Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

[M ANSARI]

I think we will reach a point where cheating in chess will be commonplace. The problem is that many of these cheaters think they are not "cheating" since they developed a system that circumvents current methods of detection. This is similar to Armstrong with his statement that he did not fail a single test out of 500 tests and thus he did not "cheat" since he passed the system tests. It is only now, after he has been outed by his team members, and there is irrefutable proof against him that he has decided to admit cheating.

With chess it is pretty difficult to test, but maybe some new methods should be used ... maybe a lie detector test.

[Uri Blass]

Hello:

There was a complaint made in the past that a female opponent's top was too revealing. An au naturel mixed tournament would have made that fellow a drooling patzer

I read a curious thing in that article (bold added):

An excerpt from Melbourne's Herald Sun of 1 April states: Robert Crowley (sic) claims [...]

Are we sure that it is true?

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

Coming back to the case of Croatia: I look the probabilities I have posted and I am convinced that there were not fair play. There are interesting links at the end of the ChessBase article that Sean posted. I remember that I read the case of the German man that cheated in 1999... let us wait and see how Ivanov performs in future events!

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

I am not 100% sure that this was a cheating case. I have seen cases of people who improved in their 20's, when they start to take chess seriously. I find the article of Chessbase, throwing mud to a guy with no evidence whatsoever, very yellowish and irresponsible. What if he is innocent?

Miguel

They will redeem the poor fellow but this does in fact look like clear case of cheating. I see it all the time on the net.

He's an expert/master not a super grandmaster and showed little improvement but here he does what appears to be impossible and look at just one game, looks mighty damning doesn't it?

I'd like to believe he's innocent but it's highly likely he had help.

We don't know it. He was searched, he had nothing. If proper stats are run, w/o falling into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
I think we may find that it is quite likely he is innocent.

I would prefer to skewer a guy once he is caught.

Miguel

The fallacy doesn't apply. The odds say something entirely different. Of course I'd like to catch him red-handed and likely they will catch him and others outright but it's not so easy these days. We don't live in a perfect world of perfect information. I'm sure they missed many possibilities when they searched him. Why does it have to be on him or in his clothing?

Would you not keep an eye on this guy in the future or would you say everything appears in order?

This isn't the first time drawing suspicion is it?

I think that you do not need to catch him red-handed.

It is possible simply to ask him after the games about his thoughts during the game including thinking about moves that he decided not to play
and if he does not give convincing answer and have many moves that he cannot explain then it is clear that he is cheating even without catching him red-handed.

It is possible that
2600 may cheat to get 2700 without being caught red-handed but
I do not believe that it is possible for 2200 or 2300 player.
Maybe 2200 or 2300 player can do it in one or 2 tournament but not for a long time.

[M ANSARI]

Hello:

There was a complaint made in the past that a female opponent's top was too revealing. An au naturel mixed tournament would have made that fellow a drooling patzer

I read a curious thing in that article (bold added):

An excerpt from Melbourne's Herald Sun of 1 April states: Robert Crowley (sic) claims [...]

Are we sure that it is true?

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

Coming back to the case of Croatia: I look the probabilities I have posted and I am convinced that there were not fair play. There are interesting links at the end of the ChessBase article that Sean posted. I remember that I read the case of the German man that cheated in 1999... let us wait and see how Ivanov performs in future events!

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

I am not 100% sure that this was a cheating case. I have seen cases of people who improved in their 20's, when they start to take chess seriously. I find the article of Chessbase, throwing mud to a guy with no evidence whatsoever, very yellowish and irresponsible. What if he is innocent?

Miguel

They will redeem the poor fellow but this does in fact look like clear case of cheating. I see it all the time on the net.

He's an expert/master not a super grandmaster and showed little improvement but here he does what appears to be impossible and look at just one game, looks mighty damning doesn't it?

I'd like to believe he's innocent but it's highly likely he had help.

We don't know it. He was searched, he had nothing. If proper stats are run, w/o falling into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
I think we may find that it is quite likely he is innocent.

I would prefer to skewer a guy once he is caught.

Miguel

The fallacy doesn't apply. The odds say something entirely different. Of course I'd like to catch him red-handed and likely they will catch him and others outright but it's not so easy these days. We don't live in a perfect world of perfect information. I'm sure they missed many possibilities when they searched him. Why does it have to be on him or in his clothing?

Would you not keep an eye on this guy in the future or would you say everything appears in order?

This isn't the first time drawing suspicion is it?

I think that you do not need to catch him red-handed.

It is possible simply to ask him after the games about his thoughts during the game including thinking about moves that he decided not to play
and if he does not give convincing answer and have many moves that he cannot explain then it is clear that he is cheating even without catching him red-handed.

It is possible that
2600 may cheat to get 2700 without being caught red-handed but
I do not believe that it is possible for 2200 or 2300 player.
Maybe 2200 or 2300 player can do it in one or 2 tournament but not for a long time.

Yes that might be a good idea. In the last London tournament I remember the game with Nakamura against Carlsen ... it was so clear that the two lower rated GM's had absolutely no clue what was going on in the game. At one point they both thought that Carlsen had an absolute winning advantage but in the post game both players quickly demonstrated that the position was easily tenable and there were plenty of resources. I think there is a huge gap between a 2200 player and a 2600+ player in chess understanding.

[Terry McCracken]

Hello:

There was a complaint made in the past that a female opponent's top was too revealing. An au naturel mixed tournament would have made that fellow a drooling patzer

I read a curious thing in that article (bold added):

An excerpt from Melbourne's Herald Sun of 1 April states: Robert Crowley (sic) claims [...]

Are we sure that it is true?

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

Coming back to the case of Croatia: I look the probabilities I have posted and I am convinced that there were not fair play. There are interesting links at the end of the ChessBase article that Sean posted. I remember that I read the case of the German man that cheated in 1999... let us wait and see how Ivanov performs in future events!

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

I am not 100% sure that this was a cheating case. I have seen cases of people who improved in their 20's, when they start to take chess seriously. I find the article of Chessbase, throwing mud to a guy with no evidence whatsoever, very yellowish and irresponsible. What if he is innocent?

Miguel

They will redeem the poor fellow but this does in fact look like clear case of cheating. I see it all the time on the net.

He's an expert/master not a super grandmaster and showed little improvement but here he does what appears to be impossible and look at just one game, looks mighty damning doesn't it?

I'd like to believe he's innocent but it's highly likely he had help.

We don't know it. He was searched, he had nothing. If proper stats are run, w/o falling into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
I think we may find that it is quite likely he is innocent.

I would prefer to skewer a guy once he is caught.

Miguel

The fallacy doesn't apply.

It is about the probability that someone, somewhere in the planet, shows that jump in performance. Because, once that happens, press will jump on the guy. I do not think this is so unlikely and it is a perfect case of prosecutors fallacy. A different story is if there was a previous evidence before the statistics are calculated. Still, we have to also assumed that the guy did not take chess seriously since the jump in performance. Do we know that?

The odds say something entirely different. Of course I'd like to catch him red-handed and likely they will catch him and others outright but it's not so easy these days. We don't live in a perfect world of perfect information. I'm sure they missed many possibilities when they searched him. Why does it have to be on him or in his clothing?

Would you not keep an eye on this guy in the future or would you say everything appears in order?

keeping on eye on him? yes. Embarrassing him internationally without any evidence whatsoever? no.

Miguel

This isn't the first time drawing suspicion is it?

Why not just run the games through computers. Games are like fingerprints if he cheated it will show in the games. Test his games.

[Uri Blass]

Hello:

There was a complaint made in the past that a female opponent's top was too revealing. An au naturel mixed tournament would have made that fellow a drooling patzer

I read a curious thing in that article (bold added):

An excerpt from Melbourne's Herald Sun of 1 April states: Robert Crowley (sic) claims [...]

Are we sure that it is true?

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

Coming back to the case of Croatia: I look the probabilities I have posted and I am convinced that there were not fair play. There are interesting links at the end of the ChessBase article that Sean posted. I remember that I read the case of the German man that cheated in 1999... let us wait and see how Ivanov performs in future events!

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

I am not 100% sure that this was a cheating case. I have seen cases of people who improved in their 20's, when they start to take chess seriously. I find the article of Chessbase, throwing mud to a guy with no evidence whatsoever, very yellowish and irresponsible. What if he is innocent?

Miguel

They will redeem the poor fellow but this does in fact look like clear case of cheating. I see it all the time on the net.

He's an expert/master not a super grandmaster and showed little improvement but here he does what appears to be impossible and look at just one game, looks mighty damning doesn't it?

I'd like to believe he's innocent but it's highly likely he had help.

We don't know it. He was searched, he had nothing. If proper stats are run, w/o falling into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
I think we may find that it is quite likely he is innocent.

I would prefer to skewer a guy once he is caught.

Miguel

The fallacy doesn't apply.

It is about the probability that someone, somewhere in the planet, shows that jump in performance. Because, once that happens, press will jump on the guy. I do not think this is so unlikely and it is a perfect case of prosecutors fallacy. A different story is if there was a previous evidence before the statistics are calculated. Still, we have to also assumed that the guy did not take chess seriously since the jump in performance. Do we know that?

The odds say something entirely different. Of course I'd like to catch him red-handed and likely they will catch him and others outright but it's not so easy these days. We don't live in a perfect world of perfect information. I'm sure they missed many possibilities when they searched him. Why does it have to be on him or in his clothing?

Would you not keep an eye on this guy in the future or would you say everything appears in order?

keeping on eye on him? yes. Embarrassing him internationally without any evidence whatsoever? no.

Miguel

This isn't the first time drawing suspicion is it?

Why not just run the games through computers. Games are like fingerprints if he cheated it will show in the games. Test his games.

It can work only against stupid cheaters who make all the engine moves
but cheaters can make part of the computer moves and be careful not to make blunders based on computer evaluation.

serious investigation should include not only the moves that the players made but their analysis and the reason that they did not make a different move that every strong player should consider.

[Terry McCracken]

Hello:

There was a complaint made in the past that a female opponent's top was too revealing. An au naturel mixed tournament would have made that fellow a drooling patzer

I read a curious thing in that article (bold added):

An excerpt from Melbourne's Herald Sun of 1 April states: Robert Crowley (sic) claims [...]

Are we sure that it is true?

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

Coming back to the case of Croatia: I look the probabilities I have posted and I am convinced that there were not fair play. There are interesting links at the end of the ChessBase article that Sean posted. I remember that I read the case of the German man that cheated in 1999... let us wait and see how Ivanov performs in future events!

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

I am not 100% sure that this was a cheating case. I have seen cases of people who improved in their 20's, when they start to take chess seriously. I find the article of Chessbase, throwing mud to a guy with no evidence whatsoever, very yellowish and irresponsible. What if he is innocent?

Miguel

They will redeem the poor fellow but this does in fact look like clear case of cheating. I see it all the time on the net.

He's an expert/master not a super grandmaster and showed little improvement but here he does what appears to be impossible and look at just one game, looks mighty damning doesn't it?

I'd like to believe he's innocent but it's highly likely he had help.

We don't know it. He was searched, he had nothing. If proper stats are run, w/o falling into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
I think we may find that it is quite likely he is innocent.

I would prefer to skewer a guy once he is caught.

Miguel

The fallacy doesn't apply.

It is about the probability that someone, somewhere in the planet, shows that jump in performance. Because, once that happens, press will jump on the guy. I do not think this is so unlikely and it is a perfect case of prosecutors fallacy. A different story is if there was a previous evidence before the statistics are calculated. Still, we have to also assumed that the guy did not take chess seriously since the jump in performance. Do we know that?

The odds say something entirely different. Of course I'd like to catch him red-handed and likely they will catch him and others outright but it's not so easy these days. We don't live in a perfect world of perfect information. I'm sure they missed many possibilities when they searched him. Why does it have to be on him or in his clothing?

Would you not keep an eye on this guy in the future or would you say everything appears in order?

keeping on eye on him? yes. Embarrassing him internationally without any evidence whatsoever? no.

Miguel

This isn't the first time drawing suspicion is it?

Why not just run the games through computers. Games are like fingerprints if he cheated it will show in the games. Test his games.

It can work only against stupid cheaters who make all the engine moves
but cheaters can make part of the computer moves and be careful not to make blunders based on computer evaluation.

serious investigation should include not only the moves that the players made but their analysis and the reason that they did not make a different move that every strong player should consider.

That's true, smart cheats mix it up, but a forensic analysis should help to determine if an engine or engines were involved including books etc. I think without evidence questioning a player like you say violates rights. Until you have something more, even though it's highly suspicious, treating someone like they're guilty is what Miguel was alluding to is wrong.

However, checking him for devices under the circumstances was fair but definately not desired. Assume he's innocent, this has been quite disturbing for the player in question.

He was checked and they failed to find anything and it is in the news. That's more than enough until we know more.

[noctiferus]

Now on youtube there is an interesting analysis of some games by Gm Lilov (link from Chessabase news
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8760 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0J8SPE ... r_embedded#!

[kinderchocolate]

Sorry I haven't had time to watch the video. What's the conclusion from it? Is he a cheater or not?

[noctiferus]

Yes, he says he is sure, due to the very high correspondence with houdini moves (he says more than 90%, and that some differences can be explained by zeitnots).. There are also other considerations, too long to mention here. The only one I can report is that in the only game that was not broadcasted, the player made a lot of big blunders, that is a very different behaviour with respect to the almost perfect play in the other games.

[carldaman]

Yes, he says he is sure, due to the very high correspondence with houdini moves (he says more than 90%, and that some differences can be explained by zeitnots).. There are also other considerations, too long to mention here. The only one I can report is that in the only game that was not broadcasted, the player made a lot of big blunders, that is a very different behaviour with respect to the almost perfect play in the other games.

This suggests that whoever was assisting him (remotely) was aware of the current position on the board via the broadcast.

CL