Cheating in chess

[Roger de Coverly]

Even going as far as being caught with a phone and the position on board in a Stockfish app- what does this mean?

At the very least, the player forfeits the game. Whether an arbiter might apply a greater sanction, such as expulsion from the tournament may depend on circumstances.

In the 2019 British Championships, a player took a bag containing a phone to the canteen area. It was fully accepted that this was a mistake and there was no intention of using the device. Thus forfeit of game was the penalty.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Even going as far as being caught with a phone and the position on board in a Stockfish app- what does this mean?

At the very least, the player forfeits the game. Whether an arbiter might apply a greater sanction, such as expulsion from the tournament may depend on circumstances.

In the 2019 British Championships, a player took a bag containing a phone to the canteen area. It was fully accepted that this was a mistake and there was no intention of using the device. Thus forfeit of game was the penalty.

Not forgetting a massive over reaction by his opponent of course.

[Li Wu]

I'm not sure I follow this. How can I do more than verify the existence of the data?

You can in theory study the materials needed/go through the arguments presented, and/or consult multiple sources of experts. This you cannot do with eye witness accounts.

However chess is such that there are very few of these experts due to it not being very mainstream. I admit that unfortunately this gets a bit philosophical in practice.

[Li Wu]

At the very least, the player forfeits the game. Whether an arbiter might apply a greater sanction, such as expulsion from the tournament may depend on circumstances.

In the 2019 British Championships, a player took a bag containing a phone to the canteen area. It was fully accepted that this was a mistake and there was no intention of using the device. Thus forfeit of game was the penalty.

So 1) this is only if the arbiter caught the player.

In any case my point is that you and I are relying on eye-witness accounts. And in the same way that you would view such incidents with scrutiny from a far away country involving people you don't know, this entire incident won't have the same level of proof/meaning to someone that is not involved in British chess.

My point is that yes- if we think small and imagine small leagues/local tournaments where everyone knows everyone else, then this sort of evidence is pretty good. Cheating there has little gain and huge negatives anyway. But in general everything can just be argued back and forth in court over who lied- even when a player is supposedly "caught red-handed".

[Roger de Coverly]

So 1) this is only if the arbiter caught the player.

In OTB chess, that's the only way. It's only conjecture that because a player's moves have a high match to those selected by an engine, that it "proves" the engine was consulted during the game. Remember that it's legal to consult an engine before the game or read a book written with the assistance of engine checking or engine assistance.

If a player was detected with a phone in circumstances where they shouldn't have been in possession of one, it may be a defence against a ban to show that the moves in the game showed little evidence of engine usage, but loss of game or expulsion from the tournament might be expected.

[Reg Clucas]

What's lacking in current rules, as perhaps illustrated in the Polish case, is a mechanism of warning players who are frequently absent from the playing room that their conduct might be seen as suspicious.

Perhaps more use should be made of 11.2.4. -
11.2.4 The regulations of an event may specify that the opponent of the player having a move must report to the arbiter when he wishes to leave the playing area.

..in conjunction with 11.2.3, which is usually applied -
11.2.3 Only with the permission of the arbiter can:
11.2.3.2 the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area.

Of course neither of these constitute a warning mechanism, but 11.2.4 would make suspicious behaviour more noticeable, and may act as a deterrent.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps more use should be made of 11.2.4. -
11.2.4 The regulations of an event may specify that the opponent of the player having a move must report to the arbiter when he wishes to leave the playing area.


Of course neither of these constitute a warning mechanism, but 11.2.4 would make suspicious behaviour more noticeable, and may act as a deterrent.

It would lack practicality in events with lots of players in the playing hall such as during the London Classic FIDE Open and side events and for that matter when arbiters spend much of the playing time in their own room.

A rewording to enable the event regulations to be selective in their application may be possible. Perhaps allow a limited number of "free" absences. Opponents could police this if allowed to mark the scoresheet.

[NickFaulks]

However chess is such that there are very few of these experts

Also they tend to be self-certified as such and sometimes their credentials turn out to be thin.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not sure I follow this. How can I do more than verify the existence of the data?

You can in theory study the materials needed/go through the arguments presented, and/or consult multiple sources of experts. This you cannot do with eye witness accounts.

However chess is such that there are very few of these experts due to it not being very mainstream. I admit that unfortunately this gets a bit philosophical in practice.

Does "philosophical" here mean "non-existent"'

[JustinHorton]

See, there is an important issue here, and it's one that is important in philosophy and especially the philosophy of science, and that's verifiability.

If you see, say, a scientific experiment described, you can replicate it. You can follow the method used and described by the experimenters, and you should return the same results. That's how verification works.

What you can't replicate, or what you can't demonstrate using scientifically verifiable methods, isn't science.

It's a transparent process. It doesn't involve somebody who has a reputation for knowing their stuff telling you something's true, it involves them showing you that it's true. You may not always understand what you are shown, but in principle, at least, you can learn, and it is at any rate out in the open so that other people who do have the requisite knowledge can challenge anything that apears to be uncertain or wrong.

This is all basic.

It will be obvious that this isn't the case with our online cheating detection systems. We do not have access to the means used to analyse the data. We can't replicate the process. We can't verify.

[Matthew Turner]

Justin
I think Li Wu is suggesting Professor's Regan's results could be replicated by another statistical expert with a supercomputer, but such a person doesn't exist, so it becomes an abstract assertion.
I think FIDE ought to be searching for such a person with the utmost urgency.

[JustinHorton]

Well yes, but even if they did find such a person that wouldn't address the problem I describe.

[NickFaulks]

I think Li Wu is suggesting Professor's Regan's results could be replicated by another statistical expert

another statistical expert? Ken is not a statistician and has never claimed to be.

[John McKenna]

Prof. Ken Regan is a computer scientist and International Chess Master and sufficiently knowledgeable about statistics to produce results and conclusions that are trustworthy in the subject of this thread.

See what he has to say about the matter -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=loNQ__09_fE

Behind what is being argued in this long thread is that -

"Statistics is an increasingly important subject which is useful in many types of scientific investigation.

It has become the science of collecting, analysing and interpreting data in the best possible way.

It is particularly useful in situations where there is experimental uncertainty and is defined as 'the science of making decisions in the face of uncertainty.'" (Christopher Chatfield, Senior Lecturer in Statistics at Bath University, retired)

Examples - population statistics, social statistics, biological statistics, medical statistics, technological and industrial statistics, economic statistics

If it is being implied that Prof. K. Regan and his associates do not know what they are doing because they aren't statisticians and are misusing computers to wrongly analyse data - since they cannot show the internal workings out, or provide any doubting Tom, Dick or Harry with means to reproduce the results of their work - then what is being called into question is the foundations of computational statistics and its application to the examples of other disciplines given above - for which statistical computer s/w packages also exist.

(Prof. A. Elo's work on chess rating also came, and still comes, under fire from detractors and doubters when what is required is constructive criticism. Unfortunately not many are suitably qualified to do what is required.)

[Simon Rogers]

Just looked at my app library. According to my phone the last update was 21st October. It comes under Chess- Play and Learn.
It says at the top of the update:
"Hey Chess lovers! This is a BIG one! Here is what's new.
We have lots of new features......"

I've just received another app update this afternoon on my phone from Chess- Play and Learn.
The first bit says exactly the same as before "Hey Chess Lovers! This is a BIG one! Here is what's new."
Although it doesn't say what's changed.
Underneath though is some ratings and reviews. To say it diplomatically, they are mixed. With a couple of basic replies from Chess.com.
Worth a read.