The Latest GM/IM Norm Scam

[Stewart Reuben]

Below a letter Christian Krause, GER, sent me regarding the recent German case I mentioned above:
Dear Stewart,
Today separating a man (or women) from his (her) mobile has the same effect as to separate a mother from her child. If you forbid to have a (switched off) mobile in the playing hall you will be asked to collect and to store the mobiles and if you do so you have full responsibility for the value they represent. Therefore it is normal that a player has his mobile switched off with him.
In this case the mobile was programmed in a tricky way to look as to be switched off. Really it was re-designed to send morse signals to the home computer. His problem was that the arbiters expected a behavior like that and therefore they observed him very close.
But this is only the top of the iceberg. In this case the device for transmitting the information was quite primitive.
In future we have to face:
- e.g. morsing device for sending inthe right shoe, for receiving in the left shoe. One toe is enough to send.
- the receiving device fixed anywhere on or even under the skin.

[MartinCarpenter]

Much harder to interpret in a shoe mind. In fact I'm still mildly sceptical that its possible to really do this realibly enough to work via touch by hands. You do get the chance of sanity checking first I suppose.

Still, the harder part (by quite some distance) is getting the moves out to the remote machine. Doing input to a local machine by some remote/foot operated system would be quite error prone and no way of correcting things once it started to veer off. Having a spectator viewing and inputing moves should hopefully be easy enough to notice.

[Ian Kingston]

Much harder to interpret in a shoe mind. In fact I'm still mildly sceptical that its possible to really do this realibly enough to work via touch by hands. You do get the chance of sanity checking first I suppose.

The Newtonian Casino, by Thomas A. Bass, describes a successful attempt to use a shoe-based signalling system to win at roulette. The book was published in 1991. It's been a long time since I read it, but I recall that it took a lot of practice to get used to the signals and the electronic device was very temperamental. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that it would not only be practical but also much easier with today's technology.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that it would not only be practical but also much easier with today's technology.

Highly rated shoes could be added to the list of speculations in the Ivanov case. But as tournament organisers will no longer accept his entry, the question of cheating or playing strength may never be resolved.

[MartinCarpenter]

Easier to get the technology reliable perhaps, but the basic interface issue is much harder to get round.

The roulette thing was I believe a single on/off signal for red/black. To transmit (for instance) the file of the piece to move takes 3 distinct signals like that. Relatively easy to get those confused. Maybe if you spread them about enough it'd work.

[Roger de Coverly]

To transmit (for instance) the file of the piece to move takes 3 distinct signals like that.

The speculation in the French Olympiad case was that the signalling used ICCF postal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_notation.

The recent German case suggests the use of Morse code, perhaps in the format that used to be employed to input to non-sensory dedicated chess computers. An example being d2d4 g8f6 c2c4 etc.

[Geoff Chandler]

My jokes about false teeth and brand new training shoes are coming true.

The tongue is less detectable, much more flexible and quicker that a big toe for sending
and an upper plate can easily be rigged in this day and age to receive a signal.

Each live boards should be fitted with a cheap device that sets up a dead zone within a 4 feet radius.
No signal can get in or out within that zone. The player will have to leave the board after each move
to get a message out then stay off the board till his repy comes in. That will attract attention.

[Bill Porter]

Each live boards should be fitted with a cheap device that sets up a dead zone within a 4 feet radius.
No signal can get in or out within that zone. The player will have to leave the board after each move
to get a message out then stay off the board till his repy comes in. That will attract attention.

Cheap? Even a Faraday cage only attenuates signals. A device like this will be worth millions....


Also morse code is quite easy to send and receive with a bit of practice. This sort of cheating has probably been going on in a minor way since the valve was invented. ( ICW spark gap transmitters were rather big and noisy. )

[MartinCarpenter]

Isn't the timing cf when it all starts quite sensitive? You've got to do this a lot for each game don't forget.

Much better to have three electrodes each one for on/off and stick them on different bits of the body. Then you've got a persistent and pretty unambigious signal. Also just enough bits of information to signal either file or rank.

[Stewart Reuben]

Friends of mine did indeed have a system for using a computer to detect bias in a roulette wheel. They didn't put anything in their shoes. They made very good money and the casinos had no idea. Nor was it illegal.
BUT MIT had the same idea and did secrete the computer in their shoes. They were unable to make it work and thus make a profit. Possibly this was because of the perspiration. In order to make some money they published a book. Now the casinos were alerted to the problem. They changed their methods and got using a computer made illegal in US casinos.

It is perfectly possible and legal to count the cards at Blackjack. No computer is needed. Personally I wasn't good enough to make a good profit. The casinos overcome that by banning people they are scared of.

It would not be enough to create a dead zone around each live board. It would need the whole playing venue which, of course, includes the toilets. One strong player told me it would only require one best decision in a game to transform his playing strength.

Hastings has only 3 entry points to the playing area. It would be easy to have metal detectors at each location. They would need to be manned because of people like me. Would the equipment be sensitive enough to detect micro-computers? The toilets would have to be similarly protected. Perhaps £3000 per year. £30 on an entry fee. Is it worth it? It is done for the Olympiads. In the Grand Prix last year there was so little paranoia that Grischuk was allowed to leave the venue unsupervised and smoke on The Strand with passers-by readily able to approach him.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Currently available are tiny cameras as used by TV reporters for setting people up. Easily attached to the front of clothing and almost impossible to spot unless you are looking for one. Ear pieces are now tiny.
Case: cheat sits at board with friend in another part of the building using a lap top. Camaera picks up moves. friend transmits computer reply. This equipment is available and not that expensive.

Technology is now at a level that Chess is going to be ruined. People cheat cos they can.

I dont see any easy answer to it. Sad.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ernie. Will a metal detector detect these tiny items?

[Roger de Coverly]

People cheat cos they can.

Do they though? In a team match does the board 6 ask for and receive advice from the board 1? The underlying principle of Over the Board chess should be clear enough. During the game, you do not seek advice from other players, computer engines ,databases or books.

Case: cheat sits at board with friend in another part of the building using a lap top. Camaera picks up moves. friend transmits computer reply. This equipment is available and not that expensive.

I don't think you need hi-tech for that, you just ask your friend what moves the computer engine is suggesting. Having a friend with a computer at the venue is suspicious in itself. In practice it's more likely to be a parent and arbiters should consider whether they have powers to ban laptops, or laptops with chess software from the immediate area of chess events.

[Geoff Chandler]

Are these blocking devices so expensive?

I recall when the walkman craze started my son had a cheap walkie talkie that
when pressed it cut out the TV and walkman's in the vicinty.
It was great sitting on buses pressing this thing and watching these dolts checking
their batteries and their ear phone connections.

But you are right, you do not need all the game but one or two moves and the ability
to spot the critical position when you need them.

I take of my glasses and rub my eyes (I need help).
10 minutes later you walk into the playing hall and I can tell within seconds
by casually looking at you what move to play.
Those 9 years in her majestys army as a radio op learning morse code and semiphor
might come in handy after all.

The solution must be much quicker time controls (and no adding seconds that is just catering to cheats.)

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger, you are forgetting at many events there is live commentary. Most of those moves reach the commentator from the internet. e.g. at Hastings Chris Ward, or the British Andrew Martin, suggest a way to play a position. Friend hears this. Returns to the tournament hall and whispers sweet somethings in his confederate's ear who now has an idea what he should play.
We introduced time delay for the move transmission, perhaps 5-10 minutes, to help try to reduce these types of possibilities and reduce the paranoid suspicion of them. Makro (Deputy Presy FIDE) didn't like it because the game could be finished, the players leave the hall and the audience not yet know the result.

When you play poker online, the site uses software to look into your computer to see whether you are a pokerbot. That is a computer program playing poker instead of a human. At lower levels, especially in hold'em, pokerbots play at an adequately high level to show a good profit.

What puzzles me is why they bother in chess. The rewards are so poor. I suppose Ernie has it right, 'People cheat cos they can.'