Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Don]

If the guy had showed up for the testing he could've validated his reputation but now with the allegations he has only painted himself into a cheater's corner.

There is a clear pattern that tends to occur with cheating and it starts with bluffing ( "I'll cooperate with any investigation" ) followed by some dubiously constructed reason why you cannot cooperate or refuse to cooperate.

In general there is either an excuse, or an adamant refusal. If there is a refusal, the reason is always that you will not "play their game" with assertions that the game is rigged and you view it as a joke. It's so transparent but it seems to take a lot of people in. The "victim" card is especially powerful because a lot of people can relate to that anyway - most of us have been victimized at least a few times in our lives and when it happens it's often sensationalized.

[reflectionofpower]

"There is a clear pattern that tends to occur with cheating and it starts with bluffing ( "I'll cooperate with any investigation" ) followed by some dubiously constructed reason why you cannot cooperate or refuse to cooperate."

This seems to be the case,you're right.

[Hood]

Ivanov misses BCF anti-cheating test

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10713.aspx

I have a theory that Ivanov is using some sort of AI optical recognition software to recognize the board. His posture was noted to be really odd, very still and completely focused on a single pose looking at the board. It is possible now to decode moves from a physical board by camera which would allow him to be free of sending moves physically. An in-ear receiver would be easily hidden due to his long hair - and these devices are already invisible even without his long hair. The computing system could be in his pocket or his case.

Alignment of the camera could be handled by some sort of feedback system using the earpiece.

Think of what people have been saying - he posture is fixed and does not change, he will never look at his opponent or at the cameras in the playing hall - I think whatever system he is using is relatively fragile and not particularly flexible.

I do have 3 differrent theories:

1) He is playing good
2) He is supported by ghosts and hypnosis
3) He is using telepathy

I do not have the proves but differrent theories do not have proves , either.
So my speculations are comparable in quality.
Rgds

[Hood]

"There is a clear pattern that tends to occur with cheating and it starts with bluffing ( "I'll cooperate with any investigation" ) followed by some dubiously constructed reason why you cannot cooperate or refuse to cooperate."

This seems to be the case,you're right.

Or it is an advise from the lawyer not to take a part in such an act which acknowledges somehow that the suspicions were somehow founded or
the unfair test.
At the moment there are no real facts proving that he was cheating.

Would you like to pass the test proving that you are not a camel?
Someone could accuse you that you are a camel because you have 2 eyes like camel does.
The test for eyes count will show that you are the camel.

We do not know what the test was, may be it was not fair?

[Don]

Ivanov misses BCF anti-cheating test

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10713.aspx

I have a theory that Ivanov is using some sort of AI optical recognition software to recognize the board. His posture was noted to be really odd, very still and completely focused on a single pose looking at the board. It is possible now to decode moves from a physical board by camera which would allow him to be free of sending moves physically. An in-ear receiver would be easily hidden due to his long hair - and these devices are already invisible even without his long hair. The computing system could be in his pocket or his case.

Alignment of the camera could be handled by some sort of feedback system using the earpiece.

Think of what people have been saying - he posture is fixed and does not change, he will never look at his opponent or at the cameras in the playing hall - I think whatever system he is using is relatively fragile and not particularly flexible.

I do have 3 differrent theories:

1) He is playing good
2) He is supported by ghosts and hypnosis
3) He is using telepathy

I do not have the proves but differrent theories do not have proves , either.
So my speculations are comparable in quality.
Rgds

I would like to remind you that you are being totally ridiculous here, because YES, I am speculating but even the scientific method is based on speculation. It's call forming a hypothesis. Maybe times the hypothesis is incorrect and then it's modified as more information becomes available.

The telepathy, ghosts and hypnosis you are talking about is about as asinine as it gets, you are just being a fool - and so does proving you are a camel because you have two eyes. There is a huge difference in being a silly fool and proposing a reasonable hypothesis. Which do you think is more likely, that you are a camel or that he is using a camera?

Do you realize that when there is an actual crime, such as a murder, the police do EXACTLY what we are doing here, they will TRY TO FIGURE OUT how the crime was committed and they will begin with a list of SUSPECTS. Their list may have several people, but they know they are not all guilty. It doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. If they have a viable suspect, they will use whatever evidence they have to construct plausible theories and then they will either prove the theory or the will modify it as they get more information. You are basically criticizing this method with childish sarcasm and it just makes a fool out you - give me a break, camel because you have 2 eyes and hypnosis? Those theory are comparable in quality? What an unreasonable illogical person you are.

[Don]

"There is a clear pattern that tends to occur with cheating and it starts with bluffing ( "I'll cooperate with any investigation" ) followed by some dubiously constructed reason why you cannot cooperate or refuse to cooperate."

This seems to be the case,you're right.

Or it is an advise from the lawyer not to take a part in such an act which acknowledges somehow that the suspicions were somehow founded or
the unfair test.

A good lawyer will generally advise you to cooperate in order to clear your name - at least if they feel you are really innocent.

At the moment there are no real facts proving that he was cheating.

There is very strong evidence though - you make it sound as if there is not the slightest bit of evidence that he was cheating - when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. And you CAN convict on overhwelming circumstantial evidence and in fact almost all convictions are based on that. Even DNA evidence is not proof as there is 1 chance in millions or billions usually that there is a false match. A confession is not proof either, because it's not unheard of for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. If 10 people see a crime that is not proof either, people sometimes have dopplegangers who look amazing like them. Or you can get many people to lie. Fingerprints don't prove anything 100% either - even with a match from a bloody fingerprint. So it always comes down to overwhelming circumstantial evidence by some definition of "circumstantial" even if they don't call it circumstantial.

I think you are trying to say there is not one shred of evidence, but you are once again taking a completely ridiculous and unreasonable extreme point of view for who knows what reason. You are clearly biased here - for who knows what reason.

You don't belong in the discussion anyway, it's really for people who reason - not for people who are so close minded. You should be talking about the chances that he could play all these moves - try to make a REASONABLE case that he could be playing just like Houdini - then it's a discussion. But 2 eyes means your a camel - that is not a discussion I want to be in. I'm not even going to address you again on this again unless you become more reasonable - for example by proposing some reason why you believe the evidence is not overwhelming - instead of just saying there is no evidence whatsoever. Of course there is evidence, but a reasonable person will explain why it might not be quite as convincing as it seems, other than simply "it is possible that someone could play exactly like Houdini." Yes, it's possible and it's possible that you and I have the same fingerprints.

Would you like to pass the test proving that you are not a camel?
Someone could accuse you that you are a camel because you have 2 eyes like camel does.
The test for eyes count will show that you are the camel.

We do not know what the test was, may be it was not fair?

[MikeGL]

Some legal aspects sre discussed here:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30713.aspx

According to your link (from chessbase), Ivanov refused because it is in conflict with "7th Varna Open", really funny when a week prior to the technical cheating test he (B.Ivanov) already gave an interview that "the chief organizer of the Varna Open, Boris Hristov, had “categorically refused” to let Ivanov participate in the tournament"

Good excuse there, "Well I can't do the cheating test because I am joining 7th Varna Open", but you were already rejected and you knew it 1 week before the scheduled testing.

Also that's an insult to BCF President Silvio Danailov who arrived from Spain expecting to see the test, but was just humiliated when Ivanov didn't show up.

[Taner Altinsoy]

Some legal aspects sre discussed here:

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30713.aspx

According to your link (from chessbase), Ivanov refused because it is in conflict with "7th Varna Open", really funny when a week prior to the technical cheating test he (B.Ivanov) already gave an interview that "the chief organizer of the Varna Open, Boris Hristov, had “categorically refused” to let Ivanov participate in the tournament"

Good excuse there, "Well I can't do the cheating test because I am joining 7th Varna Open", but you were already rejected and you knew it 1 week before the scheduled testing.

Also that's an insult to BCF President Silvio Danailov who arrived from Spain expecting to see the test, but was just humiliated when Ivanov didn't show up.

For which he declared through his lawyer that he was going to attend only to change his mind the day before the test...

[Hood]

Ivanov misses BCF anti-cheating test

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10713.aspx

I have a theory that Ivanov is using some sort of AI optical recognition software to recognize the board. His posture was noted to be really odd, very still and completely focused on a single pose looking at the board. It is possible now to decode moves from a physical board by camera which would allow him to be free of sending moves physically. An in-ear receiver would be easily hidden due to his long hair - and these devices are already invisible even without his long hair. The computing system could be in his pocket or his case.

Alignment of the camera could be handled by some sort of feedback system using the earpiece.

Think of what people have been saying - he posture is fixed and does not change, he will never look at his opponent or at the cameras in the playing hall - I think whatever system he is using is relatively fragile and not particularly flexible.

I do have 3 differrent theories:

1) He is playing good
2) He is supported by ghosts and hypnosis
3) He is using telepathy

I do not have the proves but differrent theories do not have proves , either.
So my speculations are comparable in quality.
Rgds

I would like to remind you that you are being totally ridiculous here, because YES, I am speculating but even the scientific method is based on speculation. It's call forming a hypothesis. Maybe times the hypothesis is incorrect and then it's modified as more information becomes available.

The telepathy, ghosts and hypnosis you are talking about is about as asinine as it gets, you are just being a fool - and so does proving you are a camel because you have two eyes. There is a huge difference in being a silly fool and proposing a reasonable hypothesis. Which do you think is more likely, that you are a camel or that he is using a camera?

Do you realize that when there is an actual crime, such as a murder, the police do EXACTLY what we are doing here, they will TRY TO FIGURE OUT how the crime was committed and they will begin with a list of SUSPECTS. Their list may have several people, but they know they are not all guilty. It doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. If they have a viable suspect, they will use whatever evidence they have to construct plausible theories and then they will either prove the theory or the will modify it as they get more information. You are basically criticizing this method with childish sarcasm and it just makes a fool out you - give me a break, camel because you have 2 eyes and hypnosis? Those theory are comparable in quality? What an unreasonable illogical person you are.

1. I think that calling someone fool or unreasonable is contrary to the netetiquette, here we discuss the views not the persons. It is abusive and shall be MODERATED. I think you stepped over that what is called 'bone tone'. Ask yourself what the person you are?

The comparison to the camel was exagregation to make the matter more bright. It needs the abstractive way of thinking. It is matter of constructing the test criteria. It shall make matter more clear to you.
Here the criteria set is similarity with Houdini only.

2. Yes it might be a sarcasm but the other 3 hypothesis presented by me are as good as yours untill one of them is verified.

3. Some centuries ago people have thought that Earth is flat and they were a majority so... the true is not decided by count of followers.
That what you as 'majority' are doing here is a Lynch judgement.

4. What the police is doing it is right of police not the right of all. It is done in secret and the suspicions are not made public, no to make problems to unguilty but suspected people.

5. Good lawyer will cause Lilov and Chessbase and other slanders to pay a lot of money to Ivanov.

Rgds Hood.

Telepathy, hypnosis and auto-hypnosis is well known in science, by the way.

[Henk]

Ivanov misses BCF anti-cheating test

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10713.aspx

I have a theory that Ivanov is using some sort of AI optical recognition software to recognize the board. His posture was noted to be really odd, very still and completely focused on a single pose looking at the board. It is possible now to decode moves from a physical board by camera which would allow him to be free of sending moves physically. An in-ear receiver would be easily hidden due to his long hair - and these devices are already invisible even without his long hair. The computing system could be in his pocket or his case.

Alignment of the camera could be handled by some sort of feedback system using the earpiece.

Think of what people have been saying - he posture is fixed and does not change, he will never look at his opponent or at the cameras in the playing hall - I think whatever system he is using is relatively fragile and not particularly flexible.

I do have 3 differrent theories:

1) He is playing good
2) He is supported by ghosts and hypnosis
3) He is using telepathy

I do not have the proves but differrent theories do not have proves , either.
So my speculations are comparable in quality.
Rgds

I would like to remind you that you are being totally ridiculous here, because YES, I am speculating but even the scientific method is based on speculation. It's call forming a hypothesis. Maybe times the hypothesis is incorrect and then it's modified as more information becomes available.

The telepathy, ghosts and hypnosis you are talking about is about as asinine as it gets, you are just being a fool - and so does proving you are a camel because you have two eyes. There is a huge difference in being a silly fool and proposing a reasonable hypothesis. Which do you think is more likely, that you are a camel or that he is using a camera?

Do you realize that when there is an actual crime, such as a murder, the police do EXACTLY what we are doing here, they will TRY TO FIGURE OUT how the crime was committed and they will begin with a list of SUSPECTS. Their list may have several people, but they know they are not all guilty. It doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. If they have a viable suspect, they will use whatever evidence they have to construct plausible theories and then they will either prove the theory or the will modify it as they get more information. You are basically criticizing this method with childish sarcasm and it just makes a fool out you - give me a break, camel because you have 2 eyes and hypnosis? Those theory are comparable in quality? What an unreasonable illogical person you are.

1. I think that calling someone fool or unreasonable is contrary to the netetiquette, here we discuss the views not the persons. It is abusive and shall be MODERATED. I think you stepped over that what is called 'bone tone'. Ask yourself what the person you are?

The comparison to the camel was exagregation to make the matter more bright. It needs the abstractive way of thinking. It is matter of constructing the test criteria. It shall make matter more clear to you.
Here the criteria set is similarity with Houdini only.

2. Yes it might be a sarcasm but the other 3 hypothesis presented by me are as good as yours untill one of them is verified.

3. Some centuries ago people have thought that Earth is flat and they were a majority so... the true is not decided by count of followers.
That what you as 'majority' are doing here is a Lynch judgement.

4. What the police is doing it is right of police not the right of all. It is done in secret and the suspicions are not made public, no to make problems to unguilty but suspected people.

5. Good lawyer will cause Lilov and Chessbase and other slanders to pay a lot of money to Ivanov.

Rgds Hood.

Telepathy, hypnosis and auto-hypnosis is well known in science, by the way.

When I think about a bad experience of the past I move my eyes slowly from left to right repeatedly. Hoping visual information will overwrite it.
By the way I don't think it works for me. (Self hypnosis)