Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Don]

[quote="Don""was prosecutor and ruling authority" that is a point.



It seems like whenever something like this happens people come forward with all sorts of legal talk which reflects a certain ignorance about how the court systems work in almost every country.

You have no idea, how courts are 'working' in non democratic countries.[/quote]

I'm sure many court systems are pretty messed up.

I am primarily referring to the court systems which most of the democratic western countries use and we inherited from the Romans.

[Hood]

Not only inherited system is valid but people executing it.

Every human is different entity. Has different motivations, system of values etc.
Statistics is not a method to evaluate human behaviour.

I think Ivanov avoided the test not to meet secret services and choose other strategy to sue Chessbase and Lilov , he has chances to win vs unfounded allegations.

Returning to the camel case:
How would you defend yourself when someone call you a camel?
I think it is very easy to prepare the test proving that you are a camel.

BI was called a camel on the base of one feature similarity of his choices and some program choices.

[Don]

Not only inherited system is valid but people executing it.

Every human is different entity. Has different motivations, system of values etc.
Statistics is not a method to evaluate human behaviour.

I think Ivanov avoided the test not to meet secret services and choose other strategy to sue Chessbase and Lilov , he has chances to win vs unfounded allegations.

Returning to the camel case:
How would you defend yourself when someone call you a camel?
I think it is very easy to prepare the test proving that you are a camel.

You cannot know if the allegation is unfounded. It's unfounded it's not true, but if it's true then it's not.

So why are you saying it's unfounded? Do you already know the outcome?

You can make an assertion that I am a camel. That is called an allegation. Since there really is no basic in fact it is a completely groundless assertion - it would be what you are calling an "unfounded allegation."

In the case of Ivanov there is pretty overwhelming evidence that he is cheating. We could bicker about how overwhelming that evidence is and there is plenty of room for disagreement among reasonable people, but your assertion that it "completely unfounded" is an extreme viewpoint. In fact even those who are being very cautious about this are saying things such as "I think he probably was cheating, but I don't think this is enough to impose a ban." That's a reasonable point of view - even if I don't agree with it it's certainly not a totally ridiculous thing to say.

On this forum and elsewhere there were people who said that that the accusations against Lance Armstrong were totally unfounded and in the process they tried to destroy the reputation of everyone who was saying he was guilty. His competitors were petty and jealous, the cycling organizations were corrupt and vindictive and things like this. Such people try to come across as caring people, looking out for the rights of poor accused victims but if they are really so much on the side of what is good and right then why do they go after people with such a harsh and cruel vengeance? Before accusing so many for the sake of the one, one wonders why they give no consideration whatsoever to the possibility that they are wrong. It's like they are proving they are frauds - they don't really care about people - only their own point of view.

BI was called a camel on the base of one feature similarity of his choices and some program choices.

This analogy and your logic is seriously broken and you cannot even understand why - so I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. But let me try:

There are hundreds of animal species as well as humans who have 2 eyes. Having 2 eyes just doesn't constitute evidence of much of anything. You might as well say a needle has at least 1 eye and I have at least one eye so therefore I am a needle. Can't you see how broken that logic is?

What make a feature interesting enough to be considered evidence is if it is a feature that is so unusual or rare that it begs for an explanation. You say, "one feature similarity" to make it sound like it's hardly anything, it's "just one little thing" but that is in fact intellectually dishonest. First of all the terminology is deceptive - is it really just one thing? If all I have is DNA analysis of a rape, is that just one little thing that should be considered of no consequence? No, in fact that "one thing" is many things. SEVERAL things in the DNA must match for it to be considered an actual match. So is it one piece of evidence or many? You cannot quantify evidence that way. Is a fingerprint match just "one piece of evidence?" No, because several points have to match. It's not one little thing. One DNA match or One fingerprint match is generally considered overwhelming evidence that a person was at a location. It's not just "one" thing.

The move matching percentage isn't one little thing either - it is hundreds of moves played over many games. It's very similar to a DNA or fingerprint match. Not only that, we are considering a lot more factors than just the move match percentage. A 2200 player winning multiple tournaments at 2900 performance rating is more evidence for example. All together this provides more than enough for there to be a strong suspicion.

Unfounded just means "was not found to be true." And you obviously wasn't there, you don't know if it's true or not. I'm looking at this from the point of view of how strong the evidence is, whether it is strong enough to be considered empirical proof or not.

Here is how this should have been handled. People who came forward with accusations should have come forward with strong suspicions, not accusations. And those who disagree with the suspicions should not be so cruel as to assassinate the characters of many people, revealing that they don't really care about the feelings of others while pretending they do.

[Henk]

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.

Unemployed people are the real professional thiefs.

[Don]

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 think this is not the right way to think about it. I was raised up thinking that stealing is stealing and the amount is not the issue, the intent is.

If I steal $100 from a very poor person, it is a lot to them. If I stole $100 from Warren Buffet it might go unnoticed, but for sure the impact on his way of life would be infinitesimal. Does that mean it's not the same?

If you steal a million dollars, even if it's a penny from a 100 million people, it is a significant and particularly heinous crime. If you start thinking that is not serious you will start making all sort of moral compromises in your life that are not good ones.

It makes us flinch of course when we hurt 1 person significantly and as you say that probably makes it SEEM like it's a lot more of a crime but that is a matter of perception, we still caused the same total amount of hurt, we just to rationalize it away. I have posted this before but when the quality is small we humans tend to consider it zero. If the risk is small enough to us it's zero and so on. So it's easy to ignore the big 100 million number and focus on the 1 penny number and pretend we really stole 1 penny and not 1 million dollars.

Don

[Terry McCracken]

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 think this is not the right way to think about it. I was raised up thinking that stealing is stealing and the amount is not the issue, the intent is.

If I steal $100 from a very poor person, it is a lot to them. If I stole $100 from Warren Buffet it might go unnoticed, but for sure the impact on his way of life would be infinitesimal. Does that mean it's not the same?

If you steal a million dollars, even if it's a penny from a 100 million people, it is a significant and particularly heinous crime. If you start thinking that is not serious you will start making all sort of moral compromises in your life that are not good ones.

It makes us flinch of course when we hurt 1 person significantly and as you say that probably makes it SEEM like it's a lot more of a crime but that is a matter of perception, we still caused the same total amount of hurt, we just to rationalize it away. I have posted this before but when the quality is small we humans tend to consider it zero. If the risk is small enough to us it's zero and so on. So it's easy to ignore the big 100 million number and focus on the 1 penny number and pretend we really stole 1 penny and not 1 million dollars.

Don

Stealing a penny from a 100 million is much more humane than stealing it from 100 or 10 or 1. They greater harm you inflict on the individual does matter and refutes your moral judgement of it still being a heinous crime.

It is a crime but remove the fallacious value judgement. If that works for you fine but don't foist your standard upon the rest of us!

By your reasoning all politicians are heinous people.

[Don]

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 think this is not the right way to think about it. I was raised up thinking that stealing is stealing and the amount is not the issue, the intent is.

If I steal $100 from a very poor person, it is a lot to them. If I stole $100 from Warren Buffet it might go unnoticed, but for sure the impact on his way of life would be infinitesimal. Does that mean it's not the same?

If you steal a million dollars, even if it's a penny from a 100 million people, it is a significant and particularly heinous crime. If you start thinking that is not serious you will start making all sort of moral compromises in your life that are not good ones.

It makes us flinch of course when we hurt 1 person significantly and as you say that probably makes it SEEM like it's a lot more of a crime but that is a matter of perception, we still caused the same total amount of hurt, we just to rationalize it away. I have posted this before but when the quality is small we humans tend to consider it zero. If the risk is small enough to us it's zero and so on. So it's easy to ignore the big 100 million number and focus on the 1 penny number and pretend we really stole 1 penny and not 1 million dollars.

Don

Stealing a penny from a 100 million is much more humane than stealing it from 100 or 10 or 1.

Stealing is not humane - period. Stealing a million dollars is just plain wrong regardless of who you take it from.

There are millions of dishonest people in the world and they raise the cost of everything for all of us. The tax evaders raise our taxes and the dishonest politicians are killing us too. The petty shoplifters cause the stores to pay for all sort of anti-theft gadgets in their stores and security personnel. That hurts every family. They ALL pretend they are not hurting anyone because their take is minimal. A single petty shoplifter probably doesn't impact you in a noticeable way, but together they have an enormous impact. They each rationalize that they are not hurting any single person much - so it's ok.

They greater harm you inflict on the individual does matter and refutes your moral judgement of it still being a heinous crime.

It is a crime but remove the fallacious value judgement. If that works for you fine but don't foist your standard upon the rest of us!

I have the same right to express myself that you do - and you are also making a value judgement. The only difference is that if someone disagree's with you rebuke them for it, instead of just stating your viewpoint. You are so moralistic that many of your posts have to be moved or deleted.

By your reasoning all politicians are heinous people.

I'm not sure what connection you are making with politicians here.

[Terry McCracken]

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 think this is not the right way to think about it. I was raised up thinking that stealing is stealing and the amount is not the issue, the intent is.

If I steal $100 from a very poor person, it is a lot to them. If I stole $100 from Warren Buffet it might go unnoticed, but for sure the impact on his way of life would be infinitesimal. Does that mean it's not the same?

If you steal a million dollars, even if it's a penny from a 100 million people, it is a significant and particularly heinous crime. If you start thinking that is not serious you will start making all sort of moral compromises in your life that are not good ones.

It makes us flinch of course when we hurt 1 person significantly and as you say that probably makes it SEEM like it's a lot more of a crime but that is a matter of perception, we still caused the same total amount of hurt, we just to rationalize it away. I have posted this before but when the quality is small we humans tend to consider it zero. If the risk is small enough to us it's zero and so on. So it's easy to ignore the big 100 million number and focus on the 1 penny number and pretend we really stole 1 penny and not 1 million dollars.

Don

Stealing a penny from a 100 million is much more humane than stealing it from 100 or 10 or 1.

Stealing is not humane - period. Stealing a million dollars is just plain wrong regardless of who you take it from.

There are millions of dishonest people in the world and they raise the cost of everything for all of us. The tax evaders raise our taxes and the dishonest politicians are killing us too. The petty shoplifters cause the stores to pay for all sort of anti-theft gadgets in their stores and security personnel. That hurts every family. They ALL pretend they are not hurting anyone because their take is minimal. A single petty shoplifter probably doesn't impact you in a noticeable way, but together they have an enormous impact. They each rationalize that they are not hurting any single person much - so it's ok.

They greater harm you inflict on the individual does matter and refutes your moral judgement of it still being a heinous crime.

It is a crime but remove the fallacious value judgement. If that works for you fine but don't foist your standard upon the rest of us!

I have the same right to express myself that you do - and you are also making a value judgement. The only difference is that if someone disagree's with you rebuke them for it, instead of just stating your viewpoint. You are so moralistic that many of your posts have to be moved or deleted.

By your reasoning all politicians are heinous people.

I'm not sure what connection you are making with politicians here.

You miss the point as always. Bringing up other issues, issues about me and maligning my character shows a side of you that makes stealing respectable in contrast.

What I said in no way refutes what I said. You don't understand it that's fine but not my problem.

Calling me a troll is not my problem. You pretended to read my mind about Fischer's g5! and claimed I was supporting Fischer when in reality I was supporting my understanding of chess so the attack deferred to Fischer to me was nonsense. You insulted me! Then you went on claiming I was trolling and what was I doing here! Well Don, I've been involved in chess and computer chess for 34 years!

You know more about programming but I know more about chess.

[Don]

You miss the point as always. Bringing up other issues, issues about me and maligning my character shows a side of you that makes stealing respectable in contrast.

Again, you play by a double standard. You attacked me by saying I was moralistic and pushing my morals on everyone else, but when I respond in kind that is unacceptable. If you are going to dish it out then you need to have a think skin and be prepared to take it because not everyone is going to put up with your nonsense.

What I said in no way refutes what I said. You don't understand it that's fine but not my problem.

You went for that attack simply because I was expressing my point of view, a common pattern with you.

Calling me a troll is not my problem. You pretended to read my mind about Fischer's g5! and claimed I was supporting Fischer when in reality I was supporting my understanding of chess so the attack deferred to Fischer to me was nonsense. You insulted me! Then you went on claiming I was trolling and what was I doing here! Well Don, I've been involved in chess and computer chess for 34 years!

I have clue what you are talking about. Is this about something that happened long ago?

You know more about programming but I know more about chess.

[Hood]

Not only inherited system is valid but people executing it.

Every human is different entity. Has different motivations, system of values etc.
Statistics is not a method to evaluate human behaviour.

I think Ivanov avoided the test not to meet secret services and choose other strategy to sue Chessbase and Lilov , he has chances to win vs unfounded allegations.

Returning to the camel case:
How would you defend yourself when someone call you a camel?
I think it is very easy to prepare the test proving that you are a camel.

You cannot know if the allegation is unfounded. It's unfounded it's not true, but if it's true then it's not.

So why are you saying it's unfounded? Do you already know the outcome?

You can make an assertion that I am a camel. That is called an allegation. Since there really is no basic in fact it is a completely groundless assertion - it would be what you are calling an "unfounded allegation."

In the case of Ivanov there is pretty overwhelming evidence that he is cheating. We could bicker about how overwhelming that evidence is and there is plenty of room for disagreement among reasonable people, but your assertion that it "completely unfounded" is an extreme viewpoint. In fact even those who are being very cautious about this are saying things such as "I think he probably was cheating, but I don't think this is enough to impose a ban." That's a reasonable point of view - even if I don't agree with it it's certainly not a totally ridiculous thing to say.

On this forum and elsewhere there were people who said that that the accusations against Lance Armstrong were totally unfounded and in the process they tried to destroy the reputation of everyone who was saying he was guilty. His competitors were petty and jealous, the cycling organizations were corrupt and vindictive and things like this. Such people try to come across as caring people, looking out for the rights of poor accused victims but if they are really so much on the side of what is good and right then why do they go after people with such a harsh and cruel vengeance? Before accusing so many for the sake of the one, one wonders why they give no consideration whatsoever to the possibility that they are wrong. It's like they are proving they are frauds - they don't really care about people - only their own point of view.

BI was called a camel on the base of one feature similarity of his choices and some program choices.

This analogy and your logic is seriously broken and you cannot even understand why - so I'm not sure we can have a reasonable conversation. But let me try:

There are hundreds of animal species as well as humans who have 2 eyes. Having 2 eyes just doesn't constitute evidence of much of anything. You might as well say a needle has at least 1 eye and I have at least one eye so therefore I am a needle. Can't you see how broken that logic is?

What make a feature interesting enough to be considered evidence is if it is a feature that is so unusual or rare that it begs for an explanation. You say, "one feature similarity" to make it sound like it's hardly anything, it's "just one little thing" but that is in fact intellectually dishonest. First of all the terminology is deceptive - is it really just one thing? If all I have is DNA analysis of a rape, is that just one little thing that should be considered of no consequence? No, in fact that "one thing" is many things. SEVERAL things in the DNA must match for it to be considered an actual match. So is it one piece of evidence or many? You cannot quantify evidence that way. Is a fingerprint match just "one piece of evidence?" No, because several points have to match. It's not one little thing. One DNA match or One fingerprint match is generally considered overwhelming evidence that a person was at a location. It's not just "one" thing.

The move matching percentage isn't one little thing either - it is hundreds of moves played over many games. It's very similar to a DNA or fingerprint match. Not only that, we are considering a lot more factors than just the move match percentage. A 2200 player winning multiple tournaments at 2900 performance rating is more evidence for example. All together this provides more than enough for there to be a strong suspicion.

Unfounded just means "was not found to be true." And you obviously wasn't there, you don't know if it's true or not. I'm looking at this from the point of view of how strong the evidence is, whether it is strong enough to be considered empirical proof or not.

Here is how this should have been handled. People who came forward with accusations should have come forward with strong suspicions, not accusations. And those who disagree with the suspicions should not be so cruel as to assassinate the characters of many people, revealing that they don't really care about the feelings of others while pretending they do.

Going your way o reasoning, this moves are like strings of DNA.right?
If there are many matches it could be a prove?

The method you are using shall be universal. But if you use this method comparing moves selected by Komodo and Houdini you will find similar big correlation. Does it mean that Komodo is using Houdini as a support?
I do not know how but you do not know how BI is using that support too.
Going further in the threads here were discussed a problem of similarity between programs and some tables were provided where the programs were groupped. Correlations were between 70 80%. Does it mean that programs are the same. I was writing that i do not think so. Because we can get the same results on different way(differrent algorithms). I am following this way of thinking in that case as well.

In my opinion your(Lilovs) method of reasonig is false because it has shown that Capablanca were using Stockfish also. It was mentioned in a thread discussing the BI case. It is interesting in how many players cases their moves match Houdini choices,( we do not know the time set for Houdini by Lilov.) I remember comments to Anand Gelfand games were many times commentator complimented players tellin that it is 1,2n Houdini line.

Lilov analysis is biased in my opinion , not supported by neccessary researches concerning other olayers and many people are influenced by it .
I think you are a slave of that bias.

If BI is using Houdini on some miraculous way in rapid game being watched by crowd then Komodo either. ( and other programs) too.