Alleged 'Cheater' Kicked Out from Bulgarian Chess Federation

[Sean Evans]

Alleged 'Cheater' Kicked Out from Bulgarian Chess Federation

December 24, 2013, Tuesday // 12:43

Controversial Bulgarian chess player Borislav Ivanov has been excluded from the country’s Chess Federation.

Numerous allegations have emerged over the past months that Ivanov, who surprisingly won top prizes in chess competitions across Europe, has been cheating.

However, the allegations are yet to be conclusively proven.

Last week, FIDE came up with a statement saying it is “closely following the developments of the story” with regards to the 25-year-old Bulgarian.

FIDE said it was "aware of the damage caused by this unfortunate incident" and was "now preparing a whole system of measures against all kinds of cheating".

Earlier in December, Ivanov was ejected from the Navalmoral de la Mata tournament in western Spain after players claimed he had used devices hidden under his shirt and inside his shoes.

Ivanov has strongly denied cheating on a number of occasions.

[OneTrickPony]

I hope to have time to play some tournament chess again in the future. With that perspective in mind I couldn't be happier that they ban guys like Ivanov who ruin the fan for everybody else at the tournament.

[IGarcia]

If I ever played in a tournament again I would never agree to taking off my shoes or to some similar humiliating demands.
And it is certain that you can always find some engine whose moves would match many of my moves, regardless of my level.

The ban is probably based on some clear proof we are not aware of. Or it is unfounded.

+1

Hre probably cheats, but has to be proved before any action

[Modern Times]

+1

He probably cheats, but has to be proved before any action

Agreed.

[kgburcham]

Here is what we have so far:
We have several high level murder experts saying there has definitely without a doubt been a murder by a certain known individual.

1. We have no murder blood.
2. We have no murder weapon.
3. We have no murder scene.
4. We have no one that has actually witnessed the murder.
5. We have a suspected murderer that refuses an inspection.
6. We have a suspect that someone thought they saw the pattern of a weapon under his shirt.

Next step: Guillotine in the public square.
kgburcham

[jjh13]

If I ever played in a tournament again I would never agree to taking off my shoes or to some similar humiliating demands.

1. Every visitor to my apartment removes his/her shoes. I remove my shoes when I visit a friend. I remove my shoes at least once a day. Is not removing shoes an everyday occurence? Why is it so "humiliating"? Would it be OK to change from your own shoes to some official footwear in a private room. Or would that also be "humiliating"?

2. The whole "remove shoes" thing is a red herring. Why would a well thought cheating prevention scheme include smelling of the participants socks? Cheating detection would be done with more sophisticated scanning techniques.

[IGarcia]

If I ever played in a tournament again I would never agree to taking off my shoes or to some similar humiliating demands.

1. Every visitor to my apartment removes his/her shoes. I remove my shoes when I visit a friend. I remove my shoes at least once a day. Is not removing shoes an everyday occurence? Why is it so "humiliating"? Would it be OK to change from your own shoes to some official footwear in a private room. Or would that also be "humiliating"?

2. The whole "remove shoes" thing is a red herring. Why would a well thought cheating prevention scheme include smelling of the participants socks? Cheating detection would be done with more sophisticated scanning techniques.

Its humiliation because the reason he was asked for take out shoes is for unexpected inspection, with an accusation. He maybe has not his feet clean at the time was required.

And also because is forced: "you do this or you leave tournament".

I would accepted to take out shoes, but only after doing a verification of arbiters (and other participants) shoes & underwear.

I always wonder why they don't use metal detectors, the portable small ones, like in airports. That will discover hidden devices, if any.

[Linshark]

Comon guys, he's obviously cheating

[OneTrickPony]

Few points:
1)Demanding similar standard of proof as in criminal cases (where people actually go to jail) is silly; it's not a court and punishment is not jail/death. It's a community where it's clear what brings reasonable suspicion if you are in such position and refuse cooperation then I am happy to never see you again.

2)Demanding that all other participants/arbiters etc. take shoes off or what not is silly as well. We want to minimize burden of anti-cheating means we also want to catch cheaters ---->>> we only apply them to people who we suspect of cheating

3)It's clear that sometimes honest people fire some red flags, that's ok, that's what anti-cheating measures are for: they cooperate and are cleared from accusations. That's how it supposed to work. It's not humilating it's actually a complement (you performed that well that we are suspicious).

Therefore I find the following naive at best or just playing contrarian for fun at worst:

If I ever played in a tournament again I would never agree to taking off my shoes or to some similar humiliating demands.

It's not humilating (point 3). You should agree (point 2) if you raise the flags (for example consistently perform way above of what is likely for player with your background).

ext step: Guillotine in the public square.

point 1). Even litigation have different standard than criminal law, let alone things like policing chess world.

Hre probably cheats, but has to be proved before any action

point 3)

However, there is nothing normal in requiring me to take off my shoes in a competition. They did not require it in Anand-Carlsen, although that seems to me higher stakes than an average open tournament.

Amateur performing like 2600GM raises reasonable suspicion. Anand performing like Anand and Carlsen performing like Carlsen don't. That should be enough but just in case they in fact were scanned before every game. They are also professionals, they risk way more when caught than random amateurs therefore you need more evidence before you start suspecting professional players of cheating.

I am both a bit annoyed and amazed by refusal to acknowledge bayesian reasoning and defending for the sake of playing devil advocate. Cheating in chess is serious problem and we won't get anywhere without applying some thinking. And this is in community in general very quick to accept way weaker evidence when it comes to origin of engines.

[OneTrickPony]

That's why I wrote the standards are different for professionals and amateurs. He is an amateur who didn't play seriously for some time and out of nowhere started performing like 2600.