Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Paul.

Ken Regan has to be coy about his methods too much information will aide those that wish
to avoid detection. Here he has revealed that he does not start sniffing about till after move 9.

So I now know I could get a computer to play my first 9 moves for me safe in the knowledge that I will never get caught.
Until that is a post appears; 'Has anyone noticed Chandler's 10th move is always a blunder.'

[Roger de Coverly]

Do we have any evidence that people do cheat like that? How are they going to know when the one key move has arrived?

Over the board it shouldn't be possible to consult an engine during play. Online without supervision it probably would be straightforward because of a lack of witnesses and the ready availability of real time analysis. As to what positions, you often have a sense that there's something decisive or that the position is going wrong and you need a bailout.

[Roger de Coverly]

So I now know I could get a computer to play my first 9 moves for me safe in the knowledge that I will never get caught.

Or you could look it up in a book and memorise what was suggested or what had been played in previous games. The moves would likely be identical, so no clues there. Depending on the engine, they play the opening by looking it up in a database, so there won't be original engine generated ideas.

[Roger Lancaster]

Do we have any evidence that people do cheat like that? How are they going to know when the one key move has arrived?

Over the board it shouldn't be possible to consult an engine during play. Online without supervision it probably would be straightforward because of a lack of witnesses and the ready availability of real time analysis. As to what positions, you often have a sense that there's something decisive or that the position is going wrong and you need a bailout.

I'm not so sure about the "Over the board it shouldn't be possible to consult an engine during play" point. One, or at the very most two, toiIet breaks during a game shouIdn't arouse suspicion.

[Roger de Coverly]

[One, or at the very most two, toiIet breaks during a game shouIdn't arouse suspicion.

Taking a phone or a bag with you on the other hand would. Also if it's a decisive moment in the game, it's probably your move, not the opponent's.

[Roger Lancaster]

[One, or at the very most two, toiIet breaks during a game shouIdn't arouse suspicion.

Taking a phone or a bag with you on the other hand would. Also if it's a decisive moment in the game, it's probably your move, not the opponent's.

Leaving a strategicaIIy-pIaced phone in a toiIet isn't totaIIy unknown (even if, two games out of every three, it wouIdn't be used) but I agree your second point - one wouId need to anticipate the decisive moment and, of course, if an opponent comes up an unexpected move then one's sunk.

[Ian Thompson]

How are they going to know when the one key move has arrived?

All you need to do is have an engine running all the time but only alert the player when the best move in the position increases their advantage by more than X pawns, where the cheat has decided in advance what X should be. The player doesn't even need to be told what the move is. If they're a reasonably good player to start with just being told there is a good move in the position will be enough most of the time. Just think about chess problems. If you're presented with a problem it's usually not difficult to find the winning move when you know there's one to be found.

[JustinHorton]

I put it to you that "all you need to do" may be doing more heavy lifting than it can bear: it's a bit like the perfect crime in a caper movie.

[Roger de Coverly]

All you need to do is have an engine running all the time but only alert the player when the best move in the position increases their advantage by more than X pawns, where the cheat has decided in advance what X should be.

That's a reason to be marginally paranoid in tournaments where spectators can both be in line of sight of players and have access to real time analysis of the game in progress. Delivering a blueberry yogurt to the board is one communication method suggested from the pre engine era.

[Geoff Chandler]

My opinion, fwiw, is "few" because most cheats are probably greedier.

Hi Roger,

In the case of a weaker player cheating it is not being greedy.
They know enough not to go to the well of stockfish too often, it's 'dependence'

They have to depend on their computer more and more because their crafty ways have got them
a higher grade than they can maintain fairly. A sudden dip in form (sandbagging) is the only way out.
You almost feel sorry for them.

Regarding the first 9 moves how about just letting the computer play the first 9 moves then offer a draw.
(announcing move 9 in an open letter is possibly a 'Regan Ruse' and it's really move 6!)

[Nick Ivell]

I think Ian makes a good point.

Take the recent Emms v Gormally at the British. Watching this game in real time, I didn't notice that Black was lost after ...Nxh2.

I didn't see Bb3. But had I known the win was there, I would certainly have found it.

[NickFaulks]

I think Ian makes a good point.

In a club match yesterday evening, we reached a major piece ending where I gave up one of my rooks for a guaranteed perpetual and maybe a way to play for more. When we reached the critical position I couldn't see a win and took the draw - a beep of some sort in my ear, alerting me to the fact that a serious winning attempt did exist, would have been very useful.

Sometimes you can glean this, not necessarily reliably, from the demeanour of spectators. That didn't happen, because our players know better than that and also, as it turned out, because they didn't see it either.

[John Townsend]

I think Christopher raised some relevant points above. In my view, computers are in danger of destroying our game. The problem is not only one of occasional cheating, but also of suspicion of it. (The threat can be more powerful than the execution!) I think FIDE and the national organisations should take a lead. My suggestion for them to consider would be a ban on the use of chess computers by all players, even for private study. It would be hard on the people who make and sell them and probably impossible to enforce, but I think it would help by discouraging their use. After all, chess is meant to be a game for humans.

You may say this would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water. But what else? I feel some radical action needs to be taken quickly, as the situation seems unlikely to improve otherwise. Apologies if this has already been considered.

[Roger de Coverly]

Regarding the first 9 moves how about just letting the computer play the first 9 moves then offer a draw.
(announcing move 9 in an open letter is possibly a 'Regan Ruse' and it's really move 6!)

It's supposed to be dependent on the depth of theory of the opening although there's some indication that's not as rigorous as one might hope. Otherwise you would get people busted for playing the main lines of the Ruy Lopez or Sicilian.

[NickFaulks]

Apologies if this has already been considered.

I doubt that it has.