## Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Ajedrecista
Posts: 1406
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:04 pm
Contact:

### Other cheating from B. Ivanov?

Hello Alex:
Cubeman wrote:
simonhue wrote:A new video by Valiery Lilov on Borislav Ivanov's last two tourneys:

I wonder if Lilov will make a new video on Borislav from he latest tournament.
http://chess-results.com/tnr93301.aspx?art=1&rd=9&lan=1
It is a little suspicious again. Using the Tournament Performance Luck Calculator hosted in Chess-DB:

http://www.chess-db.com/public/perfprob ... =Calculate
Results
Probability to achieve exactly 0.0 points: 0.000002332274255490, ~1/428766
Probability to achieve exactly 0.5 points: 0.000022390549141110, ~1/44661
Probability to achieve exactly 1.0 points: 0.000830855403277235, ~1/1203
Probability to achieve exactly 1.5 points: 0.004903176064573241, ~1/203
Probability to achieve exactly 2.0 points: 0.048690531247981082, ~1/20
Probability to achieve exactly 2.5 points: 0.131118685424084644, ~1/7
Probability to achieve exactly 3.0 points: 0.207347989078588040, ~1/4
Probability to achieve exactly 3.5 points: 0.224168358032191851, ~1/4
Probability to achieve exactly 4.0 points: 0.180776095969488520, ~1/5
Probability to achieve exactly 4.5 points: 0.113122850001862949, ~1/8
Probability to achieve exactly 5.0 points: 0.056432046028432434, ~1/17
Probability to achieve exactly 5.5 points: 0.022707177143683955, ~1/44
Probability to achieve exactly 6.0 points: 0.007420709141247940, ~1/134
Probability to achieve exactly 6.5 points: 0.001962008892422435, ~1/509
Probability to achieve exactly 7.0 points: 0.000416252313678566, ~1/2402
Probability to achieve exactly 7.5 points: 0.000069102300879496, ~1/14471
Probability to achieve exactly 8.0 points: 0.000008660244823684, ~1/115470
Probability to achieve exactly 8.5 points: 0.000000743123465396, ~1/1345671
Probability to achieve exactly 9.0 points: 0.000000036765922044, ~1/27199100
---
Probability to achieve >= 0.0 points: 1.000000000000000121, ~1/0
Probability to achieve >= 0.5 points: 0.999997667725744631, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 1.0 points: 0.999975277176603520, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 1.5 points: 0.999144421773326285, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 2.0 points: 0.994241245708753044, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 2.5 points: 0.945550714460771962, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 3.0 points: 0.814432029036687317, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 3.5 points: 0.607084039958099276, ~1/1
Probability to achieve >= 4.0 points: 0.382915681925907425, ~1/2
Probability to achieve >= 4.5 points: 0.202139585956418904, ~1/4
Probability to achieve >= 5.0 points: 0.089016735954555954, ~1/11
Probability to achieve >= 5.5 points: 0.032584689926123519, ~1/30
Probability to achieve >= 6.0 points: 0.009877512782439564, ~1/101
Probability to achieve >= 6.5 points: 0.002456803641191624, ~1/407
Probability to achieve >= 7.0 points: 0.000494794748769188, ~1/2021
Probability to achieve >= 7.5 points: 0.000078542435090622, ~1/12731
Probability to achieve >= 8.0 points: 0.000009440134211125, ~1/105930
Probability to achieve >= 8.5 points: 0.000000779889387440, ~1/1282233
Probability to achieve >= 9.0 points: 0.000000036765922044, ~1/27199100
Using my own Fortran programme Probabilities_in_a_trinomial_distribution (average rating difference: 2303 - 21104/9 ~ 2303 - 2344.8889 = -41.8889 Elo):

Code: Select all

``````Probabilities_in_a_trinomial_distribution, ® 2013.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Probabilities of all possible scores in a match between two engines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Write down the number of games of the match &#40;from 2 up to 150&#41;&#58;

9

Write down the engines rating difference &#40;between -800 Elo and 800 Elo&#41;.
Elo&#40;first player&#41; - Elo&#40;second player&#41;&#58;

-41.8889

Write down the probability of a draw (%) between 0.0001 % and 88.0013 %

40

Write down the clock rate of the CPU &#40;in GHz&#41;, only for timing the elapsed time of the calculations&#58;

3

End of the calculations. Approximated time spent in calculations&#58;   26 ms.

The results will be saved into Probabilities.txt file, at the same path of this programme.

The results have been successfully saved into two files&#58;

Probabilities.txt
Summary_of_probabilities.txt

Approximated total elapsed time&#58;   122 ms.

Thanks for using Probabilities_in_a_trinomial_distribution. Press Enter to exit.

``````
I supposed a probability of a draw of 40%; here are the results I got:

Code: Select all

``````Probabilities for a match of   9 games &#40;rounded up to 0.0001%)&#58;

Rating difference &#40;rounded up to 0.01 Elo&#41;&#58;  -41.89 Elo.

Probability of a win  = W ~ 24.0007 %
Probability of a draw = D ~ 40.0000 %
Probability of a lose = L ~ 35.9993 %

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

Points&#58;   9.0/  9

+  9 =  0 -  0
P ~  0.0003 %

Probability of win   9.0 points out of   9&#58;  0.0003 %

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

Points&#58;   8.5/  9

+  8 =  1 -  0
P ~  0.0040 %

Probability of win   8.5 points out of   9&#58;  0.0040 %

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

Points&#58;   8.0/  9

+  7 =  2 -  0
P ~  0.0264 %

+  8 =  0 -  1
P ~  0.0036 %

Probability of win   8.0 points out of   9&#58;  0.0300 %

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

Points&#58;   7.5/  9

+  6 =  3 -  0
P ~  0.1028 %

+  7 =  1 -  1
P ~  0.0476 %

Probability of win   7.5 points out of   9&#58;  0.1503 %

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

Points&#58;   7.0/  9

+  5 =  4 -  0
P ~  0.2569 %

+  6 =  2 -  1
P ~  0.2774 %

+  7 =  0 -  2
P ~  0.0214 %

Probability of win   7.0 points out of   9&#58;  0.5557 %

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

Points&#58;   6.5/  9

+  4 =  5 -  0
P ~  0.4281 %

+  5 =  3 -  1
P ~  0.9248 %

+  6 =  1 -  2
P ~  0.2497 %

Probability of win   6.5 points out of   9&#58;  1.6026 %

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

Points&#58;   6.0/  9

+  3 =  6 -  0
P ~  0.4757 %

+  4 =  4 -  1
P ~  1.9265 %

+  5 =  2 -  2
P ~  1.2484 %

+  6 =  0 -  3
P ~  0.0749 %

Probability of win   6.0 points out of   9&#58;  3.7255 %

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

Points&#58;   5.5/  9

+  2 =  7 -  0
P ~  0.3398 %

+  3 =  5 -  1
P ~  2.5686 %

+  4 =  3 -  2
P ~  3.4677 %

+  5 =  1 -  3
P ~  0.7490 %

Probability of win   5.5 points out of   9&#58;  7.1251 %

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

Points&#58;   5.0/  9

+  1 =  8 -  0
P ~  0.1416 %

+  2 =  6 -  1
P ~  2.1404 %

+  3 =  4 -  2
P ~  5.7793 %

+  4 =  2 -  3
P ~  3.1208 %

+  5 =  0 -  4
P ~  0.1685 %

Probability of win   5.0 points out of   9&#58; 11.3506 %

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

Points&#58;   4.5/  9

+  0 =  9 -  0
P ~  0.0262 %

+  1 =  7 -  1
P ~  1.0192 %

+  2 =  5 -  2
P ~  5.7791 %

+  3 =  3 -  3
P ~  6.9350 %

+  4 =  1 -  4
P ~  1.4043 %

Probability of win   4.5 points out of   9&#58; 15.1638 %

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

Points&#58;   4.0/  9

+  0 =  8 -  1
P ~  0.2123 %

+  1 =  6 -  2
P ~  3.2105 %

+  2 =  4 -  3
P ~  8.6684 %

+  3 =  2 -  4
P ~  4.6810 %

+  4 =  0 -  5
P ~  0.2528 %

Probability of win   4.0 points out of   9&#58; 17.0250 %

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

Points&#58;   3.5/  9

+  0 =  7 -  2
P ~  0.7644 %

+  1 =  5 -  3
P ~  5.7788 %

+  2 =  3 -  4
P ~  7.8014 %

+  3 =  1 -  5
P ~  1.6851 %

Probability of win   3.5 points out of   9&#58; 16.0297 %

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

Points&#58;   3.0/  9

+  0 =  6 -  3
P ~  1.6052 %

+  1 =  4 -  4
P ~  6.5010 %

+  2 =  2 -  5
P ~  4.2127 %

+  3 =  0 -  6
P ~  0.2528 %

Probability of win   3.0 points out of   9&#58; 12.5716 %

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

Points&#58;   2.5/  9

+  0 =  5 -  4
P ~  2.1669 %

+  1 =  3 -  5
P ~  4.6806 %

+  2 =  1 -  6
P ~  1.2638 %

Probability of win   2.5 points out of   9&#58;  8.1113 %

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

Points&#58;   2.0/  9

+  0 =  4 -  5
P ~  1.9502 %

+  1 =  2 -  6
P ~  2.1062 %

+  2 =  0 -  7
P ~  0.1625 %

Probability of win   2.0 points out of   9&#58;  4.2189 %

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

Points&#58;   1.5/  9

+  0 =  3 -  6
P ~  1.1701 %

+  1 =  1 -  7
P ~  0.5416 %

Probability of win   1.5 points out of   9&#58;  1.7117 %

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

Points&#58;   1.0/  9

+  0 =  2 -  7
P ~  0.4513 %

+  1 =  0 -  8
P ~  0.0609 %

Probability of win   1.0 points out of   9&#58;  0.5122 %

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

Points&#58;   0.5/  9

+  0 =  1 -  8
P ~  0.1015 %

Probability of win   0.5 points out of   9&#58;  0.1015 %

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

Points&#58;   0.0/  9

+  0 =  0 -  9
P ~  0.0102 %

Probability of win   0.0 points out of   9&#58;  0.0102 %

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

SUMMARY&#58;

Probability that the first player wins the match ~  24.5440 %
Probability of a tied match ~  15.1638 %
Probability that the second player wins the match ~  60.2922 %``````

Code: Select all

``````Probabilities for a match of   9 games &#40;rounded up to 0.0001%)&#58;

Rating difference &#40;rounded up to 0.01 Elo&#41;&#58;  -41.89 Elo.

Probability of a win  = W ~ 24.0007 %
Probability of a draw = D ~ 40.0000 %
Probability of a lose = L ~ 35.9993 %

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

Points&#58;    Probabilities (%)&#58;

0.0           0.0102
0.5           0.1015
1.0           0.5122
1.5           1.7117
2.0           4.2189
2.5           8.1113
3.0          12.5716
3.5          16.0297
4.0          17.0250
4.5          15.1638
5.0          11.3506
5.5           7.1251
6.0           3.7255
6.5           1.6026
7.0           0.5557
7.5           0.1503
8.0           0.0300
8.5           0.0040
9.0           0.0003

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

SUMMARY&#58;

Probability that the first player wins the match ~  24.5440 %
Probability of a tied match ~  15.1638 %
Probability that the second player wins the match ~  60.2922 %``````
Please take in mind that my programme thinks that Ivanov played nine games against the same 2342 Elo player instead of nine different players. Results differ widely.

http://chess-results.com/tnr93301.aspx? ... 984&snr=22
Chess-Results Server wrote:Name IVANOV Borislav
Starting rank 22
Rating 2303
Rating national 0
Rating international 2303
Ratingperformance 2696
FIDE rtg +/- 67.3

Points 8
Rank 1
Federation BUL
Ident-Number 0
Fide-ID 2903741
A rating performance of 2696 (!) that earns 67 Elo: 2303 + 67 = 2370 Elo (only in this tournament). Anyone knows if this tournament had live broadcasting?

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

Uri Blass
Posts: 8677
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Cubeman wrote:
simonhue wrote:A new video by Valiery Lilov on Borislav Ivanov's last two tourneys:

I wonder if Lilov will make a new video on Borislav from he latest tournament.
http://chess-results.com/tnr93301.aspx?art=1&rd=9&lan=1
I wonder why chess players continue to support the cheater by accepting to play in a tournament that he plays.

I think that there is enough evidence to be sure that
Borislav ivanov is a cheater and chess players should simply ban tournaments that he plays in them.

simonhue
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:28 pm
Contact:

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Another "terrific" performance of Borislav Ivanov on 2nd Memorial "Bogomil Andonov", now beating Bulgaria #3 chess player Kiril Georgiev:

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr95086.a ... =30&wi=821

Time controls seems to have been 10m + 5s/move ...

simonhue
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:28 pm
Contact:

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

That's from today, the game Borislav Ivanov - K. Georgiev 1:0

...

Uri Blass
Posts: 8677
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

I decided to sign the petition against cheating in the following link after reading again and again about that cheater.

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/node/369

I did not think that the problem is a significant problem because I see enough errors of top players to believe that they do not cheat and I am surprised to read that borislav ivanov can cheat again and again when nobody stopped him.

noctiferus
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:27 am
Location: Italy

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

I made a "quick and dirty" check (for what is worth ) on this game:

I've run Houdini 15a on Fritzgui blunder check, 1 thread, depth 14, threshold 5 centipawn, starting from move 9.

The result is that every white move differs from Houd's choice for less than 5 cp, with the exception of move 19 where the difference is 7 centipawns.

The rationale behind it was to have a quick idea if there was some move basically deviating by houd's best line.
It seems there isn't... Great white's performance

Albert Silver
Posts: 2881
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Uri Blass wrote:I decided to sign the petition against cheating in the following link after reading again and again about that cheater.

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/node/369

I did not think that the problem is a significant problem because I see enough errors of top players to believe that they do not cheat and I am surprised to read that borislav ivanov can cheat again and again when nobody stopped him.
The reason is because no one has found how he does it. Circumstantial evidence is not enough.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

bob
Posts: 20714
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Albert Silver wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I decided to sign the petition against cheating in the following link after reading again and again about that cheater.

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/node/369

I did not think that the problem is a significant problem because I see enough errors of top players to believe that they do not cheat and I am surprised to read that borislav ivanov can cheat again and again when nobody stopped him.
The reason is because no one has found how he does it. Circumstantial evidence is not enough.
This falls right into what I have said all along about cheating. There are some clever technological approaches that are going to be VERY difficult to deal with. The toughest issue is getting information from the game to an outside location where a computer can be used. Getting it back in is pretty trivial.

Uri Blass
Posts: 8677
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

Albert Silver wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I decided to sign the petition against cheating in the following link after reading again and again about that cheater.

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/node/369

I did not think that the problem is a significant problem because I see enough errors of top players to believe that they do not cheat and I am surprised to read that borislav ivanov can cheat again and again when nobody stopped him.
The reason is because no one has found how he does it. Circumstantial evidence is not enough.
For me circumstantial evidence in this case is clearly enough and if it is not enough then it is better to change the rules.

Note that I think that the punishment for the cheater should be lower in case that he explains how he did it so we can use the information to prevent other people to cheat in a similiar way.

simonhue
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:28 pm
Contact:

### Re: Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

There is pretty much no support left for Borislav, including from Bulgarian players, and some of the federation officials. This is from the Internets - but it was said that Borislav offended seriously Kiril Georgiev, threatening him with violence on this tournament they played.

The problem is that banning somebody based on optimal play (in B&M games, being it chess, poker, blackjack or any other) would rather be a precedent, it always has been used so far as a lead, but not as a proof.

I think FIDE should create a commission here to solve or decide further on such problems, following also the request from ACP. My feeling is that any strong player would support that. I can imagine the only reasons for this not happening is that they are trying to catch him physically.