OpenChess

GM Georgiev gave a conterdictory account in his description as to what happened in his game with Ivanov. I don't want assign motive to GM Georgiev, or say if it was intentional or not. Just try to deal with the facts that we can verify in the "guilt of Ivanov as a chess cheater", And the statements people have use to assign guilt to Ivanov with no proof that Ivanov used Houdini the chess playing chess engine to cheat at chess.

GM Georgiev statement as reported. "GM Kiril Georgiev: "Dear Alex, I am glad to know that there are young people like you and Valeri who are searching for the truth!"

"My game against Borislav Ivanov was played at ten minutes plus five second increment. He played very fast, which came as a big surprise to me. He spent between five and seven seconds per move, and never took more time on any of his moves during the game. For the whole game he was supporting his chin with his two hands. He was making his moves quickly and vigorously, displaying a high level of self-confidence at all times."

"He nevertheless had a lot of time on the clock – at the end of the game he had over seven minutes left! He didn’t stand up even once during the game. Our game was not broadcast over the Internet. It made a strong impression on me that at some point, when the position was repeated twice, he thought for about three seconds and diverted, avoiding a three-fold repetition! Best Regards, Kiril."


Facts we Know:

1. The Ivanov vs Georgiev game was played at 10 minutes + 5 second increment.
2. The game was 38 moves long. Game posted below.

Gm Georgiev account from statement.

1. "He (Ivanov) played very fast, which came as a big surprise to me. He spent between five and seven seconds per move, and never took more time on any of his moves during the game."
2. "at the end of the game he had over seven minutes left!"

Analysis:
1. Game started with 10 minuets on the Clock or 600 seconds.
2. With every move played the player gains 5 seconds.
3. 38 moves were played by Ivanov.
4. 38 x 5 seconds = 190 seconds.
5. Game stated with 600 seconds and 190 seconds were added to Ivanov's time durning the game for a total time of 790 seconds.
6. Ivanov always used 5 to 7 seconds per move. Average move time 5 + 7 = 12, 12/2=6. For a 6 second average move time. This does not count the lower move time of 3 seconds that GM Georgiev said in his statement the Ivanov use to avoid the 3 fold repetition.
7. For fairness to GM Georgiev, I will use 7 seconds in my calculations even though the average move time claimed by GM Georgiev must be lower by his own statement.
8. 7 seconds per move x 38 moves played by Ivanov = 266 total seconds used by Ivanov in the Ivanov vs GM Georgiev game.
9. Total time given to Ivanov in the games was 790 seconds. 790 seconds - 266 seconds = 524 seconds left on Ivanov's clock per GM Georgiev statement or 8 minutes and 44 seconds should be showing on Ivanov's clock at the end of the game, not 7 minutes and a odd number of seconds.
10. If Ivanov had 7:59 showing on his clock. Since we don't know how many seconds for GM Georgiev statement.
11. Ivanov average move time in his game would be 7 x 60 seconds + 59 seconds = 479 seconds left on clock. 790 seconds - 479 seconds = 311seconds used by Ivanov during game. For a average move time of 8.18 seconds per move. At 7 minuets showing on Ivanov clock his average move time would be 9.73 seconds per move.

Conclusion:

It is not possible from GM Georgiev own statement that Ivanov played as fast as GM Georgiev claimed. No time records or video recordings were recorded during the game. And only Ivanov and GM Georgiev know the times used. But I can conclude for GM Georgiev own Statement that Ivanov did not play as fast as GM Georgiev claimed. And Ivanov could of used much more time then GM Georgiev claimed. We just can't tell other then Ivanov could not have played as fast as GM Georgiev claimed from his own statement.

I will not comment if this helps or hurts Ivanov. I see it cutting both ways, but since we are dealing with human beings. We must use logic, and reason, and understand people can intentionally or unintentionally exaggerate the facts in their statements. When they are making statements against someone they feel has wronged them. That is why facts, and proof must be given when saying someone is guilty, and why I hate seeing people tried in the court of public opinion, it is unfair to the person being accused.



[Event "2nd Memorial Bogomil Andonov"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.04.14"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ivanov, Borislav"]
[Black "Georgiev, Kiril"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A45"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "2013.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. Bxf6 gxf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. c4 dxc4 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8.
Nxd4 Nxd4 9. exd4 Bg7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. O-O f5 12. d5 Qd6 13. Re1 Bd7 14. Qe2
Rfe8 15. Bb5 Rac8 16. Rad1 a6 17. Bxd7 Qxd7 18. Rd3 Rc4 19. h3 b5 20. a3 Qd6
21. Qh5 Qg6 22. Qd1 Qd6 23. Rg3 Kh8 24. Qh5 Rf8 25. Qxf5 Rf4 26. Qg5 Qf6 27.
Qh5 Rf5 28. Qg4 Rf4 29. Qd7 Qd4 30. Rge3 Qd2 31. Ne4 Qxb2 32. g3 Rxe4 33. Rxe4
Bf6 34. Rxe7 Bxe7 35. Qxe7 Kg8 36. d6 Qxa3 37. Qg5+ Kh8 38. d7 1-0

That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

It would have been easier to just put Ivanon had to play much slower then GM Kiril Georgiev claimed. But there are a lot of slow readers out there.

What is the point? That GM Kiril Georgiev made an estimate instead of first working it all out in Excel?

syzygy wrote:What is the point? That GM Kiril Georgiev made an estimate instead of first working it all out in Excel?

The point is obvious, as pointed out in the post. People exaggerate facts against people that they feel have wronged them. And you have to take this into consideration when someone is suggesting guilt with no evidence other then their words. And to demonstrate this I have to show how and why his statement could not be true.

Could I have just written - It is impossible for Ivanon to have moved as fast as GM Georgiev claimed in his statement. The answer is no, you know very well what would happen with this kind of post on a open chess forum.

mwyoung wrote:

syzygy wrote:What is the point? That GM Kiril Georgiev made an estimate instead of first working it all out in Excel?

The point is obvious, as pointed out in the post. People exaggerate facts against people that they feel have wronged them. And you have to take this into consideration when someone is suggesting guilt with no evidence other then their words. And to demonstrate this I have to show how and why his statement could not be true.

Could I have just written - It is impossible for Ivanon to have moved as fast as GM Georgiev claimed in his statement. The answer is no, you know very well what would happen with this kind of post on a open chess forum.

Just a couple of remarks:
- whether Ivanov took 5-7 seconds per move, or 8-10 seconds, is irrelevant, unless all you want to show is that GM Georgiev was sloppy in his remarks about the time. It doesn't change the moves played, nor the fact that Ivanov was playing really fast. It doesn't discount anything else in his account, either, nor make him an unreliable witness. Anyway, nearly everything here is a matter of public record.
- your Morphy example, or any tactical example, is also more or less irrelevant. Strong engines play tactics perfectly, all the time. A human who plays a good tactical line will always get engine approval. It might be relevant/suspicious when a human always finds deep tactical lines which other humans can't find, but that's a different issue. Citing a tactical game and saying "see, the engine likes this, too" is silly. Of course the engine likes it. It's tactical and forced. Irrelevant.
- relevant are unforced positional or quiet moves, or waiting moves -- when there are 5 equivalent moves, which one does Houdini like by 0.01 pawns (and no, Houdini doesn't like it because it's objectively the best move, it likes it because its evaluation function likes some feature of the position slightly more than Critter's or Komodo's -- each engine will have its own signature style)? Does Ivanov always play that one? If I understood Dr. Regan's methodology, the statistical analyses take exactly this distinction into account and have determined: yes.

These sorts of debates are depressing. I'm not saying that you fall into this category, mwyoung, but it really seems like mediocre chess players who aren't improving are so excited and inspired by the story of a mediocre chess player who gets great overnight that they're willing to ignore the most obvious explanation for it (backed up by a great deal of analysis). Getting good at something is hard work, and if you've spent years trying to improve your chess, you know that nothing comes fast and that progress is a) slow b) unsteady c) subject to plateaus and regressions and d) never instant -- you may have a good game or two, but your level is your level until you've slowly worked your way up to the next one. Ivanov is a rags to riches fairy tale, and it's sad to see adults fall for it.

Jeremy

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

mwyoung wrote:

syzygy wrote:What is the point? That GM Kiril Georgiev made an estimate instead of first working it all out in Excel?

The point is obvious, as pointed out in the post. People exaggerate facts against people that they feel have wronged them. And you have to take this into consideration when someone is suggesting guilt with no evidence other then their words. And to demonstrate this I have to show how and why his statement could not be true.

Could I have just written - It is impossible for Ivanon to have moved as fast as GM Georgiev claimed in his statement. The answer is no, you know very well what would happen with this kind of post on a open chess forum.

Just a couple of remarks:
- whether Ivanov took 5-7 seconds per move, or 8-10 seconds, is irrelevant, unless all you want to show is that GM Georgiev was sloppy in his remarks about the time. It doesn't change the moves played, nor the fact that Ivanov was playing really fast. It doesn't discount anything else in his account, either, nor make him an unreliable witness. Anyway, nearly everything here is a matter of public record.
- your Morphy example, or any tactical example, is also more or less irrelevant. Strong engines play tactics perfectly, all the time. A human who plays a good tactical line will always get engine approval. It might be relevant/suspicious when a human always finds deep tactical lines which other humans can't find, but that's a different issue. Citing a tactical game and saying "see, the engine likes this, too" is silly. Of course the engine likes it. It's tactical and forced. Irrelevant.
- relevant are unforced positional or quiet moves, or waiting moves -- when there are 5 equivalent moves, which one does Houdini like by 0.01 pawns (and no, Houdini doesn't like it because it's objectively the best move, it likes it because its evaluation function likes some feature of the position slightly more than Critter's or Komodo's -- each engine will have its own signature style)? Does Ivanov always play that one? If I understood Dr. Regan's methodology, the statistical analyses take exactly this distinction into account and have determined: yes.

These sorts of debates are depressing. I'm not saying that you fall into this category, mwyoung, but it really seems like mediocre chess players who aren't improving are so excited and inspired by the story of a mediocre chess player who gets great overnight that they're willing to ignore the most obvious explanation for it (backed up by a great deal of analysis). Getting good at something is hard work, and if you've spent years trying to improve your chess, you know that nothing comes fast and that progress is a) slow b) unsteady c) subject to plateaus and regressions and d) never instant -- you may have a good game or two, but your level is your level until you've slowly worked your way up to the next one. Ivanov is a rags to riches fairy tale, and it's sad to see adults fall for it.

Jeremy

You are correct it is irrelevant how much time Ivanov took. If it was 8-10 instead of 5-7. What is relevant is if we can trust what GM Georgiev said is true with only his words as evidence. He said he saw a certain time on Ivanov clock that could not be true. He claimed Ivanon was like a machine always taking the same amount of time. With only his words as evidence against Ivanov. There is reason to believe that GM Georgiev exaggerated the facts.

I am not the one who is using the standard and said if you move match Houdini you can call someone guilty, no further evidence is required. When I tested Ivanov's games he had a high correlation rate with computers, but there were other players who were higher. All people see is the statements by chess experts and used and them to try and convict someone in the court of public opinion.

I truly believe they feel Ivanov is cheating, but to be fair to Ivanov and the future of trying this against other players. You must point out this standards flaws. Evidence must rule the day, not speculation. It is easy to call someone a cheater, as GM Topalov did in his match with GM Kramnik. But you should have to prove this if your going to say someone cheated.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I will just skip it. Thanks for the warning.

Gerold wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:That's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I will just skip it. Thanks for the warning.

This is why it is dangerous to put someone on trial in the court of public opinion, people are lazy. It is much easier to take someones word, then investing the time and intellect to make your own determinations.

What makes it even funnier, Jeremy was joking. Because after saying this, he posted a rebuttal that ways as long as my post.

This topic should be discussed, not because if Ivanov is guilty or defending ones position. But because this can effect future players.

I don't have proof of cheating, but I can tell Ivanov has done stupid statements and insulting GMs is stupid as well.

He said he beat Houdini and Rybka 10-0. Even the Strongest Software have shown that the biggest winning rate is about 70% when beating the near rated ones.
Also, to beat the best software he has to find moves that the software doesn't.
And then , what he does when playing GMs? He plays Houdini's moves? Shouldn't he play moves that Houdini can't find?

That's a BIG contradiction.