Cheating in chess

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you really claiming to believe that there is a fashion amongst the Dutch youth to carry mobile phones in their socks?

Not my claim, it comes from the accused, as reported in the chess.com article.

[Paul McKeown]

And if you believe that horse-shite for an instant, I would strongly advise you to avoid anyone who would sell you a bridge.

Moreover, if there were, indeed, a bizarre fashion amongst the present day youth in the Netherlands to carry mobile phones in their socks, then the Respondent and his extremely well-remunerated advocate had every opportunity to present evidence of that before every tribunal that dealt with this matter. That they did not, speaks volumes.

[Ian Thompson]

12.1.6.1.The EDC Chamber finds that the Respondent’s claim that there is no evidence he used his phone to cheat is not sufficient defense to the allegations. The facts that the Respondent concealed his phone, took it with him to the toilet, hid it in his socks, initially refused to be scanned, and only agreed to be scanned after learning that refusal would result in expulsion from the tournament and further action are established by the Chief Arbiter’s report as well as the witness statements of other arbiters and officials. Moreover, the Respondent himself has confirmed these facts on several occasions in his defense, presented as an expression of remorse. If the Respondent had truly not engaged in cheating, he could have simply complied with the arbiters’ request to have his phone examined.

Harreman admitted that his phone had chess engines on it - "Every chess player has chess engines on his smartphone!".

I wonder if the decision would have been different if he had allowed his phone to be examined, engines were found, but no evidence was found that they'd been used to cheat. The EDC's comments suggest that it might have been.

If it would have been different that's a significant ruling. It would mean that someone could cheat without risk of getting a ban, unless they were caught red-handed, simply by deleting the game from their phone when they'd finished analysing it. It would also mean that someone could use a web-based engine (e.g. chess.com or lichess) in a similar way and destroy the evidence by deleting the browser history and website data.

[Roger de Coverly]

If it would have been different that's a significant ruling. It would mean that someone could cheat without risk of getting a ban, unless they were caught red-handed, simply by deleting the game from their phone when they'd finished analysing it. It would also mean that someone could use a web-based engine (e.g. chess.com or lichess) in a similar way and destroy the evidence by deleting the browser history and website data.

I suppose it possible that the evidence was deleted every time they returned to the board, but it would seem a cumbersome method of operation.

I believe various players in the UK have been defaulted for suspected or proven engine use during OTB tournaments. I cannot think of any where a ban from subsequent tournaments was imposed. In practice most of those caught have retired from playing.

[Paul McKeown]

I wonder if the decision would have been different if he had allowed his phone to be examined, engines were found, but no evidence was found that they'd been used to cheat. The EDC's comments suggest that it might have been.

If it would have been different that's a significant ruling. It would mean that someone could cheat without risk of getting a ban, unless they were caught red-handed, simply by deleting the game from their phone when they'd finished analysing it. It would also mean that someone could use a web-based engine (e.g. chess.com or lichess) in a similar way and destroy the evidence by deleting the browser history and website data.

You raise an interesting point.

Even if someone were to use this defence, in practise after using such a Get Out of Jail Card, they and their devices would be subject to fairly ruthless scrutiny from that point on by arbiters and fair play officials, and authorities would be liable to take a second infraction as direct evidence of culpability. That is, of course, if organizers were prepared to accept their entry into their tournaments.

A thorough forensic examination of the device would almost certainly show evidence of the engine abuse, despite the crude attempt to hide the fact. Whether the player would agree to surrender their device to the organizer, arbiters or fair play officials for such an investigation is another matter, of course.

I can see that arbiters or fair play officials may have to develop the means to take a forensic snapshot of the device at the point of infraction, and refusal to submit the device for this procedure should be evidential in itself. Alternatively, engine and/or database developers might be approached by FIDE (TEC probably) to develop forensically watertight audit trails of engine use, useable by officials at such instances. Use of an unaudited engine would again be seen as evidence of an attempt to avoid detection.

In general, though, rather than this palaver, I think that statistical evidence of move choices and results stretching credulity, combined with the physical entrapment of having an undeclared device on their person will continue to be seen as the level of proof needed to establish evidence of engine abuse. If someone has been an incompetent cheat and had mediocre results despite their worst efforts, then they will have had luck in avoiding a ban.

None of this should affect the case of the player who has a phone in their pocket, suddenly realises it and confesses the fact to an arbiter, or the phone is discovered with a scan and the player immediately confesses that they forgot all about it, and allows the phone to be examined in the necessary detail. Such a player will still immediately lose the game, but even if a FIDE Anti-Cheating Report is generated, the facts should be sufficient to identify the player as a dunderhead, but not a cheat.

[Ian Thompson]

A thorough forensic examination of the device would almost certainly show evidence of the engine abuse, despite the crude attempt to hide the fact. Whether the player would agree to surrender their device to the organizer, arbiters or fair play officials for such an investigation is another matter, of course.

That thought occurred to me as well. I doubt that many (any?) chess officials would have the skills to do that so it would most likely have to be done by a specialist at considerable cost. Who's going to pay for that?

Also, what would happen if the player truthfully said it was a work phone and their employer would not permit it to be forensically examined? I'm sure my employer would refuse because the phone might contain commercially sensitive information and provide access to confidential company systems.

[Paul McKeown]

Quite so - which is why I said that it was all an unwanted palaver. However, I can imagine that for a few high level tournaments, or those with particularly high prize funds, FIDE, or the organizers, might reserve for themselves the right to inspect any device they find. Refusal to be deemed admission of guilt. Candidates matches, prize funds of a quarter million, that sort of thing. When it really matters.

[Ian Thompson]

Some interesting statistics in the tables in this study on cheating in chess.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the commonest form of cheating admitted to was fixing the result before the game, followed by throwing the game and getting third-party human assistance, with a smaller number of players analysing the game on another board.

For computer-based cheating, just under 1% of players admitted to getting engine assistance, if you assume that it was different players in each category of engine assistance, or just over 0.5% if you assume that players who cheated using the most prevalent method were the same players who cheated using another method.

What the table doesn't tell you is how many of the "getting third-party human assistance" incidents were from a human who had consulted an engine before giving advice. If that was all of them then computer-based cheating would be between 1.3% and 2.3% of players (depending on how many of the computer-aided human assistance players were the same players as used engines themselves).

[Matt Mackenzie]

That survey doesn't cover all possible forms of cheating, what about playing a move and then trying to take it back (for example)?

[Joey Stewart]

I assume the survey is looking more towards willful cheating rather then ignorance of the billion actual rules of chess play - even touch move can no longer be assumed knowledge for players that have learned on the internet and attempt to play proper chess

[Roger de Coverly]

Some interesting statistics in the tables in this study on cheating in chess.

They seem to believe that there's a magic pill that can make you play better chess. I would have thought at best there are pills and medicines that make you feel better or patch up your health. I would regard that as legitimate. On the other hand being able to consult a computer engine or even a stronger player during the game will be an advantage to the player. That's why consulting third parties during play was outlawed long before the development of chess engines.

[Joey Stewart]

Some interesting statistics in the tables in this study on cheating in chess.

They seem to believe that there's a magic pill that can make you play better chess. I would have thought at best there are pills and medicines that make you feel better or patch up your health. I would regard that as legitimate. On the other hand being able to consult a computer engine or even a stronger player during the game will be an advantage to the player. That's why consulting third parties during play was outlawed long before the development of chess engines.

As wild and ludicrous as this claim to there being "chess pills" they are actually legitimately hawking some sort of overpriced supplements through chess. Com in recent weeks - I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole at the prices they are asking but it does make me wonder if you can enhance neurological activity with the right combinations, I know I play way better after a few painkillers so there might be something in it

[Mick Norris]

FIDE

FIDE is aware of recent online publications alleging that the Fair Play Commission is unwilling to cooperate with arbiters, as well as personal attacks directed at members of the Arbiters Commission and Fair Play Commission. These claims are unfounded and misrepresent the extensive collaborative work undertaken in recent months.

FIDE firmly reiterates that the strengthening of fair play in chess is a shared responsibility. Significant progress has already been made in aligning the functions of arbiters and fair play specialists, improving the pathways for fair play title acquisition, and enhancing training standards across both areas. This work continues with the full support of FIDE leadership.

In accordance with the decision of the FIDE Council, the Fair Play Commission will convene another consultation meeting in the nearest days with all relevant stakeholders. The goal of this meeting is to finalize the next steps for improved coordination, training, and functional alignment between fair play and arbiter responsibilities, ensuring a unified and systematic approach to fair play control at major FIDE events.

FIDE unequivocally denounces any publications, statements, or personal attacks that undermine these cooperative efforts or hinder the development of a strong, integrated fair play framework. We call on all members of the chess community to support constructive dialogue, professionalism, and respect for the institutions and individuals working to protect the integrity of our sport.

FIDE – the International Chess Federation – remains fully committed to fair, transparent, and unified standards in chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE is aware of recent online publications alleging that the Fair Play Commission is unwilling to cooperate with arbiters, as well as personal attacks directed at members of the Arbiters Commission and Fair Play Commission. These claims are unfounded and misrepresent the extensive collaborative work undertaken in recent months.

You do wonder what's going on here.

Is it an attempt to curtail the influence of the Fair Play Commission?

Some of what they seem to be trying to do is alarming.

For example in
https://handbook.fide.com/files/handboo ... s_2024.pdf

it says

There shall be a presumption of cheating if statistical analysis by a FIDE-validated and approved algorithm and/or other methodology applied to a player's performance in a single game, or a series of games or tournaments in competitive play shows a Z-score (reflective of the deviation between the player's actual performance and the projected fair play for a player having comparable Elo rating) above the official Z-score threshold. In such a case, if FIDE PFL institutes disciplinary proceedings gainst the player in question, the burden to rebut the presumption of cheating and show his or her innocence shall be on the player

To my mind that reasoning is flawed particularly when it claims performance in a single game. There's an underlying assumption that Elo rating implies a constant standard of play. Surely the position should be that Elo rating is an average across a multitude of standards of play? In other words the fact that a player matched an engine can be down to the point that their level of understanding of a particular position was of Grandmaster or world champion standard whilst their overal play was not, hence the lower rating.

[LawrenceCooper]

FIDE

FIDE is aware of recent online publications alleging that the Fair Play Commission is unwilling to cooperate with arbiters, as well as personal attacks directed at members of the Arbiters Commission and Fair Play Commission. These claims are unfounded and misrepresent the extensive collaborative work undertaken in recent months.

FIDE firmly reiterates that the strengthening of fair play in chess is a shared responsibility. Significant progress has already been made in aligning the functions of arbiters and fair play specialists, improving the pathways for fair play title acquisition, and enhancing training standards across both areas. This work continues with the full support of FIDE leadership.

In accordance with the decision of the FIDE Council, the Fair Play Commission will convene another consultation meeting in the nearest days with all relevant stakeholders. The goal of this meeting is to finalize the next steps for improved coordination, training, and functional alignment between fair play and arbiter responsibilities, ensuring a unified and systematic approach to fair play control at major FIDE events.

FIDE unequivocally denounces any publications, statements, or personal attacks that undermine these cooperative efforts or hinder the development of a strong, integrated fair play framework. We call on all members of the chess community to support constructive dialogue, professionalism, and respect for the institutions and individuals working to protect the integrity of our sport.

FIDE – the International Chess Federation – remains fully committed to fair, transparent, and unified standards in chess.

Related reading: https://wearetwofamilies.org/our-journey