2016 Olympiad - Baku

[Paul Dargan]

I did write this before (or started to then gave up). I'm not sure who they had design the security protocols for the event - but it looks liek they weren't built from a proper "threat assessment". The fact that you want random checks during the game - effectively says "we're not convinced that our perimeter checks are adequate". Now there can be reasons for building-in such redundancy - but it would be normal to fix the perimeter checks (which I think everyone now says were poor).

It's analogous to trying to secure national borders - but worse here as you need to prevent information getting into the room. It can be done - but someone should actually sit down and map-out the 'attack vectors' and design the security protocols to disrupt as many as possible. Sadly in this day of live transmission - we've already let key information out of the room - I didn;t check but was there a delay on the transmissions this year? That's kind of step one in defeating two-party attacks.

Paul

[Roger de Coverly]

Occasional consultation whilst surviving on your own ability for large chunks of the game would be enough for competent players to gain an advantage.

Whilst they are believed to have checked the discovered devices for chess programs, did they also check the phone for messages received? In the Olympiad, players are subject to observation by their opponents and the match arbiter. If the player never left the board, that removes grounds for suspicion of straightforward collusion.

[NickFaulks]

I felt that the point of the perimeter checks was to ensure that no player could claim that they had brought a device into the playing area unwittingly. If caught in possession, they must have done something devious and had no excuse. That is why I was surprised that the Japan player was permitted to keep playing. The details of his controversial game are irrelevant, except in that they provided a good reason to check him.

[Chris Rice]

There is a wikipedia page set up with the headline "Concerns and controversies at the 42nd Olympiad. The section on anti-cheating is particularly interesting and appears to back up what Colovic was saying in his article:

"Despite the stringent anti-cheating measures imposed for the Olympiad, multiple cases deny their proper enforcement. Mobile phones going off inside the playing hall were seen on many occasions and people were even noticed answering calls with no reaction by the security guards or arbiters. In round two, Australian grandmaster and FIDE Senior Trainer Ian Rogers has spotted a man walking past the board where Namibia and the IPCA played their game, when his mobile phone rang and he started talking while the arbiter and the security barely stirred. It is also reported that the security can be circumvented rather easily, because players who leave their mobile devices at a special deposit desk were not being checked at that desk, making it not possible to find a device hidden in their pocket if they not leave all the forbidden devices.

Nigel Short received official warning for refusing to undergo a check during a game. In the fourth round, however, a Japanese player was forfeited after he was caught with a mobile phone in a random check conducted prior to leaving the venue. The game result was reversed from a win for the player to a loss, which also resulted in a change in the match score. Chief Arbiter Faiq Hasanov said that he was approached by an arbiter in the anti-cheating department and informed that there was a mobile phone and it was the only device in question. He added that they did not bother to check if there was a chess program installed on the device, as simply "possession" violated the rules, and was an automatic forfeiture. It is not stated why the device was not checked at the time for software. Hasanov mentioned that he even considered to completely remove the player from the tournament but later reconsidered that it would be "double punishment" and "non-commensurate" with the violation. It was later announced that the player had a mobile phone and an iPad, although no chess application was running on the phone. The player was forfeited not for "cheating", but for "possession" of a mobile phone.

During the game of the seventh round between Nigel Short and Li Chao, the arbiters decided to ask Short to undergo a check while he was playing a sharp position with the time control closing in. Short outright refused after which Klaus Deventer, a member of the FIDE Anti-cheating Committee and the Sector Arbiter of the event, wanted to give him an official warning but later said that he could not provide information on whether the warning was issued or not. Short said that he was checked both before and extremely thoroughly immediately after the game. He added that he would not allow future checks during the next games either even risking a forfeit. England's team captain Malcolm Pein defended Short ironically saying that the arbiters had found "a credit card". The rules stated that a refusal to undergo a check could lead to a forfeit, which could have reversed England's 3-1 victory to a 2-2 tie. In the end, he was not forfeited and received just an official warning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_ ... s_Olympiad

[MJMcCready]

The claims regarding the Japanese player appear to contradict the claims of his captain. The problem with wikipedia is that we don't know who has written that and why.

[MJMcCready]

No idea about this game (haven't looked at it) but bear in mind the sometimes forgotten point which is that you don't have to be permanently locked in to a computer to be cheating. Occasional consultation whilst surviving on your own ability for large chunks of the game would be enough for competent players to gain an advantage. And is completely impervious to the "analysis based identification" being pursued.

Agreed but if you play through the game it is black that lost the game by trying to mate his opponent rather than white (Tang Tang) out-playing him.

[LawrenceCooper]

Agreed but if you play through the game it is black that lost the game by trying to mate his opponent rather than white (Tang Tang) out-playing him.

Not unlike the pattern of Mihaela Sandu's games prior to the nonsense that occurred in last year's European Women's Individual

[MJMcCready]

Do you have to use a double negative?

[Chris Rice]

The claims regarding the Japanese player appear to contradict the claims of his captain. The problem with wikipedia is that we don't know who has written that and why.

The second sentence is not how Wikipedia pages work at all in my experience. Wikipedia pages normally gives links to where the sources of information come from. How reliable the sources are though can sometimes come into question I agree. In this particular case the source is quoted on the link next to the paragraph I gave which shows it was from Peter Doggers who is normally a reliable source of information.

[LawrenceCooper]

Do you have to use a double negative?

It's not unusual for me to do so.

[MJMcCready]

The claims regarding the Japanese player appear to contradict the claims of his captain. The problem with wikipedia is that we don't know who has written that and why.

The second sentence is not how Wikipedia pages work at all in my experience. Wikipedia pages normally gives links to where the sources of information come from. How reliable the sources are though can sometimes come into question I agree. In this particular case the source is quoted on the link next to the paragraph I gave which shows it was from Peter Doggers who is normally a reliable source of information.

Okay, so returning to the game, which is all we need in my opinion, what's your take on that? I think the GM lost the game rather than the untitled Japanese player won it. But that's just my opinion, I am not the same strength as the players in question but I don't think the GM played particularly well for someone with such a title.

[Chris Rice]

I'm more interested in how the incident happened and was dealt with which I don't think was satisfactory. Especially given the "official" explanation on the Baku website. http://www1.bakuchessolympiad.com/news/11/225 Regarding the game itself it seems to be reasonably clear that there is only circumstantial but no substantive evidence that the Japanese player did try to cheat but why on Earth did he take both a mobile and an i-pad into the playing arena? Did he not trust the hotel security or his own captain to take care of it? Let's have a look at the game:

[Event "Baku Ol"] [Site "?"] [Date "2016.09.18"] [Round "3"] [White "Tang"] [Black "Odeev"] [Result "*"] [ECO "A31"] [PlyCount "81"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5 7. N5c3 O-O 8. g3 Ng4 9. Ne4 Bb6 10. h3 f5 11. hxg4 fxe4 12. e3 Qf6 13. Rh2 Qg6 14. Be2 Na6 15. Bd2 Bd7 16. Na3 Rae8 17. Rc1 Nc5 18. Bb4 Rc8 19. Nc4 Rfe8 20. Nxb6 Qxb6 21. Bxc5 Rxc5 22. Rxc5 Qxc5 23. Qd2 Bb5 24. Bxb5 Qxb5 25. d6 Rd8 26. Qc3 Qd5 27. f4 exf3 28. Rd2 f2+ 29. Kxf2 Rf8+ 30. Kg1 Qf3 31. Kh2 h5 32. d7 h4 33. Qxe5 hxg3+ 34. Qxg3 Qf6 35. g5 Qe7 36. Qd6 Qd8 37. Qd5+ Kh7 38. Kg1 Kg6 39. Qe6+ Kxg5 40. Rg2+ Kh5 41. Qg6+ *

I have to say I agree with you and see nothing in White's play that leads me to believe he was cheating. I think Black took massive chances in order to try and win a game against a weaker opponent and White defended well. Even 27 f4 when you look at it was pretty much the only move he had left not to lose a pawn and then try and fend off a mate on d1. If so as I said before its a real shame that the guy would have notched up one of the wins of his life if he hadn't taken in these two devices. Why, why, why would he have done that though? I just can't get my head around that.

[Richard Bates]

Agreed but if you play through the game it is black that lost the game by trying to mate his opponent rather than white (Tang Tang) out-playing him.

Not unlike the pattern of Mihaela Sandu's games prior to the nonsense that occurred in last year's European Women's Individual

From memory she wasn't found with a mobile phone and Ipad on her though...

[LawrenceCooper]

Agreed but if you play through the game it is black that lost the game by trying to mate his opponent rather than white (Tang Tang) out-playing him.

Not unlike the pattern of Mihaela Sandu's games prior to the nonsense that occurred in last year's European Women's Individual

From memory she wasn't found with a mobile phone and Ipad on her though...

Very true. I dread to think what fate Zhukova et al would have had in store for her if she had

[NickFaulks]

Not unlike the pattern of Mihaela Sandu's games prior to the nonsense that occurred in last year's European Women's Individual

Comparing Sandu with Tang is disgusting. If Tang had not been found in possession of electronic communication devices I'm sure he would have received nothing but congratulations.