Mamedyarov accuses opponent of cheating, withdraws from Aeroflot
22 February 2009, 22.44 CET | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags: Cheating
Breaking news from Moscow, Russia. At the Aeroflot Open, top seeded player Shakhryiar Mamedyarov from Azerbaijan Sunday accused his opponent Igor Kurnosov (Russia) of cheating, and after talking to the organizers, Mamedyarov has now withdrawn from the tournament.
GM Shakhryiar Mamedyarov (Azerbaijan) was the top seed in Moscow this year and after five rounds he shared the lead with GM Alexander Moiseenko (Ukraine) and GM Igor Kurnosov (Russia). In the sixth round, Mamedyarov played Kurnosov with White and lost quickly:
During the opening phase, Kurnosov played fast but also left the board several times, taking his coat that was hanging over his chair with him. Mamedyarov started to feel uncomfortable about his opponent’s behaviour and offered a draw at an early stage. To his surprise, Kurnosov refused and then left the board after every move, going to the toilet or for a smoke. He kept on playing the strongest moves and at move 21, Mamedyarov had to resign.
After the game Mamedyarov checked the game with the computer and noticed that all of his opponent’s moves had been the first choice of Rybka. He accused his opponent of cheating and told the tournament organizers that he would withdraw from the tournament.
Answering our request to comment on the situation, Mamedyarov sent us his official protest letter, sent to the tournament organizer:
To: The organizer of the AEROFLOT-OPEN tournament
Alexander Grigorievich BakhFrom: GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov
Explanation of my protest
Dear Alexander Grigorievich,
On 22.09.2009 the game between myself and Igor Kurnosov was played.
During the game my opponent went out of the playing hall after each move, took his coat and withdrew himself on the toilet. After suspicion of unfair play on move 14 I offered a draw, he refused. We quickly played 11 moves, on the 12th move I played a move which confused my opponent. The next moves from him were given as first choice by Rybka, which quickly allowed him to win the game.
Due to this series of suspicions, having to do with the unusual behaviour of my opponent, Igor Kurnosov, I hereby lodge a protest and refuse to continue participation in the tournament.
I hope that this kind of situation will not occur in the future.
Sincerely,
GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov
“It’s not a very convincing claim,” said chief arbiter Geurt Gijssen on the phone. “It’s all theory until 16…Qd6 and after that Black doesn’t make very strange moves. We checked the game with arbiters Fillipowicz and Vasiukov, but they didn’t think it was impossible to find the moves.”
According to Gijssen, Mamedyarov already had his suspicions during the game. “Before the end he asked me if the game could be removed from the website, and if we could keep an eye on his opponent. We tried to do that, but in a playing hall with 160 players that’s not easy. But I did notice that Kurnosov took his jacket with him, every time he left the board. After the game I asked him to show the contents of his pockets, but all that we found was a pack of sigarets, a lighter and a pen.”
Convinced that something was wrong and upset, Mamedyarov didn’t sign his score sheet but instead told the arbiter that he resigned, and was going to leave the tournament. “He then talked to Alexander Bakh” for a long time, but he remained adamant,” said Gijssen.
 ShareThis
|  Print
|
End of chess??
I’m sorry to say Peter but your comment indicates you’re siding with Mamedyarov.
I fail to understand why the moves after 16. are so exceptional for a grandmaster.
Players who accuse others of cheating without any substantial proof should be punished.
Mamedyarov with his behaviour (accusing and leaving) virtually destroyed the tournament.
@steven
Not my intention – the article should be interpreted as objective.
I agree with Steven. Mamedyarov has no proof at all. This can not be tolerated. Are Topalov and Danailov his idol or something?? He has no direct proof at all. What if Kursonov is innocent? He will hear this for his whole life! Mamedyarov should be punished for this.
going back to his games in this tournament mamedyarov could be right … exceptional game by black … he could be playing against rybbka – sky
Kurnosov’s behaviour is somewhat strange, although I don’t believe he cheated until it’s proven. But it’s unfortunate that Mamedyarov withdrew.
I don’t think the article is biased.
I don’t see anything special in Kurnusov’s play today…
It was all theory and it is pretty logic to refuse a draw with 2 pawns up.
Kurnusov didn’t find any strange move, it was all natural.
He is a 2600 GM, and I also dont think it is impossible to beat Mamedyarov.
Better advise to go and prepare good openings.
Well, it seems that Igor Kurnosov introduced a novelty on move 16. He possibly analysed some continuations at home, which means he could have gotten his moves from Rybka indeed, but already before (and not during) the game…
Of course this issue regarding possible cheating with computers must be well addressed by Fide. There should be some way to get proofs, if any.. (cameras? electronic surveillance? human surveillance..?) Otherwise, in this case, I did see Mamedyarov going early for complications and loosing his Queen! Do you need a computer in order to win the opponent’s Queen on move 20th? No, you just need a blunder…Only because we have now computers doesn’t mean the some players maybe will now withdraw competitions after bad losses…
Interesting to know how Kurnosov behaved in earlier rounds. But however i do think that Geurt Gijssens comment is akward…observing a player in the midst of 160 mostly thinking partcipants can’t be that difficult esp. after Mamedyarovs plead. (or were they all playing hide and seek) Besides that Gijssens could have discretly checked Kurnosovs pockets during his frequently strolls. He did it after the game so why not when he was away from the board during the game? Funny how these arbiters are above maken mistakes and keep getting payed. Furthermore Gijssen must have consulted with strong players being able to state that it was just theory until move 16 AND that the black moves after that were rather “obvious”.
Sure Mamedyarovs complaints are without proof, but Gijssen could have proved Kurnosov isn’t a cheat! The players are both harmed by this incident and the arbiters keep on smiling and snoring and doing what Pilatus was good in!
I watched Kurnusov playing in Hastings, where he won in convincing style, without given the slightest reason for suspicion … He seems to be a player who has improved alot recently, so I would assume that his 2600 are a bit underrated. Given that Mamedyarov doesn’t seem to be on form, I don’t think it is unlikely at all that he loses against a player like Kurnusov. Anyway, Mamedyarov should be asked to present evidence for his bold claims… otherwise accusations of that sort seem to be unacceptable. You can easily ruin a chess player’s name for a long time by raising cheating accusations – you should have pretty good reason for doing so.
Active chess is the solution for chess problems : too much theory and cheating. Half an hour with some increment is more than enough too keep the benefits of chess and avoid problems. Organize tournaments will easy and cheaper and there will be more with active chess.
The article is objective, but only because we understand that those are the views of the people mentioned, not exactly a Peter’s view. Of course views from Kurnusov (or maybe some other witness) are missing, but Peter didn’t claim to have that included. Maybe the total (formal) objectivity was only posible by expliciting exactly who said what, but here I think it is understandable (or could I be wrong?).
Acusing without proof is indeed terrible. I wonder if there is at least a reasonable indication of cheating, and the last word on it is incredibly for top GMs to have, only! In my chessly modest opinion, if the 15th first moves are theory, I say I myself could perfectly play the next black moves til the end. They seem logical and even easy to considerate — all 6 of them!
Another problem is allowing so many absenses from the board, without the arbiters knowing for what reason (and if it is your turn to move, they’re forbided). And if it was a case of searching Kurnusov’s clothes, they should do it when first doubts arrose (Mamedjarov’s claim, for instance), not after the game.
@Mike
It is not even a Queen, but merely an exchange (with no compensation whatsoever, of course!
not the first time Gijssen blunders.
The arbiter is not objecting but ignoring the claim that Kurnusov was leaving the bord after EVERY move; which seems very strange indeed. If that is what happened Gijssen should have checked during the game what Kurnusov was doing. I’d like to know if he has a bladder problem or something. Because of Gijssen’s inadequate response this problem could occur, imo.
I think this reaction is strange too;
The latter is a meaningless comment of course, and if it was just the moves Mamedyarov would not have made such a claim.
Article seems very neutral, giving both sides of the story.
@Damian
No need for home analysis. Is 16. … Qd6! that difficult to find?? And for a GM! Of course not! In my club several moves of that profoundity are found every day
seems i can’t copy paste quotes here; but I meant Gijsen saying that the moves were not impossible to find.
A stupid comment in many ways.
The burden of proof surely lies with Mamedyarov, not with Gijssen or anyone else. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Standing up from the board after every move is nothing unusual. I myself do it all the time, and I know many others who do, too. I really don’t see how anyone can think the arbiter did something wrong in this case.
@Castro. Yes tks..! Even so, loosing the exchange that way you need a blunder…Anyway, under error, obvious lines end with material losses, and human variations will mostly agree with the computer moves when we talk about getting material in few moves…
Why do extraordinary claims require “extraordinary evidence”. What do you mean with extraordinary evidence anyway?
And by the way; how on earth is a player supposed to proof such a claim. They can’t! They can’t spend their time following or observing their opponent, they can’t ask him stuff, and they can’t frisk him (or her:p) . An arbiter however has the right to ask a player things-when suspicious behavior is observed. Myame did the right thing by going to the arbiter. I am not saying that Gijssen could have proved it, but he could have done better for sure and had more chances to do so then Myamedarov..
And Myame says that his opponent went to the toilet or for a smoke. So out of visible range and probably the playing hall. How many times do you do that?
At least up until move12 it is all theory and there are many forced moves that follow. It’s very subjective, but I also think it is not so hard for a strong grandmaster to find the line that was played.
But an opponent that leaves after each move and plays very accurately a complicated and dangerous line is indeed suspicious.
Based on the information we have it is impossible to determine whether or not there was cheating. Another example to show that anti-cheating measures need to be taken seriously, these things will only happen more.
No the tournament is not dead because of this and yes people realize that nothing is proven so Kurnosov will not be lynched.
I don’t blame Mamedyarov for speaking out. If nobody ever says anything, cheaters would have a field day…
Mamedyarov must have been pretty convinced, though I’m still not quite sure why he thought it was necessary to leave the tournament.
>>The burden of proof surely lies with Mamedyarov, not with Gijssen or anyone else.
But the arbiters should take it seriouisly. What was Mamedyarov supposed to do? Do a body search right there in the playing hall?
The problem is once a game is finished that’s it. If Mamedyarov really believed that Kurnosov was cheating he should have stopped the clocks and made a protest. Complaining after you resign a game is just too late.
it is called: sour grapes.
take your losses like a big boy, not a pussy
Maybe the arbiter could/should do more. In that case he indeed would have a responsability.
As for Mamedjarov, until some point he seems to have done the good thing: Share the suspitions with the arbiters, and expect them to take action.
Of course these actions are not easy for the arbiters to take, in terms of getting sure knoleage of what was happening or not, but Mamedjarov, being in fact suspicious, couldn’t have done more, I think.
After that, seeing that no conclusion was reached by the arbiters, and having lost the game, he protested.
The problem is that he didn’t say exactly what he was protesting, and so nothing would he gain. If he protested cheating from Kurnusov, that would then bring lots of problems to him, because the right people for averiguate that failed to find proofs. He could be protesting for the arbiter’s imcompetence, and that is where he could (or not) be right. But he didn’t explicitate.
Now, even if Mamedjarov refrained to directly acuse Kurnusov of cheating, from things like
“The next moves from him were given as first choice by Rybka, which quickly allowed him to win the game
Due to this series of suspicions, having to do with the unusual behaviour of my opponent, Igor Kurnosov (…)
I hope that this kind of situation will not occur in the future.”
all of us understand that Kurnusov’s image is now wounded, and so maybe after all Mamedjarov will get some problems all the same (public excuses, money?).
Sad, sad situations, not really uncommon, and the future is not very promising either, as someone rightly pointed.
Very weird protest… Perhaps the best counterargument is that after move 14, where Mamedyarov says he made the draw offer, Rybka gives a slight edge for white! If Kurnosov was checking Rybka, surely he would have accepted the draw offer based on its analysis?
@patj
I think you’re right, and that was what happened: He tried to somewhat surprise an “inferior opponent” with a line that maybe even he was not well prepared to play, then became himself surprised that the “inferior opponent” was answering “superiorly”, and got suspicious because of the opponent’s absences.
In fact, Mamedjarov could be right about the opponent being cheating, but the first impression is that, anyway, he didn’t manage very well his loss (his bad moves or his bad strategy). Because, in fact!, he can also be rotundely wrong about the cheating (unless, and I don’t think so, various top GMs would prove the complete human impossibility of a GM like Kurnusov finding that series of moves, over the board or at home. This last case is also posible: The preparation for a certain game against a certain opponent, can also be more or less unlikely or even humanly impossible, even having the strongest computer meens. Anyway, I think none of that was called for, here… But who am I?)
@Peter
The protest is understandable, but also “weird”, as you say.
It’s “weirdness” goes to it not even needs refutation! But what you say now is very important, because it indicates that the suspitions were not justified, even if it was the case the arbiters maybe could/should do better.
Or could it even be the case that, while also “checking with Rybka”, he at that point reached one of that positions where a player (and more a GM!) knows that the computer is wrong, and that he’d win easily?
I just showed the game to my sister who is not a very good player at all and found all the natural moves from Rf7 to Bg4… ok Qd2 in the end was not so natural but not difficult for a GM… no sense to claim based on the moves.
I understand Mamedyarov’s claim due to the behavior of Kurnusov but I dont understand saying that Kurnusov won easily because of Rybka suggestions.
It surely is a case of “sister Refutation”!
Joking, of course, but you’re right, the moves seem strong but completely human to me also. Even Qd2, but that takes a sister Polgar (of course not!).
I’d say it is a fine, wonderful short chess game and win. Worth of a GM or a Rybka program
I agree with sjoerd. I don’t think it matters whether the moves were easy to find for a human or not, and it doesn’t matter either if the moves had been played years ago until move 16 in another game. I really don’t think Kurnusov was cheating, but you can’t expect Mamedyarov to play serenely as long as he thinks he’s actually playing against a computer. It looks like the arbiter screwed up and dimissed Mamedyarov’s concerns instead of taking them seriously. If Gijssen really thinks it’s too hard to keep an eye on a specific player in a playing hall, maybe he should reconsider being an arbiter altogether. Wasn’t Gijssen already responsible for a major issue not so long ago?
The “Rybka moves” of the game are just an additional note. The suspicions were in the first place because of Kurnosov’s behavior during the game.
Drawing conclusions based on the moves alone is futile and exactly what Gijssen instigates by his comment about the possibility of a human finding these moves. Myamedarov is not saying that his opponent couldn’t have found these moves.
@pete;
Perhaps not.
if you know for sure that you are only a little worse and not lost, and have a strong engine that your opponent has not, you would continue the game. Because you know you and your engine are the stronger player. Without an engine, you would think twice.
I am curious to see if Kurnosov is going to finish this tournament strong, and if he will continue to leave the board (tournament hall?) after each (??) move. I think neither of that will happen.
@guillaume;
biggest Gijssen thing was Kramnik-Topalov; his decision for loss by forfeit ( I fear that may be a correct decision though).
Further he was the arbiter when a draw was declared between Carlsen and Morozevich for threefold repetition that did not occur at all,
and then there were some more incidents i forgot. Maybe others know.
Qd2 was clearly a VERY nice move, but not enough to claim cheating.
Still, if Mamedyarov decided to leave the tounament and to create this buzz, I guess he was pretty sure about the cheating.
Well I can understand Mamedyarov’s reaction, but understanding it doesn’t change the fact it is completely wrong and very unfair to Kurnosov. The Rybka thing is a red herring; he was already suspicious at move 14, which was all theory, so obviously the supposed strength of moves were not the source of his suspicion, though perhaps he felt they “confirmed it”.
Anyway, no matter what you may or may not suspect, you cannot do what Mamedyarov has done. He has no proof at all, and is most probably wrong. It does make it seem we need stronger anti-cheating measures in top-level chess, not because there is likely much cheating going on, but because the simple perception of the possibility makes these kinds of happenings possible. If Mamedyarov had confidence that the system could catch a cheat, then he might have stayed within normal, official channels to deal with his suspicions, instead of going off on a flyer.
I believe Kurnosov would in most circumstances be perfectly within his rights to sue Mamedyarov, and would likely win a large amount of money, as a lowered reputation could greatly affect his earning potential.
Novelty on move 16 cummulating in Rybka’s first choice to move 21? Sounds like good ole GM home preparation to me. (using Rybka maybe)
There is something psychological going on similar to Topalov’s case last time. When your opponent leaves the board frequently, in this day and age, one’s mind immediately thinks of computer assistance. Is even convinced of it.
Gentlemen:
I have two concerns regarding the Mamedyarov issue, to wit: 1) his opponent’s behavior during he game and 2) opponent’s moves compared to Rybka’s.
On the first issue, GM Mamedyarov should have called the attention of the assigned chess arbiter to check the behavior of his opponent of having gone to the toilet every after a move was made after GM Mamedyarov had proposed a draw to his opponent and that he should had not waited until he lost his game on the 21st move.
On the second issue, why simply not compare the past games of his opponent prior to the game in question with that Rybka’s? Based on that comparison, a conclusion can easily be drawn of whether or not his opponent really consulted Rybka at such frequencies at that time.
In conclusion, if the assigned arbiter or the chief arbiter had not exhausted other means to resolve the issues at hand especially the second one then I think the arbiter/s are incompetent. Basis? try to check the games of GMs Anand, Topalov, Kasparov, Carlsen, Aronian, to name a few Supergrandmasters, and you can easily draw conclusions regarding the matter. The point therefore is that can super grandmasters cannot and will not have the same first moves as that of Rybka’s in all cases!!!!
Thank you very much!
Nothing can be said for sure before a serious investigation, but after seeing this case I may tend to have bad feelings about future of chess. it seems Mamedyarov‚Äôs arguments were not fair or even ethical because he accepted his opponent game in case of a draw to be accepted by him, but in case he looses the game then he did not accept his opponent’s play. This is clear, it’s like: I can accept to draw with a 2600 GM but I do not accept to loose…mainly IF he is viewing better moves than I do: before I have my image downgraded, I will put in doubt his integrity… I have seen this in the politics…This case must be treated with severity by Fide.
I almost forgot to say something relevant here, and from my personal experience (and vanity, sorry)!
Once I won a 20 minutes game online, against an IM (that happened more than once
). The problem with this particular game was that the master became suspicious, especially because the game contained a spectacular and not so easy “forcing” combination.
He then told me: — Were you using software? You can tell me, I understand, and I think you MUST have used a chess program.
I answered “No, I didn’t. do that, I never do that” He left the board, he surely was reporting on me, and the game would be analysed, etc.
In the next minutes I became not only proud, but curious, and I put the position on a program (Fritz 4, it is even today the best chess program I have in my computer!). Then a shock! The combination was wrong!!! White had not only a way out, but several (with the same idea and not at all obvious, though)!!
So I rushed to see if the IM was still online, and told him that. He wouldn’t believe me! Eventualy he was forced to believe me, of course, and all ended well.
Here is the game:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. Be2 Re8 8.
O-O b6 9. b3 Bb7 10. Bb2 Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Nf3 Bd6 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14.
Bxe5 Rxe5 15. Qd4 Qg5 16. g3 Qe7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Qf4 g5 19. Qg4 f5 20. Qh5 f4?! 21. Bf3 g4?? 22. Qxg4+ Rg5 23. Qxf4 (Qxg5!?) Rf8 24. Qh4??(all three Qxg5, Qxf8 and Bxb7! would win!) Bxf3 25. Rd4 Re5 26. Rf4 Qxh4 27. Rxh4 h5 28. h3 g7 29. Rc1 Kg6 30. Rc2 c5 31. Rd2 d5 32. a3 d4 33. e4 Rxe4 34. Rxe4 Bxe4 35. Re2 d3 36. Rd2 Rd8 37. f4 Bf3 38. Kf2 Be2 39. Ke3 Re8+ 40. Kf2 Kf5 41. b4 Ke4 42. b5 Kd4 0-1
That was my bedtime story for tonight. Sweet dreams!
)
(Peter I must get payed, I desperatly need money
Is my difficulty in posting something I copy-pasted to a text editor in order to save it related to that process of copy-pasting?
The game was played on board 1 with arbiters,players,spectators etc close to the game.
Mamedyarov says he offered a draw on move 14 due to his suspisions of unfair play. He should have reported his suspisions immediately to the arbiter as soon as he became suspicious (before or at move 14).
If his opponent every move picked up his coat and went to the toilet as claimed why did Mamedyarov not report it to the nearby arbiter (board 1!) every move.
Did any spectator ,player,or arbiter who witnessed the game on board 1 see Mamedyarov’s opponent get up every move with his coat and go to the toilet.
Complaining after the game is finished is not satisfactory. Any player who suspects his opponent is cheating etc must report it immediately to the arbiter (in this case at or before move 14) and each and every move thereafter.
I very much doubt his opponent was acting improperly. If a complaint had been lodged by move 14 the arbiter could have spoken to his opponent and taken whatever action the arbiter may have considered necessary.
The game is brought into disrepute if a player does not follow the correct procedure by reporting his concerns at the time to the arbiter – particularly on top board of one of the World’s Best Chess Tournaments.
Regards Peter Parr IA
taken from Mig’s site (foto by Sergey Sorokhtin, tnx to dcp23):
http://pokerchess.ru/images/photoalbum/album_21/img_3083_t2.jpg
GM Igor Kurnosov is the one with the coat …
Why am I again uncapable of posting a text?
Not so much big size, no links, no offences, not pasted text (now I’m trying to paste again, but I tried writing directly too)…
What else could explain this?
Here is the game:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. Be2 Re8 8.
O-O b6 9. b3 Bb7 10. Bb2 Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Nf3 Bd6 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14.
Bxe5 Rxe5 15. Qd4 Qg5 16. g3 Qe7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Qf4 g5 19. Qg4 f5 20. Qh5 f4?! 21. Bf3 g4?? 22. Qxg4+ Rg5 23. Qxf4 (Qxg5!?) Rf8 24. Qh4??(all three Qxg5, Qxf8 and Bxb7! would win!) Bxf3 25. Rd4 Re5 26. Rf4 Qxh4 27. Rxh4 h5 28. h3 g7 29. Rc1 Kg6 30. Rc2 c5 31. Rd2 d5 32. a3 d4 33. e4 Rxe4 34. Rxe4 Bxe4 35. Re2 d3 36. Rd2 Rd8 37. f4 Bf3 38. Kf2 Be2 39. Ke3 Re8+ 40. Kf2 Kf5 41. b4 Ke4 42. b5 Kd4 0-1
That was my bedtime story for tonight. Sweet dreams!
)
(Peter I must get payed, I desperatly need money
well, I broke it in three, and apeared only the last part !!
LOL
Oh well!
The hell with it!
(Sorry)
Why do they not limit the number of times players can leave the hall during a game? The human bladder can handle tournament time controls. Perhaps one bathroom break per game. That is it! You give the large man at the bathrooms your token. No token, no entry.
In boxing, the fighter does not leave the ring after every bell.
In F1, the drivers do not urinate the entire race.
Military pilots can fly at 30,000ft for hours without bathrooms.
During an opera your girlfriend will let you use the bathroom once or twice. If you use the bathroom many times she will know you are CHEATING in order to avoid the EFFORT required to enjoy opera.
Best,
Pal
Sorry: I mean I always get suspicious regarding “joys that require EFFORTS”
(and I mean it… joking)
Peter:
It’s really a shame if the two first parts of my post couldn’t show up.
Can you do something about it? At least tell me what to do in order to assure I can post the whole text tomorrow, in case you haven’t got it already…
Thx!
Anyway, on the game I gave above (MI x Castro), where it reads “28. h3 g7″ it should of course read “28. h3 Kg7″.
I think the arbiters made this disaster.
Mamedyarov told the arbiters his suspicion during the game. But the arbiters only noticed that Kurnosov took his jacketin a playing hall with 160 players that’s not easy. But I did notice that Kurnosov took his jacket with him while every time he left the board. After the game, they let him to show the contents of his pockets.
That means the arbiters did nothing for the complain.
so the disaster happened.
The only way to prove Kurnosov did nothing wrong. won all the games he will play.
In my opinion it is a knee jerk reaction because of a draw offer refusal by a 2602 player vs a 2724 player. And of course the shocking 21 … Qd2 find.
i wonder if there is no copyright on a chess move why using a move from rybka is
illegal:)))
Sjoerd, it is indeed not so easy to find strong evidence against someone you suspect of cheating, and this is exactly how it should be. If a few toilet visits will get a riot started and give the arbiters the right to search you or whatever, you are already shifting the burden of proof from the one who complains to the one who is suspected. This is why police officers need an official search warrant and why, at least in Holland, the police can’t just search you on the street without a really, really good reason to do so.
The point is that Mamedyarov’s explanation is still very, very vague and unconvincing. For instance, did he actually see Kurnosov walk out of the playing hall and going to the toilet after every move or did he just see him standing up? Did Kurnosov also leave to the toilet after the very first moves, as the letter says? Why would he have done that? Why did Mamedyarov not say HOW he could have seen him not only leaving the playing hall, but actually going to the toilet – from his own seat? How long did Kurnosov stay away? How can he have played quickly if he was away all the time? In fact, why didn’t Mamedyarov give the clock standings after each move so that we can at least check his story? And how did Mamadyarov know his opponent was confused after move 14? Surely Kurnosov didn’t tell him this. It’s all pretty much guesswork if you can’t fill in the details.
You see, now all these details are missing, which makes it a rather weak complaint, whereas accusing a player of something serious and risking his reputation as a professional, really needs something more substantial. It’s completely out of proportions. Only if all these details would have been filled in by Mamedyarov, I’d say you could accuse Gijssen of taking incorrect action. But now, I completely understand his reaction.
I think in these big tournaments and matches the opportunity for a player to cheat should be kept to an absolute minimum. This is because it is almost impossible to prove a player has been cheating after the fact.
Players should have to stay right at or near the chess board for the entire game where they can be constantly observed.
The only exception to this should be few potty breaks with a security person with them at all times.
If someone is not planning to cheat why should they care about someone constantly
watching them?
Players should welcome this policy because it greatly reduces the possibility of someone cheating against them!
Grow up, Mammie, take your loss like a man. I would rather see some pictures of his sisters!
To my opinion a chessplayer should NOT leave the board more than 2 or 3 times during a game. No matter whether he s cheating or not. It s not a good behaviour to run around the whole game. How often do you see beckham leaving the field , have you ever seen agassi takin a break during tennis game. NOPE So why do we chessplayer are allowed to run around like kids
@Philpp, have you ever seen Beckham on the soccerfield for 6 hours? The guy probably doesn’t train as much in a whole week… Anyway, in golf, the players walk most of the time, so perhaps we should compare chess with golf?
What, a grandmaster won a game in 21 moves and his opponent suspects that he must have used a computer for this? Talk about a sore loser.
I have always thought that such an accusation should always end with someone being punished. If not the one being accused then the accuser. Okay, I am exaggerating, but such a behaviour is disgusting.
one thing is to simply leave the board and walk around along the other boards, wandering on the playing venue among all other players – and quite another is to go outside the building (supposedly you are not allowed to smoke inside) for a smoke. its perfectly normal to get up and make a short stroll around the tables, and this by no means should be prohibited.
as about going outside (too bad for the smokers, its their problem to abstein), i agree that this could be prohibited in the future, as long as good air ventilation/conditioning is provided inside the playing venue. once you are outside, there can be additional possibilities for cheating(for example, on broadcasted games, you only need to go out for a minute or so, to get close to a friend of your who just spoked with someone who is playing the moves with rybka, and tell you the next rybka move he got by phone. or, you may have yourself a well hidden cell-phone outdoors, and quickly get the next rybka move from someone prepared to give it to you, etc.
the basic line: wandering among the other players inside the playing room is ok. going outside playing venue/outdoors is not ok.
the only remaining problem is going (inside the playing venue) at the toilet.
@Arne Moll
I got searched on the street without a warrant twice this week, preventive search they called it.
That’s Amsterdam these days.
In both cases I just came from a chess tournament. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe this raised their suspicion although they said they looked for weapons. I am happy I did not carry a pocket Fritz!
That’s a shame, Daan, although I can also kind of understand the police when they see a character like you wandering the streets of Amsterdam..
SHAK FOR PRESIDENT!!
Finally a player who speaks out, because this cheating in chess is getting worse and worse.
Just look at what happened in my white game last night at my local chess club.
1. f3, e5 My opponent offered me a drink and left the board, supposedly to go to the bar to get me a cup of coffee. As he stayed away rather long, I did not wait for his return and played 2.g4. Upon his return he did not even think 2 seconds before lashing out 2. .., Qh4 mate.
Last night I could not understand what went wrong, but when I analyzed this game this morning using Rybka I noticed all of my opponents moves were the computers first choice!
I am going to follow Shak’s example and write to the president of my chess club that I will no longer play games on club nights. THESE CHEATERS SHOULD BE PUT TO A STOP!!
Har, very good
Here we go again
Asking where I’ve been
You can’t see these tears are real
I’m crying
We cant go on together
With suspicious minds
And be cant build our dreams
On suspicious minds
Players should stay in the board or around the board. The rest should be treated as bad practice/unconventional behavior
At the moment judging this case from a distance involves way too much speculation. For example, if we learned that Kurnosov was moving immediately after returning to the board, we might not be judging Shak so harshly.
On the information we have so far, Gijssen was negligent in not watching Kurnosov closely after the complaint and not turning off the live transmission of the game as a precautionary measure, but it is too early to judge either of the players.
As a side note, reading IA Parr’s crazy suggestion that Shak should have complained after each and every move rather than try to concentrate on the game, makes me think that maybe arbiters are just hopelessly out of touch.
It is a smoking problem. What if you are a heavy smokers, trying to calm your nerves that way? You have to leave after every move. And every cigarette is very important to you. Non smokers should try to understand this.
And the moves Kurnosov made were not difficult at all to find. In fact the whole setup by white is very pragmatic, he just tried to blow his lower rated opponent from the board as fast as possible in a very unhealthy way. A grandmaster doesn’t need Rybka to refute this. Qd6, nor Bf5 and Bg4 are very special, and the last move, Qd2, although elegant, would be found by every master within a minute.
If you suspect your opponent of cheating you don’t offer a draw and you don’t play on untill a totally lost position. You mention it to the arbiter, you hit your opponent in the face -preferably hard!-, you follow him to to bathroom, I dont care, but you don’t offer a draw!
Ever!
Playing devils advocate here but the game after Qd6 did not last too many moves for someone to have analysed with Rybka the position in question. If Qd6 was his novelty that he had come up with surely he woul dhave analysed the position deeply before playing it with a computer.
@arne; why on earth do you take your coat if you are going for a stroll inside the building? You are not really that naive are you?
It is not Myame’s job to check all the things you say. Arbiters should do that when Myame tells his suspicions.
Furthermore you are twisting words again; it is not a “few” toilet visits if you disappear out of everybody’s view after each move.
I don’t think Myame’s letter or behavior is vague or unconvincing, as you call it. I think your posts are though.
Myamedarov has stated his suspicions and withdrawn from the tournament. Everybody is free to draw his conclusions but I think Myame did the best he could given the circumstances. And I do agree that some things sound a bit strange, but I noticed that Gijssen was not filling in those gaps.(how many times did K. leave the board, whereto,e.g.)
It’s a pity that even now, another arbiter (peter perr in the comments above) shows the incapability to respond adequately.
Only the mind of a bureaucrat could devise that you have to report a suspicious repetitive act of your opponent each time it occurs.
When you report that somebody leaves after each move it is is ridiculous to tell that each move again. Especially when you are playing a difficult game.
Mr. Perr further repeats that Myame should have reported to the arbiters during the game. Something he in fact did. Now the arbiter’s could have controlled the story.
If Mr. Kornusov really disappeared so often with coat something is wrong. May be they even could have warned him that his behavior was raising suspicions. I bet he then would have preferred to sit a little bit longer without all this.
As i see it now, the arbiter did nothing until after the game, when he realizes that Myame was really not happy.
Simmillion has a point though; that would probably have been the wisest course of action. But how big is this fellow Kurnosov?
Rules on how often you go to the loo? One visit? Two? How about like at concerts where people do it in bottles where they sit/stand. An idea I guess.
Ridiculous. So I have to make the choice of piss myself or resign. Hmmm. Tough that. Do people think before posting?
And yes, formula one drivers have certainly been known to pee themselves. Bad example.?Some cricketers have done too, alas. Many chess players smell badly enough without this.
Took his coat – fair enough. I do too – stops stuff getting stolen. Moscow – in winter – another reason maybe. This would not be enough for Peter Falk’s Columbo.
sjoerd, the fact is we simply don’t know what happened and why, since Mamedyarov’s account is inconclusive. That was my whole point. To blame the arbiters or anyone else without more knowledge of the situation is simply absurd.
Is it possible that Myamedarov was already suspicious before the game?
It seems to me that this was the case and he was searching for evidence during the game (and got it?!).
Did somebody notice all the azerbaijan players lost yesterday?
Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Mamedov, Safarli…
I am not in a position to say which player is right, Mamedyarov or Kurnosov.
However, I think that the players should only be allowed to leave the playing area – let us say once every 2 hour…
And they should be bodychecked before play, as if they were about to go on an aeroplane.
Unfortunately, this will be necessary in the future.
A simple rule would prevent such things in the future:
“Players should be present at the table during the whole game. A player can go to the toilet once for every hour of play.”
I don’t mean that the players have to go to the toilets on the hour, I mean that if the game lasts for 6 hours, they can leave the table maximum 6 times – at any time they wish. A player doesn’t have to sit for the whole time, but he has to be near the table for the whole game (except the toilet breaks).
Chess should be played at the table, not from the toilets, relaxation box, smoking area, etc.
I would like to rise another, albeit related point: Suppose your opponent thinks you are cheating. He goes to the arbiter. The arbiter goes to you. I bet your concentration is lost for the rest of the game. This happened to Luuk Koelman in Hilversum last year. I think a penalty (substracting some thinking time?) for unjustified claims is appropriate in cases like these, just to prevent inappropriate claims.
So my proposition:
1) if you think your opponent is cheating, go to the arbiter immediately.
2) if the accusation is unjustified you get penalised by some loss of time..
any comments?
Let’s speculate, it is so much fun.
Why did he take his coat? Pocket Fritz and/or communication devices easily fit in the pockets of your trousers. Cigarettes however may easily get damaged when put in your trousers…..
Why did black play quickly? Maybe the fact that a big chunk of the game was “old theory” counts for something….
Why did he leave the board so often? Weak bladder? Serious smoke addiction? New girlfriend? Found his opponent irritating?
What use is it to compare the moves of the game with those suggested by Rybka? The game only lasted 5 moves after known theory. At least 3 of these moves were very obvious.It really is a shame that Shak played such a lousy game, because a longer game might have given more food for thought.
to phil …
hihihi nice remark …
jmws fair enoug..
But maybe the arbiter should observe first. When the opponent really is leaving the board exceptionally often, or is wearing a headphone f.e.:p, you have reasons to investigate.
That way there would be less need for a penalty if the claim is unjustified. I am sure Mr. Moll doesn’t agree with me though.
“Pocket Fritz and/or communication devices easily fit in the pockets of your trousers.”
Certainly Mamedyarov should be able to beat Pocket Fritz!
Anyway, the big question remains unanswered: was lip balm used?
@Arne Moll
What?! You are accusing me of looking suspicious or potentially dangerous?! You are looking for trouble mister, no one spreads such lies about me unpunished. Next time we meet in a bar I challange you for a game and I will bring my big brother pocket Fritz, moewahaha!
I just observed the position of the a.m. game after the move 19. … Bf5 for a few minutes. Black is better developed. White’s King Knight and Rook are still at their original squares, and, like in the recent game Radjabov vs. Grischuk (Linares 2009), it seems White developed an unjustified early pawns advance and attack against a solid Black position, probably underestimating the strength of his opponent in this case. Under these conditions it is not so difficult to find a few moves sequence in order to punish White’s lack of good strategy…As you know for example from Parsvnath Open, a 9 years old 1800 player can do that even against a GM…
Game corrected (23. … Kg7, not 23. … g7):
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. Be2 Re8 8.
O-O b6 9. b3 Bb7 10. Bb2 Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Nf3 Bd6 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14.
Bxe5 Rxe5 15. Qd4 Qg5 16. g3 Qe7 17. Rad1 d6 18. Qf4 g5 19. Qg4 f5 20. Qh5 f4?! 21. Bf3 g4?? 22. Qxg4+ Rg5 23. Qxf4 (Qxg5!?) Rf8 24. Qh4??(all three Qxg5, Qxf8 and Bxb7! would win!) Bxf3 25. Rd4 Re5 26. Rf4 Qxh4 27. Rxh4 h5 28. h3 Kg7 29. Rc1 Kg6 30. Rc2 c5 31. Rd2 d5 32. a3 d4 33. e4 Rxe4 34. Rxe4 Bxe4 35. Re2 d3 36. Rd2 Rd8 37. f4 Bf3 38. Kf2 Be2 39. Ke3 Re8+ 40. Kf2 Kf5 41. b4 Ke4 42. b5 Kd4 0-1
Not everyone reacts to stress the same way. I used to get up after every move, and due to the large quantities of water and nerves, I went to the bathroom after almost every move. This was all long before computers, so I was never accused of cheating.
Just because you don’t need to do this don’t regulate those who are different from you. If you actually catch someone cheating, ban them for life.
Rules on how often you can leave the board are stupid and one-sided for those who have the patience to sit there indefinitely.
A lot of discussions about this weird topic, but the following hasn’t been pointed out yet:
Assuming Kurnosov cheated, the most obvious way is to use a pocket PC. There is however no Rybka for pocket PC (yet). I can’t imagine Kurnosov using a small 7 inch netbook, this is simply too big for a pocket or a jacket. Something bigger than a 7 inch netbook is even harder to keep safe from observations. On the other hand: it seems very likely that other pocket PC programs than Rybka might find these moves without trouble as well, as they don’t seem to be difficult to chess programs.
Another possibility would be the use of a mobile telephone, where the visits to the toilet were meant to read the phone. A friend might follow the game at home through the net and send him an SMS with Rybka’s next move. But mobile phones are supposed to be switched off during games, as well as the sound of the received SMS would give him away. Besides, if investigation of Kurnosov’s jacket showed no phone or pocket PC, there is no evidence whatsoever.
Last possible try: maybe he was visiting a friend at the neighborhood of the tiolets, telling him the moves? But how to do this in a big tournament with so many people around? I would say: difficult, maybe possible, but hardly believeable.
Hence the only possibility seems to me that a pocket PC was being used with a different program (not Rybka). If the arbiters searched Kurnosov’s pockets and didn’t find such a device, the whole case seems to be very much against Mamedyarov.
to arne mall, the issue is not the using of rybka’s move it is how it is being used.
if you want to learn a lesson take bobby fischer’s word on how russian play chess………..
joroen;
do not think like idiot talking about pocket pc, it is just showing your ignorance in modern electronics communication. nobody needs a pocket pc to receive an electronic transmitted move.. from the audience. specially syndicated…..
i request the aeroflot chess organizer to take a look at cctv record, how many times kornosov went to toilet and how many times he brouhgt his coat.
sometimes hometown favoritism…works…..
have you seen the movie where chess was played and the supplied (analized) move was placed at the bottom of the glass of water and served to their player.
For quite a long time my opinion is that the rapid (active) chess is preferable at the PROFESSIONAL level, and not classical chess. Also because of these problems with cheating suspicions. With rapids, everything is easier.
One big obstacle for the development of the rapid chess is that it is not rated. A question to FIDE! (Well, they were asked already). Anyway, there are more and more such tournaments.
Those who need high quality may now put two Rybkas to play each other, or to play by email and be happy.
What’s all this crap about not leaving the chess board any more, or maximum once every hour ?
Why not turn the playing hall into a prison, with prison guards, bodychecks, etc…?
And all this because of the frustrations of one player, who accuses his opponent without proof and immediately started an internet offensive with his ridiculous letter !
Some people walk around because of the stress, to stretch their legs, to drink something or have a smoke ….
This is called freedom, and we’re going to throw it away because of M. Mamedyarov ??
Personally I have to go to the toilet rather often, it happens that i have to pee
3 or 4 times in the same hour (because of stress, drinking a lot of water,…).
It is completely unlawful to oblige people to a maximum number of toilet visits.
Mikhail Golubev,
I cannot believe my eyes : you want to replace classical chess by rapid chess, because cheating would be more difficult.
This will lead to a a loss of quality in a lot of chess games, more blunders,…
And what about the numerous players who prefer classical time control chess?
Rapid and classical chess should coexist , there should be something for everyone.
Flordiane,
Your thinking seems to be really idiotic, with your nonsense about russian conspiracies.
Somehow I support Memedyarov. I don’t think is OK players to the play their games out of the toilet or elsewhere outside the chess hall.
@ Flordiane: so then why take his jacket with him and leaving the playing hall for the toilets, if according to you Kurnosov used a more modern way to get his moves? Wouldn’t it be easier to just walk around if he had some device hided in his ear?
Going to the toilets taking a jacket suggests pocket PC or mobile phone, no spectacular modern transmitting method.
If Mamedyarov was so sure about his suspicion, he should have asked right away, had the toilet inspected as well as the jacket.
Somehow this whole affair reminds me a bit of cycling these days: if a cyclist suddenly has a very good race, everybody starts suspecting him of using doping.
@Golubev: I don’t believe the way to fix something illegal is to destroy the object of a millennium old Sport/Art. Shall we stop the Olympic Games because of the existence of cases of doping..??? No!! The right way is to implement competently whatever necessary comprehensive rules and its supervision…
@steven
What about other sportlers “rights”? In which sport can they leave the playing field whenever they like and how often they like?
Chess players need to grow up and act more professional. It’s not unheard of that we fans and the sponsors want to see them at the board doing their job.
I read on the russian chess site that he was in the lobby smoking, and he had his cigarets and lighter in the jacket . Even if Shah could have a point in his accusations they are made not in the correct way anyway. And first choice by Rybka was 16… N takes b2, not Qd6 ?? And since Shah himself stated that they played 11 fast moves – how can thay play fast if Igor is in the lobby after every move. It looks like sour grapes , pity for Mamediarov. And it cant not refleckt Kurnosovs play- he drew in 12 today
Me :
In physical sports, there is much less need for “peeing” because of the sweating and the dehydration.
You cannot compare chess with physical sports.
In any case, you simply cannot forbid someone to go the toilet, even if he needs to go 3 times within the same hour.
It is really not necessary to turn a chess tournament into a school or worse, a prison.
@Mikhail Golubevs proposal (active/rapid chess)
David Bronsteins said something similar – a long time before computers had become so strong as they are today.
One hour each game!
And nobody is allowed to leave the arena during that time. This would be quiet ok for ordinary tournaments and it will be very entertaining for the audience. When we talk about the WCC or the candidate’s than the paying time will certainly be extended, but that level they will have the money for the technical equipment to fight cheating.
2steven
>>I cannot believe my eyes : you want to replace classical chess by rapid chess, because cheating would be more difficult.<>Shall we stop the Olympic Games because of the existence of cases of doping..???<<
This is a hard question.
Personally I am not really interested in Olympic Games in the present form, most what I hear about them is these endless doping scandals and, also, a matter who took more medals and won overall: US, China or Russia. (I did not understand who was the overall winner last time though.) But it does not disturb me that much. So, most seriously: I would let other people to decide.
2steven >>I cannot believe my eyes : you want to replace classical chess by rapid chess, because cheating would be more difficult.<>Shall we stop the Olympic Games because of the existence of cases of doping..???<<
Personally I am not really interested in Olympic Games, most what I hear about them is these endless doping scandals and, also, a matter who took more medals overall: US, China or Russia. (I did not understand who was the overall winner last time though.) But it does not disturb me that much. So, most seriously: I would let other people to decide.
This is a hard question.
2steven >>I cannot believe my eyes : you want to replace classical chess by rapid chess, because cheating would be more difficult.<<
ALSO because of the cheating problem, but mainly because the classical chess is extremely boring to watch in progress for (the many of) spectators.
P.S. Sorry for the mess, some tech. problem: a part om my posting was eaten twice.
I read the various opinions here. Always in personal respect, but I think some of them don’t even deserve a comment.
1. Any atempt to forbid players to get up from the table after playing his move, walking or going to a bathroom or a smoking area seem completely unacceptable to me. And above all unnecessary.
Yes, the future will bring more and more problems of this kind, but only IF one could not adress them, and if those problems are not to be adressable with the players freedom to walk in those kinds of tournament areas, I say they are not going to be adressable at all, mainly because the new technologies for cheating will work even for players sitting at the tables. If they aren’t already working!
2. I don’t think that this concrete case has any cheating at all (other then Mamedjarov’s psychology maybe cheating himself), but the truth is we don’t know for sure!
Someone here told something about the unconsistence of Kurnusov needing to take the jacket in order to cheat, because it would only be needed for something big as a Pocket Fritz, which doesn’t run Rybka, whereas small receivers exist… But it could be precisely the cheating method! The jacket (or even the absenses from the table!) could be a decoy: things to diverte atention and things which always would, in the end, show themselves to be inocent.
3. Those were the sad and alarming aspects of what we could expect, in the future. But nowadays we have already the other sad and problematic aspects: The lack of confidence, the abuses of acusing without proofs…
As I tried to show in my yesterday’s “bedtime story”, as something like Mamedjarov did, my IM opponent wouldn’t believe me TWICE: First, when I told him I didn’t cheat on him. And second, because my combination was (after all) wrong, when I told him that. He wouldn’t believe me, because of the mistake being so subtle that none of us could see. After the computer discovered that endgame/domination refutation, we were able to understand it, but didn’t see it in our 20+20 minutes, before.
So, we realy got our peacefull closure to the incident, but what if the combination was correct?? Can you see the problem? It would be what most likely is a Kurnusov-like situation.
4. The future may even bring chips and/or receivers or whole tiny computers implanted on brains. Can your imagination accept that and it’s consequences?
5. Another tipe of opinion that I think does deserve a comment is that Mamedjarov didn’t do right. As far as we know, during the game he DID right: Transmit his suspicions to the arbiters. Of course he didn’t remain calm after that, played bad moves and didn’t take the loss any well. The veiled acusation he then did is not acceptable, because it lacked proofs, and so maybe he should be punished (as Kurnusov complains or not!).
6. We remain without knowing the posible responsability of the arbiters. If they really just took that measures, and only when the game was over, maybe they are to have been part of problem too.
7. I had once another acusation of cheating online, against a computer (rated circa 2700 elo on that site, when I had something like 2200 myself). That acuser was really bad intentioned, it was a game he knew I COULN’T have cheated. He just made a (stupid) experimental move out of the opening and lost quikly. But out of sour grapes, he reported on me, and an admin even tagged me as a computer for some days! He said that a series of moves (after the opponent’s mistake, of course) were the first choices of some program — not Fritz, not Rybka, another strong program from some 5 years ago — and that I couldn’t win against 2700 as I had some losses against some 1900s too… I had to PROVE MY INOCENCE!! I emailed them lots of previous games of me in that variation, and lots of wins against strong opponents, and only after that they put me back as a regular player.
Oh no! Again a lost post…I have to do some effort to write (one-two fingers writing only!) and sometimes the post simply doesn’t show up!
WHY????
Oh well, this time I won’t insist. It was another story related to this theme, with another game to illustrate it, but now I will not even bother to try to post the 2nd part of it (unless someone told me and assured me a no-problem posting of it)!
Good night Ladies.
GMs know lines in their favourite openings that are longer than 21 moves. It is entirely possible that Kurnosov knew the Rodshtein-Margalashvili game, had discovered the killer innovation and had been carrying it around in his head for some time before getting the opportunity to spring it on Mamedyarov.
Mikhail Golubev’s suggestion is right on. One of the reasons that the mindless game of Poker is so popular and chess isn’t is that it takes too damn long to play a game of chess at classical time controls. Rapid games would be much more exciting to many more people, especially with GM commentary. Yes, more mistakes will be made, but so what? Some of the most exciting games are full of mistakes. It’s human to make them. The higher quality of slower games will still be there in Candidates Matches and World Championships, but big opens with rapid time controls would make for great spectator sport.
The saddest thing about this brouhaha is that young Kurnosov is poisoning himself with tobacco. Give it up Igor. It’s one of the worst things to do to your body and it will take many years off your life
@jjoroen
any detitive story movie like CIA if you have seen it, the agent put ahead a pistol at the back of the exit door which he can pull during the escape together with the hostages.
this is just pros and cons suspecion, since they are russians and the game was held in Russia we can expext if conspiracy played that some devices was already installed ahead of the tournament schedule.
just to let our minds running…..
meredyamov (2722) vs kornosov ( 2602) = 0-1 AEROFLOT 2009
Wesly So (PHILIPPINES) (2610) vs NI HUA ( CHINA) (2710) = 1. 0- DRESDEN OLYMPIAD 2008
There are several possible views on this situation, and my view of the situation is that
a) Kurnosov almost certainly did not use a chess computer during the game.
b) Mamedyarov did not handle the situation in the best possible way.
c) The arbiters made the right decisions in regard to the situation.
In my response, I will justify these conclusions that I have made, accepting that, not being a witness of the situation, it is impossible to avoid some bias.
Kurnosov almost certainly did not use a chess computer during the game. While there is not evidence to be 100% sure of this claim, I am highly confident that his play was equal to what would be expected of a 2600 player. It has been shown that Kurnosov’s moves 16-21 match Rybka’s choices, but in my view this is just a coincidence and not evidence that can be used to support Mamedyarov’s argument.
Firstly, the entire game may well have been preparation before the game, which would completely refute Mamedyarov’s claims. Furthermore, all of these moves were quite obvious to me (I am rated over 2250), again placing serious doubt in Mamedyarov’s decision to withdraw from the tournament, which appears to be more of an emotional than rational decision.
There could be several reasons for Kurnosov leaving the board several times. I will propose some: Having to smoke, needing to urinate frequently, nerves, necessity to stretch legs. All of these are entirely reasonable reasons to leave the board – although I agree with the person who says that Kurnosov would be wise to quit smoking. For this reason I think that Mamedyarov’s view that the opponent should not leave the board on almost every move cannot be properly substantiated.
Given that the weather in Russia is usually quite cold during the Aeroflot Open, it is entirely logical that Kursonov would carry his coat with him. Moreover, the declining of a draw offer against a higher-rated opponent is no evidence to support cheating either – especially if he could see that Mamedyarov was not handling the pressure of the game. Claiming that the opponent’s behaviour was unusual is in itself illogical, as shown by the evidence available during the game.
Additionally, Mamedyarov did not handle the situation in the best possible way. If Mamedyarov feels uncomfortable about his opponent’s behaviour, it is not the opponent that causes Shakh’s behaviour – it is Shakh’s reaction to his opponent’s behaviour that is the underlying cause of Shakh’s behaviour.
Mamedyarov made a mistake by offering a draw on move 14; as stated earlier he should have immediately alerted the arbiters of his suspicion; that way it can be checked and either validated or invalidated. It is interesting that Mamedyarov was surprised by his opponent’s refusal of a draw offer, since if Mamedyarov was showing signs of discomfort, stress or frustration, then it is entirely logical that Kurnosov would seek to take advantage of his opponent’s emotional state.
“It’s not a very convincing claim,” said chief arbiter Geurt Gijssen on the phone. “It’s all theory until 16…Qd6 and after that Black doesn’t make very strange moves. We checked the game with arbiters Fillipowicz and Vasiukov, but they didn’t think it was impossible to find the moves.” – I support this decision by the arbiters. In fact, Gijssen’s statement that it isn’t a very convincing claim appears to be a slight understatement.
“Before the end he asked me if the game could be removed from the website, and if we could keep an eye on his opponent. We tried to do that, but in a playing hall with 160 players that’s not easy. But I did notice that Kurnosov took his jacket with him, every time he left the board. After the game I asked him to show the contents of his pockets, but all that we found was a pack of sigarets, a lighter and a pen.”
This complaint by Mamedyarov is clearly an emotional rather than a rational reaction, as shown by the nature of the quoted complaint here. Asking a game to be removed from the website is unreasonable as it compromises the tournament. Gijssen asking Kurnosov to show the contents of his pockets was entirely reasonable, since if no evidence is found to suggest that Kurnosov may have cheated, then the case can be laid to rest.
Finally, Mamedyarov’s decision to withdraw from the tournament is a sad one. If there was significant evidence of his opinion, then this decision would have some justification, but without any reliable evidence then the withdrawal could easily be interpreted as a dummy-spit or a poorly considered emotional reaction, as some people here have either stated or inferred.
Personally I feel that Mamedyarov decided that he could not get his own way, and therefore decided to withdraw from the tournament in an attempt to encourage others to agree with his interpretation of the game. However, this is just speculation, of course, and there is not enough evidence to determine the exact reasoning for his withdrawal other than his suspicions and dissatisfaction with the arbiters’ decision.
It is impossible to stop cheating in Chess. As a simple gesture will be sufficient to give a clue. In a well-known tactics book, while discussing a position from his own game, the author says he initially dint notice the tactic. But seeing his coach being restless and moving here and there, he sensed something is there in the position.
How can we stop this?
No coaches in the playing hall!
Like I said before, only one rule will prevent such things in the future – the players have to be at the table for the whole game.
Is that really so unheard of like some commentators say???
OK, leave out the “real” sports like football, basketball, tennis, etc. Lets focus on darts, poker, bowling, snooker, etc which are more similar to chess. Can a player be late for the start of the game in any of the mentioned sports? Hell no. Can a player leave at any time of the game. Hell no. Can the players terminate the game at any time they wish? Not really. Can others behave like primadonas and have no obligations to the press? NO. Now what makes you think that chess is so different from above mentioned games to deserve all those privileges???
Chess players are just a bunch of spoiled brats. They want to earn like professionals, but they don’t want to behave like ones.
If they want that chess is just an amateurs sport then fine, there is nothing wrong with that. But they can only play for peanuts then, not for real money. For ammount of their professionalism chess players are over-payed.
So they have a choice, either they start to act like professionals (and the money will eventually come) or they remain at the amateur level. But then you can say goodbye to high prize funds and appearance fees.
For anyone concerned with Kurnosov’s health in the freezing Moscow cold, check the FIDE handbook:
art. 12.5
Players are not allowed to leave the `playing venue` without permission from the arbiter. The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.
But as far as I know, Kurnosov didn’t go outside. I don’t know whether the stair well was designated as a smoking area by the arbiter.
And for anyone thinking it’s all new, the following story (I refound it at http://www.koenig-plauen.de):
‘Beim legend?§ren Turnier in Bled 1931 [...] kam es zu einem peinlichen Zwischenfall. Die Partie Kostic-Kashdan war in ein kompliziertes Endspiel ?ºbergegangen [...] Kostic jedoch zog sich f?ºr l?§ngere Zeit an einen Ort zur?ºck, den selbst gekr??nte H?§upter zu Fu?ü aufsuchen m?ºssen. Pl??tzlich breitete sich wie ein Lauffeuer im Turniersaal die Meldung aus, er sei dort ?ºberrascht worden, als er jene Kabine nicht zum vorgeschriebenen Zweck benutzte, sondern um mit Hilfe eines Taschenschachs seine laufende Partie zu analysieren! Die Turnierleitung scheute vor drakonischen Ma?ünahmen zur?ºck. Sie verwarnte den ?úbelt?§ter, die Partie wurde fortgesetzt und endete schlie?ülich mit Remis. Ein paar Runden sp?§ter jedoch kam es zu einem lustigen Nachspiel! Als Tartakower das n?§mliche ?ñrtchen aufsuchen wollte, fand er s?§mtliche Lokalit?§ten besetzt, r?ºttelte an den T?ºren und rief erbost: “Verflixt, ?ºberall Kostic!”‘
I don’t quote this story to raise any doubt about Kornosov, but just to show the a bit more relaxed attitude with which items like this were handled in the pre-computer forum age. Sometimes you feel here like you are at a medieval market place, everyone with a rotten tomato at hand to throw at the next alleged villein in the block.
@F3MDR, certainly no criminal will acccept his wrong doing, even swallow all evidence that will sent him to jail.
@F3MDR
I agree with almost everything from your a) and b) supporting text.
Only related to b) (Mamedjarov didn’t handle it properly) I’d point what seems a simple non-sense:
“If Mamedyarov feels uncomfortable about his opponent‚Äôs behaviour, it is not the opponent that causes Shakh‚Äôs behaviour ‚Äì it is Shakh‚Äôs reaction to his opponent‚Äôs behaviour that is the underlying cause of Shakh‚Äôs behaviour.”
This sentence is completely wrong, for two reasons. First, to give just an example, It would allow to blame almost every victim for every crime! And second, “his reaction is the cause of his behaviour” is good for a laugh
Then, I disagree with your item c): We don’t know every detail of it, but we know, by the arbiters own words (and as you quoted) that he searched Kurnusov at THE END OF THE GAME. Apart from other posible failures, this one fact, alone, could prove some responsability of the arbiters.
@Rob Brown
Your own words betray your opinion on Mikhail Golubev’s suggestion, and you do tghe same mistake as him. Rapid and blitz tournaments are out there!
“The higher quality of slower games will still be there in Candidates Matches and World Championships”
You’re so right and the public interest for these, and for this kind of tournaments is so great that we have even much more of them, not just Candidates and WC!
Thank God!
@Castro on 24 February 2009 18:38 PM
“First, to give just an example, It would allow to blame almost every victim for every crime!”
Or Mame is just a pussy who can’t take anything. He was not a victim. He overreacted.
memedyarov (2722) vs kornosov ( 2602) = 0-1 AEROFLOT 2009 ,21 moves?????
Wesly So (PHILIPPINES) (2610) vs NI HUA ( CHINA) (2710) = 1. 0- DRESDEN OLYMPIAD 2008 , 40 moves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flordiane, the different number of moves mostly just reflects the different openings – it is quite hard, if not impossible to win in 21 moves against the “Berlin Wall” (if your opponent doesn’t blunder). If anything, So’s combination (23. Pxc7, then six more moves before it was clearly +-) is more difficult to find [without a computer] – of course I don’t suggest that Wesley So was cheating.
One common thing, though: Wesley So and Igor Kurnosov are quite young players and may well be worth more than their (present) rating.
Mark Crowther at the The Week in Chess site points out that 16….Nxb2!! followed by c5 was, in fact a more more brutal denouement than Kornusov’s TN. This certainly makes Mamedyarov’ accusation appear specious.
Ladies and guys,
A very similar situation with Mamedyarov in a leading role occurred a few months ago, in Czech Open 2008 (average rating 2299). Shahriyar was an ELO-favorite (2742). The second seed was Motylev (2674).
In round two, Mamedyarov lost to IM Genba (2429), later in round 6 – to GM Buhmann (2561). After a draw in round 7 with Smith Axel (2427 – no title), he pulled out of the event. In the final ranking crosstable after 9 rounds he “won” the 63 place.
http://chess-results.com/tnr14553.aspx?art=4&lan=1&fed=AZE&turdet=YES&flag=30&m=-1
This is kindova tradition for Azeri players to make rows and beat the air with lame excuses. At first, Radjabov with a very controversial, hysterical interview, calling Armenian chessplayers enemies, saying that “We all hated them” and hoping that “Allah will help us to defeat them”. Later, the same Radjabov withdrew from Linares because of hotel robbery. Now, Mamedyarov’s turn to be a newsmaker, although he appeared to be a pleasant and modest person. Kurnosov the Shahriyar Winner didn’t even answer to his faked accusations, deserving a respect.
So I guess it is high time for those guys to learn how to lose with dignity.
@Anon
Please read again what I wrote, and what I was answering to. That, and my saying that it was just as an example, will show you that you completly misunderstand my words, in your comment.
@Rob Brown
But no, I don’t think Kurnusov cheated there, either.
Again a rushed conclusion! If one have acess to Rybka’s analysis during a game, one can choose a 2nd or 3rd best moves it gives, and not the best, every move. One can even do that in order to look inocent when facing rushed conclusions
@Bacchus
Your generalization on azeri players is simply too much… “uncommentable”.
As for
“(Kurnusov) didn‚Äôt even answer to his faked accusations, deserving a respect”
The comment is WHAT??? This is the kind of (no) logic and (faked) common sense that bring the humanity in so much trouble!
Something I agree with you:
“So I guess it is high time for those guys to learn how to lose with dignity”
As long as “those guys” can stand for “everybody”.
Castro,
If you can make some very “commentable generalizations” on Azeri players – go ahead, but the problem (for’em and maybe for u) is that leading Azeri players are always ready for a row, causing scandals in the chess community with a “desirable” regularity.
Kurnosov won Hastings recently with a very remarkable 7.5/9, he was the first in Arctic Chess Challenge as well… in August 2008. Now, he is accused of bein’ a cheater without any evidentiary fact. Why? Because Mamedyarov, you see, can’t even lose to a 2600+ player? Well, he did lost to some very low-rated players a couple of months ago and he left the tournament similarly. The only difference is that this time he finally decided to pin a label “CHEATER” on a player who dared to beat Mister-2700-Elite-Player in just 21 moves.
Both Radjabov and Mamedyarov escaped penalties so far, but that’s enough.
Ok, you criticize two players who happened to be both azeri.
Or also criticize something about them being azeri?
See the difference? I can.
In the mean time, I’m the first to agree that (as we know) Mamedjarov abused and should be punished. Irrespective to Kurnusov complaining or not!
And I also think Kurnusov should complain. Then Mamedjarov would be in fact punished, and by more than one way.
As for him abandoning tournaments, I think that is perfectly acceptable, as long as he assumes the consequences (maybe losing money and/or future invitacions, or so) and as long as he respects everybody, which seems not to be the case here.
Mamedjarov behaviour is a disgrace.
If Mamedjarov is unable to prove his claims then he should be banned from future events for bring chess into a bad light !!!
Good example of poor sportsmanship !
every chess player is proned to chess conspiracy.
Only one person had surviived the chess conspiracy.
The late GREAT BOBBY FISCHER
no more no less………….nobody……….
want to knw FISCHER GAME SECRET?
then play not like a grandmaster but like an investigator, lawyer, scientist, matemathecian, phyicist, philosopher, crime buster, CIA, FBI, Military, mind boggler, psychic, politician, mechanic, warrior, secret agent, psychologist and most of all a genius.and etcetera……..
Dear Castro,
I believe it’s the problem of your perception (maybe visual) if you manage to see in my postings any nationalistic attack on Azeri players just for bein’ Azeris. In fact, I sympathized with Mamedyarov before this incident.
So I am fixing the problem. And yes, they are falling into the habit of causing scandals for no reason. So in this context one should better discuss the hateful antiarmenian statements of Radjabov, still present, among other things, on Azeri websites.
In all other respects, i share your opinion.
To Bachus. Txs for your relevant information clarifying many things. Indeed, some characters (quite irrespective of their ethnic origin) may stop at nothing in pursueance of their own interests. In all probability this incident has little to do with cheating in the sense which is meant here. I think M should be at least reprimanded for his behaviour.
I beg your pardon, Bacchus.
solutions to prove if kornosov is guilty:
1) lie detector test
2) cctv records will be reviewed
one of bobby fischer’s demand for the world championship match
was a separate rest rooms with glass wall and ceiling to avoid cheating but was not granted.
To look a photos from tournament! Kurnosov sits at a board almost all time . Mamedjarov has strongly exaggerated the statement, that Kurnosov left after each course.
What a shame. I am content to play at a lower level without cheating. Winning via the help of a computer is not winning.
There is, of course, a simple solution. Players may leave the table but they may only go to areas that are under strict supervision. Trips to the toilet included.
This kind of cheating is rampant with online chess so it comes as little surprise to see this kind of incident.
Always welcome, Val. And i agree with you on the matter of M’s behaviour.
50+ photo about conflikt, include Kurnosov’s coat
http://chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=16&id=194&page=7