Chess Player Strip Searched

[KWRegan]

I'm a bit sceptical about being able to use a hidden camera and program a computer to parse the photograph. Maybe if you could get an overhead view from something like a demo board. In clothing you'll be getting views from lots of subtly different, often not very clear, angles. Can't imagine not getting a reasonable quantity of mistakes.

Quite possibly it did give mistakes. One big point compared to a case where a guy was tapping moves in his shoe is that a bad entry does not scramble later moves. The scheme re-sets with each move. A camera scheme would self-identify when it couldn't parse, and the player would know to make a move himself. As for "unclear angles", overcoming them fits in the difference between what my professional colleagues say is possible, and what went into the robot I played, which needed a steady clear view.

[Roger de Coverly]

Quite possibly it did give mistakes. One big point compared to a case where a guy was tapping moves in his shoe is that a bad entry does not scramble later moves.

It did occur to me, that if you could make the simplifying assumptions that
(a) you start from the initial position
(b) all moves are legal
(c) all positions in the game are observed

then

you only need to parse whether a square is occupied or not and being able to pattern recognise the pieces and pawns isn't an absolute requirement.

Essentially the principle behind traditional International Postal, that you only need the start square and the destination square.

[Chris Rice]

Roger, count me among your "anyone"---the games in my datasets come from various sources. E.g. OpeningMaster has many more games by sub-2000 players than ChessBase Big not to mention TWIC, and I am grateful for efforts like CANbase and would like to know of more.

In cases like the recent incident with a 2230-player at the Iasi Open, where I'm naturally curious to try detecting indications in the games, it is reasonable to limit to a broadly comparable population of events.

Could I just clarify who we are referring to here? As I understand it there was a 2230 Dutch player, Wesley Vermeulen, (he went with a few others from his club) who got disqualified for cheating in Rd 6 playing Nevednichy. Allegedly he went to the bathroom 6-7 times in the first hour and was caught looking at Stockfish on his mobile although the details are somewhat hazy and his club mates are protesting his innocence loudly on social media. Thing is apart from drawing against a 2400+ in round 5 his performance up to rd 6 was unremarkable only gaining about 5 Elo.

There was another player graded 2235 called Bargan from Moldova. He is about 35 years old so massive swings in rating are not usually seen and as far as I'm aware no allegations have been made against him though he finished with a tournament rating of 2460.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could I just clarify who we are referring to here? As I understand it there was a 2230 Dutch player, Wesley Vermeulen, (he went with a few others from his club) who got disqualified for cheating in Rd 6 playing Nevednichy.

There a load of material in Dutch at
http://schaaksite.nl/page.php?al=nederl ... smartphone

Google translate is never going to give a completely clear picture, but it appears to be yet another case of the Smartphone in use in the toilet. With a door forced open and suggestions of a physical confrontation, it's reminiscent of the Irish incident with the difference that the accuser and detector of the supposed cheating was not himself punished.

Perhaps the rules of the tournament were not sufficiently explicit, but should it not be the case that if you are caught, whilst playing, with a phone both switched on and in use, the minimum penalty is the loss of the game with the additional possibility of exclusion from the tournament? Expressed that way, whether or not the phone's chess software was in use is irrelevant.

(edit) He demolished a whole bunch of Dutch 2100+ players at the Tata event.
http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calc ... -02-01&t=0

But if you have improved, it may not be that difficult.
(/edit)

[Sean Hewitt]

Perhaps the rules of the tournament were not sufficiently explicit, but should it not be the case that if you are caught, whilst playing, with a phone both switched on and in use, the minimum penalty is the loss of the game with the additional possibility of exclusion from the tournament? Expressed that way, whether or not the phone's chess software was in use is irrelevant.

Quite so. We had an incident this weekend at Sunningdale where a player was found using a mobile phone in his car whilst his game was in progress. There was no evidence of a chess engine running at the time but, nevertheless, the player was awarded a loss for the game in progress.

[David Sedgwick]

Perhaps the rules of the tournament were not sufficiently explicit, but should it not be the case that if you are caught, whilst playing, with a phone both switched on and in use, the minimum penalty is the loss of the game with the additional possibility of exclusion from the tournament? Expressed that way, whether or not the phone's chess software was in use is irrelevant.

Quite so. We had an incident this weekend at Sunningdale where a player was found using a mobile phone in his car whilst his game was in progress. There was no evidence of a chess engine running at the time but, nevertheless, the player was awarded a loss for the game in progress.

Five to ten years ago that would have been considered an excessive penalty.

I appreciate that the climate has changed.

[E Michael White]

Five to ten years ago that would have been considered an excessive penalty.I appreciate that the climate has changed.

Good to see you're catching up. 10 years ago it was forbidden to leave the playing venue during a game, make use of advice or sources of information and strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones into the playing venue.

[David Sedgwick]

Five to ten years ago that would have been considered an excessive penalty. I appreciate that the climate has changed.

Good to see you're catching up. 10 years ago it was forbidden to leave the playing venue during a game, make use of advice or sources of information and strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones into the playing venue.

Thank you for that information. I'd never have guessed.

If I need any further information or advice from you, I'll be sure to let you know.

[David Gilbert]

Possibly the best post ever!

[Chris Rice]

Could I just clarify who we are referring to here? As I understand it there was a 2230 Dutch player, Wesley Vermeulen, (he went with a few others from his club) who got disqualified for cheating in Rd 6 playing Nevednichy.

There a load of material in Dutch at
http://schaaksite.nl/page.php?al=nederl ... smartphone

Google translate is never going to give a completely clear picture, but it appears to be yet another case of the Smartphone in use in the toilet. With a door forced open and suggestions of a physical confrontation, it's reminiscent of the Irish incident with the difference that the accuser and detector of the supposed cheating was not himself punished.

(/edit)

The minutes of the Romainian chess federation on this have been translated into English. Presumably if the FIDE ACC proposals are subsequently adopted Mr Vermeulen has narrowly avoided a three year ban...

International Chess Festival "Iasi Open 2014 "

At around 19.15, the Romanian player GM Nevednichy Vladislav complained to the arbiter Vladimir Danilov that his opponent, Dutch player Wesley Vermeulen is in a separate toilet and uses his mobile phone to analyze their game.

At the spot was called arbiter Vlad Ungureanu and the chief arbiter Chirila Radu-Catalin. On their arrival, the player Wesley Vermeulen had left the toilet cabin and his phone was in possession of Vladimir Danilov , with the chess software open and running. Arbiter Vlad Ungureanu managed to photograph the phone before Wesley Vermeulen took it back.

Back to the game, Wesley Vermeulen was informed by the referees that he lost the game. In making this decision, Articles 12.3.a and 12.3.b were applied with the sanction imposed by Article 13.4.d. Wesley Vermeulen didn’t comment, signed the score sheets and repeated several times (in front of arbiters Chirila, Ungureanu and Danilov) it was his mistake and he is very sorry.

After this, the tournament director IO Manole Vasile, met together with chief arbiter IA Radu- Catalin Chirila, Danilov Vladimir, Vlad Ungureanu , FA Sanduleac Vasile and they took the decision to exclude Wesley Vermeulen from the tournament (Articles 12.3.a and 12.3.b with the sanction imposed by Article 13.4.g).

Earlier, in the second round, Grand Master Jianu Vlad - Cristian complained to IA Chirila Radu- Catalin that his opponent (again Wesley Vermeulen) was leaving his chair very often and was missing from the playing hall. The decision of excluding Wesley Vermeulen from the tournament also took into consideration, that his next opponents will refuse to play against him; also, the FIDE point of view about this issue is very clear, in many international tournaments being forbidden to enter the playing hall with any electronic device.

Arbiters Chirila Radu- Catalin and Vlad Ungureanu have communicated to Wesley Vermeulen the decision to exclude him from the tournament and his possibility to appeal. Wesley Vermeulen accepted the decision and said that he understands it very well and does not want to appeal, repeating several times that it was his fault.

We note that the player's attitude after the incident was cooperative, acknowledging guilt and he seemed to have remorse for what happened.

The case will be mentioned in the arbiters report submitted to the Romanian Chess Federation and the board empowered to take a decision: to continue with other approaches ( referral to FIDE) or to limit the case to the penalties already taken (taking into account the positive attitude of the player, after the incident).

IO Vasile Manole - Tournament Director
IA Radu- Catalin Chirila - Chief Arbiter
FA Sanduleac Vasile - Arbiter
NA Vlad Ungureanu - Arbiter
NA Danilov Vladimir - Arbiter

[Chris Rice]

On the USCF site there is an in depth article by Ken Regan entitled How To Catch A Chess Cheater: Ken Regan Finds Moves Out Of Mind by Howard Goldowsky.

This is a long article and absolutely fascinating covering a vast range of subjects such as artificial intelligence, how to catch cheaters using Intrinsic Performance Ratings, anti-cheating exams, reverse Turing tests, how it all started with Toplaov's accusations against Kramnik and even Andrew Paulson/Agon gets a mention.

I particularly liked the quote "Chess has been called the drosophila (a small fruit fly, used extensively in genetic research because of its large chromosomes, numerous varieties, and rapid rate of reproduction) of artificial intelligence."

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12677/763/

[Roger de Coverly]

how to catch cheaters using Intrinsic Performance Ratings

It seems to me that for Over the Board chess, that if you cannot find any physical or observational evidence of illegal use of an engine, that a standard of proof, even the civil one of "balance of probabilities" will not have been satisfied. An attempt to ban a player purely on the basis of Ken Regan's assertions about move accuracy would likely to be thrown out by a Court of Law. Even the guy who was caught in Germany using his phone during the game and refused to show it to the arbiters got his ban overturned on a technicality.

Essentially you can detect that moves may have or probably have been suggested by an engine. That is not, of itself, cheating as the analysis could have been done before the game started.

Sean Hewitt says that a player was defaulted at a recent event for use of a phone during the game, there not being any proof that a chess engine was being consulted. Calculation of "Intrinsic Performance Ratings" might have given additional evidence as to whether the player was in fact cheating or just having a phone switched on in contravention of normal tournament rules.

Meanwhile, CCA, an organisation running a number of major US tournaments has come up with its own guidelines independently of FIDE.
http://www.chesstour.com/devices.htm
with a discussion at
https://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopi ... e4c054480e

They start with a premise which would be rejected in the UK outside of local leagues, namely that it's a right to use phones during games. Can you bring your gun if the State allows it?

6. A player who wishes to make a call during play should see a director and request permission to call.

and

8. If a player’s cellphone rings in the tournament room while games are in progress, that player will lose 10 minutes or half of his/her remaining time, whichever is less. If the player’s cellphone rings in the tournament room while games are in progress for a second time during the tournament, that player shall forfeit. If the offending player’s game is over when the cellphone rings, the penalty shall apply to the following round.

As a consequence of allowing phones to be switched on, areas outside the playing area have to be designated as out of bounds to phones, with all the bathroom policing implied

2. Players may not use or possess, while playing, cellphones or other electronic devices in a bathroom, or outside the tournament area.

[Roger de Coverly]

The draft proposals are now on the FIDE site.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ittee.html

They are unusually cautious about whether they represent a recommended policy.

As these are draft proposals and are sure to be amended before they reach the FIDE Commission, FIDE is interested to receive comments on these proposals as it is very important to get the balance of these proposals correct.

Are the ECF likely to respond on behalf of English chess players and organisers?

[Paolo Casaschi]

On the USCF site there is an in depth article by Ken Regan entitled How To Catch A Chess Cheater: Ken Regan Finds Moves Out Of Mind by Howard Goldowsky.

This is a long article and absolutely fascinating covering a vast range of subjects such as artificial intelligence, how to catch cheaters using Intrinsic Performance Ratings, anti-cheating exams, reverse Turing tests, how it all started with Toplaov's accusations against Kramnik and even Andrew Paulson/Agon gets a mention.

I particularly liked the quote "Chess has been called the drosophila (a small fruit fly, used extensively in genetic research because of its large chromosomes, numerous varieties, and rapid rate of reproduction) of artificial intelligence."

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12677/763/

If the article represents the direction of Ken Regan thoughts correctly, it's really worrying. He used to say that statistical analysis should not be enough for a conviction; the FIDE proposal now says otherwise, assuming statistical analysis of a number of games; then the USCF article goes on about "untested tricks" requiring only to look at few moves... what's next? "1. e4! and you must be a cheater because the move is clearly the best in the initial position and a sub-2000 patzer can not possibly have discovered this by himself at the board!"

[Roger de Coverly]

If the article represents the direction of Ken Regan thoughts correctly, it's really worrying.

He may have made some progress in being able to give an assessment of a player's strength by reference to moves they play. Beyond that it's wild extrapolation to suggest that as a method to exclusively detect computer use as opposed to being a method of confirming or otherwise suspected engine use. It was Elo, was it not, who conjectured that chess strength was a random variable of unknown mean and variance and that his rating method was an attempt to measure or estimate the mean. Intrinsic performance rating well outside of the mean could just be demonstrating a measure of the variance. We all know it happens, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in playing a player two to three hundred Elo points higher or lower.