Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[Hood]

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

It should not be difficult to find many such agreements, same for every pair of great master and very strong engine.

I randomly chose one short Capa white win and ran a blundercheck with threshold zero over his moves. Only moves where Stockfish 3 disagrees at depth 20, receive engine alternatives:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A14"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 {last book move} 3. g3 ({-0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
3. d4 {0.48/20}) 3... d5 4. b3 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 4. cxd5 {-0.
20/20}) 4... c5 5. Bg2 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 5. cxd5 {-0.40/20})
5... Nc6 6. O-O ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 6. cxd5 {-0.40/20}) 6... Be7
7. d3 ({-0.80 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 7. Nc3 {-0.52/20}) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4
9. e4 ({-1.05 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 9. Nbd2 {-0.80/20}) 9... dxe3 10. fxe3
Ng4 11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Rd8 14. h3 Nge5 15. Ne4 Qxa2 16. Nxf6+
gxf6 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. Be4 {last book move} Bd7 19. Ra1 Qxb3 20. Rfb1 ({7.47
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 20. Bxe5 {18.06/20}) 20... Qb4 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22.
Rxb4 cxb4 23. Bxb7 Rab8 24. Rxa7 b3 25. Qb2 Ba4 26. Qxe5 Bc6 27. Qg5+ Kf8 28.
Bxc6 b2 29. Qe7+ 1-0

Except for the opening, we find almost "100% Stockfish moves" in the rest of the game! That is much more than I expected. SF only would like to play the swap on e5 one move earlier. All at depth 20.

OMG...it proves Ivanov is Capablanca! This isn't relevant.

Ok, Ivanov is a genius and plays like a god and should be sponsored to play in the next super tournament. Obviously a gift from Olympus is being maligned and is now a pariah in the chess world due to petty jealousy.

And Alekhine is Houdini

[mwyoung]

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.

Some want to make this about BI, if you think BI is cheating that is fine.

The problem many of us have is using a false premise of move matching and claiming this as proof someone is a chess cheat.

No matter how many times some here want to claim they know the law, and move matching is a proof. And no matter how many times some here want to mislead us by saying BI has many identical games to Houdini. It will not make them true. Both claims are false. Move matching does not prove cheating and could never be used in a court of law, and not one game of BI was 100% identical to Houdini instead of many games as some want to claim.

FM Lilov at least would explain away the many moves that BI did not move match Houdini, and did not claim BI played identical to Houdini the whole game.

If move matching is not needed to prove or show BI has cheated, then why keep proclaiming this clearly false premise of move matching as the absolute proof, no further evidence is required.

There are other games from other players with higher move correlations then any BI game.


BTW Paul Morphy is also a chess cheat, 100% move match with Houdini.

[Event "Paris"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Duke Karl / Count Isouard"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Annotator "Houdini 3 Pro x64"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "1858.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. dxe5 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 dxe5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qb3 Qe7 {
1.43/18 last book move} 8. Nc3 {1.26/22} c6 {1.08/19} 9. Bg5 {0.99/19} b5 {2.
58/20} 10. Nxb5 {2.42/18} cxb5 {4.62/13} 11. Bxb5+ {4.46/14} Nbd7 {7.29/18} 12.
O-O-O {7.61/19} Rd8 {9.25/16} 13. Rxd7 {9.07/17} Rxd7 {11.25/18} 14. Rd1 {11.
43/20} Qe6 {15.62/9} 15. Bxd7+ {15.01/9} Nxd7 {#2/9} 16. Qb8+ {#1/1} Nxb8 {#1/
11} 17. Rd8# 1-0

[Mike S.]

I could not resist and did another one, this time a black win eleven years older:

[Event "St Petersburg final"]
[Site "St Petersburg"]
[Date "1914.05.12"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Tarrasch, Siegbert"]
[Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C84"]
[PlyCount "70"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 ({0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit
SSE4.2:} 5... Bb4 {0.08/20}) 6. O-O b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4 b4 9. Nd5 Bg4 10. c3 {
last book move} Rb8 ({0.28 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 10... Na5 {0.12/20}) 11.
Bc4 Nxe4 12. d4 bxc3 13. bxc3 O-O 14. Bxa6 exd4 ({0.24 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.
2:} 14... Bg5 {0.04/20}) 15. cxd4 Nb4 16. Nxb4 Rxb4 17. Bb5 Bxf3 ({0.16
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 17... Ng5 {0.00/20}) 18. gxf3 Ng5 19. Ra3 Bf6 20. f4
Ne6 21. Rh3 Rxd4 22. Qh5 h6 23. Rg3 Kh8 ({-1.41 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
23... Nxf4 {-1.81/20}) 24. Qf5 Bh4 25. Rh3 Qf6 26. Qg4 Bg5 27. Be3 Nxf4 ({-1.
49 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 27... Rb4 {-2.18/20}) 28. Bxd4 Nxh3+ 29. Kh1 Qe6
30. Qf3 Bd2 ({-2.10 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 30... c5 {-3.03/20}) 31. Qd3 Ba5
({-1.69 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 31... Bf4 {-2.30/20}) 32. Bc6 d5 33. Rc1 Nf4
34. Qe3 Bd2 35. Qa3 Rb8 0-1

Here is more disagreement, but still 19 from 26 = 73% non-book moves (using a small book) are identical to Stockfish 3 choices at depth 20.

I don't know which of the two examples is more typical. Maybe the average is in between, or Capa 1914 was not yet as precise as 1925.

Now one question would be, is this the bigger compliment for Capablanca or for Stockfish?

[Don]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

I don't understand why Capablanca is even mentioned, how did this come up? Did someone find that Stockfish played a move that Capablanca played or something?

It should not be difficult to find many such agreements, same for every pair of great master and very strong engine.

I randomly chose one short Capa white win and ran a blundercheck with threshold zero over his moves. Only moves where Stockfish 3 disagrees at depth 20, receive engine alternatives:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A14"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 {last book move} 3. g3 ({-0.20 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:}
3. d4 {0.48/20}) 3... d5 4. b3 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 4. cxd5 {-0.
20/20}) 4... c5 5. Bg2 ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 5. cxd5 {-0.40/20})
5... Nc6 6. O-O ({-0.72 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 6. cxd5 {-0.40/20}) 6... Be7
7. d3 ({-0.80 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 7. Nc3 {-0.52/20}) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4
9. e4 ({-1.05 Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 9. Nbd2 {-0.80/20}) 9... dxe3 10. fxe3
Ng4 11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Rd8 14. h3 Nge5 15. Ne4 Qxa2 16. Nxf6+
gxf6 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. Be4 {last book move} Bd7 19. Ra1 Qxb3 20. Rfb1 ({7.47
Stockfish 3 64bit SSE4.2:} 20. Bxe5 {18.06/20}) 20... Qb4 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22.
Rxb4 cxb4 23. Bxb7 Rab8 24. Rxa7 b3 25. Qb2 Ba4 26. Qxe5 Bc6 27. Qg5+ Kf8 28.
Bxc6 b2 29. Qe7+ 1-0

Except for the opening, we find almost "100% Stockfish moves" in the rest of the game! That is much more than I expected. SF only would like to play the swap on e5 one move earlier. All at depth 20.

[mwyoung]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.

[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

[Don]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.

What is the Lilov-Houdart method? Let' s make sure we are using the same test and the same terminology.

[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

[mwyoung]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.

What is the Lilov-Houdart method? Let' s make sure we are using the same test and the same terminology.

[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

This is the method used against Ivanov.

This is who has used this method and how they have used this method to detect chess cheating and then claim BI guilt. I know you like to wing it in these discussions, and have not always read and watch the videos on this case as you have said. So here is the link to FM Lilov Video and how FM Lilov detects chess cheats.

Nothing has changed, it is the same standard put forth by FM Lilov, and confirmed by Robert Houdart in the Chessbase articles.

To see the method in action see the video if you have not watched it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Yla2yn_34

I only point this out and name the method, because some have used a similar method, but this is the blunder check method of detecting chess cheats. Similar methods, and not exactly the same. Just wanted to clarify since I used the correct method.

[Don]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.

What is the Lilov-Houdart method? Let' s make sure we are using the same test and the same terminology.

[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

This is the method used against Ivanov.

This is who has used this method and how they have used this method to detect chess cheating and then claim BI guilt. I know you like to wing it in these discussions, and have not always read and watch the videos on this case as you have said. So here is the link to FM Lilov Video and how FM Lilov detects chess cheats.

It looks to me like you are the one winging it as you don't even understand the method.

I'm doing my own study now. I'm writing a little app which will examine a pgn file of games and compute the match percentage by some criteria. I'll report my findings.

Nothing has changed, it is the same standard put forth by FM Lilov, and confirmed by Robert Houdart in the Chessbase articles.

To see the method in action see the video if you have not watched it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Yla2yn_34

[mwyoung]

This is utter nonsense. I looked at this position and using Stockfish I discovered that almost every move is the only obvious choice - only a couple of exceptions where there was a choice between 2 good moves. In other words any program would have played these moves.

What happened was that Marshall blundered and Capablanca just finished him off with obvious moves. To give you a sense of how ridiculous this is, almost every move Stockfish played on a 1 ply search and never changed it's mind. When that happens it means the move is easy to find for even weak players, like Stockfish on a 1 ply search!!

Move 14 shows Capablanca actually blundering - at least in the sense that he did not find the best move according to Stockfish. Again, an obvious move (and Capablanca is winning anyway) so Stockfish likes Capablanca's move for about 1 second then switches to a trickier move which wins more quickly but is not quite as straightforward.

This is particularly ridiculously if you simply look at the game score and how many capture moves are there, almost all the highlighted moves are not just captures but ridiculously obvious ones.

All you have shown is that if you cherry pick a set of easy positions from a single short games that consists of forced moves then you will get a very high match percentage.

I think if you looked at a million games played by humans you would be able to find many examples like this, short games with high match percentages. That is why it's not correct to say that it's impossible to match Houdini 100% in a game - because as unlikely as it is it is far from impossible if you pick the right game.

Anyone clinging to this example to make a point is just being intellectually dishonest with themselves. This example is nothing like what Ivanov has been reported as doing, which is matching Houdini game after game.

Don

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.

What is the Lilov-Houdart method? Let' s make sure we are using the same test and the same terminology.

[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

This is the method used against Ivanov.

This is who has used this method and how they have used this method to detect chess cheating and then claim BI guilt. I know you like to wing it in these discussions, and have not always read and watch the videos on this case as you have said. So here is the link to FM Lilov Video and how FM Lilov detects chess cheats.

It looks to me like you are the one winging it as you don't even understand the method.

I'm doing my own study now. I'm writing a little app which will examine a pgn file of games and compute the match percentage by some criteria. I'll report my findings.

Nothing has changed, it is the same standard put forth by FM Lilov, and confirmed by Robert Houdart in the Chessbase articles.

To see the method in action see the video if you have not watched it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Yla2yn_34

Why are you being so defensive, you said you have not read and watch the all the articles and videos.

I know the method, that's way I was being clear. Since in this thread some have used a similar method,the blunder check method. But this is not exactly the same method used by FM Lilov. I have always used and talked about the correct method used against BI.

Now if you are done with the diversion, please answer the question.

Then explain this game for us Don. This game has a higher move correlation then any BI game using the Lilov-Houdart method of detecting chess cheats. And is clearly played by a human player.


[Event "Norway Chess Tournament"]
[Site "Sandnes NOR"]
[Date "2013.05.14"]
[EventDate "2013.05.07"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Teimour Radjabov"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "135"]

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5
Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Rc1 Ba7 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Ned4 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Rfc8
18.Qd3 a5 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Rc2 Rd8 21.Rfc1 c5 22.e4 Qg6 23.Re1
dxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxe4 25.Rxe4 Rd1+ 26.Re1 Rxe1+ 27.Nxe1 Rd8 28.Kf1
a4 29.bxa4 Rd4 30.a5 Ra4 31.Rd2 Kf8 32.Nd3 f6 33.Nb2 Rxa5
34.Nc4 Ra4 35.Rc2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Ke6 37.Kd3 Kd5 38.a3 h5 39.h3 h4
40.Rc1 g6 41.Rc2 g5 42.Rc1 Ra6 43.Re1 Bb8 44.Re7 Bf4 45.Kc3 f5
46.Kb3 g4 47.a4 gxh3 48.gxh3 Rg6 49.a5 Rg1 50.a6 Rb1+ 51.Kc3
Rc1+ 52.Kd3 Rd1+ 53.Ke2 Ra1 54.Nb6+ Kd6 55.Rg7 Kc6 56.Rg6+ Kb5
57.Nd5 Be5 58.Rb6+ Kc4 59.Ne3+ Kc3 60.f4 Bd4 61.Nxf5 c4 62.Rc6
Rh1 63.Nd6 Rh2+ 64.Kf3 Kd3 65.Rxc4 Rxh3+ 66.Kg4 Rh1 67.Ra4 Bf2
68.Ra3+ 1-0

[Mike S.]

I made random choices from short games, just to limit the required analysis time but have a good depth at the same time. Maybe the 2nd example is more representative. I'm not sure if a 73% match would even be suspicious, in any modern master game.

If you apply a threshold, the number of disagreements is of course smaller. For example, I know a rather old Carlsen-Anand game, where there is only one disagreement with Houdini 1.5a beyond 10 centipawns. Amazing precision. That analysis was "only" at depth 16 though.

OTOH, if the intention is to process huge masses of data, maybe an even smaller depth is suitable? I am not sure. I think I have read of older experiments of similar kind where a depth of 10 or 12 was used (I don't recall exactly) some years ago, and engines which are now old.