11-01-2013, 09:06 PM
Although I agree to a certain extent about the gossip factor and the allegations being unproven (ChessBase can be sloppy this way sometimes) I think you'll probably find that the odds of such an event actually happening is much higher than the figures you have used (1 in 10,000) so his result is much more impressive 'statistically'?!
Almost all of the '2200-player producing a 2600+ result' occurrences come from players who have already shown significant improvements in previous events; strong juniors on their way up is an example. Our own Alan Tate had already shown signs that he was at least capable of such a breakthrough before his Croatian results, whereas Mr. Ivanov hadn't shown anything of the sort.
His engine match-up is way higher than would be expected from even strong GM's having a 'hot event' and having played through all of his games from the event it most definitely did not appear that this was a 2200 player on a lucky/improvement streak - the way he dispatched most of his GM opponent's was seriously impressive.
As a player of a similar rating to Ivanov, and one who follows/studies/prepares for opponents of 2200 strength on a regular basis, I really don't believe this was an unaided 2200 player. There weren't excuses given for his losses, just reasonable possible explanations. I should point out though that losing games immediately after being accused of cheating isn't a new thing (look up the well-known Mamedjarov-Kurnosov incident from a few years ago for a previous example).
The question of proof is a difficult one - the technology exists to do what he has been accused of, almost impossible to discover without an intimate search (not quite rubber gloves but that day might come around!)
What level of proof would be satisfactory?
Almost all of the '2200-player producing a 2600+ result' occurrences come from players who have already shown significant improvements in previous events; strong juniors on their way up is an example. Our own Alan Tate had already shown signs that he was at least capable of such a breakthrough before his Croatian results, whereas Mr. Ivanov hadn't shown anything of the sort.
His engine match-up is way higher than would be expected from even strong GM's having a 'hot event' and having played through all of his games from the event it most definitely did not appear that this was a 2200 player on a lucky/improvement streak - the way he dispatched most of his GM opponent's was seriously impressive.
As a player of a similar rating to Ivanov, and one who follows/studies/prepares for opponents of 2200 strength on a regular basis, I really don't believe this was an unaided 2200 player. There weren't excuses given for his losses, just reasonable possible explanations. I should point out though that losing games immediately after being accused of cheating isn't a new thing (look up the well-known Mamedjarov-Kurnosov incident from a few years ago for a previous example).
The question of proof is a difficult one - the technology exists to do what he has been accused of, almost impossible to discover without an intimate search (not quite rubber gloves but that day might come around!)
What level of proof would be satisfactory?