Mamedyarov Responds Again
As you may all remember, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov lost, and quickly, to Igor Kurnosov in a late round of the recently finished Aeroflot Open in Moscow. After the game - at the end of it, really - Mamedyarov, bothered by the conjunction of Kurnosov's leaving the board after practically every move and his coming back to make crushing moves. Mamedyarov resigned after Kurnosov's 21st move, filed a protest over his opponent's behavior, and then withdrew from the tournament.
As I argued here (and others, including Kurnosov (here), have similarly argued), Mamedyarov's case for his opponent's cheating isn't very impressive on the face of it. (That doesn't mean that Kurnosov's behavior couldn't have aroused suspicion, only that his performance in the game (a) fell short of a Rybka standard and (b) didn't require Rybka either, but was well within the competence of a 2600-level grandmaster.) Ideally, that would be the end of the cheating allegation, and then discussion can move on to appropriate measures that allow players to roam around and smoke their lungs out while ensuring that they can't readily cheat.
Unfortunately, this was not the end, and Mamedyarov has released another open letter. You can check the link just given, but here's the gist:
In round 2 vs. Onischuk, Kurnosov responded to a novelty by making 15 Rybka moves, winning beautifully.
In round 4, vs. Moiseenko, he again responds strongly to a novelty with 14 Rybka moves, but this time the opponent's position was too solid and the game was drawn.
In round 6, we have the Mamedyarov game, again featuring Kurnosov playing Rybka's moves.
In round 8, now under heavy scrutiny thanks to Mamedyarov's allegations, he played poorly and got crushed.
The conclusion of his argument is that "this is [a] clear indication that Kurnosov used a computer program, leaving the tournament hall practically after every move".
Well, no, this doesn't follow at all. As already mentioned, his argument concerning his own game is very poor, and the inference he drew about round 8 is really preposterous. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Kurnosov is innocent. His name has been dragged through the mud in a very public way, and now he's supposed to play at full strength, with confidence and complete concentration? Not very likely. Not only will he be emotionally affected, but now he can't even engage in his usual smoking routine because now it will continue to raise the suspicion. So what does he do? If he goes to smoke, he has to worry what others will think, and if he doesn't, his mind won't work the way he expects it to. If anything, his lousy round eight performance might be counter-evidence: if Kurnosov was such a brazen cheater (cheating every single move in all [but only?] his Black games, then even if he couldn't use Rybka, he'd at least be strongly motivated to play well to keep up appearances. And he is a 2600, for goodness' sake!
I'm not impressed by the round 6 or round 8 parts of his case, but how about rounds 2 and 4? (And why not rounds 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9?) First of all, Mamedyarov's claim that Kurnosov always went with Rybka's first choice is simply wrong, or at least I wasn't able to reproduce Mamedyarov's results. Further, many of the moves in question were fairly obvious. Some were components of a straightforward plan, some moves were obvious (e.g. recaptures) and some were elements in a tactical sequence. Out of the 29 post-novelty moves in the two games, only one - 21...Qf5 in the round 2 game - strikes me as even a candidate.
I can understand Mamedyarov's frustration in the situation, and I also get the tendency to dig in and retrench when criticized, as has happened since his initial salvo. But I don't find his argument any more plausible this time around, and I hope he'll drop the accusations (at least in the absence of far more impressive evidence than he has offered so far) as soon as possible.
I've already given and annotated Mamedyarov-Kurnosov; here are the three further games Mamedyarov refers to.
HT: Harris Nizel
As I argued here (and others, including Kurnosov (here), have similarly argued), Mamedyarov's case for his opponent's cheating isn't very impressive on the face of it. (That doesn't mean that Kurnosov's behavior couldn't have aroused suspicion, only that his performance in the game (a) fell short of a Rybka standard and (b) didn't require Rybka either, but was well within the competence of a 2600-level grandmaster.) Ideally, that would be the end of the cheating allegation, and then discussion can move on to appropriate measures that allow players to roam around and smoke their lungs out while ensuring that they can't readily cheat.
Unfortunately, this was not the end, and Mamedyarov has released another open letter. You can check the link just given, but here's the gist:
In round 2 vs. Onischuk, Kurnosov responded to a novelty by making 15 Rybka moves, winning beautifully.
In round 4, vs. Moiseenko, he again responds strongly to a novelty with 14 Rybka moves, but this time the opponent's position was too solid and the game was drawn.
In round 6, we have the Mamedyarov game, again featuring Kurnosov playing Rybka's moves.
In round 8, now under heavy scrutiny thanks to Mamedyarov's allegations, he played poorly and got crushed.
The conclusion of his argument is that "this is [a] clear indication that Kurnosov used a computer program, leaving the tournament hall practically after every move".
Well, no, this doesn't follow at all. As already mentioned, his argument concerning his own game is very poor, and the inference he drew about round 8 is really preposterous. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Kurnosov is innocent. His name has been dragged through the mud in a very public way, and now he's supposed to play at full strength, with confidence and complete concentration? Not very likely. Not only will he be emotionally affected, but now he can't even engage in his usual smoking routine because now it will continue to raise the suspicion. So what does he do? If he goes to smoke, he has to worry what others will think, and if he doesn't, his mind won't work the way he expects it to. If anything, his lousy round eight performance might be counter-evidence: if Kurnosov was such a brazen cheater (cheating every single move in all [but only?] his Black games, then even if he couldn't use Rybka, he'd at least be strongly motivated to play well to keep up appearances. And he is a 2600, for goodness' sake!
I'm not impressed by the round 6 or round 8 parts of his case, but how about rounds 2 and 4? (And why not rounds 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9?) First of all, Mamedyarov's claim that Kurnosov always went with Rybka's first choice is simply wrong, or at least I wasn't able to reproduce Mamedyarov's results. Further, many of the moves in question were fairly obvious. Some were components of a straightforward plan, some moves were obvious (e.g. recaptures) and some were elements in a tactical sequence. Out of the 29 post-novelty moves in the two games, only one - 21...Qf5 in the round 2 game - strikes me as even a candidate.
I can understand Mamedyarov's frustration in the situation, and I also get the tendency to dig in and retrench when criticized, as has happened since his initial salvo. But I don't find his argument any more plausible this time around, and I hope he'll drop the accusations (at least in the absence of far more impressive evidence than he has offered so far) as soon as possible.
I've already given and annotated Mamedyarov-Kurnosov; here are the three further games Mamedyarov refers to.
HT: Harris Nizel
Related Posts (on one page):
- Mamedyarov Responds Again
- Kurnosov Responds
- Scandal at Aeroflot, Part 2
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Wednesday March 11, 2009 at 2:34am
I think FIDE need to get a firm hold on this situation- and quickly. Mamedyarov can't just keep firing off accusations like this without them getting involved.
"if Kurnosov was such a brazen cheater... And he is a 2600, for goodness' sake!"
If he were such a brazen cheater, then his rating would likely be based in large part on brazen cheating. Once you assume that he was cheating (presumably not for the first time), you can't assume he's a 2600 in any meaningful sense.
Of course you can still use arguments along the lines of "These actions are credible for a non-cheating 2600, so there's little suspicious here.". You just can't assume that he's cheating and assume that he's a genuine 2600 in the same line of reasoning.
Furthermore, it is difficult to find a venue in which to hold huge tournaments where the layout lends itself to monitoring sufficiently. Certainly there should be electronic monitoring for everyone entering the playing hall, even after leaving for a smoke or bathroom visit. But, it is usually difficult to set up a situation where each player is monitored when he leaves the playing hall.
Obviously Mamedyarov is still very upset and feels that he has been cheated. It really is a shame, because he may be ruining a wonderful career, his own. Since his accusations have had no effect on the arbiters, organizers or FIDE, I don't see a problem with opponents, since they know that if he accuses them of cheating, no one will pay attention. It is a very sad situation.
inky: I'm just curious how you know that FIDE's people, arbiters and organizers aren't interested in solving the cheating/false accusation problem. Are you mind-reading AGAIN?? I was told not to do that.
The claim is belied by the evidence, too. Maybe they haven't taken any special action in this case and maybe they won't, but the increasingly commonplace electronic security at major tournaments certainly looks like someone is taking computer cheating seriously.
The "A 2600 could easily..." arguments still work for 2400-2500s in most cases anyway, so my point wouldn't usually be significant.
Admittedly, it's quite hard to believe that anyone who cheated regularly would do so (hypothetically) in such brazen fashion on this occasion.