TalkChess.com

George Tsavdaris wrote:

Only 3 things are relevant here.
His moves have a super high correlation with some engines.
He beats 300+ higher rated players very frequently(incredibly frequently reaches abnormally high performance ratings), losing at the same time from lower rating players and playing like crap in many games.
He refused several times to be searched.

Is there a good proof that a human cannot play chess moves that have a 'super high correlation with some engines' ?

Ivanov refused several times to be searched. That implies they failed to find proof because Ivanov was not cooperating. So no proof found.

Henk wrote:

George Tsavdaris wrote:

Only 3 things are relevant here.
His moves have a super high correlation with some engines.
He beats 300+ higher rated players very frequently(incredibly frequently reaches abnormally high performance ratings), losing at the same time from lower rating players and playing like crap in many games.
He refused several times to be searched.

Is there a good proof that a human cannot play chess moves that have a 'super high correlation with some engines' ?

Well it is not a 100% proof that he uses an engine if he plays(as he does in the games he plays like a super GM) with extremely high correlation moves of an engine, but it is a 99.9999% proof.
It is quite enough for me.

If i see a coin being tossed 10000 times and the 9999 of them the result is heads, then this is no (100%) proof that the coin is fair.
But if someone tells me to bet on tails AND does not let me to examine the fairness of the coin, i will be naive and moron to believe the coin is fair and he does not try to cheat me.

Ivanov refused several times to be searched. That implies they failed to find proof because Ivanov was not cooperating. So no proof found.

Well by your logic, if i run 100 meters in 9.50 seconds and i refuse to be examined for doping, then everything is OK since they didn't find any illegal substances on me so there is no proof i'm using illegal drugs.
Sorry but that's just ridiculous.

M ANSARI wrote:If you cannot comprehend that the guys is a fraud

You are very naive.

George Tsavdaris wrote:

Henk wrote:

George Tsavdaris wrote:

Only 3 things are relevant here.
His moves have a super high correlation with some engines.
He beats 300+ higher rated players very frequently(incredibly frequently reaches abnormally high performance ratings), losing at the same time from lower rating players and playing like crap in many games.
He refused several times to be searched.

Is there a good proof that a human cannot play chess moves that have a 'super high correlation with some engines' ?

Well it is not a 100% proof that he uses an engine if he plays(as he does in the games he plays like a super GM) with extremely high correlation moves of an engine, but it is a 99.9999% proof.
It is quite enough for me.

If i see a coin being tossed 10000 times and the 9999 of them the result is heads, then this is no (100%) proof that the coin is fair.
But if someone tells me to bet on tails AND does not let me to examine the fairness of the coin, i will be naive and moron to believe the coin is fair and he does not try to cheat me.

Ivanov refused several times to be searched. That implies they failed to find proof because Ivanov was not cooperating. So no proof found.

Well by your logic, if i run 100 meters in 9.50 seconds and i refuse to be examined for doping, then everything is OK since they didn't find any illegal substances on me so there is no proof i'm using illegal drugs.
Sorry but that's just ridiculous.

So the crime is 'not cooperating' that is different from 'cheating'. So he could be punished for not cooperating for that has been proven.

So it is better that you promise or sign a contract that you are willing to cooperate for examination.

Henk wrote:So the crime is 'not cooperating' that is different from 'cheating'. So he could be punished for not cooperating for that has been proven.

So it is better that you promise or sign a contract that you are willing to cooperate for examination.

Even though you are a complete troll I will answer to you.
In all sports punishment for refusing doping tests is equal or even more strict than punishment for being caught.
Moral midgets and creatures like your beloved Ivanov are making chess sad.
So far chess was pure sport in the sense that ppl were trusted not to be cheating and measures to prevent it have not been advised.
If behavior like his becomes more frequent we'll also have doping like tests in chess.
And I'm completely for it. It would mean the following:
1) All players are routinely scanned/checked like in airports meaning even if they are clean on machine screening there is discretion right of a referee to request full body search including body holes as it is done on US airports.
2) There is also a discretion right to scan some players more often if their results impose higher probability of cheating or if the event is more important (like title/candidate matches).
3) If a player is positive (device for cheating is exposed) or he/she refuses to be tested he/she should get multiple-years if not career ban from playing any chess event under FIDE.

Milos wrote:
And I'm completely for it. It would mean the following:
1) All players are routinely scanned/checked like in airports meaning even if they are clean on machine screening there is discretion right of a referee to request full body search including body holes as it is done on US airports.
2) There is also a discretion right to scan some players more often if their results impose higher probability of cheating or if the event is more important (like title/candidate matches).
3) If a player is positive (device for cheating is exposed) or he/she refuses to be tested he/she should get multiple-years if not career ban from playing any chess event under FIDE.

I agree with points 2 and 3, but point 1 is too draconian, since it would treat all players as potential cheaters, a very demeaning thing. I certainly would not want to be part of such tournaments.

carldaman wrote: I agree with points 2 and 3, but point 1 is too draconian, since it would treat all players as potential cheaters, a very demeaning thing. I certainly would not want to be part of such tournaments.

Everyone is a potential cheater. If it would be done to everyone, why would it be demeaning? It would not imply suspicion. Checking everyone is necessary because otherwise only stupid cheaters would be caught.

jjh13 wrote:

carldaman wrote: I agree with points 2 and 3, but point 1 is too draconian, since it would treat all players as potential cheaters, a very demeaning thing. I certainly would not want to be part of such tournaments.

Everyone is a potential cheater. If it would be done to everyone, why would it be demeaning? It would not imply suspicion. Checking everyone is necessary because otherwise only stupid cheaters would be caught.

But there should be a clear basis, preferably in the FIDE rules, for demanding that chess players take off their shoes.

All the doping regulations in chess and other sports have a basis in the rules of those sports.