Chess Player Strip Searched

[Chris Rice]

More from Ken Regan here
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/07/2 ... een-sigma/

Quite an astonishing read. Still looks like early stages in their work but I was particular fascinated by his seeming discovery that an entire tournament was rigged (The Don Cup 2010 International was held three years ago in Azov, Russia, as a 12-player round-robin).

It appears the tailenders had inflated grades (now 300 Elo less) who deliberately lost all their games inflating the other players ratings accordingly. To add to that it may be that the 66 games played never even happened and they were all computer generated. Six of the games being duplicated from the World Computer Ch in 2008 and the others likely generated by playing one computer against another.

From what I gather from the rest of the article the idea to catch the cheats will be to get the engine matching statistical probability so high that there is no other explanation then that the player must be cheating, kind of like a DNA match.

[Roger de Coverly]

the idea to catch the cheats will be to get the engine matching statistical probability so high that there is no other explanation then that the player must be cheating

Matching computer moves is an indication that moves were generated with the use of a computer engines. It's not proof of cheating in the absence of other evidence and in particular in the presence of evidence to the contrary such as simple observation in an OTB tournament. The reasonable doubt is that it is possible and legal to prepare a game beforehand using a computer engine and then reproduce it.

Fake or fixed tournaments from various parts of the world are not unknown and aren't a specific computer problem.

[Mick Norris]

Fake or fixed tournaments from various parts of the world are not unknown and aren't a specific computer problem.

True, but good to see computers being used to help catch them and hopefully players, organisers and arbiters will be banned as a result

[Chris Rice]

the idea to catch the cheats will be to get the engine matching statistical probability so high that there is no other explanation then that the player must be cheating

Matching computer moves is an indication that moves were generated with the use of a computer engines. It's not proof of cheating in the absence of other evidence and in particular in the presence of evidence to the contrary such as simple observation in an OTB tournament. The reasonable doubt is that it is possible and legal to prepare a game beforehand using a computer engine and then reproduce it.

I agree that it's unlikely that you would be able to convince anyone on the basis of one or two games but its probable that if the engine matching was there over a number of games the statistical probability would be so high that the reasonable doubt referred to would fall away.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"From what I gather from the rest of the article the idea to catch the cheats will be to get the engine matching statistical probability so high that there is no other explanation then that the player must be cheating, kind of like a DNA match."

I hope it's more reliable than some DNA matches...

[PeterFarr]

Matching computer moves is an indication that moves were generated with the use of a computer engines. It's not proof of cheating in the absence of other evidence and in particular in the presence of evidence to the contrary such as simple observation in an OTB tournament. The reasonable doubt is that it is possible and legal to prepare a game beforehand using a computer engine and then reproduce it.

Looks like RdeC played a high % age of computer best moves yesterday, in easily holding his much higher-rated GM opponent.

(ok, to be serious, well-played sir!)

That statistical methods against a big enough sample can provide something close to absolute proof is what Ken Regan seems to suggest. He is probably right, but sometimes statistical models can go wrong, as the input data is subject to human intervention, or because output can be mis-interpreted; e.g. might a player through training or natural aptitude just happen to play in a style close to that of a computer? or, more realistically, variations in style of opening repertoire will lead to a greater or lesser number of pre-prepared moves. If a player is dumb enough to use the computer for all his moves, then none of this would matter, but if cheating is only done sparingly, at critical moments, it gets more difficult.

So as RdeC says, you still need other evidence.

[Chris Rice]

Matching computer moves is an indication that moves were generated with the use of a computer engines. It's not proof of cheating in the absence of other evidence and in particular in the presence of evidence to the contrary such as simple observation in an OTB tournament. The reasonable doubt is that it is possible and legal to prepare a game beforehand using a computer engine and then reproduce it.

Looks like RdeC played a high % age of computer best moves yesterday, in easily holding his much higher-rated GM opponent.

(ok, to be serious, well-played sir!)

That statistical methods against a big enough sample can provide something close to absolute proof is what Ken Regan seems to suggest. He is probably right, but sometimes statistical models can go wrong, as the input data is subject to human intervention, or because output can be mis-interpreted; e.g. might a player through training or natural aptitude just happen to play in a style close to that of a computer? or, more realistically, variations in style of opening repertoire will lead to a greater or lesser number of pre-prepared moves. If a player is dumb enough to use the computer for all his moves, then none of this would matter, but if cheating is only done sparingly, at critical moments, it gets more difficult.

So as RdeC says, you still need other evidence.

For engine-matching move cheating allegations my feeling is the process should look something like this:

1. Develop a system to identify when possible cheating may be occurring using matching moves.

2. Using whatever criteria has been decided on one would then proceed to identify players who are falling foul of this criteria.

3. Investigate further using whatever other evidence is available and if the matter can't be dismissed then a committee should be convened to interview/test player concerned.

4. Player gets interviewed/tested and gets a chance to address concerns before committee. Probably a good idea if these concerns were in writing. Here is the player's chance to say that he/she is the illegitimate spawn of Data from Star Trek which is why he/she/it can play like a computer or whatever argument they can come up with.

5. Committee comes to a decision.

6. Appeals Committee

At present Ken Regan and the FIDE Anti-Cheating Committee are at the early stages of the first point. Whatever system they do come up with will have to have the same type of credibility as a DNA match. OK DNA matches are not infallible as Kevin has pointed out. However, you wouldn't decide to not investigate at all simply because it was possible that there could conceivably be a defence to the allegations. I just think we're in danger of putting the cart before the horse and considering all the defence and mitigation before a proper investigation has been done. I hope everyone would be agreed that there should be due process.

[Chris Rice]

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.

Jens Kotainy has been thrown out of the Dortmund Open for cheating although he denies it. Here's the report from the Chess Vibes site....

"In other news, IM Jens Kotainy was disqualified today from the open tournament, where seven rounds had been played. Christian Goldschmidt posted the following text in the Facebook group against cheating in chess:

“ I am the Tournament director of the Sparkassen Open in Dortmund. We disqualified Jens Kotainy today from the tournament, because of Computer Cheating. We claimed his cell phone before the round today. Coincidentally we determined that his turned-off(!) cellphone made morselike vibrations. ”

Soon afterwards an official statement in German was put up on the homepage of the Sparkassen Chess Meeting which confirmed the above. It mentions that Kotainy was leading the tournament with 7 out of 7, and because he had been accused of cheating at previous events, the arbiters and organizers had him under special observation.

In the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Goldschmidt is quoted:
“ We noticed irregularities. After each move, he put his hand in his left pocket.”

The fact that Kotainy's moves were close to 100% of Houdini's choices, added to the suspicion. Before the 8th round, the arbiters asked Kotainy to hand over his cell phone. Even though it appeared to be switched off, it suddenly buzzed in the hand of the arbiter, upon which he decided to disqualify the player.

According to the WAZ, Kotainy denies that he cheated. He claims that his brother, a trained computer scientist, has written anti-theft software for mobile phones which would make it vibrate "every ten seconds without internet connection".

I did a bit of digging and with MorseCall you can set up different vibrations for each call. This is supposed to help you at meetings so you don't have to take your phone out of your pocket to know who is calling but it looks like it can easily be adapted in combination with an Android app with Houdini on it. https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... .morsecall

[Roger de Coverly]

According to the WAZ, Kotainy denies that he cheated. He claims that his brother, a trained computer scientist, has written anti-theft software for mobile phones which would make it vibrate "every ten seconds without internet connection".[/i]

No matter how much of a whizz his brother was, in order to check for an internet connection, it would be necessary for the phone to be switched on. That's enough of itself to give an arbiter the right to forfeit an individual game.

[MartinCarpenter]

They're really proposing that someone sent a signal as complex as a complete move via morse code vibrations? Very problematic and a massive capacity for error.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... signal as complex as a complete move ....

4 characters. 2 if you just do the destination square which would probably be enough in most cases.

[MartinCarpenter]

That's quite a lot of information to reliably detect from subtle variations from a vibrating mobile 8 choices each time, and two distinct signals to keep in sync etc. Also someone to do the entering of results, sending the signal etc.
(Well unless he was keeping his hand in his pocket long enough to type the move in somehow!).

There is quite possibly enough to justify defaulting him from the game of course but banning him from the tournament seems, to be honest, entirely unjustified given the (very flimsy) evidence involved. There's all sorts of very logical things you could (should) do first.
(The report might be ommiting stuff of course - something on chess pub suggests that it may well be - and the games may or may not offer very good evidence either way.).

This sort of thing is the *major* reason that they need stats based foresnics for looking at computer use - any time that anyone does markedly well in a given tournament now there's going to be accusations of this sort. Once this sort of thing starts off people are well known to be horribly bad at evaluating it objectively. If you start banning people with this little objective justification people are going to get sued for loss of prize money and/or libel and they may very well lose.

You need a universally agreed standard of evidence to start suspecting people, quietly checking for incriminating evidence etc. If you did that you'd remove any chance of anyone (rational) even trying to cheat this directly.

[Jonathan Bryant]

That's quite a lot of information to reliably detect from subtle variations from a vibrating mobile .

Didn't the French Olympiad team work out a code based on where somebody was standing? Not convinced it's that tricky tbh. Two characters, each of 8 options after all. Eg

... a
..- b
.-. c
.-- d
-.. e
-.- f
--. g
--- h

repeat for the number.

Code = 6 pulses max.

You wouldn't necessarily need signals out as well as in either would you? Lots of games viewable on the internet now.



As a one time working magician my experience is that folk usually grossly over-estimate how technically complex things need to be to do stuff in secret.


Not quibbling with the rest of your post. Just don't think the code thing is particularly difficult to get up to working speed.

[Geoff Chandler]

The solution is simple.....infact it's so simple I amazed that I (Mr Mega-Brain) even considered it.

We carry on transmitting live games but (now here is the really clever bit.)
We do not transmit any of the actual games that are being played - we transmit phoney games.

When Cheating Chummy recieves his moves say '15.Qh5' he will be playing 15.Qh5 in an entirly different game.

Now call me stupid if you like but if one starts moving their Queen to random squares on the chessboard
then it will most likely result in the said Queen being lost for zilch compensation.

Cheating Chummy and his mate will have fight after the game so all we need look for
is players with black eyes and then ban them.

Sorted.

[Dan O'Dowd]

Back in March I was accused of being a computer user in the following game. It made me deliriously happy though also sorry for the guy who clearly must have been in bad form if he was that level below understanding my play

[Event "ChessCube Game"] [Site "www.chesscube.com"] [Date "2013.03.26"] [Round "?"] [White "thearbiter2@chesscube.com"] [Black "lovechess555@chesscube.com"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C18"] [WhiteElo "1933"] [BlackElo "2016"] [PlyCount "121"] [EventDate "2013.??.??"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. Qg4 Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Bd7 15. Qf2 b6 16. a4 O-O-O 17. a5 b5 18. Be3 Qb7 19. a6 Qe4 20. Bd3 Qxg2 21. Qxg2 Rxg2 22. Be4 Bc6 23. Bxg2 Bxg2 24. Rg1 Be4 25. Bxa7 Nc6 26. Bb6 Rd2 27. Rg8+ Kd7 28. Rd1 Ne7 29. Rd8+ Kc6 30. Be3 Rxd1+ 31. Kxd1 Nd5 32. Bg1 Kc7 33. a7 Ne3+ 34. Bxe3 Kxd8 35. Bd4 Kc8 36. Bxc3 Kb7 37. Bd4 Ka6 38. c3 Ka5 39. h4 Ka6 40. h5 Kb7 41. h6 Ka8 42. Ke2 Kb7 43. Ke3 Bf5 44. Bc5 Ka8 45. Kd2 Kb7 46. Ke3 Ka8 47. Kf2 Be4 48. Kg3 Kb7 49. Kh4 Ka8 50. Kg5 Bf5 51. Kf6 Bg6 52. Kg7 Kb7 53. h7 Kc6 54. a8=Q+ Kxc5 55. h8=Q Kc4 56. Qc6+ Kb3 57. Qf8 Kc2 58. Qfd6 Kb3 59. Qb4+ Kc2 60. Qg2+ Kc1 61. Qbb2+ 1-0