I sincerely hoped that Shakhriyar Mamedyarov would man up and apologize for making entirely unfounded accusations of computer-assisted cheating against Igor Kurnosov after his loss to the Russian at the Aeroflot tournament last month. True, it would take more sense and courage than it took to write the letter to back down now, but he could claim it was a crime of passion, heat of the moment, post-game stress disorder, whatever, make his apology and hope fans and organizers would put it in the past. Instead, Mamedyarov has done the forgetting, either that or he never heard the phrase "the first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
But here he is, shovel in one hand and Rybka in the other. His latest letter not only fails to apologize for making unfounded and false accusations (cheating unfounded and essentially impossible to prove or disprove, some descriptive details disproved), but continues down the the same road of attempted computer move matching with Kurnosov's games. His ingenious conclusion is that all of Kurnosov's moves match the computer's first choice, except when they don't. Sherlock Holmes, hang up your pipe you've met your match. That a computer agrees with the moves of the winning side in a short, sharp game is one of the most obvious things one can imagine.
If Mamedyarov continues down this destructive and self-destructive path we can expect things about nobody else really understanding, despite a plethora of GMs weighing in to say they saw nothing at all unusual in Kurnosov's play. Has the FIDE Ethics Committee said anything about this yet? If they were hoping it would blow over Mamedyarov just disabused them. Such accusations cannot be taken lightly, and by that I mean people who make them need to be punished or else we're going to see this garbage all the time. If Mamedyarov and others are really worried about computer assistance -- and it is a big worry in the opinion of most -- he should refuse to participate in events without stern anti-cheating measures in place. That instead of accusing his opponents with no evidence.
Last time I put these entirely unneeded details in the comments, but Mamedyarov's statement about all of Kurnosov's moves matching "strictly from the first line of Rybka" is piffle even given what I said above about how this is often be the case with GM miniatures. His cited win over Onischuk in the second round contains several very nice moves, no doubt, but it's certainly not a game that was garnering particular attention. Once again to the specifics. If no alternative moves are given it's because they are evaluated at least a half-pawn worse.
-- 13..Ba6 (-0.02) is close enough to 13..Na6 (-0.06) and 13..Bxb2 (-0.03) as to define "meaningless." Note it's the third move, not the first, on my machine, but of course with such tiny disparities it could switch back and forth on each iteration. The ..Ba6 idea against the white king's bishop with a knight on b8 is as old as Ernst Grunfeld himself. More recently, by Morozevich in 2008. Against Onischuk!
-- 14..Qc8 (0.04) vs 14..Bxc4 (0.00) and 14..Bxb2 (0.05). ibid.
-- 15..Kxg7 (0.04) vs 14..Bxc4 (0.04) the bishop must be recaptured and taking on c4 first is the only intermezzo.
-- 16..e6 (0.00) vs 16..Bxc4 (0.00) and 16..h6 (0.11). Again, worthless and debatable. I don't doubt ..e6 might be first by a hundredth or so depending on how long you wait.
-- 17..exd5 (-0.57) vs 17..Bxc4 (-0.57) and 17..Re8 (0.22). Meaningless transposition to the computer, since it wants to take on c4 before or after. The computer doesn't believe in White's pawn gambit.
-- 18..Bxc4 (-0.63) vs 18..Qe6 (-0.38). Unremarkable exchange. 18..Qe6 looks entirely bizarre and computer-like.
-- 19..Nc6 (-0.63) Routine development. Any other move would be odd, and bad.
-- 20..Rd8 (-0.63) Challenging the d-file. Again, other moves are significantly worse and would be hard to explain.
-- 21..Qf5 (-0.75) A strong move and the first one going slightly beyond the obvious. The close alternative, 21..Rxd6 (-0.74), is passive.
-- 22..Nxe5! (-1.29) vs 22..Rxd6 (-1.14). A powerful exchange sac and a Grunfeld player isn't happy unless he's playing one. As in various cases during this game, the closest alternative is a passive and unattractive option for any human Grunfeld player. Black has two pawns, a mighty knight, and threats against the white king.
-- 23..Nxf3 (-1.29). Or taking the rook first. Meaningless transposition and forced.
-- 24..Rxd8 (-1.29). Or Black is just worse.
-- 25..Nd4 (-1.29) vs 25..Nh4 (-0.88) or 25..Ne5 (-0.87). The centralization is natural and strong. Black threatens mate and will win another pawn after 26.Qd1 Qxf2.
-- 26..Qb1 (-6.39). The first move of a winning three-move combination after White blunders. The ..b5 deflection theme is pretty, but not hard to find from the attacking side.
-- 27..b5 (-6.39) Having said A, B. White resigns. The white pieces lose control of d1 and ..Ne2 will mate.
So, to wrap up, it looks for all the world like a typically dynamic Grunfeld. White sacrificed a pawn in the opening and Black took over the initiative with a nice exchange sac and then won with a cute tactic missed by White that was instantly lethal. As for Moiseenko-Kurnosov in r4, it was a 25-move liquidating draw of mostly captures. Not only do all of Kurnosov's moves match Rybka's first (or infinitesimally different alternatives), but all of Moiseenko's as well. Elementary, my dear Watson! As for Kurnosov not playing his best after being accused of cheating in front of the whole world by a former top-10 player, go figure.
Thanks for the level of detail there, no matter how much some of us would like to forget the incident.
I prefer the self-destructive idiot over the destructive kind but this is still terrible.
Mig is spot on.FIDE need to act to stop players making accusations of cheating like this. Shakhriyar Mamedyarov is degrading the sport with these absurd outbursts - the guy is acting foolishly I cant believe the Azeri chess federation endorse this.
If Kurnosov was ever cheating then this will stop him for sure. If he was not, then he now got some extra motivation to prove how good he is. Also. he should thank Memadyarov for becoming famous, otherwise nobody would care about a 2600 player, as there are quite a few of them. Memadyarov is foolish in his behavior now, but I would not discount his accusations. I believe only some top players (perhaps top 20-30?) can make a decent judgement on what can see (ie, how many moves ahead) a 2600 player and what cannot see without Rybka (a more thorough examination of the "depth of chess vision" subject in chess from some top player would be most wellcome). Or was he just lucky to get to positions where "Black moves and wins in 3 moves" ...
Time will tell if Memadyarov was right or not.
Yes, Pali, I'm sure a cheating scandal - discouraging invitations, upping the pressure and ensuring all his opponents pay particular attention to him - was just what Kurnosov needed. He really should send Mamedyarov a thank-you note.
Qualifying for Dortmund after winning Aeroflot, a very real possibility before Mamedyarov's outburst, wouldn't have done his career any good at all...
mishanp,good point buddy,i like your irony.pali realy,go kiss mame's buttocks somewhere else.we got enough of your promamedyarov no matter what ,comments.
Mig--
Very, very nicely done.
Is it fair to say that a cheating accusation w/o this sort of analysis is just piffle?
I kept waiting for something like this to be worked up for Topalov-at-San Luis, but I don't think anyone ever did it.
ha ha ha, You still cant get over it Greg?
Should i quote Svidler again about accepting the beating Topa gave to the elite in San Luis?
If they can move on , why not you?
Nice analysis, thanks.
As I indicated in my other, misplaced post: I think it should be routine for FIDE to check the validity of such claims. I would also like to see some guidelines in place, on how to deal with someone who makes accusations. You don't want to scare off potential whistleblowers, so you need a well-balanced approach.
I don't like what Mamedyarov is trying to do to his colleague, and I still can't see why he is so sure, but if he honestly thinks Kurnosov did cheat, going public is the only option to do something about it. An official way to complain and investigate would help.
¨I do not see any special reason to suspect Kurnosov was using hints from the computer. I just think that the doubts of Mamedyarov prevented him from playing calmly, and he conducted this game worse than his usual level. I played a prepared line with Kurnosov. At one moment my opponent was thinking for 40 minutes and then found several fantastic moves that even a chess program doesn’t see from the beginning. Although he played some moves according to the first line of the computer I could see how hard he was thinking, that’s why I consider his using the computer’s help improbable. In any case we should not underestimate Kurnosov. He is very solid player who recently won the strong tournament in Hastings. He is self-confident and would not agree to a draw if he likes his position.¨
This is from chessbase .An interview with Moiseenko, winner (or second place , not sure) with Bacrot of the Aeroflot open.
Does anyone else laugh aloud whenever someone claims as evidence of cheating that a player's moves match "strictly from the first line of Rybka", without so much as offering to reveal the search depth at which the evaluation was reached?
It seems pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a chess engine that it's not unusual for the "first line" (aka, "principal variation") to fluctuate as the analysis gets deeper.
What Rybka thinks is best at 6-ply is often not the same by the time it reaches 20-ply!
Utterly ridiculous.
I am not in favor of randomly accusing players of cheating, but what exactly is a player supposed to do when he suspects his opponent is cheating?
The answer: nothing unless you have 100% sure hard proof just won't do as obviously in tournament conditions you will never be 100% sure with hard evidence. Was Mamedyarov supposed to follow his opponent to see what he was doing? That's not even legal as he can't leave the board when it's his move. If there was a way to be 100% sure, we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place. Doh. Potential cheats will love the way almost everybody has reacted to this by vilifying Mamedyarov.
What's with all these Azeris having inflated egos??! I don't see anything more than Mamedyarov allowing the draw-refusal to get to him and put up a fit just to get even with his opponent without having any concrete proof. I remember Radjabov also withdrawing from Lineras-Morelia because the organisers didn't cough up some ridiculous amounts to make him stay after he claimed his laptop got stolen. And then everyone knows how ill-mannered Kasparov was. At least he channelized his anger to perform on the board (although the hatred he earned and his inflated ego in not participating in Dortmund meant that he never again got a shot at the world title after losing to Kramnik), but these youngsters seem to be nothing more than spoilt brats.
I hope FIDE bells these cats (or maybe they are the cats themselves)..
@hmm:
Maybe the reason almost everybody has reacted to this by vilifying Mamedyarov is because almost everybody is convinced he is WRONG?
My take on this is Mamedyarov felt his opponent's behavior was suspicious because he 1) refused an early draw with Black against a higher-rated opponent 2) left the board often when it was not his turn to move, and 3) he played good moves that Rybka also believes are good (at an unspecified search depth).
Re: #1, is that something you can take to the arbiter? "Mr. Arbiter, my opponent must be cheating because I'm higher rated and he won't accept my draw offer!" Ha ha ha!
Re: #2, fair enough. So inform the arbiter during the game so he may investigate and monitor while the "cheating" is allegedly taking place.
Re: #3, not convincing (to me). Maybe it would have some weight if Kurnosov were an amateur, but he's not-- he's a strong GM who can be expected to make good moves that a computer will often agree with. Or maybe if Kurnosov played an unnatural, surprising, "computer" variation that one might argue no human would ever play... but AFAIK that's not what Mamedyarov claims.
Mamedyarov is being vilified here because he's acting like an ass and doesn't seem to know when to stop!
Okay this is a stupid allegation by Mamedyarov, but it does go to show that time-stamps do matter when it comes to recording chess games. Had there been more substance in his allegation, and if a serious investigation were to be held, one would need to know how long a 'cheater' had to make his moves (or how long Rybka had to analyze a position). But even then, I doubt if investigators can conclude anything with certainty since they would have no clue of the hardware the 'cheater' ran his Rybka on.
Signal jammers seem to be a must, in today's world. Any idea how expensive it would be for every 'major' tournament to have it installed?
IMO At this moment in history it would be great if professional chess and FIDE went separate ways , for their own good.
I hope (wish) the Grand Slam grows enough to take over the organization of the WCH cycle , with impressive locations and fully sponsored matches , with the latest standars of anti-cheating measures in place .
I ´d like to see something like that happening , and FIDE focused more on local tournaments , school work , promotion and things like that.
But for this to be true (or else )the game should not get murdered by the cheat or its shadow.
One thing that we have in particular is that in our sport/game the oponent is generally the one that is doing the acusations.
There is doping and cheating in all professional sports , but in most of them is never the player/oponent the one to do the police work .
I think we should change that and establish a procedure for the organizers to handle this situations and prevent our beloved idiots from hurting themselves an others with their egos.
@mishanp:
discouraging invitations:
Most believe he was not cheating so increasing visibility does not discourage invitations, maybe the other way around
upping the pressure:
I hope so, especially if he was guilty.
If not, then why more pressure. When I am accused of something I did not commit - I am relaxed.
Winning Aeroflot:
Keep dreaming.
@danyplayer: I guess you are good buddy of mishanp, really, no need to kiss mame's buttocks right here. And read my post again. I am not pro Memadyarov, I just like to analyize their behavior objectively.
Mamedyarov will go down.
"If not, then why more pressure. When I am accused of something I did not commit - I am relaxed."
Oh come on - knowing that any time you lose people like you and Mamedyarov are going to seize on it as "evidence" of cheating - how does that encourage a relaxed attitude?
"Winning Aeroflot:
Keep dreaming."
And that's just silly. Kurnosov finished half a point back, beating Mamedyarov and drawing with the two players who finished ahead of him. So he had every chance of winning the tournament.
Re: people saying Mamedyarov had no other options to deal with suspected cheating - it's untrue. He should have done what he initially did and brought the matter to the attention of the arbiters/organisers, but kept playing in the tournament. They would have watched Kurnosov closely, and in the unlikely scenario that he actually was cheating there'd be a chance of catching him red-handed. Instead Mamedyarov threw a fit, went public with absurd "proof", and quite possibly ruined the reputation of both himself and Kurnosov.
"I guess you are good buddy of mishanp" - I don't know a single person on this board personally.
"If not, then why more pressure. When I am accused of something I did not commit - I am relaxed."
"Oh come on - knowing that any time you lose people like you and Mamedyarov are going to seize on it as "evidence" of cheating - how does that encourage a relaxed attitude?"
OK, he is going to play now mediocre chess (for his level) for the next 5 years because he was once upon a time accused of cheating. And he has got a good excuse for playing mediocre - your post proves it.
There are some funny things, like in his letter Kurnosov did not state that Memadyarov destroyed his chance of winnning Aeroflot. He also does not appear to file an official FIDE complaint or a legal claim (the latter perhaps not a big surprise as such legal claims in Russian court would not get him much, in my opinion).
On the other side he won the strong Hastings with 2760 performance recently and at least two GMs he played recently do not think he cheated. Memadyarov's second letter is weak on evidence so I am a bit more inclined to believe Kurnosov as the time goes by and no additional evidence emerged.
"Memadyarov's second letter is weak on evidence"
hmm, I thought you were already convinced by the massive evidence prior to this letter?
I always thought that Shak was a well mannered, humble guy, but this behaviour shows his arrogance and lack of class. He's acting like a spoilt brat.
"I am a bit more inclined to believe Kurnosov as the time goes by...".
But you're still desperate to find the slightest excuse, however feeble, to doubt him.
"There are some funny things, like in his letter Kurnosov did not state that Memadyarov destroyed his chance of winnning Aeroflot".
From Kurnosov's letter: "Unfortunately, all these negative things could not but have an effect on my play in the rest of the tournament..."
"He also does not appear to file an official FIDE complaint or a legal claim..."
From Kurnosov's letter: "That the international chess organisation adopt a rule, under which serious sanctions would apply both to those who use outside help, ****and also to those who make unfounded accusations of such, against other players***."
As it stands there's basically nothing Kurnosov could do, except a bit of posturing.
I don't know about any of you, but if I couldn't afford a lawyer to sue him, I could certainly afford $100 to have someone teach Mame a lesson. A baseball bat to the knee might teach him to shut his big mouth.
@MamesKnee:
I am glad I do not know you.
Anyone checked the lines against Fritz 5 suggestions? Or Sargon III?
I'm amazed by the logic in Mamedyarov's second letter: a win by Kurnosov is proof of cheating. A draw by Kurnosov is proof of cheating. A loss (!) by Kurnosov is proof of cheating. Playing Rybka's first-choice move is proof of cheating. Playing Rybka's second choice move is proof of cheating.
You've gotta be reasonably bright to get to 2750, right? Mamedyarov seems to be blinded to reality by his angry conviction that he was wronged - weird.
That is an excellent summary Ashish!
I suppose that if someone suspects his wife of cheating he will have a biased look at her behavior. The question I would like to ask Mamedyarov is: could it be possible that your theory is wrong?
Let's all go to Shak's next tournament and loudly boo him every time we see him. When he confronts us we'll poke him in the eye and run away.
@Anish: Clearly Mamedyarov is not so bright. He may be able to play chess, but he is as dumb as a rock when it comes to public perception.
All future Mamedyarov games must be checked against Rybka. Maybe then he'll get it.
I'm with Dennis Monokroussos: ". . . on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being an airtight case for Mamedyarov and 1 pure, groundless paranoia, I'd give this about a 3."
I don't understand the "bright"ness logic here.
All three results are possible even when you use computer assistance against a higher rateds. Moreover, I don't think Mamedyarov is accusing Kurnosov of using assistance when Kurnosov had to lose that game. Also, a chess program can flip its choice at different levels. Claiming first or second choice with some doubt is better than claiming first choice. So?
Do we have enough reasons here to judge the 2750's bright or not-so brightness??
Let me ask this? ..to the people who are against any accusation without evidence or "proof". (But correct me if I am wrong. Hey, I am not that bright. Nowhere close to 2750. :) )
Do you guys think it is safe for someone to claim things like "My opponent is using computer assistance because his moves are matching Rybka's first choice!". Now you will never be able to challenge this! If you want to bring "proof" to disprove this, you will have to run all versions of rybka (you probably may not know which version the accuser claimed the cheater's friend was using!) and you will have to run at all possible depth levels for that one move and come up with your results. I don't know if it is possible at all to go to the highest of highest depth level to cover all depths unless the program could see a forced mate! If it is an material imbalance with roughly equal never ending situation, you might as well forget it. The computer will have an answer for you only at an infinite depth! So until then you just "shut up and put up!" Is that what you guys are saying in essense??
I am not taking into account the hardware and computer memory thing. I don't know if it would have effect on the calculation depth. Because Fritz would say FULL and would keep running. If you have to add that too, thats it!
Bottomline,
before we lose focus..
for the world chess federation and chess organizers to take note..
1. Address cheating first, address accusations next!!
2. You only need valid reasons to accuse! You don't need solid proof to accuse!!
If we don't do that, soon we'll have to start our games with shaking hands saying "Good Chess Cheating!!".
I guess, PircAlert, that you're not very familiar with the term "Presumption of innocence", are you?
Fine, then I'm hereby claiming that YOU (yes, PircAlert, you) cheated on your last game. I checked all your moves against... say... Faile (you're not a GM, you know) and they match with the machine's first choice.
Now let's have FIDE take actions against you and later on we'll check if my "valid reasons" are so valid, ok?
First of all, Ricordo, did I say Kurnosov is guilty? No!! But hey, you can accuse me! You have the right! Wait a second.. Do you have a valid reason? No! So you can't!! I don't wear that type of hat or something to hide some devices. I don't leave the board that often to unmonitored or monitored by my friend's places! Do I act a little bit weird to receive some signals? No. But if you still have a valid reason, go ahead! But, can not our chess world understand the difference between a valid and a non-valid reason when the world can understand the difference between doubt and reasonable doubt?!!!
How to use Rybka and not get on the hook.
A Brief Manual
A few days prior to tournament install some untraceable gadgets where you can view the info. Or use a code that only you can understand, such as sound or light signalling. The signalling should be preferably non-electronic, since electronic devices can be blocked or traced. Have a friend sitting with Rybka in a nearby apartment or hotel and perhaps another friend to do the signalling. All you need to do is go out for a few mins after every move to receive the info.
There is a difference between "presumption of innocence" and deny Mamedyarov the right to accuse. I don't like Mamedyarov's line of reasoning, and he should come up with better evidence or shut up. But it would be wrong to make an example of silencing an (overreaching) accuser, and doing not enough about the possibility of cheating. Professional cycling went a similar path of denial, hushed up those who talked about doping, and in the end it needed police and the courts to break the code of silence.
"2. You only need valid reasons to accuse! You don't need solid proof to accuse!!"
Well yes, valid reasons would be valid, but anything less than solid proof is totally invalid when it comes to making a public accusation against another player. You are, on the other hand, at liberty to bring your suspicions to the attention of the arbiter.
"1. Address cheating first, address accusations next!!"
Cheating has been/is being/will be addressed by FIDE and individual tournament organisers. Surely you've noticed that? A system of punishment to deal with unsubstantiated or malicious accusations of cheating doesn't exist and is sorely needed before this gets out of hand.
Of course Mamedyarov has the right to accuse whoever he wants. But in any civilized country it's him the one who has to prove his claims. It doesn't work the other way around. We're not in the dark ages, when you had to defend yourself after being accused of witchery or else be put to your death.
And as for valid or not valid reasons, mishanp said it much better than I could have. Solid proof is valid. Assumptions, beliefs or hunches are not. If you have a hunch, you tell the arbiter.
mishanp,
My last post crossed yours it looks. There is good reason to suspect in Mamedyarov's case. Extraordinary performance and suspicious behavior together make up a good reason to suspect. The immediate follow up action should have been a close monitoring without the knowledge of or without alerting your opponent (suspect). When you see something concrete then you search the person or whatever you have to collect the evidence. That didn't happen. That is the problem.
But what else do you expect a player to say when he suspect his opponent of cheating? Back to "shut up and put up?" You can't leave the board on your move I think. This point has been discussed here earlier I believe. Of course, I am for punishment of players who accuse others for no real reason, to bring in some sort of order. But I don't think this is of some unsubstantiated accusation or whatever you call it.
As someone already pointed out a few replies above, the so called valid reasons are almost a joke.
You call "valid reason" not accepting a draw? Leaving the board while you have to move? Playing good moves?
I can understand Mamedyarov's suspicion, in a way, but it's the arbiter who decides whether those reasons were valid or not. As far as I know, the arbiter asked around, checked him and pretty much did everything he could. Was he supposed to have him followed around? On what charge? What if the guy wanted to smoke? What if the guys was nervous? What if he didn't want just a draw in 14 moves?
If the same situation came up with an amateur like me, for example, I would understand Mamedyarov claimed I was cheating. But we're talking about a 2700 GM on good shape, please.
Ricordo,
Valid reason is something not for the arbiter to decide. It is for the chess federation and rules to decide.
If you ask me,
Not accepting a draw - NOT at all a valid reason.
Playing good moves - This alone is NOT a valid reason.
Leaving the table practically every move - VERY GOOD reason.
Talking or talking in a different language to someone or another player - GOOD reason.
Using electronic devices, equipments - VERY GOOD reason.
Extraordinary performance - GOOD reason for confidential reporting.
etc. etc.
Confidential reporting can be done for anything - valid or no valid reasons.
With this in mind, FIDE should come up with some guidelines for what can be and what cannot be considered a valid reason. A smart cheat would always have a workaround. So make room for that, and encourage confidential reporting in such cases. Frequent board leavers can be probably reported just openly.
THE DAY I COULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED BY MAMEDYAROV
Dear Mig:
Your great comments to the game have just reminded me of a game of mine in which I played 15 straight computer moves. This was a game between myself (ELO 2267 at that time) and MF Germán Della Morte (2345). But let's imagine I had played this game against Mamedyarov. He could have forgotten the theory and play a bad novelty in move 10 (not too different from his lousy opening moves against Kurnosov), and later play the best he can from a much worse position. Ok, then I play 15 straight computer first choice moves, play 26.Qe7 (which was pretty easy to spot, but I didn't do it in the actual game) and he resigns. What would have his reaction been? I give you the game with ironic comments about how I found those "computer moves". And besides: Kurnosov is +2600, if I could find these moves with an ELO 350 points below... how couldn't he?
Calderón Fernández, Gervasio - MF Della Morte, Germán (LNA 2007, Argentina) 18.08.2007 (you can find it in www.argedrez.com.ar)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3 h5 7. d3 Qf6 8. Nbd2 Ne7 9. Re1 Ng6
10. d4 (it was all a special preparation for the game, I never play 1.e4... non-elite players do also prepare the games) Bd7? (novelty... a dubious one, like Mame's attacking ideas against the Grünfeld)
NOW THE COMPUTER 1ST CHOICES BEGIN!!
11. Nc4 (develop my knight attacking a central pawn... not bad) exd4
12. e5 (attack the queen, having the Nd6+ trick in mind) Qe6
13. Nd6+ (not a difficult combination to find) cxd6
14. exd6 (what else?) O-O-O
15. Rxe6 (otherwise the queen simple gets away) Bxe6
16. Nxd4 (looks dangerous, but I found 17.b4, so the pin is no problem) Rxd6
17. b4! (good move, but... what else can I do against c5?) Be7
18. Be3 (develop my bishop, defending the knight) Bf6
19. c3 (the only way to unpin my queen) Bc4
20. Qc2 (unpinning is not a bad idea) Rd5
21. a4! (ok, this was not easy to find; I used Dorfman's ideas in "The Method in Chess", the paradoxical idea of sharpening the position when you have material advantage but your opponent has better "static" position. I even remembered during the game the move 23.b4! in Dorfman-Karasev 1977... do we, the non-elite players, have the right to get ideas from the books? Or we can only use computers to rescue us?) Ne5
22. f4 (once I realized that against Nd3 I have 23.Rd1 Bxd4 23.cxd4! winning, this move was an obvious choice) Nd7 23. Qe4 (not so difficult, preventing Re8 and centralizing the queen) Bxd4
24. Bxd4 (recover the material and centralizing the bishop... difficult!) Rd6
25. Bxg7 (grabbing a pawn... no computer would have resisted such a snack) Bd5
26. Qd4?? (my computer broke, so I played my first "human" move; I f** missed 26.Qe7 Re6 27.Qxe6! winning. The game now changes, and I have the unpleasant task to defend a previously won position) Re8
27. Rd1 Rg6 28. c4 Rxg2+ 29. Kf1 Re4 30. cxd5 Rxd4 31. Bxd4 Rg6 32. dxc6 Rxc6 33. Rd3 Rc4 34. Rc3 Rxc3 35. Bxc3 Nb6 36. Kf2 Nxa4 37. Bd4 Kd7 38. Kg3 Ke6 39. Kh4 Kf5 40. Kxh5 Kxf4 41. h4 b6 42. Kh6 Kg4 43. Kg7 f5 44. Kg6 Kxh4 45. Kxf5 Kg3 46. Ke4 Kg4 47. Kd5 Kf5 48. Kc6 b5 49. Kb7 Ke4 50. Ba1 Kd5 51. Kxa6 Kc4 52. Ka5 Nc5 53. bxc5 1/2-1/2
Gracias. I've been restraining myself from going over a bunch of short Mamedyarov wins to do the same sort of thing. I'm sure he has a half-dozen that would match 90%, just like every other GM on the planet. It's just hard to imagine he's really serious with this junk, but I guess he is.
Suppose for a moment that Kobe Bryant walked off the court in a playoff game and, when interviewed, blamed his team's loss on the fact that Steve Nash was taking performance enhancing drugs. Absurd? You bet. Yet this scenario is not far off what Mamedyarov has done.
Accusing a chess professional of cheating is a very serious thing, an act that threatens the career of the accused that is akin to accusing a doctor of malpractice or a teacher of child abuse in so far as the accusation alone imperils the livelihood of the accused and, despite our misconceptions of fairness and justice--and contrary to what most people believe-- forces the accused to shoulder the burden of proof.
Mamedyarov, despite his lofty standing on the FIDE rating list, needs to feel the force of strong sanctions or the door to future abuse of the same kind will be wide open.
There is an interview with Alexander Moiseenko on www.chessbase.com where he states clearly that he doesn't suspect Igor Kurnosov of anything wrong in the game against him. Maybe we also need Alexander Onischuk's opinion.
It is quoted above by me, its the 10 th post in this thread.
PircAlert:
"1. Address cheating first, address accusations next!!
2. You only need valid reasons to accuse! You don't need solid proof to accuse!!"
1/ Cheating was addressed immediately, Kurnosov was asked to show content of his pockets, his game was checked by arbiters and nothing suspicious was found. Of course it doesn't prove Kurnosov was not cheating but I would say it's enough to start addressing accusation in paralel.
2/ Interesting point. First what were the valid reasons to accuse Kurnosov? If leaving the board often is the only problem, I don't find it valid enough to accuse. And Rybka analysis could not be the reason of initial accussation, because it would have to be done during the game.
Second, you might need only valid reasons to accuse directly after the game. But if you follow up with your accussation 1-2 weeks after you should have at least something close to proof. But the only thing Mamedyarov came up with in his 2nd letter is more Rybka analysis, which is neither solid proof, nor valid reason. And to be worse, other people don't agree with results of his analysis.
Moiseenko's interview was encouraging but he is a lawyer. All lawyers are always very cautios.
There is nothing cautious about that interview , Moiseenko clearly states that he don´t consider cheating provable.
In fact that ´s whay i copy-pasted the quote on this thread , it seemed a valuable opinion to me .
But like the pyromaniac said , it would be nice to hear Onischuk´s opinion.
How exactly does a player go about proving another player has been cheating? At best he can voice his suspicions to the arbiter and if the arbiter cannot find anything on the opponent, then what?
Players these days are too smart to carry anything on them. If you leave the playing hall and there's an accomplice outside with a Pocket Fritz that's not affected by the jamming devices in place, or some other player suggests a move to you while you are out smoking, then there's no way a player can prove that his opponent was cheating.
The point is, as long as the facilities are not top notch - security, anti-cheating measures (jamming devices, metal detectors, CCTVs, rules prohibiting players from getting up and leaving too many times, preventing non-players/spectators from moving freely between boards and getting very close to the players, toilet facilities located way outside of the playing hall etc.) then all this can affect a player's concentration and make some paranoid and give rise to suspicions of cheating.
There's really no way a player can prove his opponent has been cheating, if a direct search of his opponent reveals nothing, although he may well have been cheating using other sophisticated means. The onus lies on the organizers, establishment to see to it that they leave no stone unturned when it comes to putting anti-cheating measures in place. Was this done at Aeroflot? Were the measures the same as in Linares or any other Super-GM tournament? The probability of someone being able to cheat has to be negligible. If the organizers have done the best on their part, then it will be hard for players to accuse someone of cheating. But if there are many loopholes in the arrangement of a tournament, then who can blame the player for getting paranoid?
Re: Linares - I saw an interview with Grischuk where he said they had extremely relaxed security. As far as I can tell there were no metal detectors, and he even said it was ok for the players to exchange a few words during the games. That's probably going a bit far, but in the end it does come down to trust when we get to the absolute elite. As others have mentioned, there are too many ways to cheat that are essentially undetectable, unless you're really constantly observing the players and they're playing in hermetically sealed environments.
Just to add - I think the problem of cheating may be being slightly exaggerated. I'm sure it's rife at a low level, but when you're getting towards the elite the potential risks are enormous. Essentially if you're found cheating your career is over. If you're going to cheat with someone else assisting you (the obvious approach), then your whole career depends on that person never revealing the secret.
So even though cheating is extremely difficult to spot that doesn't make it an attractive proposition at the highest level.*
* unless your career is coming to an end and you have absolute faith in your wheeler-dealer manager :)
"If you're going to cheat with someone else assisting you (the obvious approach), then your whole career depends on that person never revealing the secret."
Not necessarily, only if the other person can backup later revelations/accusations with solid evidence. Otherwise, it will be merely "word against word".
To give a _somewhat_ related example: Nigel Short was rather close friends with Topalov + Danailov during the San Luis WCh. They no longer are, because Short subsequently "suggested" that Topalov may have been cheating. Is this proof, did he have solid evidence to present? NO.
Anyone who actually assisted in cheating would presumably be able to reveal some incriminating details (what the code was etc.), which could then be checked against video footage and so on. Short can't reveal anything as he wasn't party to cheating.
I've never been able to respect (or even understand) Short's conduct re San Luis.
He was working as a reporter and must have heard the rumblings but he never interviewed the accusers. He was "hanging" with Team Topalov but never asked them about the accusations. At the time Short said not a word about any cheating suspicions he might have had.
And then Short starts talking about San Luis cheating a year later? Huh?
Same thing with Kasparov. At the time he's praising Top's brilliant play. And then a year later he's putting out San Luis cheating insinuations. Anyone who can instantly identify computer cheating on the basis of a single move (IBM) should be able to do better than that.
I don't remember anything from Garry beyond his saying something to Fred along the lines of Danailov's odd behavior in the video leaving some questions to be answered. Something like that, though I can't even find it. He's avoided commenting on this stuff because while he knows it's a potential huge problem, accusations are just as bad. At least that's the party line; maybe I missed something?
"Adding irony to the tragedy is the fact that for the past year and a half Mr. Topalov himself has been the subject of rumors and even public accusations that he has cheated with computer assistance. Hard evidence is lacking, with some pointing to odd behavior by his assistants and other critics saying there is simply no other explanation for Mr. Topalov's sudden ascent to the top of the rating list after my retirement."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009029
I did not remember the context: Kasparov reminding his readers that the purveyor of the Elista cheating allegations had been, himself, been the subject of rumors and accusations. So I'll retract my "bash."
too many "beens."
Kasparov stole Shirov´s right for a wch match and gave it to Kramnik, i consider that and his insinuations related to his nationality .
If (let´s say )Shirov were the one with so many trips to the bathroom im not sure what his opinion would be.
Interesting enough Karpov said that there was nothing tangible on that video of Danailov.
Also it is funny what Kasparov wrote , because it is not ¨hard evidence ¨ what is lacking to acuse Topalov , there is simply no evidence of any kind .
On the off-chance that you honestly believe that the Shirov non-match has anything remotely to do with the matters under discussion:
"Kasparov stole Shirov´s right for a wch match..."
--The market set the (low) prize fund for what looked to be a lop-sided match. Kasparov offered it to Shirov and Shirov declined.
"I consider that and his insinuations related to his nationality."
--I don't understand. If Kasparov "dumped" Shirov to play the Russian Kramnik, why did he offer the match to the Indian Anand first?
"If (let´s say) Shirov were the one with so many trips to the bathroom im not sure what his opinion would be."
--Probably the same as his opinion of Kramnik's restroom trips in 2000 when Kasparov simply asked that the restrooms be monitored and Kramnik immediately agreed.
"Interesting enough Karpov said that there was nothing tangible on that video of Danailov."
--No one claims that the video proves anything. Many people say that a manager running out of a venue after every move, talking on the phone, coming back into the hall, and gesturing and making long eye-contact with his player is problematic.
"...there is simply no evidence of any kind."
--Evidence enough to convict? Certainly not.
--Evidence enough to make the existence of cheating more likely than not? Probably not.
--Evidence enough to raise a reasonable suspicion? Of course.
¨why did he offer the match to the Indian Anand first? ¨
Anand was going with FIDE by that time.
¨ On the off-chance that you honestly believe that the Shirov non-match has anything remotely to do with the matters under discussion:¨
If you are going to quote Kasparov´s poisonus insinuations against Topalov , yes it has something to do ...
¨--Evidence enough to raise a reasonable suspicion? Of course.¨
Sure greg ,your suspicion is very reasonable...
Please share with us how is Topa cheating this days , i mean like in the Kamsky match or Nanjin or Bilbao (in the glass cage with the live cam) .
"Anand was going with FIDE by that time."
--Anand rejected the 2000 match because GKK refused his demand to put the loser's share in escrow. But I'm sure Kasparov's nationality figured in there somewhere.
"...Kasparov´s poisonus insinuations against Topalov..."
--In the middle of the Topalov-Danailov show at Elista, Kasparov fairly pointed out that as far as cheating allegations went, Topalov lived in the mother of all glass houses.
"Sure greg ,your suspicion is very reasonable...
Please share with us how is Topa cheating [these] days..."
--I don't remember any mention of Nanjin or Bilbao having signal-jamming. But if you're arguing that Top's success at the cheat-proofed match against 15th-ranked Kamsky is some evidence that he wasn't cheating at San Luis, then wouldn't you have to admit that Top's failure at the cheat-proofed Elista match is some evidence that he WAS cheating at San Luis?
But I disagree. I don't think Top's results in subsequent events prove much of anything respecting the San Luis cheating allegations. Except that we still have the oddity that a player with an exceptional record at classical time controls can't quite match that performance in his faster games; unlike, for example, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand.
Both quotes are from Greg Koster:
"Many people say that a manager running out of a venue after every move, talking on the phone, coming back into the hall, and gesturing and making long eye-contact with his player is problematic."
I sort of agree, or at least I would call it provocative behavior, maybe even a deep strategy: If you "draw fire" on your own player, to some extent inviting cheating accusations against him, you earn(??) the right to accuse other players!? At least that's what several people have argued, and the Kasparov quote (by Greg Koster March 14 7:15PM) could also be interpreted in such a way ... .
However, IMO, vague cheating accusations against Topalov by several people are one thing, _concrete_ cheating accusations against your opponent during a match or tournament (Topalov, Mamedyarov, Tiviakov) is something else and worse.
"Except that we still have the oddity that a player with an exceptional record at classical time controls can't quite match that performance in his faster games ..."
But I discard this as completely irrelevant. Over-the-board chess is (among other things) a combination of calculation and intuition. Some people may calculate faster and/or rely more on intuition (e.g. Anand, especially in his younger years), others such as Topalov may simply need more time to calculate. And, stating the obvious, this is perfectly legal and acceptable. You can still be successful with the latter approach at slower time controls (unless you lose on time [in a winning position]), but it implies that you will be less successful at faster time controls.
¨But if you're arguing that Top's success at the cheat-proofed match against 15th-ranked Kamsky is some evidence that he wasn't cheating at San Luis, then wouldn't you have to admit that Top's failure at the cheat-proofed Elista match is some evidence that he WAS cheating at San Luis? ¨
You continue to not make any sense Greg.At all.
And drawing your first serious match in such conditions is not ¨failure¨.
¨¨Except that we still have the oddity that a player with an exceptional record at classical time controls can't quite match that performance in his faster games¨¨
Well we had the oddity of a world champion not dominating the tournament scene and with the same time controls than in a match ...
¨--In the middle of the Topalov-Danailov show at Elista, Kasparov fairly pointed out that as far as cheating allegations went, Topalov lived in the mother of all glass houses. ¨
Saying that a player cant acuse another because someone whisper to another someone that he migh be cheating (in another ocasion) is not fair.
I consider that a part of Garry nationalism .
You are comparing cheating acusations whispered by some bad losers (in San Luis)with a direct acusation made under reasonable suspicion.
You want to believe Topa cheats because you cannot accept his succes, greg .
And all you have is this ,using every oportunity to acuse Topa of cheating without any single proof , in the meantime you get crazy if someone points out that a player who refuses to play without his private toilet might be hiding something.
I guess this is going nowhere , so i leave it here , say what you want , you are intoxicated with envy.
Look 300+ photo from aeroflot2009
http://pokerchess.ru/photogallery.php?album_id=21
from w Euro Championship 2009
http://pokerchess.ru/photogallery.php?album_id=23
In his WSJ article during the Topalov-Kramnik Elista debacle, Garry wrote:
"The clear implication of the original protest was that Mr. Kramnik might be cheating during his restroom visits. In recent years the chess world has been rife with such suspicions thanks to the rise of powerful microcomputers and transmitting technologies. Several amateur chessplayers have even been caught using such devices to cheat in tournaments. I should add that Mr. Kramnik was leading 3-1 at the time of Mr. Topalov's protest, although it was mostly thanks to very shaky play by his opponent, not a display of suspiciously superhuman skill.
Adding irony to the tragedy is the fact that for the past year and a half Mr. Topalov himself has been the subject of rumors and even public accusations that he has cheated with computer assistance. Hard evidence is lacking, with some pointing to odd behavior by his assistants and other critics saying there is simply no other explanation for Mr. Topalov's sudden ascent to the top of the rating list after my retirement.
Chess has a long history of scandal and controversy at the highest level. ..."
This is far from insinuating anything. It would have been a major omission not to mention the accusations about Topalov, especially after just saying how such suspicions are increasingly frequent. The point was about the slippery nature of such accusations and what little they are based on.
Regarding my move-by-move analysis, this sort of analysis wasn't done on Topalov's San Luis games, at least not be me, for a few reasons -- not that I made a decision about it at the time. One, nobody I saw was accusing him of any remarkable moves or discussing coincidence between his moves and computer play. From what I remember everything was entirely circumstantial, based on the incredible result. Also, it seemed to build slowly and disappear for a while on several occasions. After first mentioning it here just a few weeks after San Luis due to the anonymous bs, it was pretty sporadic. Here's the first mention.
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/11/topalov-accused-of-cheating.htm
The move-by-move coincidence stuff from Danailov in 06 and now Mamedyarov is incredibly idiotic not just because it's piffle, but because any sensible person knows you don't need (and indeed wouldn't want) to make every computer first move. A GM would only need one or two comp tips per game to boost his performance radically. 100 points for a GM, perhaps? More? It would mean no big blunders and no tactical opportunity missed. Not enough to win every game, but yow, what a boost.
And with the Kurnosov accusation in particular, only a total moron would go out on every move were he actually cheating. There are only going to be three or four reasonable replies (usually just one or two in a sharp position) and a 2600 certainly wouldn't have any trouble scanning through the complications of them half a dozen moves ahead and remembering that at the board. And even if you don't know the exact move, just knowing it's good for you would be more than enough. Having someone whisper "Fritz says +4 here" would allow any strong player to figure it out, even if all the details weren't clear.
This is why Topalov's accusations against Kramnik in the ABC interview were so hard for me to believe he was serious. He actually thought they had a perfected system so he could cheat even in the rapid?! Something on his body?!? Totally insane. No one would do that because if you're caught, it's totally game over. Career ruined. Not that there aren't idiots who have done it, but at the elite level? I can't believe anyone would be so stupid. At least signaling would give plausible deniability. As I've pointed out before, only a confession would ironclad evidence. Even if your co-conspirator ratted you out it you could probably deny it enough. (As in when one of Kasparov's seconds said someone from Karpov's team offered him money for Kasparov's prep. No hard evidence, mostly chalked up as just intrigue.)
I d like to quote GM Svidler about VT and the San Luis WCH tournament (AGAIN):
"Unless some sort of proof is provided (and I think it’s extremely unlikely), there is no point in this discussion. With a result like that there will always be some talk. (Conspiracy theories are very popular these days.) Obviously, you will not see something like this every day, a guy having 6.5 out of seven rounds in a category XXI field. This is clearly a very special result. But, we should not forget, he played well the whole year. I think we just have to accept that we were beaten. We should move on."
@Mig>
" Something on his body?!? Totally insane."
It is not , it was (is) easy to do and plausible at the time.
"No one would do that because if you're caught, it's totally game over."
On the same line of thought nobody would kill another person in a country with death penalty.
"This is far from insinuating anything. It would have been a major omission not to mention the accusations about Topalov, especially after just saying how such suspicions are increasingly frequent."
Ok , but it is still very weird that Gary find the chessbase video of Danailov "suspicious" but at the same time thinks that Topalovs acusations are unfounded.
Ah, so now we are equating the severity and risk-reward ratio of cheating in chess with murder. Good luck with that. It would be more along the lines of one of the top baseball (to use a recent example) in the world using steroids -- but in a world in which being caught would lead to an instant lifelong ban. Cycling is another example of elite performers in a sport cheating anyway. The difference is they really believed it was impossible to be caught, and/or the reward was worth the risk of being caught. One, unless technology has far surpassed public knowledge, you would have to be stupid to believe that about a receiving device on your body. Two, is there anything in chess worth that risk for these guys? We're not talking an unknown getting a shot a million bucks he would otherwise have no chance at winning.
I don't see why we should equate the Topalov and Kramnik accusations, other than in their spuriousness and complete lack of evidence. In one case you see a video of somebody's manager going in and out of the room, talking on a cell, coming into his player's view, over and over. Entirely innocent. I'm sure it is. *Potential* for cheating? Sure. As in, it is a potential way to cheat with no further factors required. No proof at all, none, nada, zilch. But the *potential* makes it specifically questionable and generally unacceptable behavior. Going to the bathroom a lot = no cheating potential unless you add in another half-dozen entirely unknowable (and improbable) factors because it was a controlled environment. A little weird, maybe, enough to bug your opponent, perhaps. (Or at least unusual enough for your opponent to use it against you to distract you.)
Are Garry's own words so hard to find or so hard to understand that everyone feels the need to make up new ones and put them inside quotations marks? They are called quotation marks for a reason. Stick to what he said. In fact, Garry, like even most of Kramnik's fans, figured frequent trips to the bathroom are also worthy of interest, perhaps even worthy of a formal protest and request for explanation if it was frequent enough to be considered disruptive. I certainly wanted to know if something was up even though there was never a doubt in my mind Kramnik wasn't cheating. Hence the speculation about his medical condition or medication necessitating the visits. But "suspicious" is a loaded word and is in the eye of the beholder.
In one case you have a group of individuals that made a formal acusation against another player , in the other you have only whispers , i see no face behind those atacks .
We are all seeing what is the cost of losing your mind and acuse another player , this thread is mainly about that IMO.
For that reason, i cannot buy the story if nobody is backing it, sorry.
Put a name and a signature and i will take you seriously , ¨something sinister¨ doesnt make it for me , same thing with the Danailov video .
I agree that we should not equate the Topalov and Kramnik accusations , but maybe for another reasons.
"In one case you have a group of individuals that made a formal acusation against another player , in the other you have only whispers , i see no face behind those atacks ."
Manu, I am a bit confused now ... what do you mean with 'one case', and which one is 'the other [case]'? I cannot comment further if I am unsure what you actually want to say ... .
"Put a name and a signature and i will take you seriously... same thing with the Danailov video."
--Martin Breutigam, International Chess Master and longtime contributor to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Der Tagesspiegel, Berlin, and other major newspapers.
Did he formally acused Topalov of cheating ?
Never heard of him , tell me more greg.
@Thomas: Lets keep it that way then , my friend.
@Greg:
Because greg, if he only did the article and some preposterous analisis he is not in the same category as the people who puts their career in peril while making the acusation.
Leaving the game after each move and going to WC is highly unethical or simply suspicious. If a player has problems with his health then he should inform about it the judges and his opponents. Mr Kurnosov will be remembered as another unethical player after Mr Kramnik.
Not wanting to feed the trolls... but Jerzy, Kurnosov went to the WC 2 or 3 times, not after every move.
In any case, there's nothing unethical about leaving the board. Likewise, there's nothing noble about staying rooted to your seat for 6 hours.
Kramnik probably won't even be remembered as unethical in Bulgaria (those making the accusations know how blatant their lies are). Topalov (and perhaps Mamedyarov if he doesn't learn from this) will be remembered as unethical by chess fans everywhere.
Unethical are the persons who acuse another from the shadows , those who whispers but wont stand behind their acusations.
A formal claim can be wrong or right but there is nothing unethical about it.
Now it is clear that 'formal accusation' refers to the Elista match, and 'group of people' means "team Topalov". Makes me wonder ... would Mamedyarov's accusations against Kurnosov be any more credible if he received public support from his two sisters?
And on Breutigam: It is a journalist's job to make observations at the tournament site and to publish things which he considers newsworthy. It cannot be the job of the other players to observe what Danailov is doing in the audience while they are busy with their own games, nor to have a person whom they trust checking things out ... .
This stands loose from whether accusations against Topalov were justified or not. With the rather weak evidence, Breutigam was risking his career (as a journalist), and the newspapers who published the story were risking their reputation [well, their reputation doesn't really depend on quality or even presence of chess coverage].
Oh my god Thomas , i cannot believe what you wrote , i dont want to insult you but i cant figure it out if you are joking with me or if there is something wrong with you.
¨Makes me wonder ... would Mamedyarov's accusations against Kurnosov be any more credible if he received public support from his two sisters?
¨
Im sure it is my bad English what lost you , but your answer is too stupid and i cannot continue from there.
But it is good news after all , lets rest for a while , see u @
look spicial photo report from konflikt
http://chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=16&id=194&page=7
clik on picture for big size of photo :)
Kurnosov finished a half a point back in the European Championships that just finished with a performance rating of 2692. I'm sure he was heavily scrutinized for any suspicious activity. He's clearly on form.
He lost in the rapid tiebreaks to Nisipeanu and so didn't qualify for the World Cup. Bummer. I think many are rooting for him now!
Yes, that was a pity (nothing against Nisipeanu).
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com