Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

[Rabish Bini]

After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Your research is correct. This doesn't happen. This has never happened. This never will happen.

This isn't football, where a team can go on an unprecedented run based on luck, energy and sheer force of will. This is chess. It's not possible to accomplish what this man has done.

 

[Bleidd Whitefalcon]

After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Your research is correct. This doesn't happen. This has never happened. This never will happen.

This isn't football, where a team can go on an unprecedented run based on luck, energy and sheer force of will. This is chess. It's not possible to accomplish what this man has done.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. For this to be POSSIBLE, he'd have to have both a perfect memory AND the ability to process data in a completely different way from everyone else on the damn planet. Odds of this? Incredibly low. Odds of him cheating? Much higher.

 

[electric method]

After watching the video DoPo linked (btw, it's a great analysis. I highly recommend it), reading Electric Method's analysis, and drawing on my own chess knowledge, I'm convinced that the dude is cheating. The skill gap between the people he beat and himself is MASSIVE - the numbers don't quite tell the tale here. After doing some research (limited, so it's quite possible that I missed things), I can't find a similar situation at all. So either this is unprecedented or he's cheating like a mad bastard. Add in the moves he made matching up almost perfectly with the most powerful chess engine made so far and it doesn't look good.

Actually, chuckle, this did happen once before in recent times. It was either 1993 or 1999 (can't recall the date precisely however, the date and article is on chessbase. You can get there from the linky in the main article here, then look for chessbase's articles on cheating in chess at the bottom the page the link directs you too.)

What happened is a german, aged 55, with an established FIDE rating of 1900 entered a tournament where both Kasparov and Anand were playing. During the course of the tourney this lowly, humble 1900 player went on to post some seriously impressive tournament results. So impressive, he drew the attention of Anand and Kasparov. So absolutely stunning; his rating for that tournament was well over 2650.

As with all things that seem to good to be true, it was proven that our intrepid 1900 did, in fact, cheat.

Then there is the recent cheating scandal involving 3 titled French players at the 2010 Chess Olympiad. Yanno, that most prestigious of FIDE tournaments? These geniuses, all very good players 2 GM's and one IM I believe, decide upon using a code, cell phones and text messages to have one guy, the IM, be away from the tournament with a computer and chess engine. He was to watch the games broadcast over the internet the pass along the moves the engine suggested to his partners at the tournament. Shenanigans were suspected by other players at this event (all titled players) and the French Chess Federation stepped up and talked to all 3 of these folks. They *gasp* admitted what they did, then back peddled and denied, denied, denied. FIDE got involved and woops, all 3 of these players were suspended from competitive FIDE rated tournaments. One for 3 years. Another for 2 years 9 months and the last one 1 year 6 months. Oh, forgot to mention, one of the GM's involved in these hijinks was none other than the French teams captain. Shocking, I know right?

Long and short of it, yes you are correct. This has never happened before and will, probably, never occur.

 

[Treblaine]

This leads to a lot of all or nothing moves that a human would not play as they evaluate the position and move via the lense of risk/reward.

Accepting all you've said about computers I cannot accept that about a human player. Nothing in human psychology stops them taking that risk, especially the situation where he seem to have been set up agaisnt Grand Masters knowing he is of such a low level he's "not supposed to win". He has everything to gain from trying such a thing and little to lose.

Computers always think more captured material = win. This can be proven false within the context of the game from a number of positions where a master level player would sacrifice a piece, pawn or make an uneven exchange for a huge positional advantage.

Well they must be doing something right as computers doing that consistently beats grand masters.

They often only take into consideration the material aspects and tactics.

No, unless you are a psychic or you have him a lie detector test and he told you, you don't know what he was considering. You are making assumptions on his considerations.

As stated above, masters analyize

As stated before, he's not a Grand Master... why should he play like one?

It's an unsupported assertion that the only way a human can beat a grand master is playing like all the other grand masters.

When looking at his moves, they often express that no plan is being used

That could be the entire benefit for such a strategy, not that there is no plan, but no DISCERNABLE PLAN!

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you?

No. It's not like you ever explained that.

In fact I've spent about 6 hours, give or take, on this thread. That was time spent reading, posting and more importantly doing analysis.

No, you've spent 6 hours insisting - of your own free will - on something only now you've given me a 5 minute explanation. No one is going to pay you for this.

Would you work for free?

Yes.

You have accompished something that nobody else in my over 30 years in competitive chess has ever done. Most players at my level would have not even bothered to post or explain anything to you at all.

This IS a discussion forum, you know. You do know how these things work, right? If you want to persuade people, you have to post and explain.

your willful disregard of the obvious

You go on about how special your chess expertise is, how I cannot understand, then say your jargon filled and convoluted advice and analysis is "obvious".

Not once did you ask a question about a position or a move.

Because that is completely the wrong place to start. That's like a child curious about where all the animals on earth came from asking an Evolutionary Biologist about the chemistry of DNA molecules.

 

[Rabish Bini]

There's one question which I don't believe you've quite answered properly Treblaine.

How much do you actually know about chess, including FIDE tournaments and the like?

 

[Treblaine]

There's one question which I don't believe you've quite answered properly Treblaine.

How much do you actually know about chess, including FIDE tournaments and the like?

Read my comments and you'll find what you "believe" I haven't answered.

Also enough justification for why I deserve a useful explanation if you expect me to change my mind.

 

[Garrett]

I'm going to help Treblaine a little. What you're arguing about is "conclusivenes" of evidence. Treblaine wants something that would actually hold value in real court. What you, electric method, are providing is something that would at most justify getting full search warrant. A real evidence would be something like finding computer with chess engine installed with log consising his tournament games timed at exactly tournament time and ofcourse player moves would be identical to this guy's opponent. Now THAT'S an evidence.

I will have to try another method here. I will attempt, in the simplest terms possible to explain to you the differences between computers and humans and the relevance here. Maybe then you'll start to grasp this.

Get a grasp on this. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE THINK. Our knowledge of human brain is still in fairly basic form. We don't know how everything works. You can say what is the difference between AI and existing game masters based on solely on experience of analysing their games. But that doesn't mean some gm wouldn't suddenly change his game style. You can't just say "human would definitely play this move over that one"

"Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it." You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you? I have used my knowledge and talent repeatedly in this thread. I have given more than generously of my time, talent and insight. Both as a experienced and knowledgable player as well as someone that caught computer assisted players.

Oh really? Then let me enlighten you, how do you look in some eyes:

Oh, so you lowly, talentless, idiots want to know why am I, the grand master of everything that is intelligent, sure that piece of a trash cheated. (here be some moves explanation). What, to hard for you? Oh silly me, I forgot that even fraction of my intelligence is too much for common people.

I might've overcolour it a bit (but only a bit!) for shit'n'giggles but you get a drill. You "sound" like a pompuos dick. And please note that it is not because of your games explanations (well actually I don't know since I didn't read them) but it's mainly because of your prologue to them like "I apologize in advance but I will say complicated stuff". That and continously asking other to present knowledge on certain level which IS NOT REQUIRED. You act like we really need to understand chess at certain level to get this but it's simply not true. You don't need to know advanced physics to understand why MotoGp racers don't fall off their bikes every turn. And if you're so worried that you're giving your "knowledge" for free then you should stop writing here and go look somewhere where people will appreciate you for the self proclaimed god you are.

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

Actually it's not that simple. I'm not sure but chess engines should be using neural networks at least a bit. So for example if two moves have same "move strength", AI would use its own "experience" to choose one over another (or just choose randomly). Also one game is divided in three parts (both for AI and humans I believe). Opening, middle and end game. For opening part, computers have installed gigabytes of data (well, at least specific computers made specifically to play chess, chess programms available to common public have some compromises here) on opening moves from games played since chess games started to be archivised. Basically, in opening part, AI would rely on this data comparing board pattern with its data and choosing "best" moves. This is where possibility of different moves made even with exact same chess engine should be greatest.
Then in the middle part you have your normal tree reading game when AI would try to read as much possibilities and go with the move that returned highest "move strength" (this is counted pretty much how electric method described "computahrz wayz of tinkin'" in his post before getting upset for being called on hiding behind his knowledge).
Then we have end game, which is different for man and machine. Machine will enter end game mode when it knows the outcome of the game. That is if it knows, beyond any action of the opposing player, that it will 100% win. Or if it doesn't see the way to win, knows it can at least get a draw (and possibly a win thanks to opponent mistake). If such board pattern won't materialise AI will be stuck in middle game untill such pattern materialise, it will get mated, left in a position in which even three year old could mate it (then it will resign by itself) or being in losing end game pattern itself and learnt that its opponent is no pushover and likely won't make any mistake and then too it will resign (albeit much earlier). End games pattern are also stored as data from the get go. So no, 100% match would be hard to get even with the same programm on the same machine.

Please note, that I'm not sure of everything I wrote above about chess AI. It's been a while since I've been in a loop about that and even then, I was only partialy interested so don't call me on that.

 

[electric method]

I'm going to help Treblaine a little. What you're arguing about is "conclusivenes" of evidence. Treblaine wants something that would actually hold value in real court. What you, electric method, are providing is something that would at most justify getting full search warrant. A real evidence would be something like finding computer with chess engine installed with log consising his tournament games timed at exactly tournament time and ofcourse player moves would be identical to this guy's opponent. Now THAT'S an evidence.

I will have to try another method here. I will attempt, in the simplest terms possible to explain to you the differences between computers and humans and the relevance here. Maybe then you'll start to grasp this.

Get a grasp on this. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE THINK. Our knowledge of human brain is still in fairly basic form. We don't know how everything works. You can say what is the difference between AI and existing game masters based on solely on experience of analysing their games. But that doesn't mean some gm wouldn't suddenly change his game style. You can't just say "human would definitely play this move over that one"

"Stop hiding behind your special knowledge and use it." You have no idea exactly how offensive that is nor the serious breach in chess ettiquete that is do you? I have used my knowledge and talent repeatedly in this thread. I have given more than generously of my time, talent and insight. Both as a experienced and knowledgable player as well as someone that caught computer assisted players.

Oh really? Then let me enlighten you, how do you look in some eyes:

Oh, so you lowly, talentless, idiots want to know why am I, the grand master of everything that is intelligent, sure that piece of a trash cheated. (here be some moves explanation). What, to hard for you? Oh silly me, I forgot that even fraction of my intelligence is too much for common people.

I might've overcolour it a bit (but only a bit!) for shit'n'giggles but you get a drill. You "sound" like a pompuos dick. And please note that it is not because of your games explanations (well actually I don't know since I didn't read them) but it's mainly because of your prologue to them like "I apologize in advance but I will say complicated stuff". That and continously asking other to present knowledge on certain level which IS NOT REQUIRED. You act like we really need to understand chess at certain level to get this but it's simply not true. You don't need to know advanced physics to understand why MotoGp racers don't fall off their bikes every turn. And if you're so worried that you're giving your "knowledge" for free then you should stop writing here and go look somewhere where people will appreciate you for the self proclaimed god you are.

Further when one plugs these games into a chess engine one sees that his moves match up with the number 1 suggested move of the engine a frightening number of times.

Shouldn't it happen... EVERY TIME. A couple of times isn't enough, especially as so many peices only have 2 or three effective moves, like knight pawn and so on.

Here's how you can prove he is cheating.

Take the game move-by-move and put them into various chess engines. Because here is the thing about computers, with the same input the output would always be the same.

So it wouldn't be a case that 90% of the moves were "computer like" in any random order. But that the moves would match up PERFECTLY with a chess engine.

If a lot of them don't, and they are not in the same order as any chess engine, that does not fit with the cheating theory, then you still need definitive evidence.

Actually it's not that simple. I'm not sure but chess engines should be using neural networks at least a bit. So for example if two moves have same "move strength", AI would use its own "experience" to choose one over another (or just choose randomly). Also one game is divided in three parts (both for AI and humans I believe). Opening, middle and end game. For opening part, computers have installed gigabytes of data (well, at least specific computers made specifically to play chess, chess programms available to common public have some compromises here) on opening moves from games played since chess games started to be archivised. Basically, in opening part, AI would rely on this data comparing board pattern with its data and choosing "best" moves. This is where possibility of different moves made even with exact same chess engine should be greatest.
Then in the middle part you have your normal tree reading game when AI would try to read as much possibilities and go with the move that returned highest "move strength" (this is counted pretty much how electric method described "computahrz wayz of tinkin'" in his post before getting upset for being called on hiding behind his knowledge).
Then we have end game, which is different for man and machine. Machine will enter end game mode when it knows the outcome of the game. That is if it knows, beyond any action of the opposing player, that it will 100% win. Or if it doesn't see the way to win, knows it can at least get a draw (and possibly a win thanks to opponent mistake). If such board pattern won't materialise AI will be stuck in middle game untill such pattern materialise, it will get mated, left in a position in which even three year old could mate it (then it will resign by itself) or being in losing end game pattern itself and learnt that its opponent is no pushover and likely won't make any mistake and then too it will resign (albeit much earlier). End games pattern are also stored as data from the get go. So no, 100% match would be hard to get even with the same programm on the same machine.

Please note, that I'm not sure of everything I wrote above about chess AI. It's been a while since I've been in a loop about that and even then, I was only partialy interested so don't call me on that.

What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

With his performance he "earned" a GM norm. All he'd need is a few more performances like this and he would be granted the title "Grand Master". FIDE takes this, and all international titles, very seriously. They are not just handed out like candy. Futher, the games of masters, during the tournaments where they earned their norms, are reviewed. If anything odd or suspicious is present, an investigation takes place. What he's done with this shenanigan is to tarnish the title of Grand Master.

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

During the reviews of these games, with a few exceptions and the removal of the opening sequence, his correlation rating (often it is multiple moves in sequence) reaches over 90% with the first move choice of the engine Houdini3 (the strongest chess engine). 88+% with another not as powerful engine and over 90% with an engine called fritz 13. Also, the likelyhood of a 100% correlation across multiple engines is very low due to things like their AI, how their programing is written and the like. Each engine approaches the "crunching" a lil differently. However, they all share the same material obsession and tactical vision.

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

 

[Garrett]

What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

Nothing, we just like court like evidence because in its idea it proves criminal beyond any doubt. If I were to be tried for something I didn't do I would very much liked to be judged based on this kind of evidence. If I did commit some crime I would like this type of evidence very much as it would be harder to bent judgment

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

I didn't write "100% with multiple engines". I meant it wouldn't be 100% even with the exact same engine.

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

"conclusively proven" And there we go again ┐(-｡ｰ┌

 

[Atmos Duality]

Today, I learned there are a lot of people in this thread who don't understand "Correlation = Causality" is a logical fallacy, and that Chess is so mathematically derived it isn't worth playing.

Oh, and I also learned that conclusive evidence is useless, because figuring out how someone cheated isn't as important as banning them.

Good fucking God this topic got stupid.

 

[electric method]

What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court. If it were, it would be for something civil, like obtaining cell records. Anything that FIDE or his country's federation would need to reasonably invade his privacy. Where this gentleman's fate will be decided is in his country's chess federation, FIDE and the country's federation where the tournament took place.

Nothing, we just like court like evidence because in its idea it proves criminal beyond any doubt. If I were to be tried for something I didn't do I would very much liked to be judged based on this kind of evidence. If I did commit some crime I would like this type of evidence very much as it would be harder to bent judgment

These entities will not require "evidence" on a scale that treblaine is asking for. Would they like it, yes? However, the analysis of the FM and other titled players out there about the games, the rating history and game history plus his extraordinary perfomance is all FIDE would need to be "reasonably sure" something untoward happened. More than likely this gentleman is done in competitive chess. More than likely he will be suspended from FIDE rated tournament play for over 3 years, if not permanently, because what he did is so heinous.

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

You are correct about opening book(s) in engines as they relate to chess. There is to much variation for them to return a 100% with multiple engines simply because of the sheer volume of openings and variations. Where the correlation would be middle and endgame. The endgame, if in an open position, would probably land a 98 - 100% correlation. In a closed one it would drop. In the middle game it could potentially max at 98-100%.

I didn't write "100% with multiple engines". I meant it wouldn't be 100% even with the exact same engine.

From the sheer amount of correlation across 3 very powerful engines 90%+, 88%+, and 90% plus, coupled with the games in where he did make mistakes, his rating history and game history. And the mistakes he made in games where he lost, or the live feed was down where his performances drops from 2697 to 2200. It can be conclusively proven he did, in fact cheat. This guy is finished in competitive chess.

"conclusively proven" And there we go again ?¢(-¡°?¡

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently. Just the fact that he goes from 2200 - 2700 level play is the grounds for suspicion. The fact that he played exponetially better than the best world champion the world has ever seen( his level of play would beat Garry Kasparov soundly and make Kasparov look like a 1200) and the over 90% correlation in two engines and 88%+ correlation in another is plenty to strike his tournament results and GM norm. Add in comparison of his older games, where he is barely holding his own against other 2200's the wandering play in game 2 and the horrid blunder of Bd6? in game 2. Going from 2650 level of play to like 1850 with one move is evidence. Couple that with his other loss where his performance rating is 2200 or below, after playing above world champ level, and it seems like he is more than one person playing his games and FIDE has enough to perma ban him from chess.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

As to the things you posted about my "behavior". It's like this. It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole? Treating me like a dog with comments that come across as "you need evidence! Go fetch the stick boy!" As well as outright asking a master level player to teach him for free in a insanely disrepectful way and that's ok? It's ok that he repeatedly crapped all over other posters and been obscenely inflammatory and disrespectful to all of us but, when I get upset because of his ridiculous behavior it's not ok? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

I have a lot of patience, a pretty thick skin and am pretty tolerant but, I will be damned before I roll over and let someone not only be that disrespectful but, also treat me like I am some personal lapdog to hunt down his precious "evidence". To hell with that.

 

[Garrett]

snip

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently. Just the fact that he goes from 2200 - 2700 level play is the grounds for suspicion. The fact that he played exponetially better than the best world champion the world has ever seen( his level of play would beat Garry Kasparov soundly and make Kasparov look like a 1200) and the over 90% correlation in two engines and 88%+ correlation in another is plenty to strike his tournament results and GM norm. Add in comparison of his older games, where he is barely holding his own against other 2200's the wandering play in game 2 and the horrid blunder of Bd6? in game 2. Going from 2650 level of play to like 1850 with one move is evidence. Couple that with his other loss where his performance rating is 2200 or below, after playing above world champ level, and it seems like he is more than one person playing his games and FIDE has enough to perma ban him from chess.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

As to the things you posted about my "behavior". It's like this. It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole? Treating me like a dog with comments that come across as "you need evidence! Go fetch the stick boy!" As well as outright asking a master level player to teach him for free in a insanely disrepectful way and that's ok? It's ok that he repeatedly crapped all over other posters and been obscenely inflammatory and disrespectful to all of us but, when I get upset because of his ridiculous behavior it's not ok? Are you kidding me? Seriously?

I have a lot of patience, a pretty thick skin and am pretty tolerant but, I will be damned before I roll over and lets some not only be that disrespectful but, also treat me like I am some personal lapdog to hunt down his precious "evidence". To hell with that.

You know, reading your responses is quite funny. It's like you get only about 1/3 of the whole post and respond to this part completely ignoring the rest. Since I'm tired of dividing up your response so it would be easier to read, I'll do this ine one block.

Ok, form my standpoint this part of the discussion was finished. We know he is not going to be tried in the court. We just like the kind of evidence in ANY situation were someone is being accused of something. And we're not talking with your FIDE or whatever. This discussion is completely unrelated to what's going to happen to the guy. Just because FIDE won't bother with real evidence doesn't mean noone should. We know he is not going to the real court. Ok? And why did you feel to made another explanation? It's completely unrelated to this part of statement. My "Nothing, we just like court like evidence" was a direct response to yours "What, exactly, is so hard to understand that about; this is NOT going to court.". It meant that it is in fact NOT hard to understand this case is NOT going to court BUT nontheless we LIKE that kind of evidence. And out of this pretty straight and I thought conclusive answer you went with another analysis. And now you're also claiming that chess AI get to the point where it's got complete upper hand over people (and downgraded Kasparov to the amateur level, I hope he'll read this topic) which is not true. And why "Bd6" again? It's like you have a grudge on that guy over it. You repeat it continously. I might just start calling you "Bd6 Qf3"...

"It's ok that Treblaine acts like an over-the-top evil moustache twirling super villian, jerk and complete asshole?"
xD That made me laugh. I might not remember it correctly (and I'm not going to bother with reading the topic again) and since I more or less get what he mean and can't get your logic I might be a bit biased, but it's something like this:
Everyone (except some random "geez, maybe he just really is that good" guys that left after that) agrees that this guy's a cheat. Treblaine asks for hard evidence. You "attack" him with your "evidence is here: game analysis". Then he's like "but you do realize it's not hard evidence?". To which you respond whith analysis again (which is probably the same as the first one) this time imposing on his intelligence "do you really know how to play chess"? And the it's "but dude, it's really not hard evidence, there exist possibility that it wasn't due to cheating". And you go again another analysis (probably same as first two) with yet again asking about his competence (which btw. Treblaine was quite nice in that regard, because if I was in his place I would ask if you're a fucking moron for not understanding the concept of "probability is not flat 0" and that I'm not asking you for game analysis). And you did few rounds of it (seriosuly, why did you feel the need to present this game analysis multiple times (I'm sure I read 3 or 4 of your posts that were identicall in terms of content). It's not like he's going to accept it if you repeat it over and over again.
And he didn't ask you (master level player, lol, you really have are pompous, probably why you're not working with chess anymore ) to teach you chess. He asked you to explaing what you believe is conclusive evidence in terms which is possible to understand by non professional chess players. Which if you understand the game so well, shouldn't be that much of a problem. That's how good teachers are found, by their ability to explain things to idiots.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This will not be judged in a criminal court. He did not commit a crime. The evidenciary standards are not the same. Conclusively proving this is not; show me a signed confession, bring me the engine he used, the method employed to use said engine all wrapped up in a pretty bow. The evidence, at hand, would be more than enough to suspend or ban him, beyond any reasonable doubt, on any of the online chess sites permanently.

The type of evidence Treblaine, and even yourself are asking for, is, probably, not going to be found. This guy will never confess to the who, what, when where and how in this. He stands to lose way to much. He earned a prize in the event. He earned a GM norm. He stands to lose his ability to play in tournament level chess competitively permanently as well as never being able to earn any title in any chess federation in the world. At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

There is real value in finding "hard evidence" here, even if it isn't in a court room.
If he can cheat in such a manner, and doing so is detrimental to the game, would it not be sensible to figure out exactly HOW he cheated so others don't follow suit? Banning him might fix the symptom, but it doesn't cure the problem (and a problem you've gone to great length to discuss already).

Personally, the fact they couldn't conclusively prove or show how he cheated suggests to me poor standards of officiating at their tournaments; it really does hurt their reputation and the integrity of their competitions if I know that someone can ruin an otherwise great match, even if they are later banned.

 

[Steven Lahey]

Reading over this farce, I have to say that Method has given hard evidence of cheating. Seeing as he cant go to the man's house, pull back the curtain and say "HERE IS THE MACHINE BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!", this is the best evidence he can give. He has posted previous game statistics of the person, game history, ranking, as well as the current playing level exhibited in the match...they all lead to one simple fact..he cheated. As a low level player myself, I have a bit of a hard time following all of what Method posted in regards to positioning, however, it does make a lot of sense. I don't think he was trying to be MR. Ego Cock, he was just explaining that some of this would go over lower level players heads; which it does. There is also the fact that he is ranked as a 2200 level player, however he played the competition at a 2700 level. I know from experience that it takes about a couple years of hard study to raise your playing level just 50 points. to raise your level damn near 500 points in an instant, screams cheating.

As far as the comment about the reasons behind Method not reffing chess anymore, as well as saying he may not actually have the skill he says he has...that was uncalled for. I happen to have seen Method play chess, and have known him for awhile; he is as good as he says. He has the positional understanding of a grand master, though he may not be ranked as a grand master. He is however ranked right around the international master level. As far as him reffing chess, that was his choice not to do it anymore for reasons of his own. This is why you don't make those type of comments about someone you don't know or have never met.

In ending (to bring this back to the original topic), Yes there is no doubt that this guy cheated somehow. The only question is what method did he use to cheat.

 

[Treblaine]

You know, I'm also "reasonably sure" he did cheat. It's just that I know the difference between "reasonably sure" and "120% sure beyond ANY doubt". And there is a difference. And this is ultimately why Treblaine is so persistent in his defense (or at least I think so).

More or less, yes.

You can go back in this thread find all the quotes of; absolutely "impossible", "definitively", "conclusively" and so on but when you actually persuade them to give an explanation for them saying such things it turns out to be much less than that.

I don't like being expected to find a man guilty yet not being given an explanation of how he is guilty. Nothing but insistence that he is.

It is affront to my deepest and most important values on justice, as a principal.

 

[Baneat]

Morse code vibrating receiver in the foreskin and a butt-plug that transmits morse-code or some other similar protocol to relay the moves made.

Lots of ways you could configure this and make it difficult to actually confirm.

Make him play in a metal box to block wireless transmitters? bug-scanner?

 

[Treblaine]

this is the best evidence he can give.

Best evidence is not automatically good evidence. Best is a relative thing.

The best evidence for bigfoot... isn't very good evidence.

At a minimum his reputation is completely tarnished and no self-respecting player is ever going to play him from this point forward for fear that he will use assistance. At worst he will never again compete on the world stage and will forever been known as a cheater.

"is"

if that's his status now then he really has nothing to lose if he did cheat, at least he can impress people which how he was so good at cheating at chess he had to tell them how he did it. But having all the downsides of being considered a cheat, yet not even the satisfaction of "here's how I did it".

You've clearly demonstrated how adamant the chess community is, it's not like him staying silent would convince anyone that's involved in competitive chess.

And realise, I'd be totally fine if he came out and said how he cheated. Because I'm not saying that I know for certain he didn't do it, I'm saying evidence is needed to prove one way or the other.

His staying silent doesn't prove anything by the way.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Er... how is it even possible to cheat at Chess in the first place?

I mean... its not like say... poker where someone might be hiding cards up their sleeves or counting the cards...

so, what the hell?