Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[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.

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.

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

[Don]

[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.

I think he will box himself into a corner and his method will sooner or later be exposed and we won't have to figure it out.

If he tries to continue the charade he will eventually put even more focus on himself and have to make this work under a bigger variety of conditions that I doubt he will be able to control.

That being said, I have a couple of questions. In the alleged cheating incidences where his performance was sky high, were the games being published live in every case? Were there any cases they were not? If he is cheating we might at least be able to eliminate this as a possibility. I don't really know the gory details.

[carldaman]

where his performance was sky high, were the games being published live in every case? Were there any cases they were not? If he is cheating we might at least be able to eliminate this as a possibility. I don't really know the gory details.

I find interesting that in the one recent tournament where he did not cheat, and posted a performance rating of <2000, the tournament director 'threatened' to catch all cheaters, just prior to the event's start, with a secret electronic gizmo. This was likely all a bluff, but may have been enough to deter cheating by Ivanov, as he believed he was vulnerable to being electronically detected.

CL

[stevenaaus]

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

You're probably right about this. But Mob justice is effective too... just not as nice. FIDE is a fairly gormless organisation.

[Don]

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

You don't believe in non-violent protest? That is basically what this is, several GM's taking a stand for their own protection. Whether they are right or not I think in general it is considered an acceptable practice if it's not done in a violent way.

Of course you must also realize that from their point of view the goal was to prevent someone from profiting at their expense from dishonesty. In other words they see it is robbery and probably feel they have a right to protect themselves.

[mwyoung]

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

You don't believe in non-violent protest? That is basically what this is, several GM's taking a stand for their own protection. Whether they are right or not I think in general it is considered an acceptable practice if it's not done in a violent way.

Of course you must also realize that from their point of view the goal was to prevent someone from profiting at their expense from dishonesty. In other words they see it is robbery and probably feel they have a right to protect themselves.

I will be consistent with what you and I agree on. Fide should judge this case.

Fide has not banned Ivanov from play. Right now Ivanov has the right to play chess. If Ivanov is every found guilty, I think Fide should ban Ivanov form chess tournaments for life.

Players who decided to boycott the tournament were practicing the art of non-violent protest. These players broke no laws, or the rules of chess. And did not engage in vigilantly justice, but made their feelings know to Fide.

The players who conspired to deprive another player of his prize fund, and that could be any player that has a right to play tournament chess, and is in good standing with Fide. Have if true broken the laws of chess, and committed a crime.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand.

[Don]

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

You don't believe in non-violent protest? That is basically what this is, several GM's taking a stand for their own protection. Whether they are right or not I think in general it is considered an acceptable practice if it's not done in a violent way.

Of course you must also realize that from their point of view the goal was to prevent someone from profiting at their expense from dishonesty. In other words they see it is robbery and probably feel they have a right to protect themselves.

I will be consistent with what you and I agree on. Fide should judge this case.

Fide has not banned Ivanov from play. Right now Ivanov has the right to play chess. If Ivanov is every found guilty, I think Fide should ban Ivanov form chess tournaments for life.

Players who decided to boycott the tournament were practicing the art of non-violent protest. These players broke no laws, or the rules of chess. And did not engage in vigilantly justice, but made their feelings know to Fide.

The players who conspired to deprive another player of his prize fund, and that could be any player that has a right to play tournament chess, and is in good standing with Fide. Have if true broken the laws of chess, and committed a crime.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand.

How was he deprived of his prize fund? He was one of the weaker players in the tournament and was less likely to win than most of the other players.

The fact that you expected him to win is very strange to me - it's like you either know he is cheating and giving your tactic approval or you are being a loyal fan of his and a cheerleader.

[mwyoung]

[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.

I think he will box himself into a corner and his method will sooner or later be exposed and we won't have to figure it out.

If he tries to continue the charade he will eventually put even more focus on himself and have to make this work under a bigger variety of conditions that I doubt he will be able to control.

That being said, I have a couple of questions. In the alleged cheating incidences where his performance was sky high, were the games being published live in every case? Were there any cases they were not? If he is cheating we might at least be able to eliminate this as a possibility. I don't really know the gory details.

The reports say from chessbase that the games were not broadcast over the internet.

I guess we will have to go with FM Lilov theories, Ivanov transmits the moves by use of a bionic contact lens, thats why Ivanov only looks at the board when playing the game, this is the claim made by FM Lilov theory. When Ivanov makes a mistake that Houdini does not agree with, Ivanov bionic contact lens that can transmit moves, or I guess can may even run Houdini 3, FM Lilov has not been to clear on this. But FM Lilov said it must have malfunctioned.

Ivanov's cheating device is so automatic Ivanov can if the device does not have a "glitch" term used by FM Lilov. Ivanov's cheating device can consistently see the moves, process the move, relay the moves to Ivanov, and let Ivanov play the move over the board, then let Ivanov hit his clock in as little time as 3 seconds, and consistently at a rate of 5-7 seconds a move like clock work, never taking more time per move the whole game. This is from testimony from Grandmaster players, and players who suspect or accused Ivanov of cheating.

I would like to know what device can allow a player to do this, that has evaded detection so far, if Ivanov is cheating.

I don't buy the bionic contact lens idea at all. But I am open to suggestions, and would love to see someone demonstrate this in a video how Ivanov is cheating.

[mwyoung]

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

You don't believe in non-violent protest? That is basically what this is, several GM's taking a stand for their own protection. Whether they are right or not I think in general it is considered an acceptable practice if it's not done in a violent way.

Of course you must also realize that from their point of view the goal was to prevent someone from profiting at their expense from dishonesty. In other words they see it is robbery and probably feel they have a right to protect themselves.

I will be consistent with what you and I agree on. Fide should judge this case.

Fide has not banned Ivanov from play. Right now Ivanov has the right to play chess. If Ivanov is every found guilty, I think Fide should ban Ivanov form chess tournaments for life.

Players who decided to boycott the tournament were practicing the art of non-violent protest. These players broke no laws, or the rules of chess. And did not engage in vigilantly justice, but made their feelings know to Fide.

The players who conspired to deprive another player of his prize fund, and that could be any player that has a right to play tournament chess, and is in good standing with Fide. Have if true broken the laws of chess, and committed a crime.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand.

How was he deprived of his prize fund? He was one of the weaker players in the tournament and was less likely to win than most of the other players.

The fact that you expected him to win is very strange to me - it's like you either know he is cheating and giving your tactic approval or you are being a loyal fan of his and a cheerleader.

Ivanov was deprived of the first place money in the tournament, because some players learned about a clause in the tournament rules that does not allow a player prize money, if that player wins 3 games by forfeit. Some of the players in the tournament once leaning of the clause, conspired to forfeit games when paired against Ivanov to deprive Ivanov of any prize fund. Breaking the laws of chess and committing a crime. This is testimony that was reported on chessbase by a player that refused to go along with the illegal act, even though he thought Ivanov was cheating.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand if true.

"you are being a loyal fan of his and a cheerleader"

I believe in the rule of law no matter who the players may be. I don't judge people, and call them guilty, when I don't know all the facts no matter who the person may be. I respect peoples right to a fair hearing, and the right of anyone to defend themselves no matter who that person may be. I believe people should have a chance to face their accusers in a fair and open hearing. And to see the evidence against them, and the right of that persons to question their accusers and bring forth evidence in their own defense before judgment is made against anyone.

[Uri Blass]

I agree, I think Fide should judge this case. They are the governing body here. I am for the rule of law.

My point is if Fide has not banned Ivanovo for cheating. I don't want to see mob rule and vigilantly justice taken out on a chess player because some think Ivanovo is guilty of cheating. Then conspiring to deprive that player of the prize fund.

That is a dangerous action to let stand regardless of the Ivanovo case.

You don't believe in non-violent protest? That is basically what this is, several GM's taking a stand for their own protection. Whether they are right or not I think in general it is considered an acceptable practice if it's not done in a violent way.

Of course you must also realize that from their point of view the goal was to prevent someone from profiting at their expense from dishonesty. In other words they see it is robbery and probably feel they have a right to protect themselves.

I will be consistent with what you and I agree on. Fide should judge this case.

Fide has not banned Ivanov from play. Right now Ivanov has the right to play chess. If Ivanov is every found guilty, I think Fide should ban Ivanov form chess tournaments for life.

Players who decided to boycott the tournament were practicing the art of non-violent protest. These players broke no laws, or the rules of chess. And did not engage in vigilantly justice, but made their feelings know to Fide.

The players who conspired to deprive another player of his prize fund, and that could be any player that has a right to play tournament chess, and is in good standing with Fide. Have if true broken the laws of chess, and committed a crime.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand.

How was he deprived of his prize fund? He was one of the weaker players in the tournament and was less likely to win than most of the other players.

The fact that you expected him to win is very strange to me - it's like you either know he is cheating and giving your tactic approval or you are being a loyal fan of his and a cheerleader.

Ivanov was deprived of the first place money in the tournament, because some players learned about a clause in the tournament rules that does not allow a player prize money, if that player wins 3 games by forfeit. Some of the players in the tournament once leaning of the clause, conspired to forfeit games when paired against Ivanov to deprive Ivanov of any prize fund. Breaking the laws of chess and committing a crime. This is testimony that was reported on chessbase by a player that refused to go along with the illegal act, even though he thought Ivanov was cheating.

As I said before this would be a very dangerous precedent to let stand if true.

"you are being a loyal fan of his and a cheerleader"

I believe in the rule of law no matter who the players may be. I don't judge people, and call them guilty, when I don't know all the facts no matter who the person may be. I respect peoples right to a fair hearing, and the right of anyone to defend themselves no matter who that person may be. I believe people should have a chance to face their accusers in a fair and open hearing. And to see the evidence against them, and the right of that persons to question their accusers and bring forth evidence in their own defense before judgment is made against anyone.

Why do you think that refusing to play against a player that you believe to be a cheater is a crime?

I know no rule that say that it is illegal.