Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[stevenaaus]

But we have to catch him... we cant ban him with such silly arguments as this
[d]
31. Qxc5

This move, which was played in a few seconds time, made no sense! A human would take on f3 after a little thought, not on c5!

[mwyoung]

But we have to catch him... we cant ban him with such silly arguments as this
[d]
31. Qxc5

This move, which was played in a few seconds time, made no sense! A human would take on f3 after a little thought, not on c5!

No, it is not ok to ban someone without proper evidence I agree with Fide, but it seems ok with Fide for other players to commit conspiracy to deprive a player of a prize fund because they think he is cheating.

IM Axel Rombaldoni:
"In the tournament, I started quite well but in round seven I had to play against this guy. I already knew his story and everybody was talking about him. Even though many people were telling me to not show up for my game with Borislav Ivanov, because after three games won by forfeit he wouldn't have been eligible for the prize fund."

I would not expect Fide to act on this at all, in all fairness they should if Fide has not banned Ivanov for cheating.

A Crime has been committed here also if his statement is true.

[Cubeman]

But we have to catch him... we cant ban him with such silly arguments as this
[d]
31. Qxc5

This move, which was played in a few seconds time, made no sense! A human would take on f3 after a little thought, not on c5!

I would take on c5 the pawn on f3 is a dead pawn walking, where the pawn on c5 could be protected by b6. I have seen other set-ups in other openings where someone has a b3-c4 pawn chain and it is quite natural to place the c1 bishop somewhere else besides b2. Have the moves of this game also been tested to see if they match Houdini.

[Taner Altinsoy]

But we have to catch him... we cant ban him with such silly arguments as this
[d]
31. Qxc5

This move, which was played in a few seconds time, made no sense! A human would take on f3 after a little thought, not on c5!

I would take on c5 the pawn on f3 is a dead pawn walking, where the pawn on c5 could be protected by b6. I have seen other set-ups in other openings where someone has a b3-c4 pawn chain and it is quite natural to place the c1 bishop somewhere else besides b2. Have the moves of this game also been tested to see if they match Houdini.

Previous 29. h4! is more fishy in my opinion together with Bf4 in the opening stage. I also checked the game with Houdini and after like move 33-34 he suddenly stopped playing Houdini moves and actually missed mate 10 sth and finished the game himself as if he just stopped the engine or thought he can wrap this game up himself or just wanted to enjoy chess or beating a (almost) GM player.

[Hood]

There is no prove that he used Houdini at all.
It can not be said that when his moves are differrent then Houdini he stopped using Houdini. So any GM when he does not play Houdini choices has stopped using it. Why Houdini not Komodo?

Some moves are Houdini like some not. Very inconsistent.

[Taner Altinsoy]

There is no prove that he used Houdini at all.
It can not be said that when his moves are differrent then Houdini he stopped using Houdini. So any GM when he does not play Houdini choices has stopped using it. Why Houdini not Komodo?

Some moves are Houdini like some not. Very inconsistent.

I am not claiming he uses exclusively Houdini, probably any top engine would and if you compare his moves with that of his opponent who is a grandmaster you can see the contrast in playstyle. One does not even make one different move than the engine and the other one makes only like % 50-60 of the engine.
And if you see a player making all engine moves until move 33 and then suddenly none of the moves match the engine you can very well assume he shut the engine off or is ignoring it. Just go through the move list with any good program and you'll see.

taner

[Uri Blass]

There is no prove that he used Houdini at all.
It can not be said that when his moves are differrent then Houdini he stopped using Houdini. So any GM when he does not play Houdini choices has stopped using it. Why Houdini not Komodo?

Some moves are Houdini like some not. Very inconsistent.

I did not analyze the relevant game but if the moves are different from houdini only at the end of the game when he already had a winning advantage then it is not some moves like houdini some not because there is a rule to play houdini's move as long as you did not get a winning advantage
that is the important part of the game.

normal GM have a lot of equal positions or slightly better position when he does not play houdini's moves.

[Don]

But we have to catch him... we cant ban him with such silly arguments as this
[d]
31. Qxc5

This move, which was played in a few seconds time, made no sense! A human would take on f3 after a little thought, not on c5!

No, it is not ok to ban someone without proper evidence I agree with Fide, but it seems ok with Fide for other players to commit conspiracy to deprive a player of a prize fund because they think he is cheating.

The issue with this is that many people consider the evidence overwhelming and others consider it not enough. So some think that FIDE is not acting when they should and others think that it doing the right thing by not acting.

Going along with this, there are some people who are always paranoid and suspicious and are quick to believe anyone is cheating. But there are others who will NEVER believe he is cheating even if you smack them in the face with direct evidence. There are still people in the world who don't think OJ did it, who believe Rosie Ruiz was cheated out of the 1980 Boston Marathon title and that Lance Armstrong never took steroids (even after admitting it.) The missisiipi

But I think FIDE has the right to decide how convincing that evidence is going to be. ANY governing organization has that right and that is part of their function.

I was ruled against in a tournament for a violation of "touch move" once and it was an improperly ruling but only I could really know my own intent. But I accepted the ruling anyway because if they are not empowered with making such calls, who is? Should I have taken them to court?

In this situation, I will respect FIDE's decision or lack of decision. I might not agree with it, but I also don't agree with the situation where the entire chess world is split down the middle because everyone has an opinion but no respect for those empowered to make such decisions. I don't know how this will play out - typically organization like this cow tow to external pressure and do not always do things based on principle. But you can be sure that no matter what happens, they are going to face a great deal of criticism from the people on the "other side" of the issue. That is what is called being between a rock and a hard place.

When someone like you says, "it is not ok to ban someone without proper evidence" it is rather an ill-defined statement, one that nobody would ever disagree with so it's meaningless. But the problem comes with how you define "sufficient evidence" and everyone has a different view of where the balance should be because if there was a crime, a lot of people were treated unjustly and unfairly by this not being acted upon. If thee was not a crime but there is a conviction, that is an injustice too. So being passive is not playing it safe. If your house in on fire, it doesn't do any good to say, "hey, let's not over-react, let's sit down and think this over" and in the meantime your house is burning down.

So really it makes sense to give FIDE wide discretion in such matters. And yes, abuse of power is always a possibility, but it's not reasonable to cry abuse whenever you don't like a decision. That is what happens in every case, such as the Lace Armstrong case - which was presented as a vendetta against Lace by his enemies, who were "out to get him" with lies and innuendo.

IM Axel Rombaldoni:
"In the tournament, I started quite well but in round seven I had to play against this guy. I already knew his story and everybody was talking about him. Even though many people were telling me to not show up for my game with Borislav Ivanov, because after three games won by forfeit he wouldn't have been eligible for the prize fund."

I would not expect Fide to act on this at all, in all fairness they should if Fide has not banned Ivanov for cheating.

A Crime has been committed here also if his statement is true.

There is no question that even if this guy is not guilty of cheating (which I think he is) people are going to be much more suspicious of him. If a falsely accused man moved into my neighborhood and he had been convicted of pedophilia, would you let him babysit your children? You would be a total idiot of you did, even if you were not fully convinced of his guilt. This is a protective mechanism built into to each of us our own protection and survival. Suspicion is not an evil to be conquered but it must be tempered with reason too.

[Don]

There is no prove that he used Houdini at all.
It can not be said that when his moves are differrent then Houdini he stopped using Houdini. So any GM when he does not play Houdini choices has stopped using it. Why Houdini not Komodo?

Some moves are Houdini like some not. Very inconsistent.

I did not analyze the relevant game but if the moves are different from houdini only at the end of the game when he already had a winning advantage then it is not some moves like houdini some not because there is a rule to play houdini's move as long as you did not get a winning advantage
that is the important part of the game.

normal GM have a lot of equal positions or slightly better position when he does not play houdini's moves.

Yes, the problem is that if he is indeed cheating he could do a far better job of it. He is not covering his tracks very well. He could use different engines, stop when he has enough advantage that he can win on his own and allow himself to lose a game once in a while.

The best way to cheat is to play the game on your own and just let the computer critique your moves - correct you. But that would complicate whatever interface he might be using. it would still increase your playing strength enormously.

[GenoM]

[d]

There were like nine popular responses for this position, but 8.Bf4! was not among them. Still, it was the first choice that most top computer engines would make. And I must say that after 7.b3 a move like Bf4 looks weird...

I wonder how he is doing it ?! We need a poll.

I agree. It would be interesting to share some ideas here.