Keano wrote on 01/10/13 at 09:55:08:

I don't understand why you call Lilovs video ridiculous without having it seen. This is not how I discuss and try to understand the position of somebody else.

Keano wrote on 01/10/13 at 09:24:03:


Can you show a game of yours proving this statement? Of course we should be able to check that this game actually has been played. And not a drawn game of 10 moves  but something which can be considered as a full played game (around 40 moves). As a fidemaster, I doubt that any of my games reaches 50% of Houdinis topline (excluding openingtheory). I am just busy analysing one of my games and for practically every move, my engines give other first choice recommendations although often my played moves weren't bad.

Katalyst wrote on 01/10/13 at 05:39:05:


I've not seen it but has Lilov subjected the other GMs to this Houdini comparison? If it was done very scientifically and correctly I might accept that there was some circumstantial evidence but it seems because this chap was not a GM they are picking on him. Even at my level when I play a good game my moves usually match Houdini most times, tbh the people who say they are sure this guy was cheating should give their head a shake.

Agreed, Eric. The question isn't even whether he played the best moves. It's whether his moves matched a specific engine's choices. Clearly he didn't always play the most practical moves, but he did play the engine's first choice moves. THAT is the damning evidence. 

It's not enough to convict him perhaps in a criminal case, but in a civil case where the burden is often "the preponderance of the evidence", he would probably be found guilty.

TopNotch wrote on 01/10/13 at 03:21:08:


Exactly, it's not the tournament result at all in my mind, it's the fact that his play matched Houdini's #1 choice time and time again.  

The sad thing is, there were many times when he could have played the #5 or 6 choice and the result would only have been "0.08" different, and yet he still would have had the same tournament result.  In other words, he could have cheated and left very little evidence.

Many games stand out, but the one where, in a strategic endgame that he eventually blunders with ...Bd6, he plays the #1 Houdini choice something like 60 times in a row is just blatant.

People talk of "proof."  Well, I'm an engineer/scientist, and in my field we don't prove anything, we accumulate evidence and publish it.  The evidence is overwhelming that Ivanov cheated, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if Ivanov plays in another high profile tournament anytime soon, and more importantly, if he can re-produce the tactical precision exhibited in Zadar.

Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to prove cheating in chess after the fact, no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence is. In chess one has to be caught in the act red handed, unlike Cycling and other conventional sports where one can administer a blood test and store the sample for many years until science catches up with some of these shameless frauds, case in point, Lance Armstrong.

Until the epo test was created Lance Armstrong had many defenders, using more or less similiar arguments as put forward here. Sadly, devising reliable methods to thwart cheating scumbags without destroying the spirit and enjoyment of competitive chess, is problematic to say the least.

I have studied and played tournament chess for many years against all level of opposition from weak club players to grandmasters and all in between. To my mind there is little doubt this Ivanov guy blatantly cheated, although I cannot prove this as fact, the games themselves when analysed as a whole more so than the tournament result in itself speaks volumes.

There is a natural urge to want to root for the under-dog and to hope that we ourselves can someday accomplish some fantastic feat against all odds, or if not find inspiration in someone else who does. This is what drives the competitive spirit in many of us, and so it should be, but we must guard against schmucks that seek to dupe us, who if successful destroy the integrity of our game and cheapen the legitimate efforts and success of others.             

No doubt this debate will rage on, and I eagerly await the next installment of the Chessbase article.

Regards,

Toppy

Lilov uses too much hyperbole, it's true (he's obviously emotional about this), but come on, guys.  Turn on Houdini and look at the games yourselves, giving Houdini a couple of minutes per move.  There is absolutely NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that this guy was cheating.

The funny thing is, he wasn't even clever about it.  There were many times that the 2nd or 3rd best move was enough to win, but he just kept playing the Houdini-recommended move over and over and over...

Uhohspaghettio :

"Another time Lilov talks about him being a pawn up and losing to a 2000 [Metev, I believe] player after dropping a bishop to a non-obvious endgame tactic" 

No, that tactic is obvious to any 2200 Fide - rated player.

I mean seriously, the possibility of Qe5+ if the Black King goes to g7 isn't obvious to a master??? More importantly, this is the same guy who played a tactically perfect game against  Kozul? ...Really?

But it wasn't just that. Borislav also had a complete lack of technique when playing experts . How did he suddenly get capable of crushing 2500 and up within 20 moves out of the opening?