06-06-2013, 10:47 PM
Disturbingly, Lilov’s presentations are being accepted by many as if they were impartial evidence. Obviously, they are not. Here is Lilov’s latest theory of how it was done, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_contact_lens">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_contact_lens</a><!-- m -->.
Remember at Zadar it was supposed to be the tournament transmission, and that eighth game that had to be excluded when the transmission was off. Before changing the accusation once more, shouldn’t Lilov be telling us to put game 8 back into the calculations? He also said at first that Ivanov was in time trouble when blundering in game 2, later telling us he had an hour. Lilov has clearly made his mind up already. In the latest ‘analysis’ on Graham's link (thanks) he asks rhetorical questions like would you play this move with three minutes left? When I read this I thought Ivanov must have played out like, a neat endgame study while in time trouble - but it’s only one trick; also he doesn’t consider that black might have seen that trick earlier.
At the same time I’d accept that with these events the evidence against Ivanov is statistically stronger, in that the comparisons are at least motivated by prior suspicion - so are not being ‘used’ twice (once to justify the suspicion and again to prove it), a common evidential error.
The situation in Bulgaria is going from bad to worse. The Bulgarian authorities cited as their reason for banning Ivanov as his “appalling comments on chess players in general”. When the top players calling for a ban, it’s difficult to take this explanation seriously - considering Ivanov is widely condemned as a cheat with no proof, the comments he made don’t seem ‘appalling’, and certainly could have been attributed to the angry reaction of an innocent young man falsely accused. They also threw him out after the last round owing to three players having refused to play him - having previously added a clause concerning three defaults to this effect, seemingly at the behest of the top players.
Yes, let’s cheat him back! Al Capone nailed on his taxes, then the officials effectively delegate authority to the players… Authorities are supposed to be there to take charge of the situation, to be accountable.
I understand that feelings are running very high - why wouldn’t they - but that doesn’t compensate for a distinct lack of evidence. From the viewpoint of justice, these videos from Lilov and the even more biased running commentary from Chessbase, aren’t helping.
Yes the cheating possibility is bad for the game - but jumping on suspects in such a haphazard and backhanded manner is surely making the bad publicity worse.
To answer your question Andrew, I personally don’t mind jabbering away in a foreign language (I doubt Ivanov follows the Scottish Chess website, so little harm can be done) but if this had happened in Scotland I would probably not have expressed my opinion that he was cheating on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far. I would always support due process as long as it was fair.
Remember at Zadar it was supposed to be the tournament transmission, and that eighth game that had to be excluded when the transmission was off. Before changing the accusation once more, shouldn’t Lilov be telling us to put game 8 back into the calculations? He also said at first that Ivanov was in time trouble when blundering in game 2, later telling us he had an hour. Lilov has clearly made his mind up already. In the latest ‘analysis’ on Graham's link (thanks) he asks rhetorical questions like would you play this move with three minutes left? When I read this I thought Ivanov must have played out like, a neat endgame study while in time trouble - but it’s only one trick; also he doesn’t consider that black might have seen that trick earlier.
At the same time I’d accept that with these events the evidence against Ivanov is statistically stronger, in that the comparisons are at least motivated by prior suspicion - so are not being ‘used’ twice (once to justify the suspicion and again to prove it), a common evidential error.
The situation in Bulgaria is going from bad to worse. The Bulgarian authorities cited as their reason for banning Ivanov as his “appalling comments on chess players in general”. When the top players calling for a ban, it’s difficult to take this explanation seriously - considering Ivanov is widely condemned as a cheat with no proof, the comments he made don’t seem ‘appalling’, and certainly could have been attributed to the angry reaction of an innocent young man falsely accused. They also threw him out after the last round owing to three players having refused to play him - having previously added a clause concerning three defaults to this effect, seemingly at the behest of the top players.
Yes, let’s cheat him back! Al Capone nailed on his taxes, then the officials effectively delegate authority to the players… Authorities are supposed to be there to take charge of the situation, to be accountable.
I understand that feelings are running very high - why wouldn’t they - but that doesn’t compensate for a distinct lack of evidence. From the viewpoint of justice, these videos from Lilov and the even more biased running commentary from Chessbase, aren’t helping.
Yes the cheating possibility is bad for the game - but jumping on suspects in such a haphazard and backhanded manner is surely making the bad publicity worse.
To answer your question Andrew, I personally don’t mind jabbering away in a foreign language (I doubt Ivanov follows the Scottish Chess website, so little harm can be done) but if this had happened in Scotland I would probably not have expressed my opinion that he was cheating on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far. I would always support due process as long as it was fair.