Keano wrote on 05/15/13 at 20:24:02:

And what exactly are you suggesting?
Beat him to death?.. Or just flog him?..
Bring a doctor to pull out his ear wax?..
Buy a special electronic set to catch him? (Besides, are you going to do it personally? You know, all this...buying and catching..)
Ot just inform the FBI?

Which court is authorized to judge such special cases?
Where are the authorities that can deal with it?

This is the real problem! There's no FIDE anti-cheating commision (but there is an anti-drugs one, I suppose..  ). No such comissions on the national federations' level either.. Or what can a national federation's ethics commision do in this case?
Any individual is equal to others, you know.. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for Mr Lynch or what? 

Edit: Let me add something: If you didn't understand already...this is a case that can multiply up to an enormous range. And if the chess society can't deal with it, there would be no more chess, at least as such as it is now.

TalJechin wrote on 05/15/13 at 15:27:42:


Yeah, that is true. They even do that sometimes for exams nowadays.

It's incredible that ivanov's opponents didn't spot anything !

Every 6 seconds it's very fast.... it has to be a camera & a sound device combination.

It's scary for the future of chess tournaments !

They say the only way is to have a receiver set deep in the ear (which only a doctor can find) and a camera eye somewhere near the board (not necessary to be on his body). An accomplice in the hotel room is needed in this case, of course. 
GM K.Georgiev says that "the phenomenon" made a move every six seconds like a machine. This was on the rapid time control tournament "B.Andonov Memorial". And no motion, no expressions were visible on his face.. 

I don't believe in bionic contact lens... 

How does he cheat?

Edited:

I can't think why it should be. 

Never mind the losses in accuracy when you can stay stable, you only need to look at the history of alleged bridge cheating to see the effects of stuff like comformation bias.

Actually you can see some of that here in the ways in which quite a few of the people have been behaving. Its very hard to avoid.

They've been cheat detecting online for a while now, based on top three choice matching rates. Seemingly quite sucessfully although of course the really smart cheats might well survive.

The other thing is that actually doing something like this only works as a detterent if you're doing it for basically everyone. That needs something automated with a quick running time. Then once someone hits a suspicious match rate you can get more detailed.

Stigma I think you can't make such generalized statements like that like "statistical/actuarian evidence has proven to be superior than human judgement in most situations", that's nonsense - whether you read it in a book or not... 

I did read all of your post and I know what it says. I'm aware that you can could argue away that what you said wasn't that actuarian data is superior, I'm going by the hugely suggested implications given in the post. If that's not what you meant, then your post didn't say anything at all, literally. 

For every part of it you implied, I think it was a ridiculous point. *shrugs*