30-05-2013, 01:35 AM
;| Hi again, Graham.
“I can see you're never going to be convinced until he has been caught red-handed, Walter.”
I don’t see how you can be more than 80% sure of that, Graham ;P
“The match-up rate for the 7 rounds (excluding rounds 8 and 2) was 95.8% of Houdini's 1st choice moves.”
Wasn’t that by adding other levels of ply? My point/query - I could be wrong, but I don’t think you answered it - was that if you vary the ply to bring in some (e.g.) fourth choices that weren’t counted, you might also lose some of the first three that were counted. Going by your post the number of undisputed 1st matches was 75.5%, rising to 84.8% if you remove rounds 2 and 8. If I’ve understood you correctly, you only got to 95.8% by moving the goalposts – I mean, varying the ply :-)
Actually I find 75% of first matches far more impressive than 90 plus percent of top three matches. Why mess around with the top three moves at all? It may be muddying the picture.
You say the cheating is blatant, but I suggest it’s the grounds for suspicion that are obvious; it's not so obvious that standards of proof have been met in fact it's clear they haven't; it's more like his accusers are trying to dispense with the standards. Blatant or not,if it were a court case it wouldn't get past the jannie.
I agree with your ‘simple solution’ of a delay in the broadcast, or not broadcasting Ivanov’s game as a temporary measure. The ban looks like making things worse. Rather than cut him off from the game (which also cuts off any new evidence) they should just have cut him off from the power supply :-)
“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.”
I think the legal analogy is the murder without a body – sorry to nitpick, but you’ve not proved there are any ‘victims’ yet! There is ‘blood’ but chess is like that … By the way would you have thrown away the key on Sally Clark? Why that murder was so blatant…
Graham, thanks for the exchange and your analysis. I’ll leave it there while you find new ways to describe my naivety!
Cheers
Walter
“I can see you're never going to be convinced until he has been caught red-handed, Walter.”
I don’t see how you can be more than 80% sure of that, Graham ;P
“The match-up rate for the 7 rounds (excluding rounds 8 and 2) was 95.8% of Houdini's 1st choice moves.”
Wasn’t that by adding other levels of ply? My point/query - I could be wrong, but I don’t think you answered it - was that if you vary the ply to bring in some (e.g.) fourth choices that weren’t counted, you might also lose some of the first three that were counted. Going by your post the number of undisputed 1st matches was 75.5%, rising to 84.8% if you remove rounds 2 and 8. If I’ve understood you correctly, you only got to 95.8% by moving the goalposts – I mean, varying the ply :-)
Actually I find 75% of first matches far more impressive than 90 plus percent of top three matches. Why mess around with the top three moves at all? It may be muddying the picture.
You say the cheating is blatant, but I suggest it’s the grounds for suspicion that are obvious; it's not so obvious that standards of proof have been met in fact it's clear they haven't; it's more like his accusers are trying to dispense with the standards. Blatant or not,if it were a court case it wouldn't get past the jannie.
I agree with your ‘simple solution’ of a delay in the broadcast, or not broadcasting Ivanov’s game as a temporary measure. The ban looks like making things worse. Rather than cut him off from the game (which also cuts off any new evidence) they should just have cut him off from the power supply :-)
“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.”
I think the legal analogy is the murder without a body – sorry to nitpick, but you’ve not proved there are any ‘victims’ yet! There is ‘blood’ but chess is like that … By the way would you have thrown away the key on Sally Clark? Why that murder was so blatant…
Graham, thanks for the exchange and your analysis. I’ll leave it there while you find new ways to describe my naivety!
Cheers
Walter