Chess Player Strip Searched

[MartinCarpenter]

Think it'd be relatively obvious in that it would produce a few truly random blunders.

It does need explaining mind. Surely if cheating in the manner(s) proposed at the given time limit you'd go 8/8 rather than 6.5/8 against any remotely plausible human opposition?

This sort of issue was definitely also present with parts of the other performances too but people were explaining the losses in terms of everything breaking down somehow when the time remaining got too fast/only working on live boards etc. A priori plausible enough maybe but I'm not sure if any of these explanations still stand up to scrutiny.

[Roger de Coverly]

It does need explaining mind. Surely if cheating in the manner(s) proposed at the given time limit you'd go 8/8 rather than 6.5/8 against any remotely plausible human opposition?

If you run with the idea of an assistant, then it's all relatively low tech. The assistant has streaming video of the game or just frequent stills from the hidden camera and a microphone to speak back the moves. At ten seconds a move, the assistant has to be on the ball to input moves as soon as they are spotted on the video feed. At the same time, they would have to speak back the engine's near instant response. Scope for the process to break from time to time is obvious, even for the engine's instant choice not to be the best.

You need for the assistant to be somewhere undetected and a undetected communication link between the assistant and the player's hidden devices.

If anyone has managed to use a video or still camera to automatically capture pgn, then it would be of interest to those wishing to have live coverage without using DGT or similar boards.

[Andy Howie]

T
It would then help with plausability rather a lot if you could dream an even semi plausible method for cheating that would have a chance of working at this sort of time limit.

Magic glasses with some form of head up display would help with the move notification. How the engine finds out the board position is the issue. If they are playing with DGT wireless boards, it might be possible to hack into the moves being broadcast. But are these boards really that common in the events he plays in?

Wireless boards would not help as there is a delay in broadcasting from them. Wired are instant

[Angus French]

The following analysis was posted in the comment section on http://chess-db.com/public/game.jsp?id= ... 7.21940736

Settings were 12-22 ply depth/45 seconds, hash 256mb
Engine Houdini 103a
Core2Duo 2.00 GH...

Eoin, can you tell us what "12-22 ply depth/45 seconds" means? For example, does it mean that Houdini analysed to a minimum of 12 ply and a maximum of 22 ply or 45 seconds, whichever of the latter two came first?

If Houdini analysed for up to 45 seconds a move, does it make sense to compare the moves it favoured with those played by Ivanov in a 10 mins + 5 secs increment game (game timings given by Leonard Barden earlier in this thread)?

I've not seen any testimonies from Ivanov opponents (or arbiters for the tournaments in which he's played). Are these available?

[Roger de Coverly]

If Houdini analysed for up to 45 seconds a move, does it make sense to compare the moves it favoured with those played by Ivanov in a 10 mins + 5 secs increment game (game timings given by Leonard Barden earlier in this thread)?

If you presume an assistant with a conventional desktop or laptop relaying moves, the settings on the laptop are never likely to exactly match any investigation computer. If the moves are played solely on the instructions of an engine, you would expect a 100% match provided the settings were the same. That's why I highlighted the third and fourth choices, because engines usually find one of the best moves almost instantly and the effect of more ply and more time is to refine and check the initial try.

[Angus French]

If Houdini analysed for up to 45 seconds a move, does it make sense to compare the moves it favoured with those played by Ivanov in a 10 mins + 5 secs increment game (game timings given by Leonard Barden earlier in this thread)?

If you presume an assistant with a conventional desktop or laptop relaying moves, the settings on the laptop are never likely to exactly match any investigation computer. If the moves are played solely on the instructions of an engine, you would expect a 100% match provided the settings were the same. That's why I highlighted the third and fourth choices, because engines usually find one of the best moves almost instantly and the effect of more ply and more time is to refine and check the initial try.

I wonder how Ivanov's moves compare with Houdini's choices at, say, 10 seconds a move?

[Andy Howie]

depends on the power of the computer used

[Eoin Devane]

Eoin, can you tell us what "12-22 ply depth/45 seconds" means?

I'm afraid I can't. I just quoted the analysis from the link I posted. What you suggested sounds plausible to me though.

[Ian Thompson]

Eoin, can you tell us what "12-22 ply depth/45 seconds" means?

I'm afraid I can't. I just quoted the analysis from the link I posted. What you suggested sounds plausible to me though.

if it's the same as Fritz, etc., it means the engine had analysed to 12 play exhaustively (i.e. all legal moves), to 22 ply in the longest line it analysed and came to the conclusion it did on the best line after 45 seconds analysis. See the example below for the best line changing as the ply count and time increases.

engine.JPG

[MartinCarpenter]

Which would clearly be a gently silly thing to be testing games played at 10+5 against
(Not that precognition makes that much less sense than some ideas )

[Chris Rice]

Posted a couple of days ago on the ACP web site by Emil Sutovsky the President of the Asscoiation of Chess Professionals:

"FIDE supports anti-cheating committee
Date: 29 April 2013
Author: Sutovsky, Emil

Dear friends,

I am happy to inform you, that FIDE has supported the idea to establish the special anti-cheating committee, that will include a number of the ACP representatives. If you are interested to be a member of the committee, please, submit your ideas and vision in a letter to the ACP Board: http://www.chessprofessionals.org/about/contact_us

We will revise all the proposals and select two or three of our members, who will represent the ACP in the anti-cheating committee.

Let's fight this plague together!

Emil Sutovsky
ACP President"

It will be interesting to see the actual scope of what such an anti-cheating committee will be looking at, terms of reference etc. and whether it goes beyond computer cheating.

[Chris Rice]

Seems fate has taken a hand with Borislav Ivanov. He was participating in a Bulgarian tournament, Veliko Tarnovo open and as usual winning it easily. Then his opponents hit on the idea that if he received three defaults he wouldn't win a prize. So IM Sashov Nikolov and GM Drentchev refused to play him. Unusually, though apparently it was quite within the rules, Nikolov was paired with Ivanov a second time and again refused to play. All I know now is that a player called Kukov won it with Ivanov not listed. The results seem to have been removed from the Chess Results server.

[Chris Rice]

On the ACP site from a Bulgarian GM:

Dear all,

Due to the increased level of fraud and suspicions of cheating of lately in chess. I would like to to present you an idea of how to deal with the problem. The idea for anti-cheating commission is fairly simple.
You know that in all sports there are is the so-called doping police. In chess, the main doping is the use of chess engines during the game. ACP can create a squad, which will receive signals of possible cheating. The players under suspicion can be checked by the doping police randomly and without any hint of what is going to happen.
For example, the case with the notorious Borislav Ivanov cannot be solved at the moment as none is actually checking him. Everyone suspects, believes, but as there are no proves, none can take actions. A sudden check can disclose his real strength. You probably do not know that before the open Bulgarian championship in Plovdiv this February the arbiter (IA Rumen Angelov) showed at the opening ceremony a gadget and stated that he has the right to check anyone during the event. This gadget was basically nothing, but for one or another reason Ivanov's performance there was around 1800-1900.

Anti-cheaters squad will be equipped with the necessary tools for the random checks. They will have the authority to punish the proved cheater. I will suggest that at first the cheaters should be banned for 5 years. It is a bit rough, but people need to start thinking twice before doing this. After some years, the ban can be lowered to 2 years, but at least at the beginning things should be scary for the potential cheaters. The anti-doping cops should be spread on all the continents (although I am not quite sure if this is possible from financial point of view). You will need to polish the details.

One more thing- there should be punishments for people who claim cheating just because they do not like particular player. The anti-cheating squad will also add the names of the people who make the signals and check their reliability.

Please, make me know what do you think about this idea,

greets
GM Dejan Bojkov, Bulgaria

[Andrew Collins]

you would have thought that with all the constant suspicion and negative feeling surrounding this case an organizer would attempt to get to the bottom of it once and for all. Even if to prove the guy is in fact innocent

People suspect he is cheating but don't know how, which in itself suggests it must be quite sophisticated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is quite possible to buy an electronic device which scans for signals being used. If moves are being transmitted to a person suspected of cheating via some sort of in ear device or otherwise then scanning for the signal should not be in my opinion be that difficult

I have just on a quick search come across this http://microear.co.uk/personal-security ... ector.html which seems to be the sort of thing that would be usefull

(I don't think boycotting a player suspected of cheating, but not proven is the way to go about things. The old adage of innocent until proven guilty should apply, but in this case I think many people are happy for it to be reversed- until you prove categorically that your not cheating, then we don't believe you
So much seems to be relied on engine analysis and matchups that I don't know what the truth is)

[MartinCarpenter]

I would presume that properly scanning would require you to know what frequencies might be involved. If he is cheating then we're talking about something relatively elaborate/sophisticated so it might be a bit trickier than you'd think.
(There might be also something on board somehow, or maybe an outside helper although you'd think they'd have picked that up by now.).

The main basic reason for suspicion is that people just don't get that much stronger that fast. One tournament would have been understandable as a statisical freak, a whole lot of them is rather tricky to explain.

The thing to do is probably to do it like they do online where its obviously basically trivial to cheat. Just routinely check everyones games for statical colleration vs engine moves and if people have a high enough match up over time to incude suspicion then start checking them silently etc. This seems to be relatively established and 'safe' in terms of false positives etc but you would of course want to carefully check it.

You would also have to be quite generous in terms of the burden for proof as the a priori chances of people cheating in face to face games are much lower than online.