Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a ChessBase article http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30713.aspx

In it they quote 12.3 and claim that it doesn't outlaw computer use.

Oleg Korneev: Here is what Article 12.3 of the FIDE Regulations says: "During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyze on another chessboard."

Perhaps it should be reworded, but in what way can you interpret "forbidden to make use of source of advice" as not applying to checking an engine's opinion of the position? You've never been allowed to ask your coach or GM friend for assistance during the game, so why is it different for computer engines? I would suggest that "source of information" means looking something up in a book or on ChessBase.

[Paolo Casaschi]

There's a ChessBase article http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30713.aspx

In it they quote 12.3 and claim that it doesn't outlaw computer use.

Oleg Korneev: Here is what Article 12.3 of the FIDE Regulations says: "During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyze on another chessboard."

That's what you get when you ask a lawyer... but also confirms the amount of nonsense opinions around the issue of computer cheating.
With the exceptions of lawyers looking for billable hours, how many people would honestly believe that article 12.3 does not include forbidding using any kind of computer engine assistance during a game???

[Greg Breed]

If a player receives moves from a computer then it is a source of information. I find it quite simple actually, but English is my native language.

[Greg Breed]

Irina and Oleg go on about correlation to computer moves and "too high a percentage". I bet if you were to use a computer on some of Capablanca's games you'd get a high percentage too. I guarantee you he didn't have computer assistance!

I think correlation is not enough. You need evidence and for that you need to be able to perform a thorough search. They manage it at airports so it can't be that hard for a prestigious event to handle.
...I'm not offering suggestions mind you...

[Alex McFarlane]

With the exceptions of lawyers looking for billable hours, how many people would honestly believe that article 12.3 does not include forbidding using any kind of computer engine assistance during a game???

It is also difficult to understand why they say that there are no penalties.

13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:
a. warning
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player
d. declaring the game to be lost
e. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending party
f. increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available
for that game
g. expulsion from the event.

Granted it falls short of taking legal action but that would vary from country to country in terms of what can be done, and the age at which it could be done.

[Greg Breed]

This bit makes sense.

...if we speak about complaints made by chess players with regards to various issues, for example, to the Russian civil courts of general jurisdiction, it seems correct, on the one hand, as everyone has the right to apply to court to get his or her rights protected when they are infringed. On the other hand, when I imagine the face of a judge listening to the claimant's arguments on "stolen ratings, tournaments not counted, faked games and toilet scandals", I feel sincerely sorry for the judge. With all my respect to the work of a judge, I should admit that a person who has little to do with the peculiarities of the chess world can hardly sort all the things out and produce an adequate and equitable decision. It's really difficult. Especially when there are other 50, 60 or even more cases on the shelf waiting for you. Our courts are overloaded, so they certainly have no time to decide those chess-related claims. That's why court decisions made upon examination of such cases are often formal and superficial.

And this is exactly why FIDE should probably establish their own special international chess arbitrage where chess players, in cooperation with a couple of independent skilled lawyers, could examine and decide some of their chess-related cases, so to speak, "within the team", when everyone speaks the same language of chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is also difficult to understand why they say that there are no penalties..

In the practical cases where it's been detected in tournaments, the organisers or arbiters have scored the game as a loss and expelled the offender from the tournament.

There was this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ingram
which indicates that if the stakes are high enough, cheating in a game could be a criminal matter of fraud or deception.

So subject to enforcing 13.4 and making it clear that mobile phones stay switched off for the entire duration of the game even when outside the playing area, FIDE should already have the powers it needs against obvious cheating methods. What it struggles with is how to detect conspiracy cheating, such as the signalling at the Olympiad and, if he is guilty, the Bulgarian star.

In Over the Board play, engine matching will never be a solution beyond reasonable doubt or even balance of probabilities.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ironic that immediately above ChessBase's article about cheating, appears a review or advert for a piece of software which if it didn't exist would reduce cheating temptations.

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 30713.aspx

[Chris Rice]

So subject to enforcing 13.4 and making it clear that mobile phones stay switched off for the entire duration of the game even when outside the playing area, FIDE should already have the powers it needs against obvious cheating methods. What it struggles with is how to detect conspiracy cheating, such as the signalling at the Olympiad and, if he is guilty, the Bulgarian star.

In Over the Board play, engine matching will never be a solution beyond reasonable doubt or even balance of probabilities.

Agreed. The key issue here is where there is no cheating method detected how would you prove that a player is cheating by engine matching. There would have to be some really conclusive statistical data that would back up the claim that a player was using a chess engine beyond a reasonable doubt.

But this is so difficult to prove. Apart from Ivanov there is another player under a cloud who is also suspected of using an engine but again no definite proof has been found. However, those who have accused him cite the following game as an example (link below). This was a game from the 17th Neckar Open Jens Kotainy v Andrei Istratescu played on 30 March this year. If you look at the first few moves 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1 c4 9. h4 Nc6 10. h5 Bd7 11. Qd1 O-O-O then what strikes you is White's 8th, 11th and then just when you think the idea is 12 Qg4 he goes 12 Nf3. Many thought these kind of moves wouldn't be played by a human and it was found that Kotainy's choices matched the top engine choices. Hardly conclusive though is it?

http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/3417418

[Brendan O'Gorman]

So subject to enforcing 13.4 and making it clear that mobile phones stay switched off for the entire duration of the game even when outside the playing area, FIDE should already have the powers it needs against obvious cheating methods. What it struggles with is how to detect conspiracy cheating, such as the signalling at the Olympiad and, if he is guilty, the Bulgarian star.

In Over the Board play, engine matching will never be a solution beyond reasonable doubt or even balance of probabilities.

Agreed. The key issue here is where there is no cheating method detected how would you prove that a player is cheating by engine matching. There would have to be some really conclusive statistical data that would back up the claim that a player was using a chess engine beyond a reasonable doubt.

But this is so difficult to prove. Apart from Ivanov there is another player under a cloud who is also suspected of using an engine but again no definite proof has been found. However, those who have accused him cite the following game as an example (link below). This was a game from the 17th Neckar Open Jens Kotainy v Andrei Istratescu played on 30 March this year. If you look at the first few moves 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1 c4 9. h4 Nc6 10. h5 Bd7 11. Qd1 O-O-O then what strikes you is White's 8th, 11th and then just when you think the idea is 12 Qg4 he goes 12 Nf3. Many thought these kind of moves wouldn't be played by a human and it was found that Kotainy's choices matched the top engine choices. Hardly conclusive though is it?

http://chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/3417418

I'm puzzled. Chess.com has no fewer than 21 games where the position after 10...Bd7 has been reached before. The novelty would appear to be 11.Qd1 but this is not the top choice of any computer engine I have access to.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger

".....ChessBase's article about cheating, appears a review or advert for a piece of software
which if it didn't exist would reduce cheating temptations."

That is ChessBase flogging the 'If you can't beat them join them' angle.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm puzzled. Chess.com has no fewer than 21 games where the position after 10...Bd7 has been reached before. The novelty would appear to be 11.Qd1 but this is not the top choice of any computer engine I have access to.

I wouldn't claim any familiarity with obscure Winawer variations. But in a position that's just out of the opening, all you prove with engine matching is that he trains with an engine. This approach can point out ideas that you wouldn't necessarily consider which hopefully will surprise and confuse opponents.

Qb1 looks an interesting idea against variations where they come and sit on you with Qa5 to a4. Fischer thought the Winawer anti-positional and weakening of the dark squares, but found difficulty demonstrating this in practice. Perhaps the engines agree with Fischer and are starting to find moves to exploit a White advantage.

[Geoff Chandler]

One game is never enough to even to suggest computer assistance.
You need at least 20 games with a fair amount of non-database moves.

Someone mentioned Capablanca.

His results were not as high as you would think.

On RHP they run the 20+ games test on all the major players in history.
And then on the pre-computer correspondence champions.

Expelled cheats far exceeded these players score.

These were the stats for the Alekhine - Capablanca 1927 WC match.

The Alkehine - Capablanca match is good for an example.

Both were incredible chess players.

Virtually all were variations of the match were a QGD, so the two players would be
familiar with the openings (and the middlegame positions that follow).

Kit used: (the year was 2009)
Fritz 11 @ 30 seconds per move
Pentium 4 2.93GHz 1GB RAM
Hash Table 192MB
Database used http://www.chesslive.de

Result for all games analysed (22): (only 22 games were long enough for match up analysis)

Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 467/852 (54.8% )
Top 2 Match: 622/852 (73.0% )
Top 3 Match: 685/852 (80.4% )

Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 470/853 (55.1% )
Top 2 Match: 632/853 (74.1% )
Top 3 Match: 703/853 (82.4% )

Explanation.
Of the 852 non-database moves Alekhine played 467 1st choice computer moves.
622 were in the two and 685 were in the top three.

Alekline's chosen move matched the computers 1st choice 54.8% of the time.
Capablanca's chosen move matched the computers 1st choice 55.1%.

Alekhine's best 1st move choice was game 8 with 79.4%
Alekhines worst score for 1st move choice was game 25 with 32.1%

Capablanca's best 1st moves choice was game 28 with 79.2%
Capablanca's worst score for 1st move choice was game 17 with 37.3%

Here are these 4 games.
A game is classed as ‘out of book’ if the position could not be found prior to the 1927 match in the chesslive.de database.

Game 8

[Event "Buenos Aires WCh (08)"]
[Site "Buenos Aires WCh (08)"]
[Date "1927.01.09"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D62"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Qc2 c5 8. cxd5
cxd4 {Takes game out of book; 3rd} 9. Nxd4 {1st} Nxd5 {2nd} 10. Bxe7 {1st} Qxe7
{1st} 11. Nxd5 {1st} exd5 {1st} 12. Bd3 {Not in top 3} Qb4+ {1st} 13. Qd2 {1st}
Ne5 {1st} 14. Be2 {1st} Qxd2+ {Not in top 3} 15. Kxd2 {1st} Bd7 {1st} 16. Rac1
{1st} Rfc8 {1st} 17. b3 {1st} Kf8 {2nd} 18. f4 {1st} Nc6 {2nd} 19. Bb5 {
Not in top 3} Ke7 {1st} 20. Bxc6 {1st} bxc6 {2nd} 21. Rc5 {1st} a5 {1st} 22.
Rhc1 {1st} Kd6 {2nd} 23. R1c3 {Not in top 3} Ra6 {1st} 24. Nb5+ {Not in top 3}
Ke7 {2nd} 25. Nd4 {1st} Kd6 {1st} 26. e4 {1st} dxe4 {1st} 27. Ke3 {1st} Rb8 {
1st} 28. Nf5+ {1st} Bxf5 {1st} 29. Rxf5 {1st} f6 {1st} 30. Rc4 {2nd} Rb5 {3rd}
31. Rd4+ {1st} Ke6 {1st} 32. Rxb5 {1st} cxb5 {1st} 33. Rxe4+ {1st} Kf7 {1st}
34. Rd4 {1st} Rc6 {1st} 35. Rd7+ {1st} Kg6 {2nd} 36. Kd2 {1st} Rc5 {1st} 37.
Ra7 {2nd} b4 {1st} 38. g4 {1st} h5 {1st} 39. h3 {1st} h4 {2nd} 40. f5+ {1st}
Kh6 {2nd} 41. Ra8 {1st} Kh7 {1st} 42. Ke3 {3rd} Rc3+ {2nd} 1/2-1/2

Result:
White: Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 27/34 (79,4% )
Top 2 Match: 29/34 (85,3% )
Top 3 Match: 30/34 (88,2% )

Black: Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 22/35 (62,9% )
Top 2 Match: 32/35 (91,4% )
Top 3 Match: 34/35 (97,1% )

Game 17

[Event "Blitz:0'"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.01.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D63"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[TimeControl "1"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Rc1 a6 8. a3
b6 {Takes game out of book; Not in top 3} 9. cxd5 {1st} exd5 {1st} 10. Bd3 {
Not in top 3} Bb7 {2nd} 11. O-O {1st} c5 {1st} 12. dxc5 {3rd} bxc5 {1st} 13.
Qe2 {Not in top 3} Re8 {2nd} 14. Bc2 {3rd} Qb6 {2nd} 15. Rfd1 {2nd} Rad8 {
Not in top 3} 16. Na4 {Not in top 3} Qb5 {Not in top 3} 17. Qxb5 {1st} axb5 {
1st} 18. Nc3 {1st} Bc6 {2nd} 19. Bd3 {1st} c4 {1st} 20. Bf5 {2nd} b4 {1st} 21.
axb4 {1st} Bxb4 {1st} 22. Nd4 {Not in top 3} Bb7 {1st} 23. Bxd7 {Not in top 3}
Rxd7 {1st} 24. Bxf6 {1st} gxf6 {1st} 25. Nde2 {Not in top 3} Bd6 {Not in top 3}
26. Rc2 {Not in top 3} Be5 {1st} 27. Rcd2 {1st} Rc7 {Not in top 3} 28. Ra1 {
Not in top 3} Kg7 {1st} 29. g3 {Not in top 3} Rc5 {Not in top 3} 30. Ra7 {1st}
Rb8 {1st} 31. Nd4 {Not in top 3} Kg6 {2nd} 32. f4 {Not in top 3} Bc7 {1st} 33.
Kf2 {Not in top 3} Ra5 {1st} 34. Rxa5 {1st} Bxa5 {1st} 35. g4 {2nd} h5 {1st}
36. gxh5+ {1st} Kxh5 {1st} 37. Kf3 {3rd} Rg8 {1st} 38. Rg2 {3rd} Rxg2 {1st} 39.
Kxg2 {1st} Kg4 {Not in top 3} 40. h3+ {2nd} Kh4 {1st} 41. Nf5+ {3rd} Kh5 {
Only move} 42. Kg3 {1st} Bb4 {1st} 43. Nd4 {2nd} Kg6 {Not in top 3} 44. Kg4 {
Not in top 3} f5+ {1st} 45. Kg3 {2nd} Kf6 {Not in top 3} 46. Nf3 {Not in top 3}
Bc5 {1st} 47. Kf2 {2nd} Bb4 {Not in top 3} 48. Ng5 {Not in top 3} Bd6 {3rd} 49.
Nf3 {3rd} Bb4 {Not in top 3} 50. h4 {Not in top 3} Kg6 {1st} 51. Ne2 {1st} Bc8
{3rd} 52. Ng3 {1st} Be6 {Not in top 3} 53. h5+ {1st} Kh6 {2nd} 54. Ke2 {2nd}
Be7 {1st} 55. Kd2 {2nd} Bd8 {2nd} 56. Nd4 {1st} Bc8 {Not in top 3} 57. Kc2 {1st
} Ba5 {1st} 58. Kd1 {2nd} Bb4 {2nd} 59. Ke2 {1st} Bd7 {Not in top 3} 1/2-1/2

Result:
White: Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 19/51 (37,3% )
Top 2 Match: 29/51 (56,9% )
Top 3 Match: 35/51 (68,6% )

Black: Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 27/52 (51,9% )
Top 2 Match: 35/52 (67,3% )
Top 3 Match: 37/52 (71,2% )


Game 25

[Event "Buenos Aires WCh (25)"]
[Site "Buenos Aires WCh (25)"]
[Date "1927.01.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Black "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D63"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Rc1 a6 8. cxd5
exd5 9. Bd3 c6 10. Qc2 Re8 11. O-O Nf8 12. Rfe1 Be6 13. Na4 {
Takes game out of book; 3rd} N6d7 {Not in top 3} 14. Bxe7 {1st} Qxe7 {1st} 15.
Nc5 {Not in top 3} Nxc5 {1st} 16. Qxc5 {2nd} Qc7 {Not in top 3} 17. b4 {
Not in top 3} Nd7 {1st} 18. Qc2 {1st} h6 {1st} 19. a4 {2nd} Qd6 {2nd} 20. Rb1 {
Not in top 3} Rec8 {Not in top 3} 21. Rec1 {Not in top 3} Bg4 {2nd} 22. Nd2 {
1st} Rc7 {3rd} 23. Nb3 {1st} Bh5 {1st} 24. Nc5 {1st} Nxc5 {Not in top 3} 25.
Qxc5 {3rd} Qf6 {2nd} 26. b5 {1st} axb5 {1st} 27. axb5 {2nd} Bg6 {2nd} 28. Bxg6
{1st} Qxg6 {2nd} 29. Ra1 {2nd} Rac8 {2nd} 30. b6 {1st} Rd7 {1st} 31. Ra7 {1st}
Kh7 {2nd} 32. Rca1 {Not in top 3} f5 {Not in top 3} 33. Qc2 {Not in top 3} Re7
{Not in top 3} 34. g3 {3rd} Rce8 {Not in top 3} 35. Ra8 {Not in top 3} Re4 {
Not in top 3} 36. Rxe8 {Not in top 3} Rxe8 {1st} 37. Ra7 {3rd} Rb8 {2nd} 38. h4
{1st} h5 {Not in top 3} 39. Kg2 {2nd} Qe6 {1st} 40. Qd3 {Not in top 3} Kg6 {2nd
} 1/2-1/2

Result:
White: Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 10/28 (35,7% )
Top 2 Match: 15/28 (53,6% )
Top 3 Match: 19/28 (67,9% )

Black: Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 9/28 (32,1% )
Top 2 Match: 18/28 (64,3% )
Top 3 Match: 19/28 (67,9% )


Game 28


[Event "Buenos Aires WCh (28)"]
[Site "Buenos Aires WCh (28)"]
[Date "1927.02.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alexander Alekhine"]
[Black "Jose Raul Capablanca"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D67"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. Ne4 N5f6 12. Ng3 Qb4+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 Rd8 15. Rhd1 b6 16. e4 Bb7 17. e5 Ne8 18. Ke3 Kf8 19. h4 {Takes game out of book; 3rd} 19... Ke7 {3rd} 20. h5 {Not in top 3} 20... h6 {Not in top 3} 21. Nh4 {Not in top 3} 21... c5 {1st} 22. f4 {2nd} 22... Nc7 {1st} 23. dxc5 {2nd} 23... Nxc5 {1st} 24. Rxd8 {1st} 24... Rxd8 {1st} 25. b4 {1st} 25... N5a6 {2nd} 26. a3 {1st} 26... b5 {3rd} 27. Bb3 {1st} 27... Bd5 {1st} 28. Bxd5 {1st} 28... Nxd5+ {1st} 29. Ke4 {1st} 29... Nb6 {1st} 30. f5 {1st} 30... Nc4 {1st} 31. fxe6 {1st} 31... fxe6 {1st} 32. Ng6+ {3rd} 32... Ke8 {1st} 33. Ne2 {2nd} 33... Nd2+ {1st} 34. Kf4 {2nd} 34... Nc4 {1st} 35. Ke4 {1st} 35... Nd2+ {1st} 36. Kf4 {2nd} 36... Nc4 {1st} 37. Kg4 {3rd} 37... Nc7 {Not in top 3} 38. a4 {1st} 38... a6 {1st} 39. axb5 {2nd} 39... axb5 {1st} 40. Ra1 {Not in top 3} 40... Rd3 {1st} 41. Nef4 {Not in top 3} 41... Rb3 {1st} 42. Ra7 {1st} 42... Kd8 {1st} 43. g3 {1st} 1/2-1/2

Result:
White: Alekhine
Top 1 Match: 12/25 (48,0% )
Top 2 Match: 18/25 (72,0% )
Top 3 Match: 21/25 (84,0% )

Black: Capablanca
Top 1 Match: 19/24 (79,2% )
Top 2 Match: 20/24 (83,3% )
Top 3 Match: 22/24 (91,7% )

--------------------------------------------------

Fischer - Spassky 1972 - same kit as above. All 20 games analysed. (2nd game was a default.)
Updated DB used.

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% )

------------------------------------------------

Interesting data from game 1 the game they say Fischer lost due to 29...Bxh2.

White: Spassky
Top 1 Match: 19/42 (45,2% )
Top 2 Match: 30/42 (71,4% )
Top 3 Match: 36/42 (85,7% )

Black: Fischer
Top 1 Match: 28/42 (66,7% )
Top 2 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )
Top 3 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )

Fischer out classes Spassky in all %'s and the computer gave 29...Bxh2 as first choce.
(that was after 30 seconds then apparently the computer changes it's mind.)

Fischer's 85% from 20 games in the top three is very high.
If one uses a computer as a yardstick then people who claim today's players are
better than Fischer don't have computers on their side.

Fischer hit the 90's a few times in that match with the chosen move in the top three.
In one game 11 (the poison pawn game) Spassky hit 100% in the top three.
(heavy tacitcal games do tend to throw up high scores - also that game was pretty short
to be used.)

In a cheats games you would expect to see 3rd move choices in 20+ games land in the 90% range.

[Roger de Coverly]

Kit used: (the year was 2009)
Fritz 11 @ 30 seconds per move

These tests are also measuring how good an engine is at emulating the play of world champions. Fritz has a reputation of basically a calculator using depth of search to offset its limited positional knowledge. That suggests it wouldn't be particularly good at evaluating a match consisting entirely of the QGD.

Has anyone tested whether the Deep Blue matches were actually played by a computer? You recall that Kasparov alleged human interference.

[Angus French]

About comparing a player's moves with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices of an engine. What's to stop a player with computer assistance:
a) switching engine during play; and,
b) when the opportunity arises, choosing a move which is the 4th or later choice of an engine but which is still a good move (similar to the strategy adopted - according to Kramnik in a recent interview IIRC - by some top GMs in opening preparation)?