29-05-2013, 09:15 PM
I can see you're never going to be convinced until he has been caught red-handed, Walter.
The match-up rate for the 7 rounds (excluding rounds 8 and 2) was 95.8% of Houdini's 1st choice moves.
Round 1 game against FM Mario Schachinger - 20 moves were analysed, 17 of which were Houdini's 1st choice move at 25 ply. Move 21 was Houdini's 2nd choice at that depth, just 0.01 of a difference to the top move, which overtook the move played at 23 ply. Move 31 had the same evaluation as the 'best' (in the sense of highest engine evaluation) move. Move 22 was Houdini's 3rd choice move at 25 ply, but becomes the highest evaluation at 27 ply.
I think it would be easy for GM Jovanovic to see there was something going on.
Round 3 against GM Bojan Kurajica had 26 analysed moves, all bar 1 were Houdini's 1st choice at 25 ply, that one move was move 24 which was Houdini's 2nd choice at that depth, just 0.02 difference to the top move. It was actually the top move at 24 ply though...
A similar pattern occurs for the rest of the tournament too, just the odd move here and there not being the 1st choice move.
Nobody doubts that it's possible for a player even of my mediocre strength to have a high match up rate in a single game from time to time, sometimes the natural looking move is actually the best move. But to do it with this accuracy over the course of a whole tournament is, well, impossible without the help of a computer.
I've been involved in cheat detection on chess.com for a year or two now, and have studied the games of many players suspected of cheating. Ivanov's performance at Zadar is one of the most blatant i have seen.
There have been quite a few other cases where similar accusations have been made in OTB tournaments, but i haven't involved myself with those. These things are quite time consuming, i'd be happier to let someone else check out those others.
I do believe there is simple solution though, a delay of say, 10 or 15 minutes on any webcast would be sufficient enough to prohibit an accomplice of being able to access the game 'live' while not taking away the enjoyment from the user watching on their computer. I personally enjoy watching the games on here from the weekend tournaments around Scotland, and even had the privilege of playing on a live board myself once, being 10 minutes behind the actual play would make no difference.
To use another legal analogy, we have numerous victims, and we have one perpetrator with his victims' blood on his hands. We just haven't found the weapon yet.
The match-up rate for the 7 rounds (excluding rounds 8 and 2) was 95.8% of Houdini's 1st choice moves.
Round 1 game against FM Mario Schachinger - 20 moves were analysed, 17 of which were Houdini's 1st choice move at 25 ply. Move 21 was Houdini's 2nd choice at that depth, just 0.01 of a difference to the top move, which overtook the move played at 23 ply. Move 31 had the same evaluation as the 'best' (in the sense of highest engine evaluation) move. Move 22 was Houdini's 3rd choice move at 25 ply, but becomes the highest evaluation at 27 ply.
I think it would be easy for GM Jovanovic to see there was something going on.
Round 3 against GM Bojan Kurajica had 26 analysed moves, all bar 1 were Houdini's 1st choice at 25 ply, that one move was move 24 which was Houdini's 2nd choice at that depth, just 0.02 difference to the top move. It was actually the top move at 24 ply though...
A similar pattern occurs for the rest of the tournament too, just the odd move here and there not being the 1st choice move.
Nobody doubts that it's possible for a player even of my mediocre strength to have a high match up rate in a single game from time to time, sometimes the natural looking move is actually the best move. But to do it with this accuracy over the course of a whole tournament is, well, impossible without the help of a computer.
I've been involved in cheat detection on chess.com for a year or two now, and have studied the games of many players suspected of cheating. Ivanov's performance at Zadar is one of the most blatant i have seen.
There have been quite a few other cases where similar accusations have been made in OTB tournaments, but i haven't involved myself with those. These things are quite time consuming, i'd be happier to let someone else check out those others.
I do believe there is simple solution though, a delay of say, 10 or 15 minutes on any webcast would be sufficient enough to prohibit an accomplice of being able to access the game 'live' while not taking away the enjoyment from the user watching on their computer. I personally enjoy watching the games on here from the weekend tournaments around Scotland, and even had the privilege of playing on a live board myself once, being 10 minutes behind the actual play would make no difference.
To use another legal analogy, we have numerous victims, and we have one perpetrator with his victims' blood on his hands. We just haven't found the weapon yet.