30-05-2013, 12:55 PM
Never before has anyone scored as closely to a Chess engine in a whole tournament who wasn't subsequently found to be cheating. Ivanov's match to Houdini prior to the tournament (and indeed throughout his playing career), was nothing close to what it was at this tournament - so there is a spike in the engine move match % graph.
Statistically speaking, you cannot match an engine that closely without the use of an engine. The odds of doing so are so incredibly small (considerably more so - even - than DNA evidence being wrong), that it's completely impractical to think it possible. In court, the only evidence that is required to place someone at a scene of a crime is the detection of their DNA there. If that evidence is declared to certainly exist, then the presence of the individual at the crime scene is considered a fact. This is similar, except with an even more compelling set of statistics and an even more conclusive tie to an actual "crime" (i.e. the presence of DNA doesn't mean the person committed the crime, it just means they were at the crime scene, but in this case the presence of the evidence is in itself the evidence of the "crime" being committed). In other words, the move percentages of the computer being found in Ivanov's game is like finding the computer's DNA at the scene of the crime (the board), and its very presence is conclusive evidence that it was involved in the "crime" (his moves).
So I disagree entirely that this wouldn't stand up in court. When faced with the statistics, it's more clearly proven beyond the remotest reasonable doubt than any other crime in history.
Statistically speaking, you cannot match an engine that closely without the use of an engine. The odds of doing so are so incredibly small (considerably more so - even - than DNA evidence being wrong), that it's completely impractical to think it possible. In court, the only evidence that is required to place someone at a scene of a crime is the detection of their DNA there. If that evidence is declared to certainly exist, then the presence of the individual at the crime scene is considered a fact. This is similar, except with an even more compelling set of statistics and an even more conclusive tie to an actual "crime" (i.e. the presence of DNA doesn't mean the person committed the crime, it just means they were at the crime scene, but in this case the presence of the evidence is in itself the evidence of the "crime" being committed). In other words, the move percentages of the computer being found in Ivanov's game is like finding the computer's DNA at the scene of the crime (the board), and its very presence is conclusive evidence that it was involved in the "crime" (his moves).
So I disagree entirely that this wouldn't stand up in court. When faced with the statistics, it's more clearly proven beyond the remotest reasonable doubt than any other crime in history.