I never asked for this
- Sep 8, 2011
I really hope that in the end it turns out that he's just that good.
jp201 said:Yes it is a scale to determine a players skill level and changes depending on the opponents FIDE rating (there is a formula behind how rating change). To jump over 100 points in one month is also quite a leap but not unheard of.Treblaine said:That doesn't prove illegal aid, people get better, can even get radically better, within the rules. And his opponents can get worse.DoPo said:That doesn't explain why his performance was inconsistent
It's not implausible for people to perform barely adequately then suddenly make a breakthrough.
I mean this guy didn't even come first, he came THIRD!
Uhh, is that a logarithmic scale? Because that's only 5% higher. That's hardly "shooting up". It may be simply the scoring system doesn't give the huge tournament points until you've crossed over a threshold of the best of the best.His FIDE rating, which had previously peaked at 2227 in 2011, shot up to 2342 this month.
He could be using any other advanced technique that's "Quasi legal" like cold reading, telling the opponent's moves by reading their body language. He may have played a more probabilistic game, based on what his known opponents are likely to try.
You still ACTUALLY have to prove he is using a computer, not just that he COULD have been using a computer as that applies just as much to all the other contenders, including the one who actually WON the tournament.
The problem isn't were he placed, but his level of play during those matches.He performed at a level higher then the greatest GMs in the history of chess have ever performed by a large margin and considering his FIDE rating, its IMPOSSIBLE by any fair means. He would have had to transcend human capabilities for those games and become a computer for those matches in order to achieve what he did without cheating.
There is no question that he did cheat, it is more of how he cheated I'm interested in finding out.
Without a shred of evidence.There is no question that he did cheat
Funny, looks like my grades trends in school.rhizhim said:if you put his performance in a graph, you can see that "jump"
i wonder if the chess players flip the tables and start shooting everyone with their colts.
You guys don't seem to realize that Grand Masters (>2500; depending on where you are, I'm going by USCF) think very, very, similarly to a player rated 1400. The reason that they're so good is that Grand Masters have learned by this point to avoid falling into common pitfalls and blunders that would cost them the game. Otherwise, it's perfectly possible to beat them, but not consistently.DoPo said:That doesn't explain why his performance was inconsistent - he pulled this for the first time, the mathematician dude calculated a way high efficiency - higher than chess masters, and his performance suffered when there was he was not televised. Yeah, he could have just devoted his life to mastering chess after a while and the televised thing is just a coincidence but...it's also improbable.KefkaCultist said:Maybe, and I'm going out on a very long limb here, he's just really good at chess?
Maybe he practiced a lot. Not like "couple-hours-a-day" a lot, but more like "holy shit I have nothing else in life time to practice 24/7" a lot.
I mean, the article says he's a programmer (of chess games nonetheless) and having experience in programming I can say that it does develop memory and logical/critical thinking skills, so theoretically this guy could have just extensively studied the top tactics and/or the common tactics of his opponents (if he knew who he was facing beforehand) and just memorized the best moves for those situations. It sounds incredulous, but remember, there are people that can recite the value of pi to at least 100,000 digits from memory. This seems like child's play compared to that.
Humans can experiment, be illogical and make it work. Call me when Skynet plays chess with this guy, okay? Whoops; already happened...Erm...it is. The only reason computers are better than humans is because of sheer number crunching power. Any chess algorithms rely on that. Unless he suddenly, and I do mean suddenly (remember - it's not his first tournament - it's the first one he's so good), devised a way to juggle millions of numbers in his mind, which is implausible given that he never seemingly showed any aptitude for it.
That bugs me too. Maybe he's just a dedicated guy, but I'm calling that he used a digital note-taker with a chess analysis engine on it. That's how a person at my chess club (best player too, he was 1700) got banned from playing at the State level.But out of nowhere? Really? Until that point he had won one point and then pulls 60. Yeah, so in a few months, he manages to become so good.
People could screw up their opening/defense. It's easier than it sounds at high level games. There are so many ways that things can go wrong in a chess game from a single pawn move. One. Pawn. Move. I've seen entire games blundered away from moves that weren't really bad at the time, but had a devastating effect in the endgame.Are you kidding me? In chess? What, did he roll high or something?
Where'd you get that? That seems to be an interesting read.No physical evidence yes but that does not mean "no evidence". Did you read the article? His performance suffered when the games weren't broadcast. Also the mathematician dude with the simulation. Also the fact that he has never shown he can do that. Yeah, not "physical" but come on, you just discarded it as if it was nothing. Here is something else I found (weirdly, I can't find the original link just some people quoting it)
I assume it's the mathematician referenced but I'm not sure. Still, if true, it's pretty jarring, assuming those numbers are correct.I have again gone through all nine games with Stockfish on my laptop. Ivanov makes a total of 290 moves (I did not evaluate the opening moves that could be considered to be theory). 256 of these are the first choice of Stockfish. That makes 88%. It would have been higher if he hadn´t started to lose his magic in round 8 after the 15 first moves. In the last 19 moves he commits several mistakes, small and big. It is reported that the internet relay of the games went down during this round.
So how good is 88%? I took nine top games of nine world champions to compare with. Here is a summary of the results.
Lasker - Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914, 1-0. Lasker reaches 81%.
Nimzowitsch - Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914, 0-1. Capa reaches a record 84%.
Botvinnik - Keres, Moscow 1953, 1-0. Botvinnik makes 79%.
Fischer - Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, game 6, 1-0. Fischer makes 61%. Considered to be Fischers best effort in the match by many including Spassky - who applauded Fischer on stage after the game.
Karpov - Kasparov, Wch match 1993, game 17, 1-0. Karpov reaches 64%.
Karpov - Kasparov, Linares 1993, 0-1. Kasparov makes 76%.
Topalov - Anand, Wch match 2010, final game, 0-1. Anand makes 76%.
Carlsen - Anand, Master final 2012, 1-0. Carlsen makes 57% in this brilliant game.
Kramnik - McShane, London CC 2012, 1-0. Kramnik makes 68%.
A total of 249 moves when the known opening moves are subtracted. 181 are first choice moves for Stockfish. That makes 73%.
Ivanov is not playing world champion chess. He plays 15% better.
So how unlikely is it to play that well by pure chance? Let´s do some math.
If we simplify and say that in every position there is only two moves a good player (or computer) has to choose from. An oversimplification for sure, but the results are staggering. Then the chance to reach the world champions score 73% is in the order of one in 10 to the power of 21 (a one with 21 zeroes after it). To reach Ivanovs 88% you have one chance in 10 to the power of 53.
If we grant Ivanov world champion strength his chance of reaching 88% would be one in 10 to the power of 32.
Yes, chess does not work like that, computers work like that. AI playing chess (and most AI, actually) is just extremely good at number crunching. This was a response tot he guy who said that "Oh, he could be thinking like a computer" - impossible. Ok, very improbably - unless he's crunching many, many numbers at a very fast pace - no he cannot. He'll be thinking like a human. A distinct difference.thesilentman said:Seriously, the way chess works isn't by juggling numbers in your head. To truly think of some good chess moves, you need to consider the board and think about what could possibly happen if your opponent decided to move X piece. This isn't directed at you; it just bugs me how many people think that Chess == math. -.-
Keep in mind that this is a tournament with many people on there, many of which very good players. The chance of all of them making stupid mistakes is quite low. Also, it is said that he made good moves, not his opponents bad ones.thesilentman said:People could screw up their opening/defense. It's easier than it sounds at high level games. There are so many ways that things can go wrong in a chess game from a single pawn move. One. Pawn. Move. I've seen entire games blundered away from moves that weren't really bad at the time, but had a devastating effect in the endgame.Are you kidding me? In chess? What, did he roll high or something?
I saw it quoted in two forums but I have no idea what the original is - Google failed me even. Strangely. Here [http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-ivanov-a-cheater?page=2] is where I took it from, although I quoted the whole of it (the whole of the quoted bit, at least), the other forum had the exact same quote, however it is a Bulgarian one, so not of much use, I assume. Maybe chess.com has more elaboration and people discussing it - I haven't gone through the thread.thesilentman said:Where'd you get that? That seems to be an interesting read.
Remember that he didn't preform as good when his games weren't broadcast. Also, not implausible - as I said it's quite improbable, however.Treblaine said:That doesn't prove illegal aid, people get better, can even get radically better, within the rules. And his opponents can get worse.DoPo said:That doesn't explain why his performance was inconsistent
It's not implausible for people to perform barely adequately then suddenly make a breakthrough.
I mean this guy didn't even come first, he came THIRD!
Ugh...dude, that's chess. Nobody cares what the next move would be - you'll see it anyway - the person will play it right in front of you. Knowing what the move is several moments in advance is not actually that useful.Treblaine said:He could be using any other advanced technique that's "Quasi legal" like cold reading, telling the opponent's moves by reading their body language. He may have played a more probabilistic game, based on what his known opponents are likely to try.
No, it cannot. AI relies on lots and lots of computation - it's normally not possible for any human, unless they are some kind of savant. And I do mean it, if he was capable of doing this to begin with he would have been just...wrong. From birth, at least, or probably would have suffered some kind of trauma or something in the mean time.Therumancer said:That said this guy is a computer programmer who writes chess programs. Gee, do you think that might just come accross in how he plays?
Not sure if intentional humour or not.Therumancer said:You know, the entire Chess community needs to step back, take a deep breath, and then slap themselves silly, before taking another deep breath. WTF is wrong with these people, do they have no pride anymore?
Yes, you can look for statistical abnormalities.Scarim Coral said:Also really? You cna use math to see if that person is cheating?
electric method said:-snip-
You two might be interested in the video above, I think Mr Lilov talks really interesting stuff and goes in depth into chess and the analysis of the play. From what I heard, at least.thesilentman said:-snip-
That's not how human intelligence works. It's not a zero-sum thing.DoPo said:No, it cannot. AI relies on lots and lots of computation - it's normally not possible for any human, unless they are some kind of savant. And I do mean it, if he was capable of doing this to begin with he would have been just...wrong. From birth, at least, or probably would have suffered some kind of trauma or something in the mean time.
At the higher levels of chess it more about memorization and pattern recognition than most anything else. Yes, one can use math to infer the probability that a specific player is going to play a specific line at a specific time. However, trying to apply math to how a GM approaches chess isn't quite a good idea. Seeing as most spend hours learning lines, memorizing end game and opening theory and pouring over positions to find new plans or improve exsisting ones it's hard to quantify how they think in each situation. A good eg of this was a move Kasparov pioneered in the Queen's Gambit. It became wildly popular and saw a lot of use, (Qc2 at move 4 if I remember this line right). Once this line gained traction a lot of theory was developed for it and one would see it a lot in high level play. Now one could statistically model the probability that line would be played but, not which player would play it or the plan behind it.Treblaine said:That's not how human intelligence works. It's not a zero-sum thing.DoPo said:No, it cannot. AI relies on lots and lots of computation - it's normally not possible for any human, unless they are some kind of savant. And I do mean it, if he was capable of doing this to begin with he would have been just...wrong. From birth, at least, or probably would have suffered some kind of trauma or something in the mean time.
It's not like to be really good at mathematical calculation you have to sacrifice social intelligence or coordination or anything like that.
Even though there are some remarkable individuals of amazing mathematical intelligence but poor social intelligence that's as much down to people who have impeded social intelligence enjoy maths.
You are correct. A lower rated player would not suddenly, in a months time, perform at a GM level. Think of it this way, most, if not all, GM's have this series of books that comes out every year that deal exclusively with opening theory. Each one of those books is something like 800 pages long. For a master level player to suddenly learn and play better than a GM with years of study and experience behind them is not only unlikely but, highly improbable due to how much study is required.Jonluw said:So a low-ranked master beats four grand masters in one night, losing only when the broadcasting of the matches cease?
In addition, his moves are statistically more similar to a chess computer than most anything that's ever been played before?
That certainly does warrant an investigation into the issue.
I don't see why people are pissed off that this guy is being accused of cheating. His actually performing the way he did without any AI aid is ridiculously improbable.
If some person who's been making mediocre times at the 400 m all his life suddenly, one month after his last mediocre recorded time, suddenly does a 37 second run, you're damn right the sports community would be checking his ass for steroids.
Particularly considering that his method of running highly resembles that of a person on steroids, and his times suddenly going mediocre when the magical steroid-blocking device is turned on.
It just happens that in this case, it's a lot harder to prove the use of the "steroids".
And people saying that you could go from "low-ranked master" to "playing almost at the level of a computer (additionally very similar to a computer's manner)" simply by studying really hard for a month: I don't think you appreciate the level of effort grand masters put into their studying of the game. From what I understand of chess it's not like any old low-rank can suddenly surpass grand masters simply by studying really hard for a month.