Alleged 'Cheater' Kicked Out from Bulgarian Chess Federation

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

The problem is not whether he is innocent or guilty but convicting someone without proving that they're guilty.

You say it is not proven. I say it is proven. At the end we have to make a decision. The Bulgarian chess organisation made a decision, a good one, but much to late.

Doing this creates huge problems for the future, a slippery slope pandora's box with no defined limit to what degree one can be convicted without proof.

It would also open the pandora's box if we don't punish someone who is obviously and proven guilty. Because potential criminals would be encouraged and produce more victims.

So even if he was guilty, it is better not to punish him for the sake of others in the future.

You see only one side of the medal. We not only have to protect people from false accusation but also from being victims of criminals.

Proven is not an opinion, it's a fact. You have circumstantial evidence but not proof. This is a fact. Calling it proof doesn't make it proof nor does it make you correct. I don't condone cheating but convicting guilty people without proof is a hell of a lot worst.

Again, you say we have only circumstantial evidence but not a proof. I say we have not only circumstantial evidence but a proof. This is not only my opinion but a fact. But you deny the fact. And again you don't see the other side of the medal. If we don't convict guilty people although it is proven like in this case is a hell, too.

So basically, what you say is a fact, Mr. Schiffermueller. I hope German justice system makes plentiful use of your capacities, so that more criminals go to prison.

But the real facts are here, look at the below direct link to a FIDE source, you do not have a photo to accuse Ivanov, but I do have a snapshopt to alleviate any potential guilt suspicions:

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2903741

That is Ivanov FIDE elo rating progress. As you quite easily see (and this is already evidence, because it is FIDE, and it is official), he achieved an elo increase of 350-400 points in less than 2 years. That is very fast, other players would do so in 7 or 8 years, but he did it in just 2. That means he is talented.

If he managed a 400 elo points increase once, given some favourable circumstances, in a very short period, much faster than other players, why not do it a second time?

Please note, Mr. Schiffermueller, that you do not need Houdini or Rybka to beat 1900 elo players, and no one actually accused him of doing something unnatural then, although his progress has been unnaturally fast just by itself.

Well, this is an official truthful fact, Mr. Schiffermueller, and you have no facts at all. Repeating many times someone is guilty does not make him so.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

The BCF did not invite him to a chess quiz or a friendly game, but to a lie detector test.

This is what I find most confusing. The 'evidence' we have is simply unreliable and controversial. For example:

1. I have read that Ivanov was invited to a chess test, now Lyudmil says it was a lie test.

2. The arbiter/policeman's account of the body search of Ivanov has several flaws. For one thing, there was no witness, we must rely on what he told us. But then, why did he stop searching at a point when he did find something suspicious? How on earth did he not find that bulging thing at the back of Ivanov, which, allegedly, several players saw and one of them even grabbed it? Why did Ivanov not have money to travel home when he could not be sure of a prize money?
I would like to hear Ivanov's account of these things.

Hi Gabor.

Thanks for being open-minded.

Of course, it was a lie detector test pure and simple, see for example a Danailov interview to the Times of India: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... e-detector (now, I can not know if Danailov says the truth, but at least it is him who says it; btw. what undertaking signings he is talking about, Ivanov signed nothing like that).

Now, this is simply hilarious, to be required to pass a test that is much less than 100% reliable and use it as some kind of evidence. It points to the fact that the Federation does not know how to deal with the case, or consciously does not want to. Besides, the so called lie detector test was scheduled after Ivanov had had a court rule his ban by the Federation was illegal. Now they impose new conditions. On what grounds? They had simply to allow him play. Of course he will refuse, I would also have.

Regarding lie detector tests, maybe someone will shed more light on this, but my personal opinion is they might be very unreliable, if you control your willpower during the test, you could swindle the detector; thus a criminal could pass the test by controlling his willpower, and an innocent person fail to pass it, because he is overanxious, and blinking his eye when the question is asked and he answers, not because he does not say the truth, but because he is overanxious.

[Milos]

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???

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?

[lucasart]

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???

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?

+10!!

[Stefan Schiffermueller]

The problem is not whether he is innocent or guilty but convicting someone without proving that they're guilty.

You say it is not proven. I say it is proven. At the end we have to make a decision. The Bulgarian chess organisation made a decision, a good one, but much to late.

Doing this creates huge problems for the future, a slippery slope pandora's box with no defined limit to what degree one can be convicted without proof.

It would also open the pandora's box if we don't punish someone who is obviously and proven guilty. Because potential criminals would be encouraged and produce more victims.

So even if he was guilty, it is better not to punish him for the sake of others in the future.

You see only one side of the medal. We not only have to protect people from false accusation but also from being victims of criminals.

Proven is not an opinion, it's a fact. You have circumstantial evidence but not proof. This is a fact. Calling it proof doesn't make it proof nor does it make you correct. I don't condone cheating but convicting guilty people without proof is a hell of a lot worst.

Again, you say we have only circumstantial evidence but not a proof. I say we have not only circumstantial evidence but a proof. This is not only my opinion but a fact. But you deny the fact. And again you don't see the other side of the medal. If we don't convict guilty people although it is proven like in this case is a hell, too.

But the real facts are here,

I have only facts and you have the real facts.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

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???

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?

But I believed the main accusation was Ivanov was using Houdini to help win his games.
So that, according to you, Houdini has nothing in common with computer chess?

Now, I agree, those endless discussions bring us nowhere at all, and there are many other more interesting subjects. However, this is what the people accusing him with no proof achieved: had not they accused him without proof, and then prevented him to play, he would already be at 2600, everything would have been back to normal, and we would have been discussing more pleasant things. Instead, they created all the fuss around him, and those meaningless discussions are part of the fuus they created.

Milos, could you answer me (and this is very easy to verify) who initiated this thread: a person who supports or a person who accuses him? I think Sean Evans publicly states he believes Ivanov is a cheater. So tell me now, who creates all the fuss? I did not start a similar thread for the 100th time, it was a person who accuses Ivanov. And the same goes true for the other threads initiated on the topic: as far as I remember, almost all of them, if not all, were started by people who accuse Ivanov (I think Enrico Fagiuoli, who started the predominant majority of threads about Ivanov, accuses him, but he might clarify maters here).

So, why do not you simply acknowledge that all the fuss is being created by his detractors? Who is trolling now?

[kgburcham]

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???

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?

But I believed the main accusation was Ivanov was using Houdini to help win his games.
So that, according to you, Houdini has nothing in common with computer chess?

Now, I agree, those endless discussions bring us nowhere at all, and there are many other more interesting subjects. However, this is what the people accusing him with no proof achieved: had not they accused him without proof, and then prevented him to play, he would already be at 2600, everything would have been back to normal, and we would have been discussing more pleasant things. Instead, they created all the fuss around him, and those meaningless discussions are part of the fuus they created.

Milos, could you answer me (and this is very easy to verify) who initiated this thread: a person who supports or a person who accuses him? I think Sean Evans publicly states he believes Ivanov is a cheater. So tell me now, who creates all the fuss? I did not start a similar thread for the 100th time, it was a person who accuses Ivanov. And the same goes true for the other threads initiated on the topic: as far as I remember, almost all of them, if not all, were started by people who accuse Ivanov (I think Enrico Fagiuoli, who started the predominant majority of threads about Ivanov, accuses him, but he might clarify maters here).

So, why do not you simply acknowledge that all the fuss is being created by his detractors? Who is trolling now?

I come to this forum to read both sides.
I find this alleged cheating very interesting.
I have not noticed anyone trolling.
I feel strongly that Ivanov is using electronic assistance to help educate the officials and the chess world.
I assume all of the lambs are learning about the other side.
I am not sure what good will come out of this.

kgburcham

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

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???

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?

But I believed the main accusation was Ivanov was using Houdini to help win his games.
So that, according to you, Houdini has nothing in common with computer chess?

Now, I agree, those endless discussions bring us nowhere at all, and there are many other more interesting subjects. However, this is what the people accusing him with no proof achieved: had not they accused him without proof, and then prevented him to play, he would already be at 2600, everything would have been back to normal, and we would have been discussing more pleasant things. Instead, they created all the fuss around him, and those meaningless discussions are part of the fuus they created.

Milos, could you answer me (and this is very easy to verify) who initiated this thread: a person who supports or a person who accuses him? I think Sean Evans publicly states he believes Ivanov is a cheater. So tell me now, who creates all the fuss? I did not start a similar thread for the 100th time, it was a person who accuses Ivanov. And the same goes true for the other threads initiated on the topic: as far as I remember, almost all of them, if not all, were started by people who accuse Ivanov (I think Enrico Fagiuoli, who started the predominant majority of threads about Ivanov, accuses him, but he might clarify maters here).

So, why do not you simply acknowledge that all the fuss is being created by his detractors? Who is trolling now?

I come to this forum to read both sides.
I find this alleged cheating very interesting.
I have not noticed anyone trolling.
I feel strongly that Ivanov is using electronic assistance to help educate the officials and the chess world.
I assume all of the lambs are learning about the other side.
I am not sure what good will come out of this.

kgburcham

[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.

[Terry McCracken]

You say it is not proven. I say it is proven. At the end we have to make a decision. The Bulgarian chess organisation made a decision, a good one, but much to late.

This is not an election campaign, to count votes.
In order to decide that he is cheating, you need:

a) a photo of the device he allegedly uses, or
b) police report, confirmed with the signatures of at least 2 people who were direct witnesses while conducting a search on him, stipulating that the suspicious device has been found.

As we have neither a, nor b, he is as innocent as a baby girl.

That's absurd! You don't like the process, too bad. It is impossible to see what he is doing as he refuses to comply. That is his choice! Naturally there is no other option than to ban him. Sports organizations don't need to have police reports or a guilty verdict in court to ban someone. An honest player would comply if chess and self-respect is important to them to clear their name. Ivanov has made his decision. Of course if he is cheating no way in hell will he comply and risk a lot more than embarrassment!

If you think that is unfair or this means he may be innocent that is how the pieces drop.

We will speak again in a couple of months' time, when it becomes evident he hides nothing.

Says you. I looked at some critical games. He was using an engine. It is relatively easy for me to spot. I've been around chess and chess computers since the 70's, your claim of innocence at this point is risible.

Norm posted this. Did you not understand it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

However, I know who you are and are very biased in the Ivanov case.

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Lyudmil+Tsvetkov