Chessdom has a translation of GM Igor Kurnosov's reply in the Russian site e3e5 to the letter sent out by Mamedyarov accusing him of computer cheating. It's as reasonable as could be hoped for and I do hope that 1) Mamedyarov apologizes and 2) FIDE puts together a committee, with organizers and players, to formulate rules to do what Kurnosov suggests: prevent cheating and punish unfounded accusations of cheating.
Bacrot won the Aeroflot tournament on tiebreaks (more games with black) over Moiseenko, by the way, winning his last two games to pull it off. As far as I know that means he'll be in Dortmund this year. It won't be his first time. In 2005 the Frenchman made a good +1 score despite starting out with two losses.
GM Kurnosov's response is very dignified and surprisingly restrained for one whose integrity has been so blatantly attacked. I wish GM Mamedyarov had shown similar restraint in making his allegations. FIDE should sanction Mamedyarov and the Aeroflot organizers should take a dim view of his ungentlemanly conduct.
Hm, GM Kurnosov's response does not impress me, it rather makes me want to ask more questions. Apparently, he was out of book on move 12. It transpires that he produced the novelty on move 16 over the board. He did not say at what stage he saw 21 Qd2. His comments regarding the draw offer on move 14 seem rather superficial; common sense would dictate to accept the draw as he was surprised by the oponents moves, who had white pieces and +120 ELO. His play after the incident, in subsequent games and in the blitz deteriorated and I guess some would say that he got distracted for being wrongly accused, but I am not sure if this is a typical psychological reaction in such situation. Being rightly accused and escaping a "cheating" rap could produce the same symptoms, in my opinion. Also, he did not seem to be complaining too much about being wrongly accused and distracted, at least not in the letter.
I agree with Kurnosov´s letter ,both points 1 and 2 should be implemented.
Anyone can come up with a post-analysis that confirms the moves; indeed, the lowest-rated players could have produced the same letter using any of the top chess engines out there. But no amount of analysis can refute actual allegations: Kursunov should have produced two or three witnesses who could have vouched for his presence in the smoking area. So far as I am concerned, his letter does not stand up to any scrutiny.
"And on few occasions I went to wash my face with cold water, but I never talked to anybody while doing so."
aha. So he checked Rybka. No need of speaking there. When exactly did he go washing? So Mame is right.
"As far as I know, most players do the same. Unfortunately, all this negativity affected my play later in the tournament ... "
easy - without rybka help my play would also be affected.
@Pali and Chess Auditor: So you want Kurnosov to prove that he is innocent? How could he possibly do so? Apparently for both of you the mere and single fact that Mamedyarov accused him of cheating already makes him guilty unless he proves the opposite.
I agree with Hardy Berger that Kurnosov should rather be praised for his dignified and restrained letter, but some other people would prefer if he would respond in 'Mamedyarov style' (parrying insult with insult). And BTW, there is evidence for Kurnosov's presence in the smoking area, even a photo published on the Internet.
@Thomas, with just a radar gun cop proves you are guilty. Is that a proof or a claim? Where is the proven until guilty thing there? Have you heard about "word against word" cases? The suspect has to prove to clear himself! The only way I can think of is to play under proper monitoring and show reasonably high rating performance if not a 3000+ rating performance!
Good grief, some of you people actually are crazy. I've often thought so before, of course, but to have such limited grasp on reality and yet such decided opinions is spectacular.
Now this is interesting.
Chessbase shows a picture of Kurnosov pondering the infamous 12th move (scroll down to the next-to-last photo) ...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5236
Where's Mamedyarov? Not at the table! Is he in the bathroom? Out smoking with Rybka? Why isn't it suspicious that Mamedyarov leaves the table?
16...Qd6 isn't even recommended by the computers, but we've already got 4 posters insisting Kurnosov is a computer cheat. I guess the ability to think logically isn't a requirement for an interest in chess.
@Peter Ballard: I am not saying Kurnosov was cheating. Read my post again. I am saying it is a distinct possibility.
My interest is in his behavior and actions, prior to and after the incident.
Memadyarov's response was rather impulsive but what would I do in his place, I wonder.
"@Thomas, with just a radar gun cop proves you are guilty. Is that a proof or a claim?"
First, a radar gun is a proof (accepted in court). Second, a cop is a 'higher authority', just as a teacher (catching you or me cheating during a high-school exam) or an arbiter at a chess tournament ... but NOT a fellow player.
On "word against word" cases: I am not a legal expert, certainly not for all countries worldwide. But generally I would say a judge or a jury would/should look for independent evidence. If nothing is available, it would end in a draw - draw odds to Kurnosov in the present case.
Another argument against the jury system.
I bought a cow. 12 days after I bought the cow, the woman next door walked by my cow stable. I noticed that she looked through the stable door, and I thought that she looked surprised. After that, she walked by my house almost every day to go to the forest and collect magical herbs. Well, my neighbour to the other side tells me she doesn't actually go to the forest, he claims she hides behind his barn to secretly smoke cigarettes - but who knows?
Anyway, after 16 days my cow started making sick noises that I've never heard any cow make before. And after 21 days, it was dead. The Vet came with all his expensive equipment. His computer analysis told me my cow had probably been beyond salvation from day 12. Now, I don't know what that suggests to you, but I know what it suggests to me.
So what could I do? I had no choice but to make my suspicions public, so I told every person in town that the woman next door is a witch. She tried in vain to defend herself. She actually claimed - can you imagine? - that she had been hiding to smoke cigarettes. She had heard my other neighbour's explanation, of course, and was desperate for an alibi. But is there any proof that she couldn't perform black magic AND smoke at the same time? I don't think so!
Besides - and this is my best proof: After I publicly accused her of being a witch, the cows have stopped dying! Sure, I guess that COULD be a coincidence - but what are the odds of that??
I say, burn her!!
Holy Cow!
The story time is over. But before you go to sleep... (as posted by a Ninja message board member)
Kurnosov's rating from 2003 to 2008 = 2527 to 2577
His performance at Hastings in January = 2761
His performance at Aeroflot = 2900
His performance after the accusation = 2507
Not to indulge this silliness, but... Heh, yes let's analyze all performances for stretches of a six or seven games or so and lock up anyone who does better in some stretches than others. A rating of 2600 doesn't mean you perform 2600 in every event. To do so would be far more suspicious -- computer-like even! -- than to mix good and bad.
As for being distracted after the accusations, that doesn't surprise. That's why Danailov did it to Kramnik in 2006, after all.
FYI, those historical ratings leave out that he went close to 2600 before. He was 2592 in Oct 2007 and 2617 in July 2008 and has raised his rating a little in four out of the five last lists, pretty typical of a young improving GM. His performance at Hastings was 2722, a little more than 100 points over his rating. And what about the Moscow Open, between the two events listed? He had a 2615 performance from what I can tell. Sins of omission.
Okay.. some inaccuracies.. I would expect 2008 to be end of 2008 but the message board poster has meant it till Jan 2008. Also there is one rating @ 2592 in that period range.
I apologize for not checking the ratings before posting! and for any misleadings therefore. I hope the disclaimer and my apology would clear me now of any sins of omission!
But Kurnosov's Aeroflot performance is incredible. The suspicion is partly due to performance and partly due to his behavior. My argument is, all incredibly performing players should automotically be brought under the scanner and be monitored.
PircAlert - he beat two IMs and Onischuk (who had a very bad tournament), then drew with Moiseenko and Bacrot before playing Mamedyarov. Good stuff, but nothing unbelievable for a 2600 GM.
No-one can prove guilt or innocence, but Mamedyarov's justification for his actions is patently absurd. Why should Kursunov, joint leader and obviously playing well accept a draw in a position considered better for black? Plus all the rest that's already been said...
Pali, your comments about agreeing to a draw after being surprised because you are black and the white player is higher rated scream that you are a weak player. I already preferred black, and I know some titled players who agree.
Why would you agree to a draw when you like your position better unless you are just a chickensh*t?
This is akin to the idiots who play in a simul with a GM on ICC and think they achieved something with a 15-move draw.
Also, you disparage his novelty with clear suspicion, when as many have pointed out, it is not even the best move. You do not make sense beyond just being a bit paranoid.
Personally, while I'm glad that Kurnosov's initial response was dignified, I think he should sue Mamedyarov for libel (or is it defamation? I can never remember the difference). I can't think of other contexts in which publicly "outing" someone as a cheat can be done with impunity (and apparently no evidence).
(And rdh is completely right).
@PhishMaster Your comments are in poor taste, here are some excerpts:
...scream that you are a weak player
...unless you are just a chickensh*t?
...beyond just being a bit paranoid.
Apart from that you did not say anything intellectualy interesting. I guess you use the above primitive expressions for luck of good arguments.
Mig should probably erase you. If it would be my blog, you would have two strikes now.
Pali, I agree the language was a bit harsh, I thought it was a great post. :-)
@Thomas: Good point about proving innocence. There is a good possibility that he did not cheat. There is a slight possibility that he did.
I just wish he would have provided a more dilligent commentary to his game.
For instance, he was out of book by move 12 and found the very good novelty 16 Qd6 at the board - perhaps he could say when he found the winining move 21 Qd2.
I hope in due course some more info emerges from the other participants of the Aeroflot.
What this thread, and others, prove to me, yet again, is that evidence is outta fashion these days, and people have a strong tendency to prejudge and never reconsider their view no matter how much logic/evidence you throw at them. Such thinking leads to guys like George B. becoming king, if you ask me.
mishanp,
The main issue is cheating. The secondary issue is accusation. Secondary, because this issue has no existance without the first one. It will be like tail wagging the dog if you mix the priorities. Ideally, I would also like to sing "Oh when the saints (3 times)
go playing chess! Oh how I want to be in that number...". But the reality is, big money events have become cheaters paradise. While most prepare on the board, some prepare rigorously off the board for these events.
With that in mind if you look at it, a suspicious behavior could have a serious impact on a genuine player. Some reactions are understandable. You don't have to be un-innocent. But when you spend a good amount of time in an unmonitored place (several times on toilet and few times on smoking area??) during the game, suspicion arises automatically. (You know what would happen if you act legally yet suspiciously in some sensitive places? Why players ask for so much of preventive measures for challengerships and championships?) Aeroflot could have and should have done a lot better job in monitoring top boards. So, I think we should not lose focus and try and address this cheating and suspicious behavior first!
Pali, consider this strike three then.
For someone, who said I contributed nothing intellectually interesting, you did nothing to refute what I said.
Let me put this in terms you can understand: Strong players evaluate their positions (including tournament standing), and don't run from players that are stronger based on rating.
Your original argument regarding why Kournosov may be guilty totally disregarded this, and I suspect it is because you are not a strong player. Weak players are often thrilled to even draw a stronger player that they miss the opportunity to actually battle them.
Your original argument was weak.
Understand now?
"So, I think we should not lose focus and try and address this cheating and suspicious behavior first!"
Huh? We don't have any evidence whatsoever for cheating - and to most observers there's no suspicious behaviour (have you ever played a game of chess at classical time controls?).
What we do seem to have is evidence of a false and damaging accusation made against another player - Mamedyarov is wrong/lying (take your pick) about Kursonov leaving after each move, wrong about where he went, wrong about Rybka's first choice moves and absurdly childish in his conviction that Kursonov must accept his draw offer whatever the game/tournament situation.
Sure, there should be measures to combat cheating (Kursonov, Mamedyarov and pretty much everyone else would agree with you), but there should also be strict guidelines to prevent players from getting away with making unsubstantiated accusations of cheating. I can accept Mamedyarov making a mistake in the heat of the moment, but his not coming out and apologising for his conduct means he deserves all the criticism he gets.
Fully agree with you .
Maybe it is also the times of false evidence , but lets not discuss politics here.
Mishanp, excellent post.
"I hope in due course some more info emerges from the other participants of the Aeroflot."
Huh? What do you mean, what do you expect? Do you expect that players on neighboring boards checked how many times Kurnosov left during the game? I suppose they rather concentrated on their own games ... . Do you want Mamedov to reveal what they were talking about in the smoking area? Football results, their respective girl-friends, merits of other female players in the Aeroflot open .... ?
Lots of silly questions, Pali's turn now to propose relevant ones ... .
@PhishMaster: Nice to see you can raise your level of language. Do not assume I am a weak player just because I did not react to your tease.
Your first "strong" argument was ... on move 14: "I already preferred black, and I know some titled players who agree". The position at move 14 is unclear, sharp and with many options for both sides. I can find you several titled players who prefer white, such as Memadyarov...before I ask others. Given that Kurnusov was out of book and expecting that Memadyarov was still in his home preparation, accepting an early draw a few rounds before end of tourney is rather common practice.
A loss would likely put him out of money, a draw keeps him in the money. Kurnosov is not a stranger to short draws according to databases.
Your second "strong" argument was that 16 Qd6 is not the best move by computer. It was previsously pointed out that depending on the type of chess software and time factor, the computer's choices were either 16 Qd6 or 16 Nxb2. Both moves are very good. He may have chosen 16 Qd6 as either (i) a best option or (ii) not liked 16. Nxb2 as too much computer-like.
OK, Pali, I will ask you straight out: What is your rating? Do you have a handle on ICC so I can check? My handle here is the same as ICC if you want to check. My 2452 peak rating from January 1999 is pre-inflation since I have not played in a long time. The point of this is....
I still think you are talking about things you have no clue about with regards to how a strong player conducts himself at the board. You have done nothing to dispel this, and since we are talking about suspicion, you have made me MORE suspicious with your sidestepping. You still seem to think that a new move makes a top GM drop his sword and run in fear begging for a draw.
Just because you prefer a position, does not mean that it may not even be equal. A position can be equal but easier to play.
Actually, you really do not know that Mamedyarov would prefer white there since his letter said nothing about that. We all get into positions we don't like, even in the opening. I always preferred my opponent's position right before I resigned, but I still had to play my side.
Since we are talking about what position strong players prefer: Rybka, arguably the strongest kibitzer there is, actually does prefer black too after Qd6, let alone Nb2.
Kournosov did write in his response that he was in book at move 11 and already considered the position "to be better for black". Again, you do not accept a draw in a position you consider better just because your opponent plays a new move. If that were the case there would never be a long game since someone would always play a new move at some point and they would agree to a draw?. You really seem to have trouble grasping this basic point.
Lastly, sure if someone were cheating, they might eschew Nb2 as too computer-like, but if they are not cheating, Qd6 is just a normal decent move.
Kournosov did nothing suspicious and almost certainly did not cheat. It was all in Mame's twisted mind.
@Thomas: In the grapevine, sometimes you can find out more about the player, his friends, his personality, pattern of behavior, experience of other players that played him before, etc. Any insider has a better idea of what may have happened and I wish some of them would comment, but probably nobody of them is reading this blog and even if they do, probably they would not want to go on record.
@PhishMaster: My rating is 2XY2, whereas X,Y>0 and X<4. I play-chess on playchess under handles such as kid333, kidy222, kiddy999.
Pali,
I think you ought to do the decent thing and accept that your concentric layers of conjecture and suppositions amount to no more than piffle. It's bad enough for discussion in a bar but certainly not enough to make grave, potentially career-wrecking allegations against a professional. Stop digging when you are in a hole. Mamedyarov was wrong and you, Pali, skate on even thinner ice.
"Given that Kurnusov was out of book and expecting that Memadyarov was still in his home preparation, accepting an early draw a few rounds before end of tourney is rather common practice."
Unless Kurnosov is lying Mamedyarov spent 40 mins thinking about a move (it's not quite clear which one) before he offered the draw - so Kurnosov might reasonably doubt that Mamedyarov was in home prep, or at the very least doubt that Mamedyarov was entirely comfortable with the position.
Ah Pali, that's what you mean ... . However, you correctly wrote "what MAY have happened [emphasis added]" not "what DID happen". In other words: If one, two or five other GM's join Mamedyarov's speculative insults against Kurnosov, Kurnosov is still not proven guilty of cheating.
And "his [Kurnosov's] friends" is the weakest piece in the altogether weak chain of evidence you propose. Even if he is close friends with someone from the Rybka team, so what? Using Rybka is perfectly legal before the game (opening preparation) and after the game (post-game analysis).
And on another earlier quote:
"A loss would likely put him out of money, a draw keeps him in the money."
Yep, but a win is better than a draw under these (and any) circumstances. Many GM's will "play it safe" (take a short draw), but just because such behavior is common it is not compulsory.
"Kurnosov is not a stranger to short draws according to databases."
You may well take a short draw one day and go for a fight another day. Possible reasons for a short draw (not all of them equally plausible) could be:
- you have a headache or didn't sleep well the night before
- you play a good friend of yours
- the tournament situation calls for it (a draw seals tournament victory, or you lost several games before and want to limit the damage to ELO and self-confidence)
- you are in a hurry because you want to go to the beach or watch a football match ,:)
Last weekend at a friend's house I asked them to look up Mamedyarov-Kurnosov and play it over on a board. On Black's 16th two of the three people present other than me, immediately suggested 16...Qd6. Neither was remotely familiar with the position or the game, and neither was anywhere near titled-player strength.
Wow Mig , did you read this?:
http://letters.chessdom.com/shakhriyar-mamedyarov
Shakira´s new song.
Reply to Bartleby's comment in the other (Linares 09 Final) thread:
The 'new' facts that Mamedyarov gives are still no proof, or even additional supportive evidence in my opinion. If anything, it shows that Kurnosov is stronger with black (losing one horrible game after the incident can still happen) and familiar with tactical possibilities in the Grunfeld. Against Onischuk, Kurnosov indeed played several strong moves which, in that case, weren't obvious to me as a much weaker player. But as Onischuk had played that particular pawn sacrifice line before (actually it was sort of a specialty of the US Olympiad team), Kurnosov may simply have been well prepared, anticipating the novelty and refuting it (maybe with Rybka's help) at home, which is perfectly legal.
I don't know the game against Moiseenko, but if Mamedyarov's description ("very simple position without risk") is correct, cheating allegations would be rather irrelevant.
Amd Shak's statement that his position against Kurnosov after move 14 is "practically equal" [hence Kurnosov should have accepted the draw] is simply bizarre - at the very least, it should be justified by analyses where white went wrong thereafter to lose after a mere 7 additional moves.
BTW, it seems that here I completely agree with Manu - generally none (or at most very few) of my posts are against him or anyone else personally. This one is personally against Mamedyarov, though ... .
for me, after reading all, and looking at all facts, the probability that kurnosov is guilty is above 90%
Shak's letter is a familiar phenomena. Once you convince yourself about something you start seeing patterns everywhere that fit into what you were believing. The same thing happened to Topalov and the proponents of the WMDs in Iraq.
Little known fact: Ellrond was G. Bush's chief advisor on WMDs in Iraq
Thomas wrote: "And Shak's statement that his position against Kurnosov after move 14 is "practically equal" [hence Kurnosov should have accepted the draw] is simply bizarre"
It's even odder if you look at what's presumably the original version of the letter in Russian: http://www.azerisport.com/articles.php?item_id=20090307050522694&sec_id=20
There he calls the position "absolutely equal". There's also an interview with him on the same site where he says basically the same things: http://www.azerisport.com/articles.php?item_id=20090305051913756&sec_id=20
The tone is quite annoying: "After the game I didn't shake my opponent's hand, although in a certain sense that wasn't the correct thing to do. But I considered that I didn't deserve to lose."
Sure, if Kurnosov did cheat (a very big if) then it's unfair, but Mamedyarov mixes it up with wounded pride. He seems to think that as a super GM he should be able to win, or at least claim a draw whenever he wishes against a lower rated player.
As to his comments about the other games with black. My take on them is that they were tactical games played by someone specialising in the Grunfeld - we don't know when Kurnosov was out of his preparation (and presumably neither does Mamedyarov). In any case much of the play is forced and obvious and the games were short. It's no surprise that computers would play the positions similarly.
For some odd reason Mamedyarov completely ignores the white games, where Kurnosov committed a number of blunders (which he wasn't punished for). After the "incident" Kurnosov took one quick draw with white (understandable under the circumstances) and played decent chess in the final game (but couldn't quite win).
To suggest a Grunfeld player losing one game with black as evidence that he must have been cheating before is absurd. It's a very sharp opening and you can expect the odd debacle. He played in a similar sharp, tactical style - something he might have chosen not to do if he was only able to do that before because of computer assistance.
ellrond 'looking at all facts',kurnosov is guilty like 90%.what facts??????there are no proves(no facts).your coment proves low iq.that's a fact.
And, of course, the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
¨Thus, in the 8th round after Kurnosov was under close scrutiny of judges and chess fans, he played at a very low level and suffered a defeat¨
Shakira , would you please explain to us why the judges and the chess fans skiped one round to do the close scrutiny thing on Kurnosov??
¨and having such confidence in himself declining a draw offer at move 14 against me in a practically equal position.¨
Shakira , you are not Kasparov , nobody fears you , and after this you will not be respected that much also.
I dont care if Kurnosov cheated or not , but Shakira needs to be a lot more humble in his claims .
¨Thus, in the 8th round after Kurnosov was under close scrutiny of judges and chess fans, he played at a very low level and suffered a defeat¨
"Shakira , would you please explain to us why the judges and the chess fans skiped one round to do the close scrutiny thing on Kurnosov??"
Did Mamed imply that? All I can infer from his statement is, according to Mamed, Kurnosov was under scrutiny when he was playing round 8. Though he didn't say explicitly on when the scrutiny started, what he would have had in mind when he made that statement was, the public scrutiny started right after his complaint i.e from round 7 forward. There is good reason to believe so.
I don't want to go into things like humble, fear, respect. But, it is normal for a 100 or more rated below to accept draw in an equal or slightly better position, though prodigies and coming up players are an exception.
Yeah, why would you care if Kurnosov cheated or not? It doesn't affect you pay check, you know! :)
" I don't want to go into things like humble, fear, respect. But, it is normal for a 100 or more rated below to accept draw in an equal or slightly better position, though prodigies and coming up players are an exception."
It is normal but not enough to claim proof of anything , like it is impossible for your rival to come up with enough bravery to face you without silicon help.
Kurnosov suffered at least the same scrutiny in round seven (draw) than in the last round (loss), and was registered in round 6 (won) ... so i guess you cannot come up and use only the round he lost as an example.
What im saying is that even if Kurnosov was cheating, i will still resent the things Mamed imply in his letters.
They hardly played moves in round 7. Was it a 12 or 13 move draw?? Are you suggesting you should never suspect a 2400 or above. They will be able to play out opening theory on their own. I am not saying Kurnosov is guilty. I want him to be under the radar for his extraordinary play and for his suspicious behavior. A system should be able to handle that instead of a player getting suspicious and complaining. Once complained he is going to defend his side no matter what. We can't sidetrack issues by finding some minor fault with his reactions.
¨Are you suggesting you should never suspect a 2400 or above. ¨
Read again Pirc , im saying something very different than that.
Kurnosov's reply is too civilized and well thought. If I was accused cheating I'd outburst and publish a strong worded reply and initiate a lawsuit. Thas why the calm reply looks suspicious - like he hasn't been offended. Of course, that might not mean anything.
Anyway, I too once could almost swear my opponent was making comp moves as I lost very convincingly to a weaker player. Later I checked with the comp to figure out I was actually winning but the thought alone that my opponent is cheating was very disturbing. Apparently that's why Mamedyarov lost.
Kurnosov's reply is too civilized and well thought. If I was accused cheating I'd outburst and publish a strong worded reply and initiate a lawsuit. Thas why the calm reply looks suspicious - like he hasn't been offended. Of course, that might not mean anything.
Anyway, I too once could almost swear my opponent was making comp moves as I lost very convincingly to a weaker player. Later I checked with the comp to figure out I was actually winning but the thought alone that my opponent is cheating was very disturbing. Apparently that's why Mamedyarov lost.
"Kurnosov's reply is too civilized and well thought. If I was accused cheating I'd outburst and publish a strong worded reply and initiate a lawsuit. Thas why the calm reply looks suspicious"
I certainly hope this is meant to be sarcastic.
Not at all but I guess it depends how one reacts to a false accusation. I'd outburst, perhaps Kurnosov not - of course, that might not mean anything, as I already said.
"Kurnosov's reply is too civilized and well thought. If I was accused cheating I'd outburst and publish a strong worded reply and initiate a lawsuit."
His first reaction may have been to do that or even something stronger - in private.
I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com