Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Hood]

you can make sth wrong to people whom you have in high estimation but you hate them. it is not contempt.

[Uri Blass]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

Yes, mine is wired differently too from your lynch-mob brain. Cheating has to be proven, you cannot say "he is a bad guy, therefore a cheater". All this fuss about Ivanov seems exaggerated, and the fact that they stripped him of a prize is reprobable. There is a reasonable doubt about his cheating, one cannot deprive him of prizes because of a suspicion.

My opinion is that there is no reasonable doubt but even in case that there is a reasonable doubt I do not see a problem because you do not need the same confidence for different decisions.

preventing a person to get a prize and putting the same person in prison are different decisions and I think that we need relatively less confidence that we are right for the first decision.

[Don]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

P.S. furthermore, cheat on your taxes? You are not hurting anyone, right? The money you didn't pay will raise everyone else's taxes. But of course that doesn't matter because you pay less, right? You have made the decision that you everyone should pay a little bit more for your benefit, basically showing a degree of contempt.

I think that this example is different because the little bit is so little that people almost do not notice it.

If you steal 100,000$ from one person then you hurt that person significantly.

If you steal 0.1$ from million different people then nobody suffer significantly from your actions.

I think that more people are going to find it morally wrong to steal 100,000$ from one person relative to stealing 0.1$ from million different people by cheating on their taxes.

Personally I agree that it is morally wrong to cheat on your taxes but I think that it is significantly worse to steal the same money from one person.

I disagree on this one. It might SEEM to be less of a crime but stealing a million dollars from a company, a single person, or several million people is still major theft. The money has to come from somewhere.

You have to amortize the cost to get the proper view of stealing. There are millions of people cheating on their taxes just in the USA and most of them do not get caught. That money is not costing you just a penny, but if you are an average wage earner in the USA it's probably costing you hundreds of dollars in taxes.

I read some statistics somewhere on the cost of theft in retail stores and it was surprising and staggering. We like to imagine that it doesn't hurt you, just the company who was stolen from but that is not even close. It's virtually ALL passed on to YOU and I. They have to charge more for everything they sell as well as the anti-theft measures that are necessary including additional manpower, shrinkwrapping, detectors and all sorts of infra-structure to deal with this.

[Hood]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

Yes, mine is wired differently too from your lynch-mob brain. Cheating has to be proven, you cannot say "he is a bad guy, therefore a cheater". All this fuss about Ivanov seems exaggerated, and the fact that they stripped him of a prize is reprobable. There is a reasonable doubt about his cheating, one cannot deprive him of prizes because of a suspicion.

My opinion is that there is no reasonable doubt but even in case that there is a reasonable doubt I do not see a problem because you do not need the same confidence for different decisions.

preventing a person to get a prize and putting the same person in prison are different decisions and I think that we need relatively less confidence that we are right for the first decision.

Would you accept that way of doing concerning your person?
U

[Laskos]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

Yes, mine is wired differently too from your lynch-mob brain. Cheating has to be proven, you cannot say "he is a bad guy, therefore a cheater". All this fuss about Ivanov seems exaggerated, and the fact that they stripped him of a prize is reprobable. There is a reasonable doubt about his cheating, one cannot deprive him of prizes because of a suspicion.

My opinion is that there is no reasonable doubt but even in case that there is a reasonable doubt I do not see a problem because you do not need the same confidence for different decisions.

preventing a person to get a prize and putting the same person in prison are different decisions and I think that we need relatively less confidence that we are right for the first decision.

Yes, if the standards were so low, maybe this competition was with a pre-defined winner, who was not Ivanov. I would investigate the person who got the prize in place of Ivanov, to see if it's not a case of a corrupt competition with a rigged outcome.

[Don]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

Yes, mine is wired differently too from your lynch-mob brain. Cheating has to be proven, you cannot say "he is a bad guy, therefore a cheater". All this fuss about Ivanov seems exaggerated, and the fact that they stripped him of a prize is reprobable. There is a reasonable doubt about his cheating, one cannot deprive him of prizes because of a suspicion.

My opinion is that there is no reasonable doubt but even in case that there is a reasonable doubt I do not see a problem because you do not need the same confidence for different decisions.

preventing a person to get a prize and putting the same person in prison are different decisions and I think that we need relatively less confidence that we are right for the first decision.

Yes, I agree. This is related to the concept of the crime fitting the punishment and I am a firm believer that the current justice system is WAY OUT OF WHACK in this regard. Small time petty crimes are often punished with far too much severity while corporate executives are given huge bonuses with bail-out money - the same executives who basically defrauded thousands of employee's and investors. Where is the justice here? If you are wealthy or popular your justice is far different than if you are a just a peon.

[geots]

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30613.aspx

After reading this article in detail, I would only offer 2 points:

1. Great plus later erratic and bad play in itself means nothing. He may be cheating- but he has not been caught. He could possibly be going back to bad play on purpose just to drive them crazy. Or maybe he does cheat. If so, he will sooner or later be caught.

2. Lie detector tests are not trustworthy- in terms of across the board. I have personally taken over 4 dozen in my life. I even took 8 in a row once, lied in 2- and was willing to bet money they could not even pick one of the 8 in which I lied. And would have won some damn good money if a goddam agent had not told them to put their money back in their pocket. Oh well- he never liked me anyway. Which is strange, as it was HE who stole MY wife and not the other way around.

[geots]

Cheating is cheating,
contempt is contempt.
There is no connection.

Wow, I can see why we so often disagree.

The connection is clear and obvious. ALL forms of dishonesty betray a lack of respect for other people. Stealing? How does that not show contempt for your victims?

Let's say we are in a tournament and I cheat by using a computer. I win the money, you lose the game. I lie about cheating and keep the money because I consider myself more important than you are. If you cannot see the connection, then your brain is wired so much differently than mine is.

P.S. furthermore, cheat on your taxes? You are not hurting anyone, right? The money you didn't pay will raise everyone else's taxes. But of course that doesn't matter because you pay less, right? You have made the decision that you everyone should pay a little bit more for your benefit, basically showing a degree of contempt.

I think that this example is different because the little bit is so little that people almost do not notice it.

If you steal 100,000$ from one person then you hurt that person significantly.

If you steal 0.1$ from million different people then nobody suffer significantly from your actions.

I think that more people are going to find it morally wrong to steal 100,000$ from one person relative to stealing 0.1$ from million different people by cheating on their taxes.

Personally I agree that it is morally wrong to cheat on your taxes but I think that it is significantly worse to steal the same money from one person.

Uri, the mistake was the tax analogy. I would have picked another issue to make my point. Sure- cheating on taxes is wrong. Just like 1+1=2. But it gets a lot more complicated than that when you are dealing with the US Fed. govt. Because the majority of what you pay them is either pissed off by politicians or given to people to pay off favors. Our Fed.govt. reminds me of a goat- what it doesn't tear up- it shits on. Any analogy would have been better than picking that one.


gts

[noctiferus]

Opinions from GM Georgiev (who lost the blitz game) and dr Regan (who made some statistical analysis,) plus a few Chessbase readers:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 50613.aspx

[Laskos]

Opinions from GM Georgiev (who lost the blitz game) and dr Regan (who made some statistical analysis,) plus a few Chessbase readers:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 50613.aspx

Lilov: when he plays well - he is cheating, when he plays badly - he is not cheating. Pretty poor argumentation.

Curious how does he cheat at blitz?