to include millions upon millions of possible outcomes, changing with each move played.

That was precisely what people said about card-counters in casinos.

I remind you, even back then the experts said it was impossible and for years blindly asserted they must have some sort of implausibly small and totally undetectable communication or calculation device.

You've ignored this point I've made to you enough times and made further summaries excluding it, an attempt to retcon my input from thread?

You can say "it's preposterous" without explanation but who would believe you knowing it's been done before and you're sweeping that under the rug?

I ignored it, repeatedly, because there is no reasonable grounds for comparison between the two. Expanded, That there is no reasonable grounds for comparison is obvious Cards are odds.. statistics. Chess is NOT. IN each and every case, I have used chess (relevent to the topic) at hand to explain my positions. Have reasonably proven my ascertations yet in each response, you've have made wild stretches and comparisons to topics and subjects that are completely irrelevent to the topic. Remember your idea to use kitty hawk and the theory of flight to try to prove that theory in chess and it were the same thing? Ultimately, in each case where someone presented a logical argument, based on the topic (chess) with relevant historical information about chess or the player in question, your final trump card was "you need evidence, FIND IT."

Counting Cards...lmao. That can be done easily if one has the needed understanding of math. Math that's it. And the number of humans that can make the necessary calculations, which they don't make at the table btw, is pretty small. NONE of them actually make the calculations at the table, they use a probability matrix. A matrix which they have memorized. A matrix which they made the calculations for prior to going to play cards. So it ends up being more like doing algebra or some such in their head. For those that don't count the cards themselves what do they do...oh that's right... USE a damned COMPUTER.

It's not the same thing at all. There are a much, much, much smaller number of variations that can arise from this situation. Wait for it... With each card played the number of options is reduced by 1 and the card counter can subtract 1 card from the other 52 (if jokers are used). Chess is NOT =/= to card counting. After each and every move the number of potential outcomes grows exponentially. So exponentially that it quickly gets into the millions of possible outcomes. and each of those outcomes has millions more potential outcomes. 52 cards that reduce down to zero until all have been played. 20 moves per player, across 64 squares.. outcomes growing exponentially with each move and soon reaches into the millions. Where is the logic in the comparison? Where? Really... where is it?

Let me say this again... you are trying to compare something (counting cards) where the outcomes are reduced with each move to something (Chess) where outcomes grow exponentially with each move? Try again.... You need something where the outcomes grow in the same manner as chess...

Also, if what Treblaine has suggested... People can be trained to think like computers, was actually true anyone could be a Grand Master. In fact, almost everyone WOULD be a Grand Master and since this is, obviously, not true....

electric method:
Expanded, That there is no reasonable grounds for comparison is obvious Cards are odds.. statistics. Chess is NOT.

That wasn't the basis of the comparison. The point was the calculations to card count were considered impossible without a computer. That was wrong. That was not someone "thinking like a computer" but still able to get the results you'd get from a computer.

Remember your idea to use kitty hawk and the theory of flight to try to prove that theory in chess and it were the same thing?

No I didn't. I used it to prove well established ideas can be completely wrong.

I'm not saying it's processed exactly like how a computer beats Grand Masters, but some other method that has been neglected.

There are ways humans can simplify problems in ways computers can't and have to resort to brute force number-crunching methods.

And what about my request, have you or anyone found a chess engine that when inputting these moves gives the EXACT same plays as the accused? There can't be that many chess engines, and few that would be fitting to the task. You haven't even explained why it couldn't be done.

All you've ever said is he's not playing like a mid-ranking player should play against a Gran Master, in a way you have to admit he'd be guaranteed to lose. Why play conservatively and predictably when you know that your Grand Master opponent will be far better than you at that? You're whole basis of him being fed moves from a computer is that he's taking risks a player wouldn't.

That's another point you've ignored.

electric method:
Also, if what Treblaine has suggested... People can be trained to think like computers, was actually true anyone could be a Grand Master. In fact, almost everyone WOULD be a Grand Master and since this is, obviously, not true....

Well if that is what he did and was accused of being a cheat for trying it... you can see why many don't. It seems Chess is pretty rigid in the way you are "supposed to play".

They'd still be thinking like humans, they'd just be learning lessons from computers.

That Hyena Bloke:
I don't understand what the big deal is. He got better at chess and beat a bunch of guys at it, it happens in every other sport. They even searched him and found nothing to indicate he was getting outside help. To me this is just an amazing level of sour grapes from his opponents, and possibly spectators who were betting against him. Just because you've been declared some sort of grand master doesn't mean you're unbeatable.

There were reasons for the accusations and I am still very suspicios about this case. It is not that he came out of nowhere and beat grandmasters.

His play was inconsistant. When his matches were broadcasted or streamed he layed down moves that were suggested by chess engines as the top 3 best moves for that situation. When his matches weren't broadcasted he played on a completely different skilllevel.

This is not a case of "huh, so he just got better".

TheKasp:

That Hyena Bloke:
I don't understand what the big deal is. He got better at chess and beat a bunch of guys at it, it happens in every other sport. They even searched him and found nothing to indicate he was getting outside help. To me this is just an amazing level of sour grapes from his opponents, and possibly spectators who were betting against him. Just because you've been declared some sort of grand master doesn't mean you're unbeatable.

There were reasons for the accusations and I am still very suspicios about this case. It is not that he came out of nowhere and beat grandmasters.

His play was inconsistant. When his matches were broadcasted or streamed he layed down moves that were suggested by chess engines as the top 3 best moves for that situation. When his matches weren't broadcasted he played on a completely different skilllevel.

This is not a case of "huh, so he just got better".

I've looked more closely at the articles linked, but I'm just still not convinced. According to the NYT article he made a "blunder" in the one match he had that wasn't streamed, which I suppose could be suspicious but one of the grand masters apparently also blundered in a later match against the guy, so maybe it was a fluke that it happened in the non-streamed one? Or is the article unreliable, as newspapers can be when reporting on some of the geekier stuff?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about professional chess to form an expert opinion, for all I know he had some sort of high-tech uplink to a computer somewhere. it just seems from an outsider's perspective that people are fuming about an unknown coming in and upsetting the rankings with an unusually good performance.

That Hyena Bloke:

TheKasp:

That Hyena Bloke:
I don't understand what the big deal is. He got better at chess and beat a bunch of guys at it, it happens in every other sport. They even searched him and found nothing to indicate he was getting outside help. To me this is just an amazing level of sour grapes from his opponents, and possibly spectators who were betting against him. Just because you've been declared some sort of grand master doesn't mean you're unbeatable.

There were reasons for the accusations and I am still very suspicios about this case. It is not that he came out of nowhere and beat grandmasters.

His play was inconsistant. When his matches were broadcasted or streamed he layed down moves that were suggested by chess engines as the top 3 best moves for that situation. When his matches weren't broadcasted he played on a completely different skilllevel.

This is not a case of "huh, so he just got better".

I've looked more closely at the articles linked, but I'm just still not convinced. According to the NYT article he made a "blunder" in the one match he had that wasn't streamed, which I suppose could be suspicious but one of the grand masters apparently also blundered in a later match against the guy, so maybe it was a fluke that it happened in the non-streamed one? Or is the article unreliable, as newspapers can be when reporting on some of the geekier stuff?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about professional chess to form an expert opinion, for all I know he had some sort of high-tech uplink to a computer somewhere. it just seems from an outsider's perspective that people are fuming about an unknown coming in and upsetting the rankings with an unusually good performance.

The indicator is he is a statistical anomaly.

after opening he matches the computer move for move 85%-90% of the time when the game was streamed.
Something that should not happen for one game let alone as many as it did.
(Note: you will never get 100% unless you know what opening book was and a few outer things but such a high match rate simply dose not happen)

Treblaine:
[quote="electric method" post="7.398722.16352184"]snip.

Ok, I am gunna lay the checkmate down on this thread.... Here we go...

Every rational, logical person would grant this "impossible" status if his improvement was done inside a 24 hour period, right? I hope so.. Because that IS exactly what he did. He went from playing mediocre chess for a 2200 to playing at above a World Champion level in 1 day. "But, Method" you say; "Where is the evidence of that? Where is the proof?"

And I reply; "Look at his Tournament History on the FIDE webpage". Where you need to start is the tournament directly prior to the one we have been talking about here and after that, his rating history. From his rating history one can see that he has been performing at approx the 2200 level for 3 years. A few improvements here and there. So we can logically say he has plataued. From the prior game history we see he cannot beat a player of his own level but, only manage draws. So, in these 3 years he has never beaten a 2200+ rated player only managed a draw.

Now, we really dive into the tourney prior to the Zadar one. Game 1, he is playing against an 1850... he loses, badly. Game 2, he is playing against a 2050 (or so) and barely mananges to get a draw. (Btw these results are consistant with his game history, shown ability and strength. And then there is game 3... ah game 3 of this 6 round tournament. He wins for the first time against a 2200. Congratulations Borislav we cheer! You've finally managed to score a win against a 2200+ player... go you. Except there is a problem. A huge one. Massive... like elephant in the room massive... His performance rating that game is 500+ points higher than his highest ever established rating. In fact he is playing chess well above a world champion level. Well, maybe he just had a good game, maybe his opponent blundered.. nope. Then he goes on to beat another 2200 in game 4 then scores wins in games 5 and 6 against two strong IM's. All of these games his performace rating is 500+ points above his highest rating, with the exception of games 1 and 2. He finishes this tournament with a 4.5/6 score.

So, in the 24 hour period between game 2 and 3 of the tournament prior to the Zadar we see our humble, mediocre 2200 jumop to playing above a World Champion level of play. 24 hours and the best chess player the world has ever seen arises from the mind and body of a mediocre 2200...

Now, comes the hilarious part in the Zadar tournament, after performing at well above World Champ level of play (discounting game 2) and his best game in that tournament game 7 (where he beats the best player in that tournament conviciningly as black)Is game 8. Where he loses... badly... horribly. His performance rating for that game is in the 2125 range. And then, just like magic as it happened in the tournament before... Behold Borislav the Magnificent, the best in the world returns for game 9 and is playing once again 500+ points above his highest established rating.

So if we are counting, and we most certainly are, that's 2 amazing transformations in a 24 hour period and one sudden plummet. So, what we see is that his improvement is not in a months time but, in 1 day. 1 freaking day... not once but, twice.

checkmate... /end thread.

Anatoli Ossai:

dpak:

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

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

Bobby Fischer made a huge leap in performance between when he was 12 and 13, so the Great Leap Forward cannot be ruled out. However, I accept that if it is not sustained thereafter then it is suspicious. However if we "know every single way to play" then this man could have added some of that knowledge to his own. If "all we do now is refine endings, openings and theories" then are we not getting to the stage when even weaker players can draw on this knowledge, in much the same way as, say, a move like Morphy's brilliant (in its day) queen sacrifice against Paulsen, would be considered a merely average or normal move today?

electric method:
Let me explain. Game 2, look at it. He gets himself into a draw position after playing a game where he performed at roughly a 2600 level. Then, he makes a mistake no 2600 level GM would ever make. Clarifying that even further; there were no time constraints or issues here, he had 30 minutes for each move. Any GM, or player earning their norms and playing at 2600+ level of play would have looked at that position and realized Bd6 is an instant lose move. Yes, it looks logical but, is the worst move he could have possibly made. People performing at that level would never make that mistake. It's a gigantic blunder. Which puts paid to the lie of his performance being a completely human endeavour.

In my youth, I remember being told by my school chess captain that I was a strong player with the strongest mid-game play in the school (i.e. even stronger than he) but that I was weak in closed positions because I got impatient and played recklessly. (I was also weak in the endgame.) I did, later learn some mental strategies to improve my closed-position play. But the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

"a mistake no 2600 level GM would ever make?" Like Fischer's 29...Bxh2 in Game 2 of the World Championship in 1972? Let's face it, S~*% happens!

cookyt:

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

I don't see why this is implausible.

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

Or maybe he just had a string of good luck?

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

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

Much the same and would cause a fucking UPROAR.

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

Computer algorithms for chess rely on the ridiculously fast pace at which computers can search all possible moves and the likely series of moves that would follow. The human mind just isn't capable of that level of processing capability (at least at the focused levels required for something like chess). There are ways of measuring how much someone plays like a machine, and this guy has set off all the alarms for those measures.

The people running the tournament aren't saying he is guilty for sure, but his play style is suspicious. Yes the current evidence is only circumstantial, but that's why they're investigating the matter further before bringing out any formal accusations. You're right to say that the ego of some of the GMs has a hand in this, but if the investigation turns up nothing, then it won't matter anyway.

If a relatively unknown - typically slow - Olympic runner were to suddenly run a single race at record speeds, there would likely be an investigation too. The only difference is that an Olympic investigation would likely be kept more quiet than what we are seeing here.

But maybe... he can SEE the code, man.
image
(was going to photoshop in a chess board, but too lazy.)

direkiller:

DoPo:

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

I think between the maker of that video and the suggestions in the artical Chess players have some wild imaginations when it comes to where people can put radio transmitters or willing to put them.

Its not just normal things like a hearing aid. Nope he had surgery(tooth filling/ under the skin). Or he had spy glasses that showed him what to do from 2km away(Despite him not using glasses).

I get that it highly unlikely that the guy did not cheat.

I just find it funny what people come up with some times

People have done crazier things for casinos.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19792_the-5-ballsiest-casino-cheats-all-time.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ways-people-cheat-in-casinos.html
http://listverse.com/2010/01/24/10-gamblers-who-beat-the-casino/

dpak:
the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

Bad Jim:

dpak:
the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6, which was cited by electric method as specific proof that he was guided by a computer. Are you saying that this specific move could not have been the result of fatigue and a decline in mental alertness at that moment?

dpak:

Bad Jim:

dpak:
the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6, which was cited by electric method as specific proof that he was guided by a computer. Are you saying that this specific move could not have been the result of fatigue and a decline in mental alertness at that moment?

The answer to your question is, well, no. The time controls for these games was 90/30, meaning 90 mins for each player plus a 30 second increment per move. Also, this is game 2 of the tournament and in game 1 he won quickly and pretty convicingly. If this were the old classical time contols maybe but, we are talking about endgame play from 2600+ players.

Simply put, there is only one move on the board that makes sense and, frankly, that move is very obvious (for a GM down to about 2200). The move white is threating is also very obvious... White's prior move is a two parter with the next move being one that threatens Nxd5. All black has to do draw this position is keep control of e6 and d6 with his king and protect the backwards pawn on d5. This is fairly simple to see and plan for. That he plays Bd6 instead of say, the obvious endgame move of Ke6, is very striking and is such a bad mistake one would expect to see it from a player sub 2100. Also, this type of endgame position is fairly common and any GM or 2600+ player would easily convert this position into a draw. The position, for all intents and purposes, plays itself.

In all honesty, one does not play at a GM level, nor earn GM norms with out a strong understanding of endgames. In otherwords, you are probably not going to find a player capable of 2600+ play or any GM with a weak understanding of endgames. Why? Endgames are where a large portion of games at the master level, and especially the GM level, are decided. If there is one "truism" about all GM's it is that they all can play and understand endgames strongly. Where GM's differ is in preference. Some prefer to play attacking chess, others prefer positional chess. This preference is expressed in the openings they play and in their middlegames. However, they all understand positional elements, tactical elements and how to plan properly as well as endgames. Such a gaping in hole in knowledge, like a lack of knowledge of endgames, would have long since been corrected or they would never be playing at that level. Upon review of his earlier games from 2012 it is obvious that he has a large gap in his knowledge of endgames that would preclude him from playing at a 2600 level.(not to mention serious deficencies in other areas of his game and general knowledge).

dpak:
I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6

You mean move 115 in this game?

Actually, to be honest, that doesn't look like a computer blunder to me. It only takes a 12 ply search to find that it loses a pawn. I just entered that position into Winboard using the Fruit 2.1 engine and it reached a search depth of 20 ply in less than a second, rejecting Bd6 at 12 ply in favour of Ke6.

I'd say he made that blunder himself. Neither GM nor computer should miss it, but humans make silly mistakes occasionally, while computers never overlook material losses within their search depth.

dpak:

Bobby Fischer made a huge leap in performance between when he was 12 and 13, so the Great Leap Forward cannot be ruled out. However, I accept that if it is not sustained thereafter then it is suspicious. However if we "know every single way to play" then this man could have added some of that knowledge to his own. If "all we do now is refine endings, openings and theories" then are we not getting to the stage when even weaker players can draw on this knowledge, in much the same way as, say, a move like Morphy's brilliant (in its day) queen sacrifice against Paulsen, would be considered a merely average or normal move today?

Fischer was a chess prodigy and to his credit he was a child, I'm alluding to brain plasticity. When I say we know every way to play I'm referring to calculable moves easily done on a super computers. Obviously half of them are rubbish. Which brings me to Morphy's "sacrifice" which is technically accurate but a misnomer since he won strategically. Computers play tactics but are programmed for strategy. The ability innovate new chess theories is a genius level skill like your example of Fischer. Simply learning old games won't give you the edge. The grandmasters already know them and new chess players learn them to improve but that alone won't suffice. And that's my gripe, why so late in his career? I suppose time will tell if he caanot sustain his new "talent".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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