Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Hood]

Because the methodology used by Lilov is false as the logic proves.
Only one thesis we can get from analysis is that there is a coincidence
between moves of BI and some program.
When we would analyse the games of other players we would find similar
coincidences.

What logic is false? He played many games identical to Houdini so he was with very high probability using Houdini.

Lilov's.

Contrary to the math logic you are staying with your position.

So I can say with the same probability and validty that Houdini ghost is contacting BI and suggests him a moves.

[Hood]

I think there was a misunderstanding. I do not at all suppose that GMs are cheating. The idea is that you'll of course get many engine agreements with any (very) strong and precisely played game, including some of Fischer's or Capablanca's, even.

By applying that flawed method to themselves, the GM accusers would have trouble to explain their own "Houdini moves". Because so far that is their major argument.

It is also flawed for another reason: Even Houdini does not agree to 100% with Houdini. In very many positions, there is not just one particular Houdini move. Every computer chess fan knows on how many factors (time,speed,depth,hash,cores...) the move decision depends, and that especially mp results are sometimes not even reproducable under the very same circumstances.

If throughout an analysis of reasonable length the engine would e.g. change the pm twice, we'd have three different "Houdini moves", not just one. Now let's imagine a suspected player has chosen one of these. Wow. How meaningful is that?

And if Ivanov played and beat the top 10 in the world would you still be playing Devil's Advocate for him?

Capablanca who was using Stockfish was able to do that

[Don]

Because the methodology used by Lilov is false as the logic proves.
Only one thesis we can get from analysis is that there is a coincidence
between moves of BI and some program.
When we would analyse the games of other players we would find similar
coincidences.

What logic is false? He played many games identical to Houdini so he was with very high probability using Houdini.

Lilov's.

Contrary to the math logic you are staying with your position.

I am trying to figure out what math logic you are talking about that is false.

What is the false logic here? Give me a specific reason the logic is false other than just asserting it.

So I can say with the same probability and validty that Houdini ghost is contacting BI and suggests him a moves.

[Terry McCracken]

I think there was a misunderstanding. I do not at all suppose that GMs are cheating. The idea is that you'll of course get many engine agreements with any (very) strong and precisely played game, including some of Fischer's or Capablanca's, even.

By applying that flawed method to themselves, the GM accusers would have trouble to explain their own "Houdini moves". Because so far that is their major argument.

It is also flawed for another reason: Even Houdini does not agree to 100% with Houdini. In very many positions, there is not just one particular Houdini move. Every computer chess fan knows on how many factors (time,speed,depth,hash,cores...) the move decision depends, and that especially mp results are sometimes not even reproducable under the very same circumstances.

If throughout an analysis of reasonable length the engine would e.g. change the pm twice, we'd have three different "Houdini moves", not just one. Now let's imagine a suspected player has chosen one of these. Wow. How meaningful is that?

And if Ivanov played and beat the top 10 in the world would you still be playing Devil's Advocate for him?

Capablanca who was using Stockfish was able to do that

Is that suppose to be funny?

[Don]

I think there was a misunderstanding. I do not at all suppose that GMs are cheating. The idea is that you'll of course get many engine agreements with any (very) strong and precisely played game, including some of Fischer's or Capablanca's, even.

By applying that flawed method to themselves, the GM accusers would have trouble to explain their own "Houdini moves". Because so far that is their major argument.

It is also flawed for another reason: Even Houdini does not agree to 100% with Houdini. In very many positions, there is not just one particular Houdini move. Every computer chess fan knows on how many factors (time,speed,depth,hash,cores...) the move decision depends, and that especially mp results are sometimes not even reproducable under the very same circumstances.

If throughout an analysis of reasonable length the engine would e.g. change the pm twice, we'd have three different "Houdini moves", not just one. Now let's imagine a suspected player has chosen one of these. Wow. How meaningful is that?

And if Ivanov played and beat the top 10 in the world would you still be playing Devil's Advocate for him?

Capablanca who was using Stockfish was able to do that

Is that suppose to be funny?

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

[Mike S.]

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

It should not be difficult to find many such agreements, same for every pair of great master and very strong engine.

I randomly chose one short Capa white win and ran a blundercheck with threshold zero over his moves. Only moves where Stockfish 3 disagrees at depth 20, receive engine alternatives:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A14"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 {last book move} 3. g3 ({-0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
3. d4 {0.48/20}) 3... d5 4. b3 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 4. cxd5 {-0.
20/20}) 4... c5 5. Bg2 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 5. cxd5 {-0.40/20})
5... Nc6 6. O-O ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 6. cxd5 {-0.40/20}) 6... Be7
7. d3 ({-0.80 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 7. Nc3 {-0.52/20}) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4
9. e4 ({-1.05 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 9. Nbd2 {-0.80/20}) 9... dxe3 10. fxe3
Ng4 11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Rd8 14. h3 Nge5 15. Ne4 Qxa2 16. Nxf6+
gxf6 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. Be4 {last book move} Bd7 19. Ra1 Qxb3 20. Rfb1 ({7.47
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 20. Bxe5 {18.06/20}) 20... Qb4 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22.
Rxb4 cxb4 23. Bxb7 Rab8 24. Rxa7 b3 25. Qb2 Ba4 26. Qxe5 Bc6 27. Qg5+ Kf8 28.
Bxc6 b2 29. Qe7+ 1-0

Except for the opening, we find almost "100% Stockfish moves" in the rest of the game! That is much more than I expected. SF only would like to play the swap on e5 one move earlier. All at depth 20.

[Hood]

I think there was a misunderstanding. I do not at all suppose that GMs are cheating. The idea is that you'll of course get many engine agreements with any (very) strong and precisely played game, including some of Fischer's or Capablanca's, even.

By applying that flawed method to themselves, the GM accusers would have trouble to explain their own "Houdini moves". Because so far that is their major argument.

It is also flawed for another reason: Even Houdini does not agree to 100% with Houdini. In very many positions, there is not just one particular Houdini move. Every computer chess fan knows on how many factors (time,speed,depth,hash,cores...) the move decision depends, and that especially mp results are sometimes not even reproducable under the very same circumstances.

If throughout an analysis of reasonable length the engine would e.g. change the pm twice, we'd have three different "Houdini moves", not just one. Now let's imagine a suspected player has chosen one of these. Wow. How meaningful is that?

And if Ivanov played and beat the top 10 in the world would you still be playing Devil's Advocate for him?

Capablanca who was using Stockfish was able to do that

Is that suppose to be funny?

All this pseudo-scientific proving of BI cheating is funny

[Terry McCracken]

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

It should not be difficult to find many such agreements, same for every pair of great master and very strong engine.

I randomly chose one short Capa white win and ran a blundercheck with threshold zero over his moves. Only moves where Stockfish 3 disagrees at depth 20, receive engine alternatives:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A14"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 {last book move} 3. g3 ({-0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
3. d4 {0.48/20}) 3... d5 4. b3 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 4. cxd5 {-0.
20/20}) 4... c5 5. Bg2 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 5. cxd5 {-0.40/20})
5... Nc6 6. O-O ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 6. cxd5 {-0.40/20}) 6... Be7
7. d3 ({-0.80 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 7. Nc3 {-0.52/20}) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4
9. e4 ({-1.05 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 9. Nbd2 {-0.80/20}) 9... dxe3 10. fxe3
Ng4 11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Rd8 14. h3 Nge5 15. Ne4 Qxa2 16. Nxf6+
gxf6 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. Be4 {last book move} Bd7 19. Ra1 Qxb3 20. Rfb1 ({7.47
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 20. Bxe5 {18.06/20}) 20... Qb4 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22.
Rxb4 cxb4 23. Bxb7 Rab8 24. Rxa7 b3 25. Qb2 Ba4 26. Qxe5 Bc6 27. Qg5+ Kf8 28.
Bxc6 b2 29. Qe7+ 1-0

Except for the opening, we find almost "100% Stockfish moves" in the rest of the game! That is much more than I expected. SF only would like to play the swap on e5 one move earlier. All at depth 20.

OMG...it proves Ivanov is Capablanca! This isn't relevant.

Ok, Ivanov is a genius and plays like a god and should be sponsored to play in the next super tournament. Obviously a gift from Olympus is being maligned and is now a pariah in the chess world due to petty jealousy.

You're a sleuth Mike.

[Hood]

Lilov analysis is not clear, how he got the results:
- was Houdini set in all analysed moves to the same depth/time for move
- the backward or forward analysis was used in all cases etc.

Houdini and Komodo may be are playing different but in the games analysed by Lilov have they different 1/2 selection?

a)The science logic about implication tells that from false assumption we can get everything and implication is true!
b)Other rule of logic tells that when you find the case which is contrary to the theorem it means that this theorem is false.

ad a) in my opinion the false asumption is that move matching of some entities (humans programs) can tell us that the same algorithm is used by both objects

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

There is no peace with possibility of error because you are publishing speculations as you declared and that makes a harm to the alleged person before court verdict is done.

[Hood]

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

It should not be difficult to find many such agreements, same for every pair of great master and very strong engine.

I randomly chose one short Capa white win and ran a blundercheck with threshold zero over his moves. Only moves where Stockfish 3 disagrees at depth 20, receive engine alternatives:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A14"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 {last book move} 3. g3 ({-0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
3. d4 {0.48/20}) 3... d5 4. b3 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 4. cxd5 {-0.
20/20}) 4... c5 5. Bg2 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 5. cxd5 {-0.40/20})
5... Nc6 6. O-O ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 6. cxd5 {-0.40/20}) 6... Be7
7. d3 ({-0.80 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 7. Nc3 {-0.52/20}) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4
9. e4 ({-1.05 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 9. Nbd2 {-0.80/20}) 9... dxe3 10. fxe3
Ng4 11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Rd8 14. h3 Nge5 15. Ne4 Qxa2 16. Nxf6+
gxf6 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. Be4 {last book move} Bd7 19. Ra1 Qxb3 20. Rfb1 ({7.47
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 20. Bxe5 {18.06/20}) 20... Qb4 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22.
Rxb4 cxb4 23. Bxb7 Rab8 24. Rxa7 b3 25. Qb2 Ba4 26. Qxe5 Bc6 27. Qg5+ Kf8 28.
Bxc6 b2 29. Qe7+ 1-0

Except for the opening, we find almost "100% Stockfish moves" in the rest of the game! That is much more than I expected. SF only would like to play the swap on e5 one move earlier. All at depth 20.

+100 and this shall be done for more players, when trying to use 'that' methodology of cheating proving.