Cheating in chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
NickFaulks
Posts: 5562
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:47 am

This is one I don't know about. I look forward to hearing more on Saturday.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Joey Stewart » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:05 pm

To be fair, chess is still one of the more honourable games when played over the board (online obviously a different story, some sites have rampant amounts of cheating) compared to some console and pc games where you encounter hackers and exploiters on a daily basis and the developers don't really care one bit once you have handed over your money.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:20 pm

I think a quite difficult to detect solo method would take inspiration from casino cheating devices. Effectively a couple of buttons hidden around the upper leg. One for files, one for rank. Links to a chess engine device somewhere under clothing, which emits a quiet vibration response for rank and file. The old casino computers had buttons running on wires down the leg to a vibrating device in shoes, but these days they could well all be wireless and probably home made. Basically if a suspected cheat keeps one of his hands out of view a lot of the time they could be manipulating buttons hidden from view.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:34 pm

Joey Stewart >developers don't really care one bit once you have handed over your money.<

That is not true of all poker sites. They send their computers into your one to make certain you are not a pokerbot. Of course you can use another computer that tells you the best move to make, just as with chess,

Nigel Short told me he played against another well-known GM. Except he didn't. Another GM played i n his opponent's name. That would affect your advance opening preparation.

But is not one of the most important cheating methoDs still COLLUSION? Two players, in the last round, ensure that one of them wins. Thus gettin more money than a draw would have yielded for both players. That is why 3/1/0 was never encouraged.

John Upham
Posts: 4460
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John Upham » Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:44 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:34 pm

But is not one of the most important cheating methoDs still COLLUSION? Two players, in the last round, ensure that one of them wins. Thus gettin more money than a draw would have yielded for both players. That is why 3/1/0 was never encouraged.
Are pre-arranged draws examples of collusion ?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:02 pm

John Upham >Are pre-arranged draws examples of collusion ?,

Certainly. Personally I have no problem with 1 e4 e5 2 draw agreed. That is honest collusion. It is very rare in a Swiss that this can harm a third party.

I intensely dislike concocted draws as may well have happened in two games in Gibraltar Masters yesterday. Here there is a rule, 'No agreed draws in less than 30 moves'.
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8. 3 Nc3 Na6 4 Nb1 Nb8. 5 Nh3 Nc6 6 Ng1 Nb8. 7 Na3 Nh6 8 Nb1 Ng8, The games is drawn by 5-fold occurrence of position. They didn't even have to claim a draw by repetition - although they could have done.
Of course, it should be a double default for bringing the game into disrepute.

John Upham
Posts: 4460
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John Upham » Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:45 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:02 pm

1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8. 3 Nc3 Na6 4 Nb1 Nb8. 5 Nh3 Nc6 6 Ng1 Nb8. 7 Na3 Nh6 8 Nb1 Ng8, The games is drawn by 5-fold occurrence of position. They didn't even have to claim a draw by repetition - although they could have done.
Of course, it should be a double default for bringing the game into disrepute.
Have any third parties been harmed by the above ?

Of course, had they played 1.e4 e5 draw agreed then no-one would have been harmed even though the intention and the outcome was the same.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3138
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:13 pm

Or even drawn without playing any moves at all? ;)
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:30 pm

They didn't even have to claim a draw by repetition - although they could have done.

The thinking behind this little charade was, presumably, that neither wished to claim a draw after threefold repetition as the chief arbiter might have deemed this as acquiescing in a draw - contrary to the tournament rule forbidding agreed draws within 30 moves - whereas, after fivefold repetition, it could be argued that all other considerations were overruled by the FIDE law declaring the game drawn.

Taking a slightly different example, if I sacrifice much material for an attack but then discover at move 20 [no collusion!] that my best outcome is to take a draw by perpetual check, how does one reconcile this with the 30-move rule mentioned above? To claim a draw after 3 repeats might be risky and the safest course, assuming no arbiter in sight, might be to continue checking until move 30 had been passed. Of course, an enthusiastic arbiter might then decide that the last five moves on each side were invalid as the game had actually ended after fivefold repetition at move 25.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7381
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:34 pm

I guess if there is a distinction between the two sequences, it may be that the knight routine must almost certainly have been pre-agreed, but not the shorter sequence. How satisfactory that is as a distinction, though, is something we can debate.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2304
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:05 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:30 pm
Taking a slightly different example, if I sacrifice much material for an attack but then discover at move 20 [no collusion!] that my best outcome is to take a draw by perpetual check, how does one reconcile this with the 30-move rule mentioned above?
Easily. The "no agreed draws before move 30" rules apply only to draw offers and acceptances. They have no impact on a player's right to claim a draw before move 30 due to repetition.

E Michael White
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by E Michael White » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:10 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:02 pm
I intensely dislike concocted draws as may well have happened in two games in Gibraltar Masters yesterday. Here there is a rule, 'No agreed draws in less than 30 moves'.

1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8. 3 Nc3 Na6 4 Nb1 Nb8. 5 Nh3 Nc6 6 Ng1 Nb8. 7 Na3 Nh6 8 Nb1 Ng8, The games is drawn by 5-fold occurrence of position.

They didn't even have to claim a draw by repetition - although they could have done.

Of course, it should be a double default for bringing the game into disrepute.
Stewart, I have pointed out to you on this forum and elsewhere many times that the type of sequence you mention here falls one move short as the start position cannot be included. The point is that the same player must have the move and in the start position White does not have the move but commences the game. The relevant FIDE laws state:-

Article 1
.
1.2 The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.

1.3 A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.
(so White does not have the move at the start of the game because black has not had to move. my notes)
.
9.2.2
Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move,

I cant see a 5 fold repetition in accordance with those rules.

The position just before White's 3rd move, 5th, 7th and just after Black's 8th would qualify but that is only 4 positions. So players would have to rely on 3 fold repetition by claiming it.

If this game occurred with no 3 move repetition claim who brought the game into disrepute? Did the arbiters declare it a draw? Did the players agree a draw? What should the result have been?

Well this seems to me to be the game being abandoned along the lines of simultaneous resignations discussed here recently; I meant to post some historical stuff about that but didn't get round to it. Under the old rules predating FIDE the ways of resigning were a list of ways of abandoning a game; tipping the board up was included. A senior arbiter in 1963/4 explained that the player who appears to have abandoned the game first would lose so the player who has the move appears to resign first as he was required to take the next action ie make the next move. His opponent cannot take any action until the player who has the move does so. This is in line with the later statements by Kazic and appears to me to be reasonable. The same logic seems useful for a wrongly adjudged repetition not spotted by the arbiter. So it seems to me that the game should be lost for White.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:50 am

John Upham >Have any third parties been harmed by the above ?,
The third parties who may have been harmed include: the arbiter, the organiser; the sponsor; the move inputter; the buletin compiler' and anybody who comes on the so-called game in the future.

Matt Mackenzie >Or even drawn without playing any moves at all<
If no moves of chess took place, nowadays there was no game. Both players scorie zero.

Roger Lancaster . perpetual check<
This term is not in the Laws of Chess. If it is not by repetition, it will always take many moves to demonstrate.
Of course, if 5 fold occurrence has happened, if it happens a further 5 times, the arbiter obviously failed to be aware and the 5 extra moves are irrelevant.

Michael White
We will have to simply disagree on this. The positions are identical before the first move and after move 2, 4. 6, 8. But you can satisfy yourself by adding in 9 Nc3 Nc6 10 Nb1 Nb8.

Nothing to do with cheating, but a little to do with the preceding. The purpose is to yank the tail of the arbiter.
Two friends are paired together. They agree it is ridiculous that White has an advantage. The games commences
1 Nc3 Nc6 2 Rb1 Nb8. 3 Ra1 Nc6 4 Nb1 Nb8. The players now continue as normal. White originally had an approximate advantage of 0.03, but now he cannot play 0-0-0, whereas Black can. It is about equal.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7381
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:19 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:50 am
The third parties who may have been harmed include: the arbiter, the organiser; the sponsor; the move inputter; the buletin compiler' and anybody who comes on the so-called game in the future.
How's that then
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:33 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:50 am
The third parties who may have been harmed include: the arbiter, the organiser; the sponsor; the move inputter; the buletin compiler' and anybody who comes on the so-called game in the future.
Speaking as a move inputter, if at the next 4NCL weekend everyone wants to agree a draw in 8 moves, they'd get no complaints from me. Even better if they all play the same 8-move draw, Find and Replace will come in handy.

Post Reply