Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 18th 13, 02:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
Default In Defence of FM Borislav Ivanov - An Observers (Not Blind) BriefPerspective.

I've given this topic a lot of agonizing thought. Please pardon my
English. I am a long time observer of the game of Chess.

First, l have read numerous blogs/forum/a buffalo
professors claim (consequently inadmissible in a US court of law), and
various claims (chess trainers) on the suspension of Bulgarian Foreign
Chess Master (FM) Borislav Ivanov. From what Ive surmised?
Ivanov plagiarized chess moves (the Houdini chess engine)
unbeknown to his players after the fact. If an individual (GM/Prof.)
makes a statistical claim then where is the rad om sampling of player
game analysis of different FM and or GM's games to support their claim
that is, sampled games from players of similar abilities in the chess
players database.

How do the statistical proofs offer a hypothesis of Ivanov's erratic
abilities?
It could be argued similar case(s) exist in the chess players database
waiting to be discovered. Maybe simple oversight by game annotators?
What do the stats prove only that FM Ivanov is an unusual case.
Statistics are not infallible. I do have a respect for the programmer of
Houdini and the exhaustive statisticians but...there is that nagging
doubt that number crunching is not definitive as opposed to natural
abilities yet unexplained?
Henceforth, the data still it does not offer definitive proof of
cheating. It only proves an erratic player. So some of Ivanov's games
resemble a chess engine? That's like saying my five year old paintings
resembles a Picasso.

What about the FM and GM's that Ivanov played? Surely, their moves must
be central to the analysis? I am aware of the Lilov's youtube (FM Valeri
Lilov's) presentation. Honestly after considering Lilov's presentation
only proves an erratic player. Lilov only speculates on the device. Show
me hard proof. Lilov's data is biased, yes I know,
about the missed moves but it could be argued that Lilov would like more
chess players to utilize his services? Let us remember Ivanov is a
titled master, not a Grandmaster, but he did earn the title of master. I
think FIDE needs to make the issue of cheating not an issue of witch
hunting but needs to be more professional in the cheating process.
The issue of cheating is very dangerous to the progress of the game of
Chess. Cheating needs to be tactfully dealt with now.

On the point of brute force thinking? Is it possible nature and
certainly statistics do not prove natural phenomena. Chess is war blood
and guts. Spare me the ad hominem attacks. Please exam the topic 'Grand
Masters of Memory' (memorize a deck cards in less than sixty seconds
then come back with your statistics). Perhaps Ivanov is an erratic chess
savant? That is my theory; albeit chaotic (Chaos theory "...rendering[s]
long-term prediction impossible in general."). I am a proponent of brute
force thinking/logic whatever you want to call it. Whereas GM Carlsen is
the product of a natural consistent chess gift FM Ivanov the potential
antithesis an erratic case. Let the man prove himself on the chess board.
Let him play and prove yourselves.

I believe that suspension of FM Ivanov excessive. The Bulgarian
grandmasters who refuse to play Ivanov only sabotage in obtaining the
real proof. For instance, in one chess match why random announce
scanning? Don't announce just make the process monitoring/scanning'
apart of the arbitration routine? You catch the cheaters with hard proof
and avoid the scandals. Why ignite the distrust. Prove the cheaters with
genuine evidence. Sincerely, I believe the Bulgarian Chess Federation
should re-consider their suspension of FM Ivanov.
Let the games begin. I have a sinking feeling that FM Ivanov can
prove himself. Until -- the arbiters -- show me a device he's innocent
in my book.

Don't back a foreign master into a corner. No master should endure
the libelous attacks. As a chess observer show me the hard proof
via a device, scheme. Other wise porous anecdotal scrutiny doesn't hold
water.

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 24th 13, 02:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2013
Posts: 3
Default In Defence of FM Borislav Ivanov - An Observers (Not Blind) Brief Perspective.

"Anonymous" ha scritto

On the point of brute force thinking? Is it possible nature and
certainly statistics do not prove natural phenomena. Chess is war blood
and guts. Spare me the ad hominem attacks. Please exam the topic 'Grand
Masters of Memory' (memorize a deck cards in less than sixty seconds
then come back with your statistics). Perhaps Ivanov is an erratic chess
savant? That is my theory; albeit chaotic (Chaos theory "...rendering[s]
long-term prediction impossible in general."). I am a proponent of brute
force thinking/logic whatever you want to call it. Whereas GM Carlsen is
the product of a natural consistent chess gift FM Ivanov the potential
antithesis - an erratic case. Let the man prove himself on the chess
board.
Let him play and prove yourselves.


You can't be serious!
Great memory is not enough to play chess. It's not like remember deck cards!

Luigi Caselli


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Borislav Ivanov chess cheat makes boastful claim raylopez99 rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 6 February 2nd 13 11:59 AM
Further Cross Motion for Sanctions Against Attorneys for Bank ofAmerica and Guide Dogs for the Blind samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 November 20th 12 10:24 AM
Reply Declaration to Guide Dogs for the Blind samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 March 17th 12 04:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017