Chess Player Strip Searched

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Returning briefly to this, I was reading recently about head's-up displays becoming routine in glasses and (eventually) contact lenses (or even being made visible in other ways) and the concept of wearable computers, in the sense that hardware will increasingly be incorporated into everyday clothing and the way we access information will change. At the moment, it is through computers and smart phones, but in the not too distant future, the world could end up with a digital 'layer' over it, that can be accessed by anyone wearing 'enabled' clothing and able to interface with the digital 'objects' out there. This would, of course, bring a new meaning to 'Chess Player Strip Searched'! But I was seriously thinking that this generation could be last that sees chess being played as we know it. Is that too pessimistic a view?

[John McKenna]

Yes, a bit too pessimistic, nudist colonies will become the final refuges of chessplayers with nothing to hide. Hold on ... what am I saying?! It's just reminded of a painting - The Garden of Earthly Delights by Brueghel. Let's not go there.

[Chris Rice]

Chris K's post though does hit the nail on the head though. Technology will continue to improve with computers becoming smaller, lighter, less easy to detect. Currently we are relying on rules that were not designed to detect computer-assisted cheating and these rules are also not effective because they can't be easily enforced.
Several posters on the forum make a good point that its not widespread as yet so why do anything about it. That has to be wishful thinking largely by my generation (a product of the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match) where these challenges didn't exist. If there is a shortcut to get ahead, some people will take it, you only have to look generally at the sports world to see that.
Sooner or later computer-assisted cheating will escalate and it's likely that the only way it could be identified is through systems such as batch-analysis against known strong computer programmes like Steve Collyer has demonstrated. Although as Roger has repeatedly pointed out even this method would be subject to challenge.
At the moment probably the easiest way to combat it is to make the penalties for getting caught so severe that it acts as a deterrent. In the long term though my feeling is that we'll have to redesign the rules of chess to make them as anti-computer proof as possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the moment probably the easiest way to combat it is to make the penalties for getting caught so severe that it acts as a deterrent. In the long term though my feeling is that we'll have to redesign the rules of chess to make them as anti-computer proof as possible.

Why do you need to go beyond the prohibition of seeking external assistance during play? Measures that seek to demonstrate this is the case shouldn't be particularly difficult. A heads up display is all very well, but it's not going to be useful unless the moves are communicated in some manner to the device. So if we continue to play using plastic sets, pens and paper, that method isn't going to work without there being an input device as well. The future of live coverage does remain an issue. If someone deliberately sets out to cheat at an OTB tournament, two problems have to be overcome. The first is how to transmit the move to the advisor of your choice and the second is how to receive the advice. Real time game transmission reduces the first problem quite considerably.

[Chris Rice]

Reducing the games to rapid and blitz like they are doing at the 2013 Aeroflot Open in Moscow would perhaps eradicate the computer-assisted cheating problem altogether.

[Roger de Coverly]

Reducing the games to rapid and blitz like they are doing at the 2013 Aeroflot Open in Moscow would perhaps eradicate the computer-assisted cheating problem altogether.

I don't see why, unless you can be certain there's no external assistance. Hypothetical(?) heads up display glasses coupled with live coverage would still be possible.

Attempts to organise serious tournaments on-line all far foul of this. You can only really be sure that no assistance is being obtained, if there's an arbiter or equivalent present with every player. This rather negates the advantages of playing over the Internet.

[Chris Rice]

I'm confused. Didn't you just argue the exact opposite of that in your previous post?

[Mick Norris]

I'm confused. Didn't you just argue the exact opposite of that in your previous post?

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm confused. Didn't you just argue the exact opposite of that in your previous post?

Over the board chess at whatever speed is in principle free of external assistance.

Online chess at whatever speed isn't, because it's not possible to demonstrate the absence of external assistance without replicating the conditions for OTB play.

So speeding up OTB play only makes it a little more difficult to seek external assistance.

[Chris Rice]

Ok I'm still a little hazy on the logic used but let's take it line by line:

"Over the board chess at whatever speed is in principle free of external assistance" - there is enough evidence already on this thread alone to refute this assertion. The addition of the words "in principle" don't really add anything. I think I can see what you're arguing. It's along the lines that a player using an external device can be seen and therefore in principle he can't cheat but its the fact that the external device often can't be seen which causes the concern.

"Online chess at whatever speed isn't, because it's not possible to demonstrate the absence of external assistance without replicating the conditions for OTB play." - I agree with the principle of what you are saying although it's certainly possible to demonstrate the absence of external assistance by playing all crap moves. I have demonstrated this on the ICC on numerous occasions.

"So speeding up OTB play only makes it a little more difficult to seek external assistance." - Not sure this is a logical progression from the first two statements. Perhaps you could elaborate? It would seem to be to be a lot more difficult to seek external assistance if you're having to bang out your moves very quickly?

Mind you it should be added that the aim of the new strategy of the Aeroflot Open is to make the game more popular, not to prevent computer-assisted cheating but it would be useful if it helped in the battle.

[Roger de Coverly]

"So speeding up OTB play only makes it a little more difficult to seek external assistance." - Not sure this is a logical progression from the first two statements. Perhaps you could elaborate? It would seem to be to be a lot more difficult to seek external assistance if you're having to bang out your moves very quickly?

The existing rules prohibit the use of external assistance. The is backed up by the point that it actually requires premeditation to get external assistance. So anyone attempting to cheat at critical periods by retiring to the toilet with a smart phone would find it more difficult or impossible in Rapid or Blitz.

If you had some hypothetical gadget where suggested moves appeared in front of your eyes, that works just as well, possibly better, at Rapid or Blitz. There have been plenty of allegations, probably justified, of players using engines for assistance even at ICC Blitz. ICC have always permitted computer use, the stipulation being that it has to be disclosed in the user name. Where computer use has been detected or alleged, the sanction has been to add (C) for computer (or cheat?).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think I can see what you're arguing. It's along the lines that a player using an external device can be seen and therefore in principle he can't cheat but its the fact that the external device often can't be seen which causes the concern.

This is the critical point. Unseen computing devices concealed around the body are what is a real future threat as technology improves to the point where this becomes routine. Use of smart phones would be archaic in such a setting, but such use is the current threat.

[Roger de Coverly]

Unseen computing devices concealed around the body are what is a real future threat as technology improves to the point where this becomes routine.

You might have such a device, but if unable to establish the current board position, they are harmless from the viewpoint of suggesting moves. So if you play on an old fashioned board with no built in electronics, there's no real issue. If you are going to have auto sensory boards broadcasting by wireless or by Bluetooth to all and sundry, that's a different matter.

I've just realised something. Newer DGT boards are now wireless enabled. So there's no need to have an internet feed to find the moves played. Anything that can pick up and decode transmissions from the sensory board would work. If the Bulgarian was getting external assistance from a hidden device, that's the possible means the moves got communicated to the engine.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Unseen computing devices concealed around the body are what is a real future threat as technology improves to the point where this becomes routine.

You might have such a device, but if unable to establish the current board position, they are harmless from the viewpoint of suggesting moves. So if you play on an old fashioned board with no built in electronics, there's no real issue. If you are going to have auto sensory boards broadcasting by wireless or by Bluetooth to all and sundry, that's a different matter.

I've just realised something. Newer DGT boards are now wireless enabled. So there's no need to have an internet feed to find the moves played. Anything that can pick up and decode transmissions from the sensory board would work. If the Bulgarian was getting external assistance from a hidden device, that's the possible means the moves got communicated to the engine.

Inputting the position would require said device being able to 'see' the board, or the player being able to input the moves. Think someone writing the moves with a pen, and that pen being able to 'sense' what was written and hence input the moves to aforementioned device. Also, see things like this:

http://www.blinktracker.com/BLiNK.htm

None of this is current enough to be used covertly, but it will be one day.

[Roger de Coverly]

Inputting the position would require said device being able to 'see' the board, or the player being able to input the moves. Think someone writing the moves with a pen, and that pen being able to 'sense' what was written and hence input the moves to aforementioned device.

Add magic pens then. Monroi and similar PDA devices for electronic recording and broadcasting of games became popular in North America if not in Europe. You could perhaps imagine a digital pen with a chess recording facility.