I just did a quick search for you from the Fide site. It took Carslen, Giri, Caruana and Karjakin an average 3-4 years to improve from 2000-2100 to 2500-2600 range. I assume you do not think Ivanov is more talented than these guys... Now how do you think it is possible for anybody to achieve that improvement (or even more since he plays 2700+ chess against GM's) in a matter of a few months instead of a few years? Don't give me computers a best teachers crap. Everyone works with computers in the last 10 years. You would like us to believe a computer geek with no real chess background to suddenly rocket his rating from around 2000 to 2600 in a few months with so little ease. Do you really know chess? Even if you work like mad with the best computers or trainers in the world you need years and hundreds of games to apply that knowledge and technique to good practice.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Hi Taner.Taner Altinsoy wrote:How do you judge it is "obviously" an emotional stament? It might as well be a genuine try to fool people which fits his current status...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:That was obviously an emotional statement. When you get unusually good results, and they tell you, 'Hey, you are a weaky, how is it possible that you score that well?', you have to answer something in your defence, and, instead of saying, 'I am able to win the occasional game against Rybka and Houdini' , you suddenly say ' I am winning 10 out of 10', especially if someone is teasing you.M ANSARI wrote: Did you miss the part where he claims he beats both Houdini and Rybka ... 10 out of 10 times ... 100% against an entity that is playing over 3200 ELO !!! That alone should be enough to convince you or anyone on this board that this guy is full of crap!
How do you explain him improving 400-500 ( or even more) elo in a matter of months instead of years? IQ injections?
As we have even seen in world championship match in Chennai even the best players in the world are not immune to mistakes. What do you think about him not playing any blunder or forget blunder even a suboptimal move? We have seen statistical analysis of this from a statistician and a chess player and it was close to impossible.
He was not informed a few hours before the test Bulgarian Federation prepared for him he was informed much earlier and he stated he will attend it only to change his mind in the last minute and did not show up.
Here is the link to the mentioned Stats page.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/experts-we ... nce-060613
"Dr. Kenneth Regan: Also as my report says, I cannot imagine the statistical evidence in any case being stronger than for Zadar. As it comes to Ivanov’s performance at the “Old Capital” Open in Veliko Tarnovo, even when the games from the first two rounds are included, I get significant deviations in both the MM and AE tests, and an IPR of 3149 with 97.5% confidence above 2940."
How can you explain a performance rating of 2940 with % 97.4 confidence from a guy who is rating was only around 2000 before he suddenly reached the nirvana and solved chess?
I will not go into details, as it is meaningless. Just a few words:
- who told you his games do not have mistakes? when losing or drawing, he obviously makes mistakes, but even when winning, there are many mistakes in his games.
- you can certainly improve by couple of hundred elo, if you have been talented, did not have access permanently to computer to train with, then you bought one, then you have an excellent software, which shows you things you never saw before; you train a lot, and you quickly improve; people training without a coach improve usually slowly, people with a good coach much faster, and how fast do you improve when you are coached by Houdini or Stockfish, that surpass every human coach, be it Kasparov or Fischer themselves? Why most players training with advanced software do not improve that fast? Very simple, because they are studying all day long theory, and only play very few games with engines. If, instead of studying theory, you play against engines, you might improve astoundingly fast. People simply do not do that.
Kenneth Reagan's research is based on standard conditions, but having a coach that can teach you 10 times faster and more accurate to play chess is not a standard condition. This fact alone changes many variables.
- regarding the BCF lie detector case, I think this is ludicrous. Instead of Mr. Danailov playing some games against Ivanov after a thorough search to judge his level of play, they invented a test that would prove nothing even if a person fails it, as some people are naturally shy and would fail the test even if they say the truth. You just get disurbed by something subconscious, and you suddenly fail the test even if you say the truth. That is why this was the worst thing they could have thought of to handle the situation satisfactorily.
I should say that I do not know Ivanov personally and can not vouch for him, but I am inclined to believe his case.
Against playing sub 2000 people as previously stated he makes a lot of mistakes and draws, loses but against GM's he does not even make a suboptimal move. Did you go over his moves against GM's? His play is perfect. Event the best players in the world makes more mistakes than he does in those games. Sorry a 2000 player cannot have a performance rating of 2950, not possible. I would rather believe he is Jesus Christ...