Rebel wrote:Living in a world of multiple proven cheating cases every exceptional tournament performance immediately is highlighted as suspect.
Regarding the above I like to add one more thought.
Collect cases of exceptional tournament performances (like the Ivanov case) before the days cheating with chess programs made sense. Back then they were accepted without criticism and if only one shows a similar behavior as in the Ivanov case then the accusation is baseless.
show me one similiar case of exceptional tournament performance(like the ivanov case) before 1990 when it did not happen in a single tournament but in many tournaments when the same player also did bad in other tournament
I know only about one case and it was a single tournament and not many tournaments like ivanov
Of course I do not think that she was cheating but it was only a single event and Ivanov has some events when he score not logical result for his rating.
More Exceptional results:
RJ Fischer M.Taimanow 6:0; RJ Fischer B. Larsen 6:0
RJ Fischer 11:0 in US Ch.
That was sth! If there were chessprograms would have been he accused of using Houdini or Stockfish? . for sure.
Rgds Hood
The Taimanov win was not exceptional, even though cosmetically it's extremely impressive.
The result would definitely raise suspicions today if someone a few hundred ELO weaker than Taimanov got 6:0 against him.
I did a little research and according to Jeff Sonas Fischer was rated almost 200 ELO higher than Taimonov at the time. Taimanov was only number 13 in the world.
Do you see how easily facts are twisted when you don't give them due consideration? Winning 6 games in a row is a good result, but it's not an unbelievable result against a player 200 ELO weaker.
I do not know Sonas rules exactly and his rating but is simulation only.
I am not slave of numbers.
I took in consideration additional facts
I do not think elo difference was so big during the match. Taimanov was candidate and it speeks about his power. He got additional help from SU GM's: opening preparation and analysis of adjourned games. It decreases rating difference. Taimanov came better from openings but lost the games.
Eventhough assuming 200 elo.
200 Elo difference so expected value from 1 game is 0.75.
Lets give the probability of win 0.75. six winned games in the row then probability is 0.75 ** 6. = 0.17
It is suspicious, is not it.?
That results in candidate matches was never repeated nor happened before.
Polish National tragedy in Smoleńsk. President and all delegation murdered or killed.
Cui bono ?
There are not bugs free programs.
There are programs with undiscovered bugs.
Rebel wrote:Living in a world of multiple proven cheating cases every exceptional tournament performance immediately is highlighted as suspect.
Regarding the above I like to add one more thought.
Collect cases of exceptional tournament performances (like the Ivanov case) before the days cheating with chess programs made sense. Back then they were accepted without criticism and if only one shows a similar behavior as in the Ivanov case then the accusation is baseless.
show me one similiar case of exceptional tournament performance(like the ivanov case) before 1990 when it did not happen in a single tournament but in many tournaments when the same player also did bad in other tournament
I know only about one case and it was a single tournament and not many tournaments like ivanov
Of course I do not think that she was cheating but it was only a single event and Ivanov has some events when he score not logical result for his rating.
More Exceptional results:
RJ Fischer M.Taimanow 6:0; RJ Fischer B. Larsen 6:0
RJ Fischer 11:0 in US Ch.
That was sth! If there were chessprograms would have been he accused of using Houdini or Stockfish? . for sure.
Rgds Hood
The Taimanov win was not exceptional, even though cosmetically it's extremely impressive.
The result would definitely raise suspicions today if someone a few hundred ELO weaker than Taimanov got 6:0 against him.
I did a little research and according to Jeff Sonas Fischer was rated almost 200 ELO higher than Taimonov at the time. Taimanov was only number 13 in the world.
Do you see how easily facts are twisted when you don't give them due consideration? Winning 6 games in a row is a good result, but it's not an unbelievable result against a player 200 ELO weaker.
I do not know Sonas rules exactly and his rating but is simulation only.
I am not slave of numbers.
I took in consideration additional facts
I do not think elo difference was so big during the match. Taimanov was candidate and it speeks about his power. He got additional help from SU GM's: opening preparation and analysis of adjourned games. It decreases rating difference. Taimanov came better from openings but lost the games.
Eventhough assuming 200 elo.
200 Elo difference so expected value from 1 game is 0.75.
Lets give the probability of win 0.75. six winned games in the row then probability is 0.75 ** 6. = 0.17
It is suspicious, is not it.?
That results in candidate matches was never repeated nor happened before.
The difference was 200 ELO and it was not Sonas who rated them but FIDE.
There is no question that a result of 6:0 is a great result, but it's nothing like what Uri was asking for. It doesn't' compare to Ivanov's result.
By the way, I have seen 6-0 in autotest games against equal versions. It's not that big a deal because 6 games is not very many. Also, we could argue about how strong Taimanov really was but nobody questions Fischers huge superiority at that particular time in history.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
Rebel wrote:Living in a world of multiple proven cheating cases every exceptional tournament performance immediately is highlighted as suspect.
Regarding the above I like to add one more thought.
Collect cases of exceptional tournament performances (like the Ivanov case) before the days cheating with chess programs made sense. Back then they were accepted without criticism and if only one shows a similar behavior as in the Ivanov case then the accusation is baseless.
show me one similiar case of exceptional tournament performance(like the ivanov case) before 1990 when it did not happen in a single tournament but in many tournaments when the same player also did bad in other tournament
I know only about one case and it was a single tournament and not many tournaments like ivanov
Of course I do not think that she was cheating but it was only a single event and Ivanov has some events when he score not logical result for his rating.
More Exceptional results:
RJ Fischer M.Taimanow 6:0; RJ Fischer B. Larsen 6:0
RJ Fischer 11:0 in US Ch.
That was sth! If there were chessprograms would have been he accused of using Houdini or Stockfish? . for sure.
Rgds Hood
The Taimanov win was not exceptional, even though cosmetically it's extremely impressive.
The result would definitely raise suspicions today if someone a few hundred ELO weaker than Taimanov got 6:0 against him.
I did a little research and according to Jeff Sonas Fischer was rated almost 200 ELO higher than Taimonov at the time. Taimanov was only number 13 in the world.
Do you see how easily facts are twisted when you don't give them due consideration? Winning 6 games in a row is a good result, but it's not an unbelievable result against a player 200 ELO weaker.
I do not know Sonas rules exactly and his rating but is simulation only.
I am not slave of numbers.
I took in consideration additional facts
I do not think elo difference was so big during the match. Taimanov was candidate and it speeks about his power. He got additional help from SU GM's: opening preparation and analysis of adjourned games. It decreases rating difference. Taimanov came better from openings but lost the games.
Eventhough assuming 200 elo.
200 Elo difference so expected value from 1 game is 0.75.
Lets give the probability of win 0.75. six winned games in the row then probability is 0.75 ** 6. = 0.17
It is suspicious, is not it.?
That results in candidate matches was never repeated nor happened before.
The difference was 200 ELO and it was not Sonas who rated them but FIDE.
There is no question that a result of 6:0 is a great result, but it's nothing like what Uri was asking for. It doesn't' compare to Ivanov's result.
By the way, I have seen 6-0 in autotest games against equal versions. It's not that big a deal because 6 games is not very many. Also, we could argue about how strong Taimanov really was but nobody questions Fischers huge superiority at that particular time in history.
Rating was not running in 1971. I would dispute that rating difference in the match. It was probably calculated from tournaments. In that match
Taimanow got super power from SU. 6 : 0 in blitz is nth unusual but in longer games i do not think it is often.
Leaving the match vs Taimanov we can go to the match with Larsen and US Ch. It were exceptional results. if it happened today the loser will accuse the opponent on cheating, most probably.
Returning to Ivanov is it forbidden to play like Houdini? .
If someone wanted to cheat would select other engine, some from 10-20th place.It is enough for humans.
Ivanov case. Winning at lottery is less probable but there are winners. Are they cheaters? Statistics is misleading.
Polish National tragedy in Smoleńsk. President and all delegation murdered or killed.
Cui bono ?
There are not bugs free programs.
There are programs with undiscovered bugs.
Rebel wrote:Living in a world of multiple proven cheating cases every exceptional tournament performance immediately is highlighted as suspect.
Regarding the above I like to add one more thought.
Collect cases of exceptional tournament performances (like the Ivanov case) before the days cheating with chess programs made sense. Back then they were accepted without criticism and if only one shows a similar behavior as in the Ivanov case then the accusation is baseless.
show me one similiar case of exceptional tournament performance(like the ivanov case) before 1990 when it did not happen in a single tournament but in many tournaments when the same player also did bad in other tournament
I know only about one case and it was a single tournament and not many tournaments like ivanov
Of course I do not think that she was cheating but it was only a single event and Ivanov has some events when he score not logical result for his rating.
More Exceptional results:
RJ Fischer M.Taimanow 6:0; RJ Fischer B. Larsen 6:0
RJ Fischer 11:0 in US Ch.
That was sth! If there were chessprograms would have been he accused of using Houdini or Stockfish? . for sure.
Rgds Hood
The Taimanov win was not exceptional, even though cosmetically it's extremely impressive.
The result would definitely raise suspicions today if someone a few hundred ELO weaker than Taimanov got 6:0 against him.
I did a little research and according to Jeff Sonas Fischer was rated almost 200 ELO higher than Taimonov at the time. Taimanov was only number 13 in the world.
Do you see how easily facts are twisted when you don't give them due consideration? Winning 6 games in a row is a good result, but it's not an unbelievable result against a player 200 ELO weaker.
I do not know Sonas rules exactly and his rating but is simulation only.
I am not slave of numbers.
I took in consideration additional facts
I do not think elo difference was so big during the match. Taimanov was candidate and it speeks about his power. He got additional help from SU GM's: opening preparation and analysis of adjourned games. It decreases rating difference. Taimanov came better from openings but lost the games.
Eventhough assuming 200 elo.
200 Elo difference so expected value from 1 game is 0.75.
Lets give the probability of win 0.75. six winned games in the row then probability is 0.75 ** 6. = 0.17
It is suspicious, is not it.?
That results in candidate matches was never repeated nor happened before.
The difference was 200 ELO and it was not Sonas who rated them but FIDE.
There is no question that a result of 6:0 is a great result, but it's nothing like what Uri was asking for. It doesn't' compare to Ivanov's result.
By the way, I have seen 6-0 in autotest games against equal versions. It's not that big a deal because 6 games is not very many. Also, we could argue about how strong Taimanov really was but nobody questions Fischers huge superiority at that particular time in history.
Rating was not running in 1971. I would dispute that rating difference in the match. It was probably calculated from tournaments. In that match
Taimanow got super power from SU. 6 : 0 in blitz is nth unusual but in longer games i do not think it is often.
Leaving the match vs Taimanov we can go to the match with Larsen and US Ch. It were exceptional results. if it happened today the loser will accuse the opponent on cheating, most probably.
Returning to Ivanov is it forbidden to play like Houdini? .
If someone wanted to cheat would select other engine, some from 10-20th place.It is enough for humans.
Ivanov case. Winning at lottery is less probable but there are winners. Are they cheaters? Statistics is misleading.
I totally disagree with you.
I can clearly see perfect scores also today when a player play against significantly weaker players and nobody claims "cheating" about these cases.
Engine that is weaker than houdini is certainly enough to cheat but it does not mean that all the cheater are going to choose a weak engine.
The main problem with ivanov is that he had also many poor results against players with rating below 2000 when he could not cheat or prefered to play by himself because he believed that he has a chance to win by himself.
Yo can totally disagree but ... are you an expert in the cheating area?
The facts are needed not opinions or speculations. You formulated your opinion as you were the expert. I am not expert. I am waiting for proves, if someone is cheating will be caught.
RJF did not played much weaker oponents that time. Taimanow, Larsen were top GM's of that time pretenders for the WCh.
Polish National tragedy in Smoleńsk. President and all delegation murdered or killed.
Cui bono ?
There are not bugs free programs.
There are programs with undiscovered bugs.
Hood wrote:Yo can totally disagree but ... are you an expert in the cheating area?
The facts are needed not opinions or speculations. You formulated your opinion as you were the expert. I am not expert. I am waiting for proves, if someone is cheating will be caught.
RJF did not played much weaker oponents that time. Taimanow, Larsen were top GM's of that time pretenders for the WCh.
Yes but after first games of the matches their play was full of blunders which were a sign of mental breakdown and also none reached their play level they had before the match. So I think it's like apples and oranges in this case.
Actually, that is incorrect and FIDE ratings existed even before. The first was published in 1969. In any case, in 1971, Fischer was rated 2760, and Taimanov was 15-16th with 2600. Of course, in 1972, Fischer was rated 125 Elo more than Spassky who was no.2, and their match later that year merely confirmed that difference.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
. for sure.
