Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia

[M ANSARI]

The thing is that cheating could be going on much more than we realize. Of course in this case the person was a complete idiot because he wanted to score around 3000 ELO when he was probably more like 2100 ELO. But what do you do when someone who is smart and knows computer chess and will choose the 3rd or even 4th best move because it looks more human, so long it still wins. I think soon we will be very suspicious of games were not a single blunder is played as when you look at the games of the top Super GM's ... they do have a lot of what can be called blunders in almost every game!

[Modern Times]

More worrying - _IF_ he was cheating, then how did he do it and how did he get away with it ?

[noctiferus]

This is exactly what Lilov said: he suggested it was even safer to use a 2700 engine, more difficult to find out, and, anyway, one gest a lot of elo, against a 2600 opposition.

[noctiferus]

BTW, it would be very interesting to check the games with the Dabbaba tool described here:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 54&start=0

[Hood]

Innocent until proven guilty. That is the rule which shall be followed.

He was checked nth found, it is prove of his innocence.

I am asking other question, how shall be treated people who made unsupported allegations. I think they shall be punished. The Law has the rules for that either.

Correlation with computer selected moves does it prove anything ?
If we do have knifes do it mean that we are murders?

Rgds
Hood

[Terry McCracken]

Innocent until proven guilty. That is the rule which shall be followed.

He was checked nth found, it is prove of his innocence.

I am asking other question, how shall be treated people who made unsupported allegations. I think they shall be punished. The Law has the rules for that either.

Correlation with computer selected moves does it prove anything ?
If we do have knifes do it mean that we are murders?

Rgds
Hood

If computers show he was cheating then he was cheating.

[Hood]

Do you know the story about Skynet ?
Computers do not show anything by themselves. They are tools controled by people which use them to support their thesis.

I am shocked how people dare to made allegations with no proofs.
It does not give them good opinion.
We are judging by ourselves.

rgds Hood

[Modern Times]

Innocent until proven guilty. That is the rule which shall be followed.

Agreed. I think most people agree with that, the difference is what form the proof of guilt takes. Some say he needed to be caught red-handed, others say that some sort of post-analysis of his moves is sufficient proof of guilt.

I think that _if_ he is guilty, he has got away with it this time but he will be watched in future.

[yanquis1972]

The thing is that cheating could be going on much more than we realize. Of course in this case the person was a complete idiot because he wanted to score around 3000 ELO when he was probably more like 2100 ELO. But what do you do when someone who is smart and knows computer chess and will choose the 3rd or even 4th best move because it looks more human, so long it still wins. I think soon we will be very suspicious of games were not a single blunder is played as when you look at the games of the top Super GM's ... they do have a lot of what can be called blunders in almost every game!

i agree. and it wouldnt take someone smart to do this. it would take someone who didnt want to be caught. also, an expert level player could easily discard moves or guide a game in such a way that no case could be made beyond physical evidence of cheating. as i said the known cases of cheating border on 'performance art'.

i found it hilarious that eg the topalov team checked kramniks moves against fritz (or whatever engine) as supposed evidence...as if kramnik is so stupid as to robotically move whatever the computer suggests. computer assistance at a small handful of critical junctures per game could add hundreds of elo points to anyones rating...

[elpapa]

Slightly off topic, but if others also were confused by the names in the translation here's what I've found out:

According to Google 'Ivanov ima 2' means 'Ivanov has 2', but 'Ivanov ima 25' means 'John has 25'. So how many things can Ivanov have and still be Ivanov you wonder? Well, eight. If he has nine things or more his name is John. Unless, of course, he has more than one hundred things, then he's Ivanov again. This is also true if you translate into Swedish or German - but not French. In France they call him Ivanov no matter what.