Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

[Sean Evans]

http://www.jutarnji.hr/genij-ili-prevar ... -/1074945/

Translated from Croation into English using Google Translator:

John is 25 years old and his occupation as a programmer. Everybody stared at him, but he was not giving anything that raises suspicion in receiving signals during party

Zadar - Croatian Chess Federation and Chess Federation organized the Zadar County International Chess Tournament Zadar Open 2012 that ultimately almost turned into a major scandal because some players suspect the ultimate gaming Borislav Ivanov from Bulgaria, pointing out that their opponent uses a sophisticated form of fraud - reception of electronic signals which suggested he moves to withdraw.

Be reported to the tournament 36 players, among whom there were 16 grandmasters, six international masters, 10 FIDE Masters, two master candidates, and one chess player without titles - Bulgarian Ivanov. By rating is supposed to be cannon fodder is better ranked counterparts, but began to line wins. Beat three Croatian grandmaster Bojan Kurajica, Robert Zelčića and Zdenko Kozul.

- True, the eve of the eighth round we received a submission, in which it is suspected to sport Ivanova, so after his match with Borkijem Predojevic subsequent winner of the tournament, decided to examine both. Because it was suspected in some electronic gimmick, so I judge took the actions that anticipate FIDE rules, means nothing happened beyond the usual framework and procedures - said Stanislav Maroje, president of the Chess Federation of the Zadar County.

John is 25 years old and his occupation as a programmer. Everybody stared at him, but he was not giving anything that raises suspicion in receiving signals during the party.

Nowhere headphones and the like, and he still pulls moves for admiration and remain in the fight for first place even though it has the worst rating in the tournament.

Around the turn circulated the story that the Ivanov in a separate room off naked aiming thorough search ...

- Come to the store, what kind of lifting you're talking! Ivanov voluntarily took off his shirt, we emptied his pockets, took the pen with which he wrote down the moves and how it ended. I wish that those who are skeptical, and are entitled to it, the second time to be convinced that a firm submit the evidence in order to avoid similar problems. I have personally apologized to John that the whole event had not realized tragically - said Maroje.

In its 'destructive' campaign Ivanov string quite a few parties, but in the penultimate round stuck on PREDOJEVIĆ. However, in the last round was won by Grandmaster Ivan Saric.

- The moment they suspected we need direct transfer between the Party and John Predojević who won the match. It inspired the applicant for the correctness of the duel, however, in conversation with top chess players told us that moves is dragged Bulgarian players are not anything spectacular, nor is it unusual for a player gets poor rating Grandmasters. Anyway, recently won the title in Bulgaria student champions and some significant trunire. If a person is invested in chess can not see why it would be strange that won in Zadar - concluded Maroje. Contrary to his opinion, some experts in the chess world still express doubts that the player would have much lower credit rating could connect so many brilliant moves in key situations in several games.

True connoisseurs of chess games, chess and intrigue really doubt the ultimate edition of John. Also stick to the few who engage in any form of fraud in tournaments that are worth a thousand, two thousand euros, while the sophisticated equipment that can even be installed in contact lenses several times more expensive.

Croatian grandmaster Zlatko Klaric: In Bulgaria and Serbia, but was accused of cheating

Croatian grandmaster Zlatko Klaric said he was confident that John's most ordinary chess tricks and that he had been accused of fraud in tournaments in Bulgaria and Serbia.

- He is a chess programmer who is, say, from May 2011. earned to date only one rating point, and now in this tournament, 60 - said Klaric. The tournament is pulling moves of a chess computer, which is best seen in the match with Jovanic, when all 115 moves pulled "computer" and it is impossible for a man.

- The human brain is not calibrated for the perfect game - can only be Klaric.

In addition, he continued Klaric, when the semi-final match before you viewed when organizers off the broadcast of the match, he pacerski lost with the white pieces of Predojević later tournament winner. Klaric says that John has twice been in Zadar, where the B tournament took one ninth, 11th and the second time place, and is now on the A tournament was fourth. Probably would have won the ga "naked could not stop."

Otherwise, the Norwegian chess player Magnus Carlsen Sven has a rating of 2850, the highest in the world, but computers Houdini, Rybka and Fritz have a rating of 3200, which shows that the faster "think" and are likely to be at the service of John.

- Technology has gone so far as to have it, in theory, given the fact that the transmission of the matches, my friends in the next room, Sofia or in the Arctic, could send the moves the chips placed under the skin in the ear or tooth through vibration - said Klaric stating that the headquarters of many of the leading chess players sits a lot more programmers than chess grandmaster. (Vlado Vurusic)


Chessbase story:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8751

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Sean:

I took a look some minutes ago via Chess2U. It looks suspicious as minimum. I have calculated the average rating of his opponents, and it is 23152/9 ~ 2572.44 Elo if I am not wrong. If he had a rating of 2227 Elo (I wish I had such a high rating... I am unrated by the way), then applying trinomial distributions (I have supposed a draw ratio of 22%, which can be high given the rating difference 2227 - 2572.44 = -345.44 Elo) with my new Fortran 95 programme (I wrote it yesterday), I have the following results:

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 (up to 24):

9

Rating difference (between -800 and 800):

-345.44

Probability of a draw (%) between 0 % and  24.08 %

22

Write down the clock rate of the CPU (in GHz), only for timing the elapsed time of the calculations:

3

End of the calculations. Approximated elapsed time:   34 ms.

Thanks for using Probabilities_in_a_trinomial_distribution. Press Enter to exit.

Here are the probabilities (rounded up to 0.0001%) written in Probabilities.txt output file:

Code: Select all

Probabilities for a match of  9 games (rounded up to 0.0001%):
 
Rating difference (rounded up to 0.01 Elo): -345.44 Elo.
 
Probability of a win  = W ~   1.0414 %
Probability of a draw = D ~  22.0000 %
Probability of a lose = L ~  76.9586 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  9.0/ 9
 
+ 9 = 0 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  9.0 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  8.5/ 9
 
+ 8 = 1 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  8.5 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  8.0/ 9
 
+ 7 = 2 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 8 = 0 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  8.0 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  7.5/ 9
 
+ 6 = 3 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 7 = 1 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  7.5 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  7.0/ 9
 
+ 5 = 4 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 6 = 2 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 7 = 0 - 2
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  7.0 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  6.5/ 9
 
+ 4 = 5 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 5 = 3 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 6 = 1 - 2
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  6.5 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  6.0/ 9
 
+ 3 = 6 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 4 = 4 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 5 = 2 - 2
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 6 = 0 - 3
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  6.0 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  5.5/ 9
 
+ 2 = 7 - 0
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 3 = 5 - 1
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 4 = 3 - 2
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 5 = 1 - 3
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  5.5 points out of  9:   0.0000 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  5.0/ 9
 
+ 1 = 8 - 0
P ~   0.0001 %
 
+ 2 = 6 - 1
P ~   0.0002 %
 
+ 3 = 4 - 2
P ~   0.0002 %
 
+ 4 = 2 - 3
P ~   0.0000 %
 
+ 5 = 0 - 4
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  5.0 points out of  9:   0.0005 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  4.5/ 9
 
+ 0 = 9 - 0
P ~   0.0001 %
 
+ 1 = 7 - 1
P ~   0.0014 %
 
+ 2 = 5 - 2
P ~   0.0025 %
 
+ 3 = 3 - 3
P ~   0.0009 %
 
+ 4 = 1 - 4
P ~   0.0001 %
 
Probability of win  4.5 points out of  9:   0.0050 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  4.0/ 9
 
+ 0 = 8 - 1
P ~   0.0038 %
 
+ 1 = 6 - 2
P ~   0.0176 %
 
+ 2 = 4 - 3
P ~   0.0146 %
 
+ 3 = 2 - 4
P ~   0.0024 %
 
+ 4 = 0 - 5
P ~   0.0000 %
 
Probability of win  4.0 points out of  9:   0.0385 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  3.5/ 9
 
+ 0 = 7 - 2
P ~   0.0532 %
 
+ 1 = 5 - 3
P ~   0.1233 %
 
+ 2 = 3 - 4
P ~   0.0510 %
 
+ 3 = 1 - 5
P ~   0.0034 %
 
Probability of win  3.5 points out of  9:   0.2309 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  3.0/ 9
 
+ 0 = 6 - 3
P ~   0.4341 %
 
+ 1 = 4 - 4
P ~   0.5391 %
 
+ 2 = 2 - 5
P ~   0.1071 %
 
+ 3 = 0 - 6
P ~   0.0020 %
 
Probability of win  3.0 points out of  9:   1.0823 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  2.5/ 9
 
+ 0 = 5 - 4
P ~   2.2778 %
 
+ 1 = 3 - 5
P ~   1.5087 %
 
+ 2 = 1 - 6
P ~   0.1249 %
 
Probability of win  2.5 points out of  9:   3.9114 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  2.0/ 9
 
+ 0 = 4 - 5
P ~   7.9679 %
 
+ 1 = 2 - 6
P ~   2.6389 %
 
+ 2 = 0 - 7
P ~   0.0624 %
 
Probability of win  2.0 points out of  9:  10.6692 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  1.5/ 9
 
+ 0 = 3 - 6
P ~  18.5819 %
 
+ 1 = 1 - 7
P ~   2.6375 %
 
Probability of win  1.5 points out of  9:  21.2193 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  1.0/ 9
 
+ 0 = 2 - 7
P ~  27.8578 %
 
+ 1 = 0 - 8
P ~   1.1533 %
 
Probability of win  1.0 points out of  9:  29.0111 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  0.5/ 9
 
+ 0 = 1 - 8
P ~  24.3625 %
 
Probability of win  0.5 points out of  9:  24.3625 %
 
----------------------------------------------------
 
Points:  0.0/ 9
 
+ 0 = 0 - 9
P ~   9.4692 %
 
Probability of win  0.0 points out of  9:   9.4692 %

I think it is telltale. I know that doing the average rating and then working with it is not the best way to proceed, but I think it is an enough good approximation.

As everybody can see, the probability of score 4 or more points out of 9 is negligible (around 0.044%), so inspectors must investigate hard to find the secret.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

[Kyodai]

"Everybody stared at him, but he was not giving anything that raises suspicion in receiving signals during party"

he he - looks as if they have certain rules even for the parties in Croatia..

Behave and follow the rules or you get stared at - and beware! eat drink
and have fun during the party - but for heaven sake don't try to receive or
read any signals.... at all..

[bob]

It is just a matter of time before this becomes undetectable... guys don't have to leave the table to go to the restroom and such. Look up "Keith Taft". He built a computer (when smartphones and such were not even a dream) that he hid on his person, had hidden data input with switches inside his shoes, and had various ways of seeing the output (led's in his glasses, etc.). Humans are quite bright. Even creating a Faraday Cage around the playing hall wouldn't work because the computer he built had everything self-contained and didn't need to communicate with outside sources. I'd be completely surprised if someone hasn't tried this with chess by now.

[yanquis1972]

i've thought that of late anyone with half a mind who truly wants to cheat in chess almost certainly can. the cases ive read of people getting caught have, thus far, always been so blatantly obvious that they read almost like some kind of test, or maybe a one-time scam to win some prize money, but not as serious attempts to dupe the chess public. if there are any cases of someone cheating & getting away with it in a 'scary' manner, i'd be very curious to read about them.

i doubt its 'undetectable' yet; i'm not at all techno-savvy & never having been to a tournament or played competitive chess i have only vague ideas of what goes on in terms of monitoring & prevention. but it seems to me that someone who truly wants to get away with it could quite easily & for quite some time. it seems likely to me that someone is right now.

[Adam Hair]

It is just a matter of time before this becomes undetectable... guys don't have to leave the table to go to the restroom and such. Look up "Keith Taft". He built a computer (when smartphones and such were not even a dream) that he hid on his person, had hidden data input with switches inside his shoes, and had various ways of seeing the output (led's in his glasses, etc.). Humans are quite bright. Even creating a Faraday Cage around the playing hall wouldn't work because the computer he built had everything self-contained and didn't need to communicate with outside sources. I'd be completely surprised if someone hasn't tried this with chess by now.

I suppose cavity searches and making all competitors play au naturel would not be enough to prevent someone from finding a way to cheat.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It is just a matter of time before this becomes undetectable... guys don't have to leave the table to go to the restroom and such. Look up "Keith Taft". He built a computer (when smartphones and such were not even a dream) that he hid on his person, had hidden data input with switches inside his shoes, and had various ways of seeing the output (led's in his glasses, etc.). Humans are quite bright. Even creating a Faraday Cage around the playing hall wouldn't work because the computer he built had everything self-contained and didn't need to communicate with outside sources. I'd be completely surprised if someone hasn't tried this with chess by now.

I suppose cavity searches and making all competitors play au naturel would not be enough to prevent someone from finding a way to cheat.

Playing au naturel would be nice especialy in mixed tournaments

[Adam Hair]

It is just a matter of time before this becomes undetectable... guys don't have to leave the table to go to the restroom and such. Look up "Keith Taft". He built a computer (when smartphones and such were not even a dream) that he hid on his person, had hidden data input with switches inside his shoes, and had various ways of seeing the output (led's in his glasses, etc.). Humans are quite bright. Even creating a Faraday Cage around the playing hall wouldn't work because the computer he built had everything self-contained and didn't need to communicate with outside sources. I'd be completely surprised if someone hasn't tried this with chess by now.

I suppose cavity searches and making all competitors play au naturel would not be enough to prevent someone from finding a way to cheat.

Playing au naturel would be nice especialy in mixed tournaments

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

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It is just a matter of time before this becomes undetectable... guys don't have to leave the table to go to the restroom and such. Look up "Keith Taft". He built a computer (when smartphones and such were not even a dream) that he hid on his person, had hidden data input with switches inside his shoes, and had various ways of seeing the output (led's in his glasses, etc.). Humans are quite bright. Even creating a Faraday Cage around the playing hall wouldn't work because the computer he built had everything self-contained and didn't need to communicate with outside sources. I'd be completely surprised if someone hasn't tried this with chess by now.

I suppose cavity searches and making all competitors play au naturel would not be enough to prevent someone from finding a way to cheat.

Playing au naturel would be nice especialy in mixed tournaments

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

[Ajedrecista]

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.