Alleged 'Cheater' Kicked Out from Bulgarian Chess Federation

[Adam Hair]

For the record, posts are removed when members are unable to remain civil with each other. No post is removed due to personal conflict with the moderators. There are an ample amount of examples to support this assertion.

And you have honesty to claim that after what has happened to Daniel in computer programming forum, just because he was enough of useless syntax discussions that had nothing to do with chess and posted a poll about it???

Daniel created more than one thread to voice his displeasure with the pure programming thread. And he repeatedly recreated one of them even though he was asked not to. If he had contained his posts in the thread that was created for that intent, he could have written whatever he wanted about the mods and nothing would have happened. After all, he has done that before and no action was taken against him. So yes, I honestly say that he was not banned due to personal conflict.

Now, if you want to continue discussing this subject (Daniel), send me a pm. If you demand that it take place in the open, then start a thread in CTF and I will respond. The discussion does not belong in this thread or CCC. As a bonus, if it is in CTF then no one will have to worry about me using my mod powers. Even playing field.

Also far less proof and questioning of proof was required in this CC community to condemn ppl than what is the case with Ivanov.

And after all, Ivanov case if you assume is innocent has nothing to do with computer chess, so ppl believing him not using any electronic aid (which excludes computer component from discussion) are basically trolling according to the charter itself.
I don't know what else do you need, really?

Really? What kind of logic is that? Somebody that claims that Ivanov is being assisted by a chess engine is in compliance to the CCC charter, while someone who insists that the claim has not been proven to a sufficient degree is in violation of the charter (trolling)? That is less than tenuous. It is absurd. Both are involved in a subject that involves computer chess, and that definitely is permissible according to the charter.

However, some things that are not permissible are abusive behavior and personal and/or libelous attacks, which you have engaged in to some degree. Keep that in mind when you go labeling people trolls.

[Adam Hair]

A few people are calling for a higher standard of proof than the majority. This does not make them trolls. If you are the sort of person who assumes that people who do not share your opinion are trolls, you may want to avoid sunlight.

Calling people trolls, liars, cheaters, and stupid is far closer to trollish behavior than demanding that Ivanov be caught red-handed before condemning him, even if the majority of us believe there is sufficient evidence that he is cheating. This is where the hypocrisy lies.

For the record, posts are removed when members are unable to remain civil with each other. No post is removed due to personal conflict with the moderators. There are an ample amount of examples to support this assertion.

Adam, speaking with nearly two decades of experience on the WWW, plus my knowledge of human behaviour, I can tell you right now these people don't need or want more proof, just a licence to play games and in some cases to justify cheating. If that isn't trolling than I don't know what is!

So Ignacio, Gabor, Ray, and Lyudmil are trolls?

As I said, I believe there is sufficient evidence that Ivanov is cheating. But I would not scoff at someone who prefers more evidence. Remember, there are some members whose countries are not far removed from the days where an accusation was enough to justify imprisonment or worse. That is not the case here, but we are talking about banning someone from competing in chess. If some members are uncomfortable in condemning Ivanov because the evidence falls short of being conclusive, then I respect that.

I do agree that you need evidence before condemning someone and is a reason I have previously given Ivanov the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand this thing with Ivanov is something that has been going on for quite a while. He has not been singled out for no reason, there is a wealth of evidence against him (look at my previous postings where I have links). I think it is impossible for anyone on this forum (who are very well versed with how engines play and how they are different from humans) that can look at his obscure games that are 100% engine moves and not conclude he is cheating. The thing is that the punishment for cheating in competitive chess is negligible and the tools available to circumvent cheating are totally lacking. This creates a dilemma where it is very unfair for the victimized opponent who are spending thousands of hours practicing and working hard to honestly improve their game, and then get humiliated by someone who is cheating and using computer assistance. How about the honest gifted player who gives up competitive chess simply because he feels that he is just not good enough when he gets crushed and humiliated by someone who is several hundred ELO's weaker! Creeps like Ivanov have to be stopped, and if it takes invasive searches or simple chess skill tests in controlled conditions ... then be it. If competitive human chess is going to survive then cheating must be tackled and the punishment must be extremely severe ... a lifetime ban for anyone caught cheating seems more than appropriate, and personally for professional chess I think that they should add a criminal charge as well as it is stealing money from other honest competitors.

With the case where the Bulgarian Federation gave Ivanov a chance to clear his name. Their test was going to be some simple chess quizzes and maybe a few controlled games to test the strength of Ivanov. He had initially agreed to the tests but then he balked a day before saying that he had a competitive chess engagement that same day. It was a terrible excuse because only a few days earlier he had been complaining that he was banned from competing in that very same tournament because he had been accused of cheating. At that time the BCF banned him for 3 months for not showing up for that test, and then gave him another chance when that ban was lifted. And again he did not show up and thus they had enough of him. Bulgaria has some incredibly strong and talented chess players not least which is Topalov and Cheparinov, and their human chess talent runs very deep. You can be sure that they would love to have an extra addition to that team if he was as gifted as Ivanov claims he was. I mean to beat both Houdini and Rybka 10-0 is something I am sure no other human chess player can claim ... imagine Carlsen or Kramnik or Anand claiming that ... they would be laughed at hysterically! They gave him many chances to prove he was innocent, and show he is not a fraud. I imagine if Bobby Fischer or Kasparov or Carlsen were to be given a chess quiz to check their chess prowess, they would relish that idea. It is not one thing with Ivanov that proves he is a fraud, it is the accumulation of overwhelming evidence and data. Again it would be absolutely simple for him to prove he is not cheating but he has refused to do that. IMHO the chances of him actually playing the moves of the game I posted here is less than a 3 year old writing Hamlet!

I have been following the controversy surrounding Ivanov since the subject appeared in CCC. And I am convinced, though the move comparison to Houdini alone was not enough for me. I am only against labeling people who have not reached the same opinion as being trolls.

[Adam Hair]

A few people are calling for a higher standard of proof than the majority. This does not make them trolls. If you are the sort of person who assumes that people who do not share your opinion are trolls, you may want to avoid sunlight.

Calling people trolls, liars, cheaters, and stupid is far closer to trollish behavior than demanding that Ivanov be caught red-handed before condemning him, even if the majority of us believe there is sufficient evidence that he is cheating. This is where the hypocrisy lies.

For the record, posts are removed when members are unable to remain civil with each other. No post is removed due to personal conflict with the moderators. There are an ample amount of examples to support this assertion.

Adam, speaking with nearly two decades of experience on the WWW, plus my knowledge of human behaviour, I can tell you right now these people don't need or want more proof, just a licence to play games and in some cases to justify cheating. If that isn't trolling than I don't know what is!

So Ignacio, Gabor, Ray, and Lyudmil are trolls?

As I said, I believe there is sufficient evidence that Ivanov is cheating. But I would not scoff at someone who prefers more evidence. Remember, there are some members whose countries are not far removed from the days where an accusation was enough to justify imprisonment or worse. That is not the case here, but we are talking about banning someone from competing in chess. If some members are uncomfortable in condemning Ivanov because the evidence falls short of being conclusive, then I respect that.

You always read more into what I say than mean. Some are trolling but that doesn't mean they are trouble making trolls, while some who pop up more recently may be trolls. "One Swallow a Summer Doesn't Make." There's no question there are a few that are just making excuses for the so-called unfair treatment of Ivanov.

Lyudmil is making a more vigorous defense of Ivanov. That, in and of itself, is not trolling. The others wish for something more definitive before banning someone from playing competitive chess. That is not trolling. People who are espousing dissenting views are not necessarily trolling. If that was the case, then I am trolling at this very moment

[Terry McCracken]

A few people are calling for a higher standard of proof than the majority. This does not make them trolls. If you are the sort of person who assumes that people who do not share your opinion are trolls, you may want to avoid sunlight.

Calling people trolls, liars, cheaters, and stupid is far closer to trollish behavior than demanding that Ivanov be caught red-handed before condemning him, even if the majority of us believe there is sufficient evidence that he is cheating. This is where the hypocrisy lies.

For the record, posts are removed when members are unable to remain civil with each other. No post is removed due to personal conflict with the moderators. There are an ample amount of examples to support this assertion.

Adam, speaking with nearly two decades of experience on the WWW, plus my knowledge of human behaviour, I can tell you right now these people don't need or want more proof, just a licence to play games and in some cases to justify cheating. If that isn't trolling than I don't know what is!

So Ignacio, Gabor, Ray, and Lyudmil are trolls?

As I said, I believe there is sufficient evidence that Ivanov is cheating. But I would not scoff at someone who prefers more evidence. Remember, there are some members whose countries are not far removed from the days where an accusation was enough to justify imprisonment or worse. That is not the case here, but we are talking about banning someone from competing in chess. If some members are uncomfortable in condemning Ivanov because the evidence falls short of being conclusive, then I respect that.

You always read more into what I say than mean. Some are trolling but that doesn't mean they are trouble making trolls, while some who pop up more recently may be trolls. "One Swallow a Summer Doesn't Make." There's no question there are a few that are just making excuses for the so-called unfair treatment of Ivanov.

Lyudmil is making a more vigorous defense of Ivanov. That, in and of itself, is not trolling. The others wish for something more definitive before banning someone from playing competitive chess. That is not trolling. People who are espousing dissenting views are not necessarily trolling. If that was the case, then I am trolling at this very moment

You could be?

[JuLieN]

[moderation]
Vox populi, vox dei. Adam is banned until next year.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

[moderation]
Vox populi, vox dei. Adam is banned until next year.

[JuLieN]

[moderation]
Vox populi, vox dei. Adam is banned until next year.

Oh come on! You can't deny he's been very naughty all this past year !!!

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[moderation]
Vox populi, vox dei. Adam is banned until next year.

The right time to do that was in the late hours on December 31st.