Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Don]

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

There is no such thing as a proof - even with DNA evidence or fingerprint analysis. That is why we can have arguments like this. If you require 100% proof you will NEVER get it for anything. You might as well let all criminals go free because you cannot prove they did the crime. Society is not likely to let serial killers go free, even the most liberal of us recognize that strong empirical evidence at some point has to be considered "proof" (even though it isn't) to have a functioning legal system. That is why the court standard in many counties is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

DNA evidence is not foolproof. It's really a lot like a hash function in computer chess. It is entirely possible for 2 people to match - keeping in mind that they don't test the entire DNA sequence but only a fraction of it. It's like we have millions of bits to compare, but they only use a few bits, I think it comes out to less than 32. In fact I think they have found 1 or 2 matches in their database from different people. My personal feeling is that they need to strengthen it.

But here is the thing - does this mean you should throw out DNA and fingerprint matching (which is not 100%) and go back to the stone age and open the doors of all the prisons? No, we have no choice but to accept a small amount of error, as distasteful as it is, for the sake of society. By definition every criminal leaves victims in his wake - one criminal, many victims.

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?

This is myth I thought was busted long ago. Komodo and Houdini do not play alike. In fact it has been demonstrated convincingly that the move matching statistics is only weakly correlated to strength. Most people's intuition is that two very strong players are going to play almost exactly alike, but that is surprisingly incorrect.

I think the fallacy here is this idea that as you play stronger you are increasingly likely to find the one and only best move - and that by extrapolation two perfect players will play exactly the same. But that intuition is just plain false. In many, if not most positions there are multiple playable moves and they one you chose is a matter of personal style, not strength.

Now it's true that a beginner will not match a Grandmaster nearly as much as another Grandmaster - because there are a number of points in a game where there is really only 1 reasonable move choice and a weak player may not find it. That is why I say move matching is "weakly correlated" with strength - emphasis on "weakly."

I have not studied this, but I do suspect that 2 computers will tend to match each other more than they will match human players. And yet still even the top 2 programs don't match anywhere near 100% of the time. Adam Hair has statistics on this - we can ask him. I have not checked for myself but they are saying Ivanov matched close to 100% of the moves of Houdini - a figure even I don't believe because Komodo doesn't even match itself 100% of the time due to inherent non-determinism. If I were actually on a jury or panel to judge this case I would want to first perform my own move matching study to make sure I understand exactly what the issues are. But since I am not I am free to speculate and form my own opinions. And what I see is multiple reasons to believe that Ivanov is cheating - move matching is just one of many of these things and I am nearly 100% convinced.

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.

Lilov's analysis was based on his expert testimony as a strong player. This method is highly valued in a court of law. It was not intended as a stringent scientific analyses that you could write about in a scientific paper. In fact in a court of law you almost never get a "peer reviewed scientific paper" quality of testimony - and testimony is not limited to just top scientists. The BCF, FIDE and the membership of FIDE and all concerned parties are mostly consisting of regular people, not math professors and scientific people.

This is what happens whenever people hear things they don't agree with, they go for hyperbole and try to impose ridiculously high standards on their opponents while not requiring the same of themselves. Nobody is discussing how this could happen without cheating, only their highly subjective gut feeling that it "could happen" without really even attempting to explain it scientifically.

My take on this is that Ivanov is guilty beyond all REASONABLE doubt, the standard used in most courts. I am at peace with the possibility of error simply because I believe the chance that he is not guilty is infinitesimal, even if it's not zero. I don't like that, but I accept it. It can be no other way unless we accept anarchy. If it were only about Borislav Ivanov and his reputation I would want it to be zero - which is unattainable. But if you have any compassion at all you cannot simply ignore the fact that what he is doing is hurting people. Where is your compassion and consideration for them? I am only striving to have a balanced view here, concern for Borislav's reputation on the one hand, but also having compassion for those who (almost certainly) have been victimized by him.

One cannot pretend to be fair and objective while showing contempt for his victims by ignoring their cries for relief.

[Hood]

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

There is no such thing as a proof - even with DNA evidence or fingerprint analysis. That is why we can have arguments like this. If you require 100% proof you will NEVER get it for anything. You might as well let all criminals go free because you cannot prove they did the crime. Society is not likely to let serial killers go free, even the most liberal of us recognize that strong empirical evidence at some point has to be considered "proof" (even though it isn't) to have a functioning legal system. That is why the court standard in many counties is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

DNA evidence is not foolproof. It's really a lot like a hash function in computer chess. It is entirely possible for 2 people to match - keeping in mind that they don't test the entire DNA sequence but only a fraction of it. It's like we have millions of bits to compare, but they only use a few bits, I think it comes out to less than 32. In fact I think they have found 1 or 2 matches in their database from different people. My personal feeling is that they need to strengthen it.

But here is the thing - does this mean you should throw out DNA and fingerprint matching (which is not 100%) and go back to the stone age and open the doors of all the prisons? No, we have no choice but to accept a small amount of error, as distasteful as it is, for the sake of society. By definition every criminal leaves victims in his wake - one criminal, many victims.

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?

This is myth I thought was busted long ago. Komodo and Houdini do not play alike. In fact it has been demonstrated convincingly that the move matching statistics is only weakly correlated to strength. Most people's intuition is that two very strong players are going to play almost exactly alike, but that is surprisingly incorrect.

I think the fallacy here is this idea that as you play stronger you are increasingly likely to find the one and only best move - and that by extrapolation two perfect players will play exactly the same. But that intuition is just plain false. In many, if not most positions there are multiple playable moves and they one you chose is a matter of personal style, not strength.

Now it's true that a beginner will not match a Grandmaster nearly as much as another Grandmaster - because there are a number of points in a game where there is really only 1 reasonable move choice and a weak player may not find it. That is why I say move matching is "weakly correlated" with strength - emphasis on "weakly."

I have not studied this, but I do suspect that 2 computers will tend to match each other more than they will match human players. And yet still even the top 2 programs don't match anywhere near 100% of the time. Adam Hair has statistics on this - we can ask him. I have not checked for myself but they are saying Ivanov matched close to 100% of the moves of Houdini - a figure even I don't believe because Komodo doesn't even match itself 100% of the time due to inherent non-determinism. If I were actually on a jury or panel to judge this case I would want to first perform my own move matching study to make sure I understand exactly what the issues are. But since I am not I am free to speculate and form my own opinions. And what I see is multiple reasons to believe that Ivanov is cheating - move matching is just one of many of these things and I am nearly 100% convinced.

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.

Lilov's analysis was based on his expert testimony as a strong player. This method is highly valued in a court of law. It was not intended as a stringent scientific analyses that you could write about in a scientific paper. In fact in a court of law you almost never get a "peer reviewed scientific paper" quality of testimony - and testimony is not limited to just top scientists. The BCF, FIDE and the membership of FIDE and all concerned parties are mostly consisting of regular people, not math professors and scientific people.

This is what happens whenever people hear things they don't agree with, they go for hyperbole and try to impose ridiculously high standards on their opponents while not requiring the same of themselves. Nobody is discussing how this could happen without cheating, only their highly subjective gut feeling that it "could happen" without really even attempting to explain it scientifically.

My take on this is that Ivanov is guilty beyond all REASONABLE doubt, the standard used in most courts. I am at peace with the possibility of error simply because I believe the chance that he is not guilty is infinitesimal, even if it's not zero. I don't like that, but I accept it. It can be no other way unless we accept anarchy. If it were only about Borislav Ivanov and his reputation I would want it to be zero - which is unattainable. But if you have any compassion at all you cannot simply ignore the fact that what he is doing is hurting people. Where is your compassion and consideration for them? I am only striving to have a balanced view here, concern for Borislav's reputation on the one hand, but also having compassion for those who (almost certainly) have been victimized by him.

One cannot pretend to be fair and objective while showing contempt for his victims by ignoring their cries for relief.

The point is if there are any victims at all. Victims can be if there will be cheating but if not? Then victim is BI.

Lilov analysis is not clear, how he got the results:
- was Houdini set in all analysed moves to the same depth/time for move
- the backward or forward analysis was used in all cases etc.

Houdini and Komodo may be are playing different but in the games analysed by Lilov have they different 1/2 selection?

a)The science logic about implication tells that from false assumption we can get everything and implication is true!
b)Other rule of logic tells that when you find the case which is contrary to the theorem it means that this theorem is false.

ad a) in my opinion the false asumption is that move matching of some entities (humans programs) can tell us that the same algorithm is used by both objects

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

There is no peace with possibility of error because you are publishing speculations as you declared and that makes a harm to the alleged person before court verdict is done.

Let place yourself in the role of BI. Someone is alleging you that you have copied his program because his and yours are selecting similar moves...
We have had long discussions about which are in the Origin subforum.
It is not light side of CC.

I think that BI could sue CB and other subjects for making a harm of good name. Problem is in money.

[Don]

The point is if there are any victims at all. Victims can be if there will be cheating but if not? Then victim is BI.

That is why you have to have a balanced approach. For example if you have small children in your family and a convicted pedophile moves in next door who has served his sentence, will you be so stupid as to ask him to babysit your children? No reasonable person would do that. What if you find out that the trial was not conducted properly and there is some chance that he is really innocent? Will you take that chance with the lives of your children just because you are afraid people will say you are judgmental?

Of course not! That is why when there is "credible evidence" someone can be arrested. It's not a conviction, it is just an arrest. The trial comes AFTER the arrest, not before. The trial may result in a conviction but often it does not. But that does not mean the arrest (which is a suspicion of guilt) was improper. In a perfect world you would never arrest anyone unless it was 101% sure they were guilty and you would never need a trial if you could be that sure.

BI you might say is in the credible evidence stage. Now just because I think there is more than enough evidence to consider it an "empirical proof" doesn't mean that is how FIDE, BCF or even the courts of Bulgaria would feel.

Lilov analysis is not clear, how he got the results:
- was Houdini set in all analysed moves to the same depth/time for move
- the backward or forward analysis was used in all cases etc.

Houdini and Komodo may be are playing different but in the games analysed by Lilov have they different 1/2 selection?

a)The science logic about implication tells that from false assumption we can get everything and implication is true!
b)Other rule of logic tells that when you find the case which is contrary to the theorem it means that this theorem is false.

That is true, but it probably doesn't apply here. We are not talking about a formal proof with axioms that are not in doubt and such.

There are people who specialize in fear, uncertainty and doubt and they can twist statistics to appear to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they proved it. That usually involves the introduction of false assumptions as you say - once you get that in there you can probably make it seem that you have proved something. Kind of like Woody Allen's ex wife who was a philosophy major according to Woody Allen and could prove that he didn't exist.

ad a) in my opinion the false asumption is that move matching of some entities (humans programs) can tell us that the same algorithm is used by both objects

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

There is no peace with possibility of error because you are publishing speculations as you declared and that makes a harm to the alleged person before court verdict is done.

Let place yourself in the role of BI. Someone is alleging you that you have copied his program because his and yours are selecting similar moves...
We have had long discussions about which are in the Origin subforum.
It is not light side of CC.

I think that BI could sue CB and other subjects for making a harm of good name. Problem is in money.

BI tried to sue the BCF and courts rule in favor of the BCF. I don't know any of the details however or what he was trying to get.

I have put myself in the role of BI and asked, what if he was really innocent? And for balance you also have to ask what if he is guilty - because you have more than just BI involved, you have all the players who view themselves as victims. So let's consider the case where he is innocent first. If BI is innocent he should be eager to clear his name by cooperating with the BCF and any investigation or test they want him to take. He should make a statement that he is not cheating (presented in a dignified way) and that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to prove it. His reputation will remain intact if people see that he is cooperating fully. But calling the players names and offending as many people as possible in the process is certainly not going to help his reputation. But assuming he is innocent and continues not to cooperate and is convicted anyway then he will stop playing chess and will have a reputation as a cheater. His life will go on and it will eventually be forgotten. He would be one of those unfair convictions and it would be a travesty of justice.

If he is guilty and nothing is ever done to stop him he will continue to take money from more deserving players. Even thought the law may not technically label this as fraud, it really is a form of fraud. He will leave victims in every tournament he enters and because most of the players believe he is a cheater you and I will become the victims, and in fact already are. People will start dropping out of chess as a result (they already have) and competitive tournament chess will suffer. This will make chess more and more unpopular and less people will be writing the chess programs that you and I love. He would leave a huge trail of victims in his wake and it would be unfair and a serious travesty of justice. The law is supposed to promise justice for all, not just for someone who is accused of something.

I don't want to see either of these scenario's take place. But assuming there is no reasonable doubt that he is cheating - it's not even a close call. In both scenarios (where it goes wrong) there is an injustice but one scenario leaves a constantly growing trail of victims and the other leaves only one. I take unfair accusations seriously too but these are generally weighed heavily in favor of the accused because of the inherent error in the system. Because we have overzealous cops, overzealous prosecutors, overzealous victims seeking justice and improper investigative procedures we are forced to overcompensate in favor of the victim or else we would have even more wrongful convictions. In the US courts we traditionally have had way too many wrongful convictions that could easily have been avoided and many of them due to corruption in the system. When you and I are looking at the evidence however we don't have to deal with corruption - unless of course the evidence was presented in a purposefully deceptive way.

You HAVE to be at peace with some possibility of error, it's not possible to be 100%. The general rule in the justice system for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is fairly ambiguous and doesn't work for some people because there are some people who could watch a man shoot another man from 10 feet away and still have doubts. I don't think anyone who has a compulsive disorder could ever say they have no reasonable doubt. A person with a compulsive disorder might leave their home thinking they left the coffee pot on and go back to check, then 5 minutes later do the same thing wondering if they checked it properly and so on. it's the job of a defense attorney to plant those doubts in your mind too - and they would LOVE to have someone like you on their jury.

[Mike S.]

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

That is indeed a major point in this matter. Of course the inquisitors will ignore it.

Since the accusers are chessplayers themselves, and not weak ones, someone should really analyse their games and then confront them with the many, many engine agreements which will be found (except they are patzers which they are not). Then ask them for explanation.

No, you need to find "hard facts" like e.g. (1) an accomplice who transmitts computer moves to a hidden (2) radio device in B.I.'s ear. You need to find both, then you have something. Otherwise, you have nothing.

[Terry McCracken]

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.

No double standard, you just don't get it. Judge people by your standards and watch out! Judge people by their own standards and it will make a world of difference. I said if it works for you fine but don't try and make it fit me or anyone else. If you can't put up with my so-called nonsense, your words then there is a problem and the problem is with yourself not me!

Not long ago...Fischer's g5 and your h6...remember? But it was my g5! and you failed to grasp that and attacked me!

I've no time for that sort of behaviour! Look through the posts...I would but my search isn't working for my posts. It was last spring. Don you once said programmers et al had social deficits, take a look at your own before slamming others..not just me.

You value expert opinion, well then value mine! Oh, and Ivanov is cheating just as you claim. I've looked at his games too. I'm strong enough to know that many of his moves came from computer assistance and he is a cheat, thief, liar and asshole!

[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.

No double standard, you just don't get it. Judge people by your standards and watch out! Judge people by their own standards and it will make a world of difference. I said if it works for you fine but don't try and make it fit me or anyone else. If you can't put up with my so-called nonsense, your words then there is a problem and the problem is with yourself not me!

Not long ago...Fischer's g5 and your h6...remember? But it was my g5! and you failed to grasp that and attacked me!

You are still upset because I disagreed with you about a move Fisher played?

I've no time for that sort of behaviour! Look through the posts...I would but my search isn't working for my posts. It was last spring. Don you once said programmers et al had social deficits, take a look at your own before slamming others..not just me.

You value expert opinion, well then value mine! Oh, and Ivanov is cheating just as you claim. I've looked at his games too. I'm strong enough to know that many of his moves came from computer assistance and he is a cheat, thief, liar and asshole!

[Terry McCracken]

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.

No double standard, you just don't get it. Judge people by your standards and watch out! Judge people by their own standards and it will make a world of difference. I said if it works for you fine but don't try and make it fit me or anyone else. If you can't put up with my so-called nonsense, your words then there is a problem and the problem is with yourself not me!

Not long ago...Fischer's g5 and your h6...remember? But it was my g5! and you failed to grasp that and attacked me!

You are still upset because I disagreed with you about a move Fisher played?

I've no time for that sort of behaviour! Look through the posts...I would but my search isn't working for my posts. It was last spring. Don you once said programmers et al had social deficits, take a look at your own before slamming others..not just me.

You value expert opinion, well then value mine! Oh, and Ivanov is cheating just as you claim. I've looked at his games too. I'm strong enough to know that many of his moves came from computer assistance and he is a cheat, thief, liar and asshole!

No...I'm upset or at least put out with the treatment I received and that move was my move for the same reasons Fischer played it...Fischer is not an idol of mine nor am I a troll.

Anyway, please drop the axe and I won't feel like pulling the gun....ehem...

Ok?

[carldaman]

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

That is indeed a major point in this matter. Of course the inquisitors will ignore it.

Since the accusers are chessplayers themselves, and not weak ones, someone should really analyse their games and then confront them with the many, many engine agreements which will be found (except they are patzers which they are not). Then ask them for explanation.

No, you need to find "hard facts" like e.g. (1) an accomplice who transmitts computer moves to a hidden (2) radio device in B.I.'s ear. You need to find both, then you have something. Otherwise, you have nothing.

Isn't it funny that only patzers, as you call them, can suspect and confront the supposed "cheating grandmasters"? Of course, no strong, titled players are accusing grandmasters of cheating these days, but they are accusing B. Ivanov, because that's where the real incriminating correlation is found. Unfortunately, according to you this is "nothing", because you decided to pretend it is not evidence, just because you felt like it.

Think about it -- if titled players are cheating too, going by the same type of evidence that made Ivanov suspect, why isn't there an uproar about their cheating? After all, when GM Feller was cheating he wasn't allowed to get away with it. So it seems that fellow GMs don't like it when other GMs or strong players cheat. What's stopping them now? According to your theory, these supposed "cheating strong players" are just as guilty as Ivanov, but they're all getting away with it, suddenly (!!), while only poor Ivanov is picked on arbitrarily (yeah, right).

[Hood]

The point is if there are any victims at all. Victims can be if there will be cheating but if not? Then victim is BI.

That is why you have to have a balanced approach. For example if you have small children in your family and a convicted pedophile moves in next door who has served his sentence, will you be so stupid as to ask him to babysit your children? No reasonable person would do that. What if you find out that the trial was not conducted properly and there is some chance that he is really innocent? Will you take that chance with the lives of your children just because you are afraid people will say you are judgmental?

Of course not! That is why when there is "credible evidence" someone can be arrested. It's not a conviction, it is just an arrest. The trial comes AFTER the arrest, not before. The trial may result in a conviction but often it does not. But that does not mean the arrest (which is a suspicion of guilt) was improper. In a perfect world you would never arrest anyone unless it was 101% sure they were guilty and you would never need a trial if you could be that sure.

BI you might say is in the credible evidence stage. Now just because I think there is more than enough evidence to consider it an "empirical proof" doesn't mean that is how FIDE, BCF or even the courts of Bulgaria would feel.

Lilov analysis is not clear, how he got the results:
- was Houdini set in all analysed moves to the same depth/time for move
- the backward or forward analysis was used in all cases etc.

Houdini and Komodo may be are playing different but in the games analysed by Lilov have they different 1/2 selection?

a)The science logic about implication tells that from false assumption we can get everything and implication is true!
b)Other rule of logic tells that when you find the case which is contrary to the theorem it means that this theorem is false.

That is true, but it probably doesn't apply here. We are not talking about a formal proof with axioms that are not in doubt and such.

There are people who specialize in fear, uncertainty and doubt and they can twist statistics to appear to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they proved it. That usually involves the introduction of false assumptions as you say - once you get that in there you can probably make it seem that you have proved something. Kind of like Woody Allen's ex wife who was a philosophy major according to Woody Allen and could prove that he didn't exist.

ad a) in my opinion the false asumption is that move matching of some entities (humans programs) can tell us that the same algorithm is used by both objects

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

There is no peace with possibility of error because you are publishing speculations as you declared and that makes a harm to the alleged person before court verdict is done.

Let place yourself in the role of BI. Someone is alleging you that you have copied his program because his and yours are selecting similar moves...
We have had long discussions about which are in the Origin subforum.
It is not light side of CC.

I think that BI could sue CB and other subjects for making a harm of good name. Problem is in money.

BI tried to sue the BCF and courts rule in favor of the BCF. I don't know any of the details however or what he was trying to get.

I have put myself in the role of BI and asked, what if he was really innocent? And for balance you also have to ask what if he is guilty - because you have more than just BI involved, you have all the players who view themselves as victims. So let's consider the case where he is innocent first. If BI is innocent he should be eager to clear his name by cooperating with the BCF and any investigation or test they want him to take. He should make a statement that he is not cheating (presented in a dignified way) and that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to prove it. His reputation will remain intact if people see that he is cooperating fully. But calling the players names and offending as many people as possible in the process is certainly not going to help his reputation. But assuming he is innocent and continues not to cooperate and is convicted anyway then he will stop playing chess and will have a reputation as a cheater. His life will go on and it will eventually be forgotten. He would be one of those unfair convictions and it would be a travesty of justice.

If he is guilty and nothing is ever done to stop him he will continue to take money from more deserving players. Even thought the law may not technically label this as fraud, it really is a form of fraud. He will leave victims in every tournament he enters and because most of the players believe he is a cheater you and I will become the victims, and in fact already are. People will start dropping out of chess as a result (they already have) and competitive tournament chess will suffer. This will make chess more and more unpopular and less people will be writing the chess programs that you and I love. He would leave a huge trail of victims in his wake and it would be unfair and a serious travesty of justice. The law is supposed to promise justice for all, not just for someone who is accused of something.

I don't want to see either of these scenario's take place. But assuming there is no reasonable doubt that he is cheating - it's not even a close call. In both scenarios (where it goes wrong) there is an injustice but one scenario leaves a constantly growing trail of victims and the other leaves only one. I take unfair accusations seriously too but these are generally weighed heavily in favor of the accused because of the inherent error in the system. Because we have overzealous cops, overzealous prosecutors, overzealous victims seeking justice and improper investigative procedures we are forced to overcompensate in favor of the victim or else we would have even more wrongful convictions. In the US courts we traditionally have had way too many wrongful convictions that could easily have been avoided and many of them due to corruption in the system. When you and I are looking at the evidence however we don't have to deal with corruption - unless of course the evidence was presented in a purposefully deceptive way.

You HAVE to be at peace with some possibility of error, it's not possible to be 100%. The general rule in the justice system for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is fairly ambiguous and doesn't work for some people because there are some people who could watch a man shoot another man from 10 feet away and still have doubts. I don't think anyone who has a compulsive disorder could ever say they have no reasonable doubt. A person with a compulsive disorder might leave their home thinking they left the coffee pot on and go back to check, then 5 minutes later do the same thing wondering if they checked it properly and so on. it's the job of a defense attorney to plant those doubts in your mind too - and they would LOVE to have someone like you on their jury.

Because the methodology used by Lilov is false as the logic proves.
Only one thesis we can get from analysis is that there is a coincidence
between moves of BI and some program.
When we would analyse the games of other players we would find similar
coincidences.

[Terry McCracken]

The point is if there are any victims at all. Victims can be if there will be cheating but if not? Then victim is BI.

That is why you have to have a balanced approach. For example if you have small children in your family and a convicted pedophile moves in next door who has served his sentence, will you be so stupid as to ask him to babysit your children? No reasonable person would do that. What if you find out that the trial was not conducted properly and there is some chance that he is really innocent? Will you take that chance with the lives of your children just because you are afraid people will say you are judgmental?

Of course not! That is why when there is "credible evidence" someone can be arrested. It's not a conviction, it is just an arrest. The trial comes AFTER the arrest, not before. The trial may result in a conviction but often it does not. But that does not mean the arrest (which is a suspicion of guilt) was improper. In a perfect world you would never arrest anyone unless it was 101% sure they were guilty and you would never need a trial if you could be that sure.

BI you might say is in the credible evidence stage. Now just because I think there is more than enough evidence to consider it an "empirical proof" doesn't mean that is how FIDE, BCF or even the courts of Bulgaria would feel.

Lilov analysis is not clear, how he got the results:
- was Houdini set in all analysed moves to the same depth/time for move
- the backward or forward analysis was used in all cases etc.

Houdini and Komodo may be are playing different but in the games analysed by Lilov have they different 1/2 selection?

a)The science logic about implication tells that from false assumption we can get everything and implication is true!
b)Other rule of logic tells that when you find the case which is contrary to the theorem it means that this theorem is false.

That is true, but it probably doesn't apply here. We are not talking about a formal proof with axioms that are not in doubt and such.

There are people who specialize in fear, uncertainty and doubt and they can twist statistics to appear to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they proved it. That usually involves the introduction of false assumptions as you say - once you get that in there you can probably make it seem that you have proved something. Kind of like Woody Allen's ex wife who was a philosophy major according to Woody Allen and could prove that he didn't exist.

ad a) in my opinion the false asumption is that move matching of some entities (humans programs) can tell us that the same algorithm is used by both objects

ad b) the example with result of analysis: Capablanca using Stockfish! It is the case which makes that methodology false.

There is no peace with possibility of error because you are publishing speculations as you declared and that makes a harm to the alleged person before court verdict is done.

Let place yourself in the role of BI. Someone is alleging you that you have copied his program because his and yours are selecting similar moves...
We have had long discussions about which are in the Origin subforum.
It is not light side of CC.

I think that BI could sue CB and other subjects for making a harm of good name. Problem is in money.

BI tried to sue the BCF and courts rule in favor of the BCF. I don't know any of the details however or what he was trying to get.

I have put myself in the role of BI and asked, what if he was really innocent? And for balance you also have to ask what if he is guilty - because you have more than just BI involved, you have all the players who view themselves as victims. So let's consider the case where he is innocent first. If BI is innocent he should be eager to clear his name by cooperating with the BCF and any investigation or test they want him to take. He should make a statement that he is not cheating (presented in a dignified way) and that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to prove it. His reputation will remain intact if people see that he is cooperating fully. But calling the players names and offending as many people as possible in the process is certainly not going to help his reputation. But assuming he is innocent and continues not to cooperate and is convicted anyway then he will stop playing chess and will have a reputation as a cheater. His life will go on and it will eventually be forgotten. He would be one of those unfair convictions and it would be a travesty of justice.

If he is guilty and nothing is ever done to stop him he will continue to take money from more deserving players. Even thought the law may not technically label this as fraud, it really is a form of fraud. He will leave victims in every tournament he enters and because most of the players believe he is a cheater you and I will become the victims, and in fact already are. People will start dropping out of chess as a result (they already have) and competitive tournament chess will suffer. This will make chess more and more unpopular and less people will be writing the chess programs that you and I love. He would leave a huge trail of victims in his wake and it would be unfair and a serious travesty of justice. The law is supposed to promise justice for all, not just for someone who is accused of something.

I don't want to see either of these scenario's take place. But assuming there is no reasonable doubt that he is cheating - it's not even a close call. In both scenarios (where it goes wrong) there is an injustice but one scenario leaves a constantly growing trail of victims and the other leaves only one. I take unfair accusations seriously too but these are generally weighed heavily in favor of the accused because of the inherent error in the system. Because we have overzealous cops, overzealous prosecutors, overzealous victims seeking justice and improper investigative procedures we are forced to overcompensate in favor of the victim or else we would have even more wrongful convictions. In the US courts we traditionally have had way too many wrongful convictions that could easily have been avoided and many of them due to corruption in the system. When you and I are looking at the evidence however we don't have to deal with corruption - unless of course the evidence was presented in a purposefully deceptive way.

You HAVE to be at peace with some possibility of error, it's not possible to be 100%. The general rule in the justice system for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is fairly ambiguous and doesn't work for some people because there are some people who could watch a man shoot another man from 10 feet away and still have doubts. I don't think anyone who has a compulsive disorder could ever say they have no reasonable doubt. A person with a compulsive disorder might leave their home thinking they left the coffee pot on and go back to check, then 5 minutes later do the same thing wondering if they checked it properly and so on. it's the job of a defense attorney to plant those doubts in your mind too - and they would LOVE to have someone like you on their jury.

Because the methodology used by Lilov is false as the logic proves.
Only one thesis we can get from analysis is that there is a coincidence
between moves of BI and some program.
When we would analyse the games of other players we would find similar
coincidences.

If he tore up the world's top 10 players would you feel the same about it?