28-04-2016, 01:40 AM
I have to agree completely with your analysis of Lilov's approach Walter. The first thing I thought about that position was, wait a minute, White gets mated!
We were actually discussing the Danov 'case' as the event was happening, in a Facebook group I frequent. I posted that there was very little about his games which made me suspect outright cheating, and that a far more detailed analysis would be needed to prove anything. This Lilov approach is certainly not it!
On the other hand, I have no real problem with measures being put in place to prevent/detect cheating. If they want to check my shoes - good luck to them. (I had just finished a 4-day festival in a forest -a metal festival by the name of Brutal Assault if you were wondering - when I was stopped at security in Prague airport a few years back. "Take off your shoes!" "Really? Are you sure you understand what you're asking?"
In any event, ChessBase basically publish any old tripe they like when the mood takes them. Dubious theories, bad science, or in this case biased and/or badly-thought out cheating accusations.
Lilov's video on Ivanov was similar, but more convincing as there were 'proper numbers' to back up the accusations. I would much prefer Ken Regan to take a look at Danov before anything was published, if at all.
We were actually discussing the Danov 'case' as the event was happening, in a Facebook group I frequent. I posted that there was very little about his games which made me suspect outright cheating, and that a far more detailed analysis would be needed to prove anything. This Lilov approach is certainly not it!
On the other hand, I have no real problem with measures being put in place to prevent/detect cheating. If they want to check my shoes - good luck to them. (I had just finished a 4-day festival in a forest -a metal festival by the name of Brutal Assault if you were wondering - when I was stopped at security in Prague airport a few years back. "Take off your shoes!" "Really? Are you sure you understand what you're asking?"
In any event, ChessBase basically publish any old tripe they like when the mood takes them. Dubious theories, bad science, or in this case biased and/or badly-thought out cheating accusations.
Lilov's video on Ivanov was similar, but more convincing as there were 'proper numbers' to back up the accusations. I would much prefer Ken Regan to take a look at Danov before anything was published, if at all.