У кого нет доступа туда, копирую далее переписку:
hamster64
Stockfish 9 finally got a more human name... and that is Viacheslav Tilicheev...
ЮрийЮрьевич
I saw him in real life at a tournament, and I think he is cheating. He's playing the sharpest possible lines till move 20 without a second of thought, having 1.40 on his clock. I think if it was a human player, I would evaluate his preparation at 2700 level at least, while he's also calculating really bleeding good. It's not how humans play. So I would keep my reasonable opinion that this is not an honest player. But without any proof wouldn't express it under my real name.
ggeorg
If he really produces this game level without thinking and gaining time on clock then it is very suspicious.
Concerning the games - 1 and 4 definitively can be played by strong human player. In game 3 black messed up completely early in the opening, but the total coincidence with SF is alarming. The same against Vocaturo, where however things can be explained with deep opening preparation.
I am wondering after the Ivanov case, is not Tilicheev suspected by players in Bulgarian tournaments. If he plays very fast and at this level it should be very alarming.
However judging from his FIDE page he plays relatively rarely in tournaments, so he may not be attracting so much attention.
gaurav_singh_m
Unless it can be proven (actual physical proof), it is not cheating. Everybody at the top level makes engine like moves. For it to be called cheating, one has to be caught with one's hands in the cookie jar.
ggeorg
I tend to agree with Gaurav_Singh. Here is some expert opinion on the chess.com case
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/19269 .
From the small sample of 4 games it is not possible to draw conclusion. If there are more of his recent games available somewhere it may be worth a look.
The guy tends to play a lot of forced lines and if he knows them deeply the games can create machine impression.
Anyway the story just emphasizes the need of metal detector and wifi blocker on every bigger tournament. This should work in majority of the cases.
Kingscrusher
There were other players from bulgaria - ivan tetimov , borislav ivanov who were obvious cheaters , they were checked many times during tournaments and no wires , cables , electronic devices nothing was found there ... I have witnessed such inspection - nothing was found ... but they were cheaters , they are removed from fide rating list , they had 100 % coincidence with the engine moves yet still no physical proof was found ...
I am from Bulgaria too and I have heard stories that several of the leading people in bulgarian chess federation know about the cheating ... some people were selling the electronic devices - microearphones and stuff for over 3000 $ ...
So it is very hard to be found physical evidence they are hiding it really well , only the games remain as a proof ;
This guy tilicheev is explaining to me in facebook group that his results are product of great opening preparation and that he worked for many hours per day training ... i don't believe that story very much ;
ggeorg
Most of the tournaments in Bulgaria are for small prize money. So giving 3000 $ is not a good investment in this case. In the story related to the chess.com incident, he told that he works as security guard, i.e. hardly a well paid job. But giving him plenty of time in front of a PC. And many hours of training can actually improve one's game a lot. In the chess.com case the games are quite unconvincing. Thus I cannot form definitive opinion on Tilicheev.
In case of Ivanov, GM Maxim Dlugi pretty much got him when Ivanov refused to take his shoes off in Blagoevgrad if my memory is correct.
Anyway metal detector and wifi blocker can be found pretty cheap nowadays and more and more it looks they should become obligatory in FIDE rated events
iyami
Look at this thread. At least the game mentioned there as the reason for banning him was not convincing at all.
http://immortalchess.net/forum/showt...ight=TilicheevThe problem with all statistical methods is that they give a result with an attached probability not a true-false result. Also there are assumptions and somewhat arbitrary choices included in the models
used.
I did not check the other games (too time consuming) so no opinion there but I am quite sure that no cheating was involved in the earlier game.
ЮрийЮрьевич
Well, guys, I can say a few things. Obviously, who's not caught isn't a thief and cannot be called one. But I'm a player of approximately same level as him, and I know how opening preparation at this level works. Sometimes you do guess what he'll play and can make 20 moves quickly, sometimes you guess approximately, and make 10 fast, then think, and can still play quite well but after remembering and recalling something. And sometimes you are just surprised with the opponent's choice, make mistakes, or just collapse in the opening. He can prove wrong too, and when both are out of book, mistakes are likely to follow. So either there's total coincidence - he's a genius at preparing, but then he could work as 2750's second, like Naka's second who's 2200 or something like that. But in fact all the coincidences of that degree look too suspicious, it's like you toss the coin for 100 times and it's heads for all the 100. Of course, possible, but in fact not really.
ЮрийЮрьевич
Also I think a person who was caught cheating online in a prize tournament(!) not just in games, deserves more attention as a potential law abuser.
iyami
Цитата:
Сообщение от ЮрийЮрьевич Посмотреть сообщение
... But in fact all the coincidences of that degree look too suspicious, it's like you toss the coin for 100 times and it's heads for all the 100. Of course, possible, but in fact not really.
That's exactly my point. It most case you will be right but in some you will definitely be wrong. That's the whole point.
Also these were only a few games. If all games over an extended period follow the same pattern then you would have a strong point. But so far only a few games were mentioned.
So it may be that only the game where he got his preparation just right were shown.
I have a few games at chess.com with near perfect play (according to the quick analysis mode) and plenty with very imperfect play.
So to judge properly you would have to have a complete list of all of his games over a longer period. Selecting just some of them for your analysis is pointless and invalidates all statistical conclusions (check selection bias).
Kir
I witnessed him playing. In my opinion, quite a strong player, unlikely a cheater. But who knows. And yes, he almost never makes big mistakes.
ЮрийЮрьевич
Kir, but everyone makes big mistakes. Look at Norway Chess being held now, how many big blunders occur in every single round? Look at Fabi-Magnus game from Grenke, look at candidates, everyone blunders!
Okay, not trying to prove anything, maybe that's actually trash talking from my part
Guys, by the way, immortal is great, but is there a topic where players of higher qualification, say 2200-2300+ could discuss some ideas and so on?
Because everything's superb, but maybe that could be a thing that'll make immortal even better
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Надеюсь, что про Славу - это невет...
Голосование
