06 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SMesqHah...ChessBase would be thinking, "Oh yes, please sue us. Then you get to go on the witness stand and answer awkward questions about why you wouldn't take off your shoes and what you have stashed in the jacket and why you walk funny."
Regardless of whether he 'did it' or not, Ivanov should sue all those chess-media sites for libel & defamation, he probably has an excellent case.
Hell, why not sue Dlugy also for his gross calumny......(but then millionaire Dlugy can afford a top lawyer, unlike Borislav!)
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by SMesqEven though he was really cheating he could sue them for libel for saying they think he's cheating?
Regardless of whether he 'did it' or not, Ivanov should sue all those chess-media sites for libel & defamation, he probably has an excellent case.
Hell, why not sue Dlugy also for his gross calumny......(but then millionaire Dlugy can afford a top lawyer, unlike Borislav!)
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperProve he cheated.
Even though he was really cheating he could sue them for libel for saying they think he's cheating?
And with no proof, I reckon they'd settle out of court.
What happens of the WSJ were to accuse Buffet of 'cheating'?
He'd rip the WSJ a new *******.
06 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SMesqThere's no need for me to prove it. That's already been done many times over. In no court does anything ever have to be proven 100%, not even a criminal court. In a civil court the threshold of persuasion for a judge or jury is the "preponderance of evidence." Simply put, it only comes down to who's story is more believable.
Prove he cheated.
And with no proof, I reckon they'd settle out of court.
What happens of the WSJ were to accuse Buffet of 'cheating'?
He'd rip the WSJ a new *******.
Given everything we know the chances that he wasn't cheating are extremely remote.
06 Oct 13
Ok for you personally it is 'proven' -many times over you say- but I'm not aware of any one thing that would stand up as evidence in a European court.
Borislav might be very persuasive in the witness box, especially if he whips off his sneekers & really does have terrible stenchfoot. It's pretty common.
I don't think it's actually about the credibility of HIS story, but about making libelous claims which one cannot prove.
I think we would all want the 'benefit of law' for ourselves, so Borislav should get it too.
Originally posted by SMesqI already told you. Civil suits aren't decided based on the threshold, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I might agree if I was a good enough player to 'really understand' those games, but it still isn't proof & it still isn't beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
Also, show me a factual claim made by chess.com that is even questionable.
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by SMesqHe won't sue because he cheats. Period.
Regardless of whether he 'did it' or not, Ivanov should sue all those chess-media sites for libel & defamation, he probably has an excellent case.
Hell, why not sue Dlugy also for his gross calumny......(but then millionaire Dlugy can afford a top lawyer, unlike Borislav!)
He had his chance to prove otherwise. He didn't show up.
Guilty.
07 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SMesqYou're confusing evidence and proof. There is more than enough evidence. The virtually impossible statistical improbility of him matching Houdini as often as he does is enough evidence to meet the standard of preponderence of evidence to a reasonable person.
Ok for you personally it is 'proven' -many times over you say- but I'm not aware of any one thing that would stand up as evidence in a European court.
Borislav might be very persuasive in the witness box, especially if he whips off his sneekers & really does have terrible stenchfoot. It's pretty common.
I don't think it's actually about the credibility of ...[text shortened]...
I think we would all want the 'benefit of law' for ourselves, so Borislav should get it too.
And you say all he has to do is take off his shoes in court and show his feet smell to satisfy you as proof of his innocence??? All he would have to do is not change his socks for weeks before the trial and that's enough proof for you?
Wow.
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by SMesqWere you on the Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson jury?
Ok for you personally it is 'proven' -many times over you say- but I'm not aware of any one thing that would stand up as evidence in a European court.
Borislav might be very persuasive in the witness box, especially if he whips off his sneekers & really does have terrible stenchfoot. It's pretty common.
I don't think it's actually about the credibility of ...[text shortened]...
I think we would all want the 'benefit of law' for ourselves, so Borislav should get it too.
If I ever kill anyone I hope your on my jury 😉
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by SwissGambit;-)) Well someone's got to provide a foil to the 'lynch him!' mentallity going around.
Hahahaha - now I know you are trolling.
I feel sorry for him. If he cheated, of course that's very bad & clearly he's already paying the price. If he didn't cheat (and his Houdini-matching is a coincidence) then he's paying the same price anyway.
He's been tried by the media's kangeroo court with almost every chess player ready to join the hue and cry. I don't like it.
07 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by woodypusherDoh! You see what you did there? Adding 2 with 2 & making 5.
And you say all he has to do is take off his shoes in court and show his feet smell to satisfy you as proof of his innocence??? All he would have to do is not change his socks for weeks before the trial and that's enough proof for you?
Wow.
I did NOT say a sniff of his sneekers would be good enough for me, I said he may prove to be a very persuasive witness, qualified with an example.
"Why you walk funny?"
"I had rickets as a child."
"Oh."
On the statistics issue, there have been a number of people analyse the 'dodgy' moves in key positions, some suggest that many of them look like perfectly natural selections. Stats are open to interpretation, you think a jury of non-chessplayers would be competent enough to understand the implications?