Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/07/13 at 19:20:02:



Totally agree.

I just think at a certain point, multiple witnesses saying he took 10 seconds to calculate incredibly complex variations against people 300 or 400 points above him, coupled with a truly lame-ass excuse for not taking off his shoes - would by now convince some parties that he at least is highly suspicious.

Keano wrote on 10/07/13 at 19:55:19:


I rather thought that this may be the point of it from the start as he made little effort to cover the extent of reliance on software, to be shrewd about the moves. It is unclear tho how weak he might be without software. Dlugy discusses this. As an FM I could hide it fairly well I suspect, only using a few times a game, a GM even less frequently. Did I see some stats on that somewhere iirc...?
Bit of attention, try and score some kind of deal. 
He did the game a favour in a way - particularly in doing so quite so obviously and clumsily. Increased awareness now of this as an issue, people looking to intercept this. 
He walks away with health intact - he was lucky no one had a 'quiet word' with him.

I hope they don't make a movie out of this one. Agree the organizers have a lot to answer for. We sometimes have to take off shoes at airports so for a suspected cheat it should be no big deal.

ErictheRed wrote on 10/07/13 at 14:26:17:


As I recall from way earlier in this thread the organisers have searched him on more than one occasion. The difference was probably that the recent tournament had wifi scramblers and other stuff so that he would get the chance to clear himself. But this time the demand to take off his shoes was not included in the tournament invitation...

Not because of his results, or because of the matching with the Houdini moves..
Good players can always understand if they were smashed by a good GM or by a "machine guy". 
I have a friend who played against this hero in Belogradchik (the first tournament ever won by B.I., almost half an year prior to Zadar). Some months ago he said to me:
"It was the in the evening after our game with him, when I told the others that this guy smashed me with an engine help. And they laughed at me.." 

Actually, if you look,  it was just his results that originally kicked all of this off, in a manner which was somewhat offensive to common sense/decency.

Then the first sets of things matching moves against computers looked, to be honest, like perfect examples of self justification. Incredibly common with this sort of thing but also not really very helpful.

Getting suitably rigorously selected statistical tests/independent people for checking them would help an awful lot and looks like it might be happening.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 10/06/13 at 20:54:04:


Yep, he never analysed even a single game with his opponents!