French Chess Federation investigates cheating players

[Roger de Coverly]

I could well believe that some people could be tempted to cheat in online chess who wouldn't dream of doing so over the board.

Picking up on this, you can say that over-the-board chess is pretty much Black and White - no consultation with or assistance from external sources during the game. If you needed too, you could eliminate all possibilities of outside help by playing under supervision in a sealed room without live spectators.

Correspondence style chess is much greyer. It's usually regarded as OK to consult published works or to research previously played games. Even private third party analysis might be accepted. Beyond that, asking opinions of third parties, or using computer engines even just for blunder checks is usually frowned upon at best and a cause for banning otherwise.

Compare that though with the now mostly obsolete practice of adjournment. Here almost anything goes in the OTB break of game, engine analysis, tablebase lookups, consultations with the team's GM trainer etc.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Compare that though with the now mostly obsolete practice of adjournment. Here almost anything goes in the OTB break of game, engine analysis, tablebase lookups, consultations with the team's GM trainer etc.<

If you have a rule it then usually becomes possible to infringe the rule by breaking it and this may be cheating. As adjournments were impossible to police, it was better to have no rule at all. I have been told that when Sir Stuart Milner-Barry used to adjourn he refused outside help as he felt that was against the spirit of the game.

Bridge has much more draconian rules than chess to prevent cheating. For the inexperienced, it makes it a more daunting prospect to play than chess. Cheating is common in poker. By having fewer rules about such matters it makes cheating LESS likely.

Stewart Reuben

[Jonathan Bryant]

Correspondence style chess is much greyer ....

This is only true for correspondence chess taken as a whole. For individual sites the situation is (usually) crystal clear. Some sites don't ban engine use, some sites - e.g. Red Hot Pawn - are very clear that computer engine use is banned, consultation with third parties is not allowed, consultation of chess books and databases is acceptable.

Of course it is possible to argue whether these rules are consistent or sensible, but they are nevertheless clear. If you don't like a site's particular set of rules you can always go and play somewhere else.

Given that there are many places to play chess on the internet, and given that so many of them allow engines, I find it very curious that anybody should ever be banned for using computers. It is completely unnecessary.

[Andrew Farthing]

I'm not an expert on correspondence chess, but my impression was that it was accepted as a fact of life that any rule banning the use of computers would be unenforceable. Presumably the main protection against their use is the "What would be the point?" argument. Setting aside the moral dimension, I can't see what possible pleasure there would be in winning a correspondence game if it was basically a case of the software doing all the heavy work.

I have seen it argued in correspondence chess circles that the use of computers can actually be a good thing in some players' eyes, because it reduces the likelihood of silly errors and makes the challenge of winning greater, i.e. a slowed-down version of so-called "Advanced Chess". This argument probably applies more to stronger players, I'd guess.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not an expert on correspondence chess, but my impression was that it was accepted as a fact of life that any rule banning the use of computers would be unenforceable.

The impression I have is that sites which claim to ban engine users do so by analysing where a player's choice of move is the same as that of a chess engine. So any player strong enough to select the same (good) moves as a computer engine is liable to be accused of cheating.

[Jonathan Bryant]

So any player strong enough to select the same (good) moves as a computer engine is liable to be accused of cheating.

Again, simply untrue on the site that I used to play at. Actually it took the site an awfully long time to ban even very obvious cheats e.g. people who's rating chart showed a long history of very mediocre play followed by many hundreds of points of rating improvement in a very short period.

It is the case that there were large numbers of bannings at the top end of RHP over the few years I was active there. I suspect that's because there was an awful lot of cheating going. I'm quite sure only the most extreme cases got banned.

I'm quite is sure it would be a very easy matter to cheat on such a site without being detected. Using a computer during a critical point only once during each game.

[LozCooper]

European Championship participants fight cheating with open letter

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/europ ... en-letter/

Open Letter

Dear French chess federation, dear ECU, dear chess community,

In view of the rumours and allegations about possible cheating using electronic devices and outside help taking place during the European Individual Championship in Aix-les-Bains, we have an atmosphere that makes it impossible for the players to approach their games calmly and being sure that their opponents do not break the rules.

We therefore demand that

- the arbiters reserve the rights to search any player’s pockets in case of suspicion

- no electronic devices can be brought into the playing hall, switched off or otherwise

- electronic boards can be unplugged if one of the players demands it

Respectfully,

[David Clayton]

European Championship participants fight cheating with open letter

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/europ ... en-letter/

Open Letter

Dear French chess federation, dear ECU, dear chess community,

In view of the rumours and allegations about possible cheating using electronic devices and outside help taking place during the European Individual Championship in Aix-les-Bains, we have an atmosphere that makes it impossible for the players to approach their games calmly and being sure that their opponents do not break the rules.

We therefore demand that

- the arbiters reserve the rights to search any player’s pockets in case of suspicion

- no electronic devices can be brought into the playing hall, switched off or otherwise

- electronic boards can be unplugged if one of the players demands it

Respectfully,

Or delay the broadcast of live games by 5, 10, 20 or 30 minutes as I do sometimes if I think it is appropriate?

Dave

[Sean Hewitt]

Or delay the broadcast of live games by 5, 10, 20 or 30 minutes as I do sometimes if I think it is appropriate?

Dave

The games here are already broadcast with a 15 minute delay.

[Stewart Reuben]

It is impossible for the arbiters to have the right to search players' pockets. It isn't necessary anyway, there are metal detectors and have been used in the past. In Siberia it clearly wan't done very efficiently.
Time delay for transmission of the moves from the DGT boards was pioneered in England. It doesn't solve all problems of course. but it is ridiculous to stop transmission of moves because of one player's paranoia. Sending out those moves has financial value for the players.
Banning electonic devices, even watches is fine. Possibly that would ban me as I have a defibrillator, but there can be few active players with them.
The main problem is not the cheating, which is rare, but the fear that it is happening.
Stewart Reuben

[Stewart Reuben]

I just noticed. In one way the players have not gone far enough. Electronic devises should be banned in the playing VENUE, not just the hall. The usual caveat - except with the permission of the arbiter - would have to be included. Otherwise that would ban the DGT boards. Yes, unfortunately it rules out Monroi.

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

The main problem is not the cheating, which is rare, but the fear that it is happening.

The revelation that the normal arrangement in tournaments and team matches of numbered boards facilitates the signalling of moves is alarming. You wonder to what extent it was used in the pre computer age. Ray Keene suggested Blueberry yoghurts and quails in aspic as a possible means that Karpov's team could communicate. Perhaps the whole scheme could have been spotted as a potential danger years ago if he had suggested that it depended on where the parapsychologist sat in the audience.

Fantasies about earphones, devices in shoes etc. is one thing, creative spectating is another.

[Alex McFarlane]

Time delay for transmission of the moves from the DGT boards was pioneered in England.

In the interests of historical accuracy it was pioneered in Scotland, albeit by Dave Clayton.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Ray Keene suggested Blueberry yoghurts and quails in aspic as a possible means that Karpov's team could communicate. Perhaps the whole scheme could have been spotted as a potential danger years ago if he had suggested that it depended on where the parapsychologist sat in the audience.<

In 1978 in Baguio City I asked Petra (now Korchnnoi's wife) why she wanted Dr Zukhar to sit further back. Would she not complain just as much about his parapsychological powers? She explained to me that the force was less effective at a greater distance. I still wonder whether she had heard of the Inverse Square Law.

In order to cheat at Blackjack devices have been put into shoes. Unsuccessfully probably because of the perspiration shorting out the circuits. It is not a fantasy that earphones have been used to communicate moves, especially in Rating restricted tournaments in the US where the first prize may be as high as $10,000.

Alex >In the interests of historical accuracy it was pioneered in Scotland, albeit by Dave Clayton.<
Indeed, I had already explained the idea of and reason for the delay. I was not in Scotland when the idea occurred to me and explained it to David. It was interesting how it was later sneered at in the FIDE Rules Committee. 'That is just one minor way of stopping the problem'. Of course there is some truth in that, but it is a precaution. There have twice been complaints in England to my knowledge connected with relayed ideas from the web. I believe both were totally unfounded.

Stewart Reuben

[Ben Purton]

I think its such a shame he cheated. Was it Feller's idea or the other guys, I mean if you look at his current results, they are very impressive given all the problems off the board etc. hes performing over 2700 in one of the toughest open fields ever seen....