Albert Silver wrote:I disagree. I have games where the engines say I played to near perfection, and others where they evaluate me as one of the worst chess idiots ever.
Yes, many of us have had games with a high match up rate but often the forcing or straightforward nature of the game helps to achieve such "perfection". But can you post one of your over-the-board games that is as complex as e.g. Ivanov, Borislav - Kurajica, Bojan while achieving such a high match up rate? I'd like to see if your example is anywhere near as impressive and accurate as the play in that game.
It's not just that he got a high match up, it's the way it which it was achieved. Just look at the games - are you really saying that you've played to such a high level before in such complex positions? I'm not talking about playing with such accuracy in simpler positions.
Weird case.
All know he's cheating but how?
2 or 3 weeks after Chessbase wrote an article about Zadar scandal Borislav played in Bulgarian Open Championship "Georgi Tringov" Memorial in Plovdiv. I was intrigued and I came to the opening of the tournament and watched 1st round personally, While watching many games I have looked at his game too. His opponent was David Tsvetanov, 11-12-year old boy, Bulgarian and Balkanian champion in his age category. Borislav had the black pieces. During almost all the game he was sitting staring at the board, absolutely focused and motionless. It was a hard fight. A hard win for Borislav. After the game, still sitting at the game table some chess variations were shared between opponents. In one witty line the younger player show Borislav 2-3 moves in the end Borislav didn't saw. Yes, David have bright mind and very good tactical vision (look at his 42...Rxd5 in the game vs. Lazov - http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/32813 ... 0-%200%201 -- a move he had to count on it when he was making at least his 36 move) but that was very indicative thing for me. In the beginning of this story I was unbiased about Borislav -- he could be genius or some. An interview with him in popular bulgarian talk show "Every Sunday" was called "A Genius or a Cheater?" -- http://play.novatv.bg/play/297283/?autostart=true -- from 4:05. Borislav confidence in this interview made me think he could be innocent. But my mind couldn't bear constantly appearing new and new facts. Now I'm almost convinced he is cheating -- but how?
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.
Yes, I was having this discussion with a colleague, and said much the same. Receiving moves is easy, but how does he enter them all, presuming no one is doing it for him? Image recognition via a secret camera is unlikely, and he cannot use his hands for a quick 10+5 game as it would be way too obvious. Some Morse code system in his shoes perhaps, is the easiest guess. And he would need to do it for all moves, a tough proposition. Ideas?
There is a famous example of using a computer to cheat at blackjack, by a guy named Keith Taft. He had three problems back in his day, where we only have two today.
1. The main problem back in the 60's and early 70's was size/weight/power since there were no microprocessor devices like we have today. But he solved this with a 10lb+ device I think he nicknamed "George".
2. Inputting data had to be unobtrusive. He built 4 switches into the toe of his show, which let him enter a 4 bit number to indicate each card as it was dealt. I suppose one could use some variation of this today. Or perhaps a "keyboard" hidden in a shirt cuff or inside the pants, something with no thickness or rigidity so it would be invisible.
3. Telling him what to do (hit, stand, double, split) had to be done carefully, and he experimented with several devices, from a vibrator in the heel of his shoe, to tiny LED devices in the frame of his glasses. Who knows what might be done today, since we have sophisticated virtual-reality / 3d glasses. Micro-receivers (there is now a hearing aid that goes completely inside the ear canal with absolutely nothing visible, this could easily become a receiver if one wanted.
This seems like something that is going to get harder and harder to detect. I suppose one could try some sort of jamming, but that is illegal in most parts of the world since it involves broadcasting on frequencies that are owned by others. One could try a Faraday cage to at least stop electromagnetic signals, but there are other types.
I begin to suspect it is simply too expensive to stop, if not actually impossible, and that this is "here to stay" unfortunately. I wonder when we will get a tennis racquet that is "smart"?
Thanks for the excellent tip. I was not previously familiar with his story. I found a great interview with him, in which he tells the entrie story. It is very long, but fascinating. He did more than create a computer, he did a dozen other methods. Amazing.
One of the cute things that happened when he was working on that thing (which was actually a "shuffle-tracking program" if you know that term... He entered the cards as they were collected for discard, and then entered info as the dealer shuffled about the thickness of the "grabs" as the cards were shuffled.
The funny part was a point where he had a 19, the computer had estimated that the dealer had a 20, and was predicting a 2 was the next card to be dealt. It said "hit". He did not and lost, and sure enough the next card was a 2.
It was ahead of its time. Another funny part was the "shorts" in the batteries which he wore around his waist. Wires apparently got VERY hot.
bob wrote:One of the cute things that happened when he was working on that thing (which was actually a "shuffle-tracking program" if you know that term... He entered the cards as they were collected for discard, and then entered info as the dealer shuffled about the thickness of the "grabs" as the cards were shuffled.
The funny part was a point where he had a 19, the computer had estimated that the dealer had a 20, and was predicting a 2 was the next card to be dealt. It said "hit". He did not and lost, and sure enough the next card was a 2.
It was ahead of its time. Another funny part was the "shorts" in the batteries which he wore around his waist. Wires apparently got VERY hot.
I like the story about the 10-pound computer in three parts, plus battery pack, all wrapped around his chest. Today he would be accused of being a suicide bomber if caught in that get-up.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
bob wrote:One of the cute things that happened when he was working on that thing (which was actually a "shuffle-tracking program" if you know that term... He entered the cards as they were collected for discard, and then entered info as the dealer shuffled about the thickness of the "grabs" as the cards were shuffled.
The funny part was a point where he had a 19, the computer had estimated that the dealer had a 20, and was predicting a 2 was the next card to be dealt. It said "hit". He did not and lost, and sure enough the next card was a 2.
It was ahead of its time. Another funny part was the "shorts" in the batteries which he wore around his waist. Wires apparently got VERY hot.
I like the story about the 10-pound computer in three parts, plus battery pack, all wrapped around his chest. Today he would be accused of being a suicide bomber if caught in that get-up.
There have been amazing electronic cheating examples over the years. From the infamous Taft blackjack shuffle-tracking computer, to the laser-based roulette-wheel clocking devices, to weighted dice in craps with a big electromagnet hidden in a wheelchair, to people taking apart continuous shuffle machines to discover hidden flaws in the supposedly random nature of the shuffle, to using optical devices to trick a slot machine into thinking you had inserted hundreds of tokens to build up a credit, which they then cashed out, etc...
To Bulgarian Chess Federation,
To all tournament organizers,
From leading Bulgarian chess players:
Statement of intention
We think, beyond reasonable doubt, that Borislav Ivanov is making use of electronic assistance during play in chess tournaments.
We declare that we will not participate in any tournament where he does participate, except if special technical measures are implement by tournament organizers, such that would make usage of electronic devices impossible.
