New case of cheating in chess?

by Valeri Lilov
4/26/2016 – We use a question mark because the evidence presented by IM Valeri Lilov is circumstantial – no actual pictures of hidden devices or anything. But we cannot forget that Lilov has previously unmasked a notorious cheat in a similar way – a player who has received a life-long ban from tournaments. You can view the evidence presented by Lilov in a 37-minute video and then tell us what you think.

ChessBase 15 - Mega package ChessBase 15 - Mega package

Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2019 with 7.6 million games and more than 70,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!


New Cheating in Chess: The Danov Case

By Valeri Lilov – blog post

This article is devoted to a sensitive topic, particularly in chess, one that has been discussed and decided upon for the last few years. The matter to be discussed today is namely chess cheating.

After a spike of tournament cheating cases in recent years throughout Europe and around the world, we have become increasingly sensitive to the sudden displays of extreme genius over the board by otherwise consistently average players. A case of similar kind has been widely covered by me in 2013, which as a result, led to the exposure of the notorious cheater Borislav Ivanov who was further caught in the act and banned permanently.

Now, in my video below, I want to cast some light on a recent case which in some ways resembles Ivanov’s cheating, though this time, the person is much smarter in trying to avoid all the concrete and circumstantial evidence. Certainly, guilt cannot be unilaterally proven without the relevant FIDE anti-cheating measures being put in place for this type of events, but I can at least give you my point of view on how a carefully planned and crafted cheating may lead to a profitable “career”.

The video I am presenting you below gives my hypothesis of the abnormal cheating patterns applied, I hope they give you some food for thought, as well as the ultimate knowledge to decide for yourself on whether this case was a case of cheating or a streak of multiple wondrous coincidences.

Watch this 37-minute lecture and analysis by Valeri Lilov

This analysis of Radi Danov's performance is highly speculative and should be treated with caution. On the other hand Lilov has analysed and subsequently unmasked Borislav Ivanov in a similar way (see links at the bottom of this page). And we learn from other sources of suspicious behavior: Radislav Yordanov Atanasov told us that in the fourth round of the Dupnitsa Memorial Lyuben Konstantino tournament Radi Danov beat Ivaylo Enchev. The arbiters asked to check Danov's shoes, but the player refused, whereupon the result of the game was changed in favor of Enchev, and Danov was expelled from the tournament – which he accepted, rather than allow the checking of his shoes! Reminds us of a well-documented shoe incident in the past.

There are a few other worrying points made in Lilov's lecture: one is that a modern cheat would be well advised to use a substandard engine. This is what we have at the top of the engine list:

Now using one of the 3300+ engines for all your moves is very risky. People will find a very high correlation between the cheater's move and those of top engines. In fact ChessBase 13 has a function that does exactly this.

This will tell you, in a simple one-click operation, how many relevant moves (ignoring openings and simple forced recaptures) coincide with those of the top engines. Over 90% is suspicious, below 50% completely innocuous.

However, as Lilov says: a clever cheater will not use a top engine. He can choose from a hundred engines, all of which have to GM strength – and are usually completely unknown. Lilov also goes so far to suggest that people might use Fritz 5 (and not Fritz 15) and still get sufficient assistance to win the tournament or gain Elo points.

Finally there is a suspicion that players receiving computer assistance might be occasionally using suboptimal lines – ones that retain the win but do not do it with brutal computer efficiency. Kirill Kuznetsov found the following game between Danov and Ukrainian FM Nazar Ustiyanovich suspicious:

[Event "Bulgarian Chess Summer 2015"] [Site "?"] [Date "2015.06.13"] [Round "?"] [White "Danov, Radi"] [Black "Ustianovich, Naza"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B07"] [PlyCount "117"] [EventDate "2015.??.??"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 e5 5. Be3 Qb6 6. Qd2 Qxb2 7. Rb1 Qa3 8. Bc4 Be7 9. Nge2 Qa5 10. O-O Nbd7 11. a4 Qc7 12. Ng3 Nf8 13. f4 Ne6 14. fxe5 dxe5 15. Nf5 O-O 16. d5 cxd5 17. Nxe7+ Qxe7 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. exd5 Nd4 20. Bxd4 exd4 21. Qxd4 Qd6 22. Bd3 b6 23. c4 Bd7 24. a5 Rab8 25. Rb2 Rfc8 26. Rfb1 Rc5 27. axb6 Rxb6 28. Rxb6 axb6 29. Qh4 g6 30. Qd8+ Kg7 31. Qxb6 Qe7 32. Qb2+ Qf6 33. Qxf6+ Kxf6 34. Rf1+ Ke7 35. Ra1 Kd6 36. Ra6+ Ke5 37. Ra7 Bf5 38. Be2 f6 39. Rxh7 g5 40. Re7+ Kd6 41. Ra7 Ke5 42. Kf2 Be4 43. Re7+ Kd4 44. d6 Rc8 45. d7 Rd8 46. Bf3 f5 47. g4 Bd3 48. Bc6 Rb8 {[#]} 49. gxf5 $2 (49. Re8 $1 {"A club player will find this move in a second," Kuznetsov writes. Danov, who has completely outplayed his opponent, has a move rated at +18 pawns, but plays one the computer rates at about +5. It still wins, but the path to victory is more complicated than the simple overwhelming 49.Re8 which immediately gets White a queen.}) 49... Bxf5 50. Re8 Rb2+ 51. Kg3 Rb3+ 52. Bf3 Bxd7 53. Rd8 Kxc4 54. Rxd7 Ra3 55. Kg4 Kc5 56. Rd5+ Kb6 57. Rxg5 Kc7 58. Rd5 Kc6 59. Rd3+ 1-0

"On the one hand this is too little proof," Kuznetsov writes, "and the fluctuations can be explained by his lack of understanding of certain positions. But it is a bit strange, isn't it? Perfect play before the result has been achieved, and then some intentional (?) slips to decrease the cheating accusations." [Source: GM Artur Kogan "No more cheating in chess" on Facebook]

Born in 1991, IM Valeri Lilov, better known as Tiger Lilov, is a professional chess trainer from Bulgaria holding a FIDE rating of 2434. As an active tournament player, Lilov won a number of major international tournaments and championships, including the European Individual School Chess Championship U10, held in Moscow in 2000 and the International Open “Kulaga Memorial,” held in Minsk in 2007. IM Valeri Lilov is famous for his personalized approach to training students and professional players up to the IM level from all over the world.

To date Valeri has recorded 17 DVDs and 60 minute lectures for ChessBase, with subjects like the Austrian Attack, Tactics in the Endgame, How to fight the Queen's Pawn Openings, Secret Weapon Four Knights Game, etc. You can browse for his products in the ChessBase Shop.

At the end of his video on Radi Danov above Lilov says he want to give us an opportunity to think about all this and welcomes comments and opinions in the discussion section below.

Recent ChessBase articles on cheating in chess

Cheating suspicion at the Zadar Open in Croatia
04.01.2013 – In this event, with 16 GMs and a host of other strong players, one participant stood out especially: the 25-year-old untitled Bulgarian Borislav Ivanov scored 6.0/9 points, with a rating performance of 2697. In the January FIDE list Ivanov has gained 115 points over his previous 2277 rating, gained in over 400 games over three years. A certain suspicion once again raises its ugly head.
Cheating scandal in Croatia – feedback and analysis
08.01.2013 – Recently we reported that the incredibly brilliant play by a 25-year-old untitled Bulgarian player at the Zadar Open in Croatia had raised suspicion that he might have been using illicit electronic assistance during his games. A number of readers criticised us – for linking to the mainstream Croatian media reports?! One of them, an expert in the field, actually analysed all the games in question.
Cheating scandal – Borislav Ivanov speaks out
17.01.2013 – Recently a 25-year-old untitled Bulgarian player scored 6.0/9 points in a strong GM tournament, with a 2697 performance. His opponents complained, he was searched, and no electronic equipment was found. Still, the case put chess on the front pages of the mainstream media, and led to intense discussions on the Internet. Now Ivanov has given the Russian news portal WhyChess an exclusive interview.
Cheating scandal in the Bundesliga – readers' reactions
30.10.2012 – It will surprise nobody that there were a very large number of messages that poured in regarding our recent report on the disqualification of a Bundesliga player for carrying a cellphone to the bathroom during his games. Here's a small selection of letters, plus a thoughtful article by Assistant Professor Kung-Ming Tiong of Malaysia, comparing the problem in chess with academic cheating.
Cheating scandal: player disqualified for cell phone use
27.10.2012 – Actually, as the accused player, German GM Falko Bindrich, points out: not for proven use but for refusing to allow the arbiter to examine the phone he had with him during multiple toilet visits during last weekend's Bundesliga round. The rules permit the arbiter to check in case of justified suspicion, and so Bindrich was disqualified and the point awarded to his opponent. Long, compelling read.

Series on the History of Cheating in Chess by Frederic Friedel

A history of cheating in chess (1)
29.09.2011 – Hardly a month goes by without some report of cheating in international chess tournaments. The problem has become acute, but it is not new. In 2001 Frederic Friedel contributed a paper to the book "Advances in Computer Chess 9". It traces the many forms of illicit manipulations in chess and, a decade later, appears disconcertingly topical and up-to-date. We reproduce the paper in five parts.
A history of cheating in chess (2)
04.10.2011 – Coaching players during the game is probably the most widespread form of cheating (rivaled only perhaps by bribery and the throwing of games). Although this practice began long before the advent of chess playing machines, computers have added a new and dramatic dimension to this method of cheating in chess. You will never guess: who were the pioneers of cheating with computers?
A history of cheating in chess (3)
18.12.2011 – In January 1999 the main topic of conversation amongst top players like Kasparov, Anand and others: who was the mysterious German chess amateur, rated below 2000, who had won a strong Open ahead of GMs and IMs, with wonderfully courageous attacking chess and a 2630 performance? How had he done it? Turns out it was with unconventional methods, as subsequent investigation uncovered.
A history of cheating in chess (4)
28.2.2012– Las Palmas 1996: Garry Kasparov is agonizing over his 20th move against Vishy Anand. He calculates and calculates but cannot make a very tempting pawn push work. Immediately after the game he discovers, from his helpers, that it would have won the ultimately drawn position. The point that became clear to him: a single bit of information, given at the top level in chess, can decide a game.
A history of cheating in chess (5)
10.6.2014 – A few weeks ago FIDE took first executive steps to combat the most serious threat that the game of chess currently faces: the secret use of computer assistance during the game. In a paper written fourteen years ago Frederic Friedel had first drawn attention to the dangers that are lurking. We re-published this historical document in four parts. Here is the fifth and final section.

Topics: Cheating

Born in 1991, IM Valeri Lilov, better known as Tiger Lilov, is a professional chess trainer from Bulgaria holding a FIDE rating of 2434. As an active tournament player, Lilov won a number of major international tournaments and championships, including the European Individual School Chess Championship U10, held in Moscow in 2000 and the International Open “Kulaga Memorial,” held in Minsk in 2007. IM Valeri Lilov is famous for his personalized approach to training students and professional players up to the IM level from all over the world.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

Jonmeista Jonmeista 4/27/2016 01:15
Nice character assassination with no evidence!
flachspieler flachspieler 4/27/2016 12:53
One comment on hidden electronic devices in shoes
(independently of the current Lilov vs X case):
With (not so expensive) infrared cameras and "some"
experience it is possible to detect if one shoe/foot of a
person has a temperature rather different from the other one.
In particular: in case of no or only small differences this
would be a point for the person under suspicion.

Cariba Cariba 4/27/2016 12:51
@Mr TambourineMan "And if he does not take off his shoes, I would personally take off his shoes, even if it would lead to prosecution for assault." Well and if somebody suspects you are cheater and the device is maybe hidden in your boxer short, what should we do?
fightingchess fightingchess 4/27/2016 12:23
what is wrong with bulgarians? no offense. next time just check his shoes. that is the only suspicious thing going on here.
Mr TambourineMan Mr TambourineMan 4/27/2016 10:58
There are too many opinions here and too much to read. Please CB makes a selection.

So much talk that is not needed. Take off your shoes. Do not want to hear blah blah blah and blah blah blah again. Take off your shoes!

And if he does not take off his shoes, I would personally take off his shoes, even if it would lead to prosecution for assault. I find it very difficult to see that someone would go ahead with such an indictment when it's still not as I beat him bloody and humiliated him to appear naked or similar. In addition, there are certainly a number of witnesses who can testify that it was hardly beating. I have just taken off his shoes!

Such a process is so much easier than blah blah blah la for thousands of hours without result.

The fact that FIDE is so lame that they can not force a player to something as simple as taking off his shoes is ridiculous. In the mosque one takes shoes off, If not, you can not enter. As simple in chess.

If someone cant do this theyll as fare as me conserned has no right to play the gentlemans game of chess and as you the reader understands if more of us the player demands such a simple things in person rather than with a million of words we whould put an end too this bullshit once and for all.
dysanfel dysanfel 4/27/2016 10:47
So how does he explain his blitz rating?
Aighearach Aighearach 4/27/2016 10:03
I support searching everybody, but I don't support this idea that if you think your opponent played too well, you can have him singled out for a shoe search. You have to just search everybody.

I would never submit to a search that violated my rights, or singled me out unfairly. You not only harm yourself, you whole every other chess player, every young child also playing in the tournament, you're bullying every single player in every single tournament in the world, by using your personal greed for victory to physically support bullying. Being a willing victim makes you no less a willing participant. There is no threat of injury to protect yourself from by going along with it; you can simply say no, and walk home on the high road.

Unless you're getting invited to closed tournaments, you're not winning any money. "Winning" means losing less money. If you're asked to participate in immoral activities, there is no real financial incentive to help the cheaters and take your shoes off to grovel and beg not to be falsely accused. So while the appeal to incentive to "win" is made by many here, I don't think they've thought it through, ethically, morally, or financially.
LSI LSI 4/27/2016 09:54
And great work Mr. Lilov, fighting against the cheats and pushing FIDE to take some relevant actions rather than just hand-slapping the cheaters who destroy the game.

I applaud your courage and determination. We need more people like you if we want to save OTB chess from complete destruction by the cheaters.
LSI LSI 4/27/2016 09:48
I think Chessbase shouldn't write articles where they explain how to cheat.

Also, saying that 90%+ engine correlation is "suspicious". Have you run engine correlation for typical 2200 vs. 2200 games or 2000 vs. 2000 games, and see how often you get, say 70%+ engine corr.

90% engine corr. is much more than "suspicious", although a single game won't be enough to draw conclusions of course.

I think it's time for Chessbase to use their computer expertise to help with the fight against engines, rather than selling a new Komodo/Fritz every 6 months...

You've destroyed chess, time to help repair the game.
Radena Radena 4/27/2016 09:05
I agree with @trumbull2400 @Cariba @thlai80 @lasker28. I think, It is not ethic and against the law to name a person in a public media before FIDE declares that this person is guilty for his cheating.
@TMMM, yes, the chess position that become the case is not so convincing! But it is if the move chosen was the best move that only top GM or very good machine could find it.
thlai80 thlai80 4/27/2016 08:27
@genem, I put forth this question in my previous reply:
" we were basically supplied with the information that Lilov/Chessbase had filtered. Now I don't imagine the arbiter straight away requested to check the shoes. Remember even for Ivanov case, he was requested to undress himself piece by piece, and then his shoes. Imagine you are in such circumstances, what is your limit until you say no? "

Do you know for sure shoe removal is the only request and Radi Danov reject straight away? If not, why are we focusing on this single instance to deduce when there could have been many things happened before the shoe request?

To make things clearer, I demand Lilov to state the whole situation that lead up to Danov rejection of checking his shoes. What was checked, how was he ushered, how was he treated, and at what point Danov felt it had gone overboard and refused to comply. Since Lilov choose to name and shame, it is only right for him to present the case crystal clear with every detail, and that all emotions and feelings should be thrown out of the window.
genem genem 4/27/2016 07:58
It does not matter whether Danov was actually cheating, because Danov refused the T.D. request to inspect Danov's shoes.
Guilty, or the equivalent of guilty.
This is not a matter of America's 5th amendment against self-incrimination, or of Innocent until proven Guilty.
Rather it is like an apparently drunk driver refusing a roadside sobriety or breathalyzer test. Penalty for refusal is a DUI. It goes with the territory that a driver's license is a Privilege, not a Right.
Inhibiting a reasonable anti-cheating inspection should be grounds for a suspension. Else there is no practical way to reduce this ongoing problem.
lasker28 lasker28 4/27/2016 07:55
I find Lilov's arguments to be unsound and unfalsifiable. You can use that sort of "logic" to prove anyone is cheating. The shoe incident does raise legitimate concern that he might be cheating, as I agree with others that it is odd one would rather forfeit a tournament than simply take off his shoes. But in that entire long-winded video I did not see anything approaching proof that Danov is cheating. Some masters (and even grandmasters) are far more consistent than others, some play splendid games in one round and terrible games the next. That is normal too. And I agree with A7fecd1676b88, the ...Nh5 criticism is ridiculous. Of course this wasn't the best position to take that risk, but sometimes even masters don't have a good feel for the structures and follow famous ideas at the wrong moments in the game. It's entirely possible he studied the games of Fischer and others who tried that idea and simply misevaluated the position and felt he could play it there too.

Smearing a man or woman's reputation is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly. There should be very strong evidence, if not conclusive proof, before publishing an article implying that someone is a cheater.
ckane ckane 4/27/2016 07:41
I agree with J Nayer.

It is ridiculous to accuse someone of cheating, just because they play better or inferior at a given point in time and also to guess someone put a engine/mobile device in a shoe to cheat. How about someone embeds a micro chip in the body with an embedded engine code ( if you may assume ).., what are we going to do, subject the player for xray or MRI ?? .If I am the guy with this much techno backing and stupidity, I think I can make more money by doing many other things in life than trying to prove something at chess board.

If technology is being used to cheat. think about using the technology to block it to the extent possible.

To start with one can try.
a) Installing the signal Jammers in the hall.
b) Scan for the electronic items on players before they were allowed into the playing hall.
c) Don't allow mobile devices on players or into the hall, mention that clearly in the tournament rules and regulations.

Guessing that player is cheating based on some nonsensical analysis should invite defamation case. Coming to the question of player refusing to remove the shoe, only player can answer why ? May be he is worried, If nothing is in shoe , then what else they might ask him to remove to prove himself. This kind of paranoia will only make every one look like cheaters.

The best solution is to make Fischer random as the way going forward to play FIDE chess tournaments. Imagine setting up the starting position on the device inside the shoe with the help of a toe to cheat !! or one should become a half or complete cyborg to cheat.

I wonder why fischer random was not patronized by FIDE, Is it something to do with the crop of GMs we have today who has booked up somuch on the opening theory throughout their life or a well established Opening books/material industry ??? which might run out of business..
MortalWombat MortalWombat 4/27/2016 06:53
Cheater - because of the weight of evidence
Rafael Ramirez Rafael Ramirez 4/27/2016 06:42
This is a comment from a chessbase article on the Ivanov cheating suspicion:
"Peter Jameson
This article alleging that Ivanov is a cheat provides no real evidence. How does he cheat even in rapid games watched by a horde of observers? And what are we to make of the two other amazing players in the table displayed after nine rounds? Lyubomir Danov ranked 16th initially sits in seventh place above many titled players! Even more dramatic is Radi Danov who sits in sixth place though initially seeded 28th! And above many titled players. His performance is remarkable too, possibly puts Ivanov in the shade! And both of these players with very lowly ratings. So is your correspondent Alex Karaivanov now demanding an investigation of these players too? If not why not? Or has Alex Karaivanov shot himself in both feet?" -
Lyubomir Danov is Radi Danov's brother
A7fecd1676b88 A7fecd1676b88 4/27/2016 06:15
The first game was not perfect play beyond a master. I consider the play and ideas in it rather natural. The second game was not so terrible.

Lilov seems to think speed of play is always relevant. A large part of chess is pattern recognition. You play fast when you are familiar with the type of position you have. It does not imply a computer was used, especially in the simple positions shown in the first game.
If you are playing fast in a tactical battle , that could be evidence for a computer. The first game was not like that.

The criticism of Nh5 is absurd. It is a standard idea in the modern Benoni, made famous by Fischer in the 72 match against Spassky. It was double edged even when Fischer played it and it always entails big risk.

In short, I do not consider the perfect games so perfect as to be beyond a master, and the bad games so bad that a master could not play them. A stronger case needs to be made.

linkedlist linkedlist 4/27/2016 06:08
All the guys defending the "innocent" geniuses have a point. however, after playing a lot of tournaments over the year, and given the investment in sheer time and energy apart from money, it seems totally non-sense that a person would choose to forfeit rather than take his shoes off. I can still understand someone not showing his phone, but not taking the shoes off??? come on guys. yes Lilov has no proof, but you know what they say about "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck" - it can't be an elephant for sure.
jjmolina jjmolina 4/27/2016 06:04
@ vladivaclav
I don't think he "programmed" the engine, either. The easiest way to go for the draw, is to just give the engine a big negative contempt.
digupagal digupagal 4/27/2016 06:04
Also not to mention, I can make some suboptimal moves in the endgame, because i learnt chess relatively late and did not focus on endgames at the start. I may improve my opening and middlegame (Plans / Startegy / Tactics) greatly but may not be that good in the endgame afterall, I may play suboptimal moves naturally (failing to identify some fortresses; clearly drawn positions at times). Will that make me a cheater?

This is all very subjective and differs from player to player (strength / weaknesses). Earlier playing all computer moves was a problem, now playing subptimal moves is a problem?

How do we enjoy chess like this?
digupagal digupagal 4/27/2016 05:55
Well all your exercises and experiments are deterring me from pursuing my favorite game (creating doubts in my mind about even whether i should play for fun??).

I stopped playing and studying chess 2-3 years ago. I believe i am ~1800 elo rated, I thought of finishing with CFA which I am pursuing and later on returning to play some OTB Chess.

I had high hopes of returning to the game with focussed studying and training to increase by rating to ~2100-2200 post exams. If such a rise in rating would be seen with scepticism and criticism, then it makes less sense for me to return to the game.

As i will improve, many of my moves will coincide (ofcourse not all) with engine's top moves. Isn't this natural? Well if not, then I believe, Carlsen is cheating as well. Its just that he has been cheating from the start of his career (just kidding).

Does the human brain stops learning (visualising / making choices) completely as we age? Then Vishy Anand should be some ~2100-2200 and must become equal to my strength in 2-3 years??

Mawin Mawin 4/27/2016 05:23
Oh dear, this is so long-winded! How could anybody listen through this? Why doesn't he just present his case?
Zdrak Zdrak 4/27/2016 05:15
Lilov's work is very interesting as an intellectual exercise, but ultimately there's too much conjecture to draw any useful conclusions.
sxb103 sxb103 4/27/2016 04:03
The player's name should not be given because while there is some evidence , it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. !!
@J Nayer , I agree totally, one item of circumstantial evidence does not make a case, but when you start to accumulate many it builds a case. Is it enough to be sure at this point ? , not yet in my opinion.
thlai80 thlai80 4/27/2016 03:42
@J Nayer ... applause! I would just want to an extra line. If you are in the forefront of chess cheating witchhunt, you are suspicious of chess cheating as well because you are trying to portray that you are clean by accusing someone of unfairness due to cheating. Guess we can start strip search Lilov in every game that he plays from now on, so that he realizes the difficulties and the emotional meltdown on anyone subjected to such search, something that Lilov commended FIDE for.
thlai80 thlai80 4/27/2016 03:16
This is very irresponsible and naming someone before being proven is smear campaign. As an IM, Lilov can easily check his own games and deduce that he himself is suspicious of cheating!

As with stock analyst, there needs to be also disclosure if Lilov had lost to Danov before either directly through a game or in a tournament standing.

I'm sick of full-fledged IM/GM labelling someone as cheat just because someone suddenly plays better. What about themselves who are at insane level according to layman? There's no scientific research that people cannot improve at older age. If anyone performing above their existing rating is a cheat, there's no need to have tournaments. Just rank based on rating, no games needed as a win by the lower rated must be a cheater.

@LetoAtreides82, we do not know the full circumstances. You read one line and deduced, but we were basically supplied with the information that Lilov/Chessbase had filtered. Now I don't imagine the arbiter straight away requested to check the shoes. Remember even for Ivanov case, he was requested to undress himself piece by piece, and then his shoes. Imagine you are in such circumstances, what is your limit until you say no?
Aighearach Aighearach 4/27/2016 02:53
You have to actually catch them; trying to find some gray line where you think you have just barely enough to make a circumstantial accusation guarantees that you'll be making false accusations that are themselves a form of cheating!

Technology can be used to search players, and find out the truth. It is a real solution, and does not add a second wrong to try to right the first (perceived) wrong.
Cariba Cariba 4/27/2016 02:33
I'm shocked Mister Lilov can afford to just throw a player's name here, as if it's a people's court. First, even if 99% of viewers here were of the opinion it's a cheating case, thousand (or billions) of opinions do not form an evidence in any way. Whatever you think you need a clear proof. Here there is no clear cheating but a clear case of diffamation.
PS: Come on Chessbase guys are you in need of some "Buzz" ???
noble6 noble6 4/27/2016 02:06
The issue is finding ways to detect cheating and preventing it without affecting the players.Targeting a player because his play seems suspicious is very dangerous . Sandu Mihaela's case should ring a bell.
Also , once an accusation has been made , circumstancial evidence can be found everywhere . It shouldn't take much to "prove" that Valeri Lilov is a smart cheater by his method of using circumstancial evidence.
Then again , refusing arbiter checks is stupid and deserves to be punished but in no way does it prove he was a cheater .Should I remind you that even Ivanchuk refused a dopping test?
Kesaris Kesaris 4/27/2016 01:48
Nice video.
This bastard is cheating. Fide should delete his ELO points.
J Nayer J Nayer 4/27/2016 01:41
If you progress gradually, there is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater because you planned it that way. If you play really well and you get an outstanding result, there is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater. If you do not play moves that the strongest engines suggest, there is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater because you use an old engine. If you find a program from 1990 that confirms your moves, this is circumstantial evidence that you used this engine. If you draw there is circumstantial evidence that you are cheater because it’s a strategy to not draw attention upon yourself. If you make a bad move, it’s because you want to lose the game because this is also a strategy to not draw attention upon yourself (against Spasov, rated 200 points higher). ‘I have my suspicions and others have it too.’ If you play a really good game and you give your opponent no real change, this is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater – you’re too good. If you play a really bad game the next day, there is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater – your results are not consistent. If you exchange too many pieces, it’s because you use an engine that is programmed that way. If you win against stronger opponents and draw or lose against weaker opponents, this is circumstantial evidence that you are a cheater, although I know people who do that consistently and it has to do with motivation. If you get checked during a game and nothing shows up, this is also circumstantial evidence that you are cheating! This is horrible paranoid nonsense. Lilov needs psychological help. It is very simple: either you PROVE that someone is cheating, or he is not a cheater. This is the sort of talk that the chess world can miss like tooth pain. This should not be published.
LetoAtreides82 LetoAtreides82 4/27/2016 01:23
If he wasn't cheating why didn't he let the officials check his shoes? He preferred forfeiting the game rather than letting them check his shoes? That's very suspicious.
KOTLD KOTLD 4/27/2016 12:53
I usually agree with Lilov's videos, but this one seems unconvincing. Sorry.
trumbull2400 trumbull2400 4/27/2016 12:50
I think it's irresponsible to give the player's name...this analysis should have been anonymized.
Queeg Queeg 4/27/2016 12:38
No, Lilov did not convict Ivanov. His "evidence" only played into the hands of his defenders. It was Kenneth Regan who provided the evidence in the Ivanov case.
Lilov has no right to accuse anyone of cheating unless he is able to produce convincing evidence. IMHO the self-styled tiger is a case for the FIDE ethics commission.
ArisR ArisR 4/27/2016 12:37
Sounds like a nonsense, espesially accusations about draws.
vladivaclav vladivaclav 4/27/2016 12:32
I don't think he "programmed" the engine to draw by exchanging the pieces. More likely, in such games, he follows suboptimal computer variation lines giving smaller advantage, then when some variations show quick equality he proceeds with these. It turns out that such lines in 90%+ cases includes lot of pieces exchanges. Try and see yourself. The more interesting question is how he actually receives computer help...
jjmolina jjmolina 4/27/2016 12:12
If this guy is trying to "forge" a career, he's doing it wrong. You don't choose your results, you adjust the engine's strength to the desired level, and slowly raise it over time. Selecting a personality, and playing a coherent repertoire, would also be advisable.
I'm pretty sure there's already people out there, doing this (among other things), but we'll never get a whiff out of them. Not unless they become greedy and aim for the big bucks.
TMMM TMMM 4/26/2016 11:26
"A club player will find this move in a second, Kuznetsov writes. [...]" -- It's not *that* trivial. 49. Re8 Rb2+ looks risky as it could be a perpetual or mate if the king moves to the third rank, with f4+ in case of Kg3 and Bf1+ if the king goes to h3. I suppose the king is safe on f3, but it takes some calculations and perhaps he did not have the time, or was tired, or just concluded that 49. gxf5 wins so why bother calculating 49. Re8.

It's not a very convincing argument that he must have been cheating in that game, in that position.
gmwdim gmwdim 4/26/2016 11:02
Maybe Lilov, being a Bulgarian like Ivanov and Danov, knows something else behind the scenes as well.