Cheating in chess

[Joey Stewart]

Genuine 1300s have no place beating genuine 2100s - either they are using assistance or they are a 2000+ level player who has deliberately engineered their rating low in order to win more grade limited prizes so by hook or by crook they still end up guilty.

I play tournaments on chess.com which are invariably won by 1100s getting results more consistent with that of a 1800-2000, and in the meantime I'm getting smashed around by 1600s and often needing to flag them

[NickFaulks]

Genuine 1300s have no place beating genuine 2100s

Makes you wonder why some people think anti-cheating is difficult.

[IM Jack Rudd]

FIDE Rapidplay ratings can be very unreliable, and surely this is well known? People can go years between playing FIDE-rated rapidplay events.

(Praggnanandhaa's is the most famous unreliable rapid rating, but there are others.)

[MJMcCready]

If you recall, and it was only 14 years ago or thereabouts, a player rated 1800 defeated a GM with the Smith Morra Gambit, in fact the GM didn't even make it out of the opening. Irrespective of how high your rating is, it's undeniably true you will remain human at all times; meaning you will be prone to error, and struggle to cope with stress to varying degrees. I've seen Aronian, Nakamura and Mamdyarov play moves so shocking I would never have played them even before I learnt how to play chess, come to think of it even before I was born.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger,

"Has this test ever been done? Take GM games from the pre-computer era..."

This was done by a lad on the Fischer-Spassky match who was very good at ridding RHP of cheats
using the top three match up system.

The kit and system he used was:

Fritz 11 @ 30 seconds per move
Pentium 4 2.93GHz 1GB RAM
Hash Table 192MB
Database used www.chesslive.de

"For obvious reasons a game is classed as “out of book” once I cannot find the position in the
chesslive database prior to the 1972 Fischer-Spassky World Championship."

Result: (over the 21 games)
Fischer
Top 1 Match: 385/658 (58,5% )
Top 2 Match: 509/658 (77,4% )
Top 3 Match: 563/658 (85,6% )

Spassky
Top 1 Match: 368/657 (56,0% )
Top 2 Match: 461/657 (70,2% )
Top 3 Match: 525/657 (79,9% )

Conclusion:

So, in the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match my analysis confirms that Fischer achieved results comparable to the extreme upper limit considered humanly possible/overwhelming evidence of engine use. His top 2 & top 3 matchup rates were actually a small % over this threshold.
Spassky, an incredibly strong player in his time, attained % rates around the totals that I was secretly expecting Fischer to get.
So the next time someone shouts from the rooftops that such & such a player is clearly a cheat because they exceeded some of the thresholds of
Top 1 Match: 60,0%
Top 2 Match: 75,0%
Top 3 Match: 85,0%
and no human CC player can do that in many games with non-book moves, you can point them in the direction of this thread
and say yes they can; Fischer achieved this against Spassky, over-the-board nearly 40 years ago!

The full analysis of all 21 games and further comments here:

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/linked ... ead.106405

I can remember commentating that Fischer taking the h-pawn in game one was the computer's top choice!

As Justin comments it's not conclusive. However if a player has a higher 1st choice match up over 20 games of say 80%
(and the games must be fairly long and v reasonable opposition) it can indicate the player needs investigating.
And from there the games and time taken for moves need going over with a fine toothed comb.

Having said that, I agree with Dr. Regan that Stealth Cheats, those that use a computer for one or two moves
when the position is critical. (good players can recognise this, the moment when only one move will do).
These players will always slip under the radar.

Hi MJM,

"If you recall, and it was only 14 years ago or thereabouts, a player rated 1800 defeated a GM with the Smith Morra Gambit."

That is why cheat hunters need to look at a large batch of games. Freak one off games can and do happen.

[jholyhead]

Genuine 1300s have no place beating genuine 2100s - either they are using assistance or they are a 2000+ level player who has deliberately engineered their rating low in order to win more grade limited prizes so by hook or by crook they still end up guilty.

You've missed the third case - a rapidly improving junior (who was already underrated) who hasn't been able to play OTB for 9 months because of a global pandemic. A 500+ point improvement that hasn't been accounted for by the current OTB ratings is entirely plausible over that period, in which case you're talking about 1800s beating 2100s. That raises the "1300's" predicted score from 0.0026 to 0.14.

Would have sounded far fetched 12 months ago.

[JustinHorton]

If you recall, and it was only 14 years ago or thereabouts, a player rated 1800 defeated a GM with the Smith Morra Gambit

Who was that

[MJMcCready]

It's a long time ago and its not archived on their site. I don't know that opening well at all but there's a move black must not play as it loses on the spot almost, which is what the GM did. He was lost within 10 moves and resigned around move 16 I think, one of the players was German but I can't really remember much more than than other than the move that cost the GM was so obviously bad, I remember thinking why on earth someone of his strength couldn't see it. It was the main opening trap in that line.

[Roger de Coverly]

I remember thinking why on earth someone of his strength couldn't see it. It was the main opening trap in that line.

The Morra Gambit is usually considered so dubious that it just isn't played amongst GMs, so even a GM stumbling into the position might not be aware of the trap. There's also the effect that some amateurs can be GM standard in their pet openings, but pretty poor outside that. Also not all GMs are particular experts at sharp and sometimes irrational positions. All in all there's a sufficient tail in the expected result curves at extreme rating differences that an occasional anomalous result is to be anticipated intermittently.

[Nick Ivell]

The Morra gambit (I'm guessing Roger shares my dislike of the double-barrelled appellation) give us a chance to beat a heffalump.

It was in this spirit that I gave it a whirl against Christian Bauer a few years ago.

He hardly gave a thought about declining it. He played ...d3, which I believe is weaker than PxP, but the psychology was cute.

Why take the risk of running into what may be your opponent's pet line?

[Chris Rice]

It's a long time ago and its not archived on their site. I don't know that opening well at all but there's a move black must not play as it loses on the spot almost, which is what the GM did. He was lost within 10 moves and resigned around move 16 I think, one of the players was German but I can't really remember much more than than other than the move that cost the GM was so obviously bad, I remember thinking why on earth someone of his strength couldn't see it. It was the main opening trap in that line.

Is this the game?

[MJMcCready]

Yes, I think that's it.

[MJMcCready]

I remember thinking why on earth someone of his strength couldn't see it. It was the main opening trap in that line.

The Morra Gambit is usually considered so dubious that it just isn't played amongst GMs, so even a GM stumbling into the position might not be aware of the trap. There's also the effect that some amateurs can be GM standard in their pet openings, but pretty poor outside that. Also not all GMs are particular experts at sharp and sometimes irrational positions. All in all there's a sufficient tail in the expected result curves at extreme rating differences that an occasional anomalous result is to be anticipated intermittently.

Yes, and again from memory alone it was the case that the person playing it knew it well and the GM forgot the theory and played the one move he shouldn't have. If we apply what you say here, and give ratings for different sections of the game, you could argue that his rating was higher than the GMs in that particular opening. When I played the Dutch defence I used to think the Staunton Gambit was a bit of a joke and never made much of an effort with it, but had nothing but trouble with it against prepared opponents.

[MJMcCready]

Hi Roger,

"Has this test ever been done? Take GM games from the pre-computer era..."

This was done by a lad on the Fischer-Spassky match who was very good at ridding RHP of cheats
using the top three match up system.

The kit and system he used was:

Fritz 11 @ 30 seconds per move
Pentium 4 2.93GHz 1GB RAM
Hash Table 192MB
Database used www.chesslive.de

Well it's not as clear cut as people think as some of the accusations levied may be nothing more than sour grapes. Certain moves are identifiable as computer moves, we all know that. But how do you factor in form and that stronger players sometimes go wrong and hand it on a plate to their opponent. I've played people 400 points above me and took them to pieces. A friend had someone 760 ELO points on the ropes completely and should have won, the GM, who shall remain nameless, even told him that and showed him the win he missed. It's long overdue but chess really does need to remove its fixation with numbers. It's become a running joke.

"For obvious reasons a game is classed as “out of book” once I cannot find the position in the
chesslive database prior to the 1972 Fischer-Spassky World Championship."

Result: (over the 21 games)
Fischer
Top 1 Match: 385/658 (58,5% )
Top 2 Match: 509/658 (77,4% )
Top 3 Match: 563/658 (85,6% )

Spassky
Top 1 Match: 368/657 (56,0% )
Top 2 Match: 461/657 (70,2% )
Top 3 Match: 525/657 (79,9% )

Conclusion:

So, in the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match my analysis confirms that Fischer achieved results comparable to the extreme upper limit considered humanly possible/overwhelming evidence of engine use. His top 2 & top 3 matchup rates were actually a small % over this threshold.
Spassky, an incredibly strong player in his time, attained % rates around the totals that I was secretly expecting Fischer to get.
So the next time someone shouts from the rooftops that such & such a player is clearly a cheat because they exceeded some of the thresholds of
Top 1 Match: 60,0%
Top 2 Match: 75,0%
Top 3 Match: 85,0%
and no human CC player can do that in many games with non-book moves, you can point them in the direction of this thread
and say yes they can; Fischer achieved this against Spassky, over-the-board nearly 40 years ago!

The full analysis of all 21 games and further comments here:

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/linked ... ead.106405

I can remember commentating that Fischer taking the h-pawn in game one was the computer's top choice!

As Justin comments it's not conclusive. However if a player has a higher 1st choice match up over 20 games of say 80%
(and the games must be fairly long and v reasonable opposition) it can indicate the player needs investigating.
And from there the games and time taken for moves need going over with a fine toothed comb.

Having said that, I agree with Dr. Regan that Stealth Cheats, those that use a computer for one or two moves
when the position is critical. (good players can recognise this, the moment when only one move will do).
These players will always slip under the radar.

Hi MJM,

"If you recall, and it was only 14 years ago or thereabouts, a player rated 1800 defeated a GM with the Smith Morra Gambit."

That is why cheat hunters need to look at a large batch of games. Freak one off games can and do happen.

[Geoff Chandler]

Viesturs Meijers who was the GM loser in this Ist round Morra Gambit ended up winning the tournament.

https://www.chessmix.com/chess-games/to ... BOpen.html

There is a cryptic clue thread currently knocking about.

Vatican guard sacs a pawn (5,6)