English Chess Forum

In "An Arbiter's Notebook" over at the Chess Cafe website, Geurt Gijssen said he couldn't interfere in this situation:

Question What if a team in an Olympiad copied its opponent's teams moves exactly? So basically the team could not lose. I guess the opposite team could try to get into time trouble shenanigans, but still it would change the nature of the play greatly. Albert Akerman, (Sweden)

Answer The solution of this "problem" is in your question. There will be a moment in the game that the "copiers" will be short of time. In my opinion, an arbiter has no possibilities to forbid this behaviour.

As John McEnroe said, "You CANNOT be serious." Anyone want to suggest a way to stop such apparently obvious cheating?

This happened to an England junior team about thirty years ago. Stewart Reuben will remember the details better than I do.

The arbiter on that occasion similarly indicated that there was nothing he could do.

I'm indebted to Stewart for the following suggestion:

Take two of the four games, either the odd boards or the even ones, off to another room, or to a far distant part of the hall, so that the players can't see what's happening in the other two games.

Didnt something similar happen in a USSR Argentina match once the USSR players just played the same moves as there leading player in a Scillian line

William Metcalfe wrote:Didnt something similar happen in a USSR Argentina match once the USSR players just played the same moves as there leading player in a Scillian line

Have at look at these three games from round 14 of the Gothenburg Interzonal, 1955:

Keres - Najdorf
Geller-Panno
Spasski-Pilnik

I haven't seen the precise context of Geurt's response. But David is quite correct, one moves the games out of sight of the other ones.
When I explained to Bent Larsen what had happened with England U13 against Sweden, he said. 'Ah, they're trying to show what a ridiculous thing a four board chess match is.' Darren Lee deliberately lost a piece just to verify the matter. The other board made the same blunder. The English youngsters, who won every match, then relied on getting into time trouble. England won 3-1, Darren still losing. The English team did win every match.
Th TV movie 'The Other Side of Midnight' had a woman play two GMs. They were in separate rooms and visually you can see that it is impossible to disguise the scam from the players.
The famous modern magician (Derek Bland?) played 7 games on TV. 6 against strong players and one against a supposed player. He took alternate white and black and thus scored 3/6 + one win. Once it was announced I knew what he was going to do. Malcolm Pein refused to take part. It amazed me that the magician explained it on TV. For presumably a non-serious chessplayer, it was quite a feat, remembering the moves.
IM Al Horowitz told me in 1964 he had challenged the US checkers (draughts) team to an 8 game simul where he would be blindfolded and score, of course 4/8.

The Russian v Argentinean 3 games was a prepared variation. All 3 Argentineans lost. Of course they looked at their compatriots moves. But the situation wan't copycat for draws.
In the British U9 1984, twins were paired together. They slowed down their game to see what was the most advantageous result. Eventually I moved them to a separate room. I would probably have forfeited adults, but it was the father's fault. Of course they gave up chess in due course.
At Islington John Nunn was playing on a demo board. Colin Crouch had the same variation. He seemed to be following John's moves. Evetually I stopped the demo board. I think John won and Colin lost. He told me he spent a great deal of time trying to avoid copying John.

Presumably you could also do it on the internet.

Stewart Reuben wrote: The famous modern magician (Derek Bland?) played 7 games on TV. 6 against strong players and one against a supposed player. He took alternate white and black and thus scored 3/6 + one win. Once it was announced I knew what he was going to do. Malcolm Pein refused to take part. It amazed me that the magician explained it on TV. For presumably a non-serious chessplayer, it was quite a feat, remembering the moves.

The magician is Derren Brown

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1610

Stewart Reuben wrote:At Islington John Nunn was playing on a demo board. Colin Crouch had the same variation. He seemed to be following John's moves. Evetually I stopped the demo board. I think John won and Colin lost. He told me he spent a great deal of time trying to avoid copying John.

Also see

JustinHorton wrote:

Stewart Reuben wrote:At Islington John Nunn was playing on a demo board. Colin Crouch had the same variation. He seemed to be following John's moves. Evetually I stopped the demo board. I think John won and Colin lost. He told me he spent a great deal of time trying to avoid copying John.

Also see

I read the blog post you linked and really I don't understand the concerns about following the GM moves, for instance whether to play Qd3 or not. The situation of the blog's author and his opponent was symmetrical: they were both following the moves of the board nearby; why does the blog's author feel compelled to break from the adjacent board when his opponent apparently was not? Considering the rating difference of the two players, if anything I would expect the onus of breaking the pattern belongs to the strongest player; in the moves leading to Qd3 Black had plenty of good alternatives.

Article 12.3 of the current Laws During play players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.

After all these years, I am not sure whether or not John Nunn knew there was an identical game being played by Colin Crouch in the 200 player tournament.

In round 2 of the Hastings 1957-58 Premier I was White in a Ruy Lopez against Peter Clarke. Peter chose the Steinitz Defence Deferred which I hadn't expected. I was debating how to respond when I noticed the demo board of the game Paul Keres v Miroslav Filip where Filip had defended the Ruy in identical fashion.
Keres was my chess hero and a fine Ruy exponent so I thought "Okay, go with that" and started to copy Keres's moves. Peter of course had his back to the demo board, but as soon as he got up to look at the other games he realised what was happening and began to copy Filip's replies. Alas for my faith in Keres, the other game was drawn in a sterile position at move 16. Peter decided to continue but half a dozen moves later we also halved out.
As I recall, the reaction from other players and the controller Frank Rhoden was just amusement. Perhaps if I had won it might have been different.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Article 12.3 of the current Laws During play players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.

Treating a game taking place simultaneously as a "source of information" has always been regarded as unenforceable in the context of regular Congress or league play. I could agree that it gives the arbiter power to intervene to put the games out of sight of each other.

Leonard Barden wrote:In round 2 of the Hastings 1957-58 Premier I was White in a Ruy Lopez against Peter Clarke. Peter chose the Steinitz Defence Deferred which I hadn't expected. I was debating how to respond when I noticed the demo board of the game Paul Keres v Miroslav Filip where Filip had defended the Ruy in identical fashion.
Keres was my chess hero and a fine Ruy exponent so I thought "Okay, go with that" and started to copy Keres's moves. Peter of course had his back to the demo board, but as soon as he got up to look at the other games he realised what was happening and began to copy Filip's replies. Alas for my faith in Keres, the other game was drawn in a sterile position at move 16. Peter decided to continue but half a dozen moves later we also halved out.
As I recall, the reaction from other players and the controller Frank Rhoden was just amusement. Perhaps if I had won it might have been different.

Keres-Filip
Barden-Clarke

John Upham wrote:

William Metcalfe wrote:Didnt something similar happen in a USSR Argentina match once the USSR players just played the same moves as there leading player in a Scillian line

Have at look at these three games from round 14 of the Gothenburg Interzonal, 1955:

Keres - Najdorf
Geller-Panno
Spasski-Pilnik

Who would you consider to be the Soviets' leading player out of those three?

Keres at that time (whatever any ?retrospective? ratings would say)

btw - are you NW Faulks?

Andy Stoker wrote:Keres at that time (whatever any ?retrospective? ratings would say)

btw - are you NW Faulks?

I think Geller was their big theoretician, though of course they shared a support team.

Yes, were you in Dexy's Midnight Runners?