Hastings

[Mark Howitt]

I think love of the game must play a big factor for anyone even hoping to obtain the GM title- obssession too probably .

You probably know more about the economic conditions of GMs than I do... I hope they can make a decent living by coaching, but instinct tells me especially in times like this they will find it hard. This makes it all the more respectable that they persist.

[Laurie Roberts]

Today's big controversy arose in the game Cherniaev-McPhillips. Black won, and then white accused black of having cheated. The complaint was not upheld.

Fritz 11 @ 30 seconds per move
Pentium 4 2.93GHz 1GB RAM
Hash Table 192MB
Database used http://www.chesslive.de

[Event "Hastings Chess Congress"]
[Site "Hastings"]
[Date "2008.12.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Cherniaev A"]
[Black "Mcphillips K"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B22"]
[WhiteElo "2438"]
[BlackElo "2222"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[EventDate "2008.12.30"]
[WhiteTeam "Russia"]
[BlackTeam "Ireland"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "RUS"]
[BlackTeamCountry "IRL"]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. cxd4 e5 7. Nc3 Bb4 8.
Bd2 Bxc3 9. Bxc3 e4 10. Ne5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Ne7 12. Qa4+ Bd7 13. Qb4 Qc6 14. Rc1
a5 15. Qd6 {Takes game out of book; Not in top 3} Be6 {Not in top 3} 16. a4 {
Not in top 3} Qxd6 {1st choice} 17. exd6 {1st choice} Nf5 {1st choice} 18. g4 {
Not in top 3} Nxd6 {1st choice} 19. Bxg7 {1st choice} Rg8 {1st choice} 20. Be5
{1st choice} Rc8 {2nd choice} 21. Rxc8+ {1st choice} Nxc8 {1st choice} 22. h3 {
1st choice} Nb6 {2nd choice} 23. Ke2 {2nd choice} Ke7 {1st choice} 24. Bg2 {
3rd choice} f5 {1st choice} 25. Rc1 {1st choice} Rc8 {Not in top 3} 26. Rxc8 {
1st choice} Bxc8 {1st choice} 27. g5 {Not in top 3} Nxa4 {2nd choice} 28. Bd4 {
3rd choice} b6 {3rd choice} 29. Ke3 {3rd choice} Nc5 {Not in top 3} 30. Bxc5+ {
3rd choice} bxc5 {1st choice} 31. Bf1 {Not in top 3} Be6 {2nd choice} 32. h4 {
Not in top 3} Kd6 {1st choice} 33. Kf4 {Not in top 3} c4 {1st choice} 34. h5 {
3rd choice} c3 {1st choice} 35. bxc3 {1st choice} a4 {1st choice} 36. g6 {
2nd choice} h6 {1st choice} 0-1

Result:
White: Cherniaev A
Top 1 Match: 8/22 (36,4% )
Top 2 Match: 10/22 (45,5% )
Top 3 Match: 15/22 (68,2% )

Black: Mcphillips K
Top 1 Match: 14/22 (63,6% )
Top 2 Match: 18/22 (81,8% )
Top 3 Match: 19/22 (86,4% )

for this to be meaningful, one needs to know as a comparator what %s are typical for players in different rating bands when done over 10's of 1000s of games. Which would be tedious to find out.

[Steve Collyer]

for this to be meaningful, one needs to know as a comparator what %s are typical for players in different rating bands when done over 10's of 1000s of games. Which would be tedious to find out.

Very true - I just posted the stats just to see how much they agree with Fritz 11's 30 second top 3 choices.
The stats from 1 game prove nothing, of course. Matchup figures for both could be very high if there are plenty of forcing or obvious moves.
By the way, in many games over time & once out of database an online chess site that I use considers the following figures to be overwhelming evidence of engine use.
Top 1 match = 60%
Top 2 match = 75%
Top 3 match = 85%
The best GM's can't consistently get near these figures.

[Laurie Roberts]

That's weird. They'd get different results depending on whether they use Fritz, Rybka, Crafty, HIARCS etc

I play on redhotpawn.com and ICC but my moves probably don't enter an engine's consideration!!!

[Nick Thomas]

It just goes to show how misleading stats can be!
I just played through the game and black does indeed have an unusual number of forcing moves (recaptures etc) and many others which are rather obvious. White also played a very poor game. None of blacks moves look suspicious to me at all and I hope Cherniaev has the decency to apologise

[Steve Collyer]

That's weird. They'd get different results depending on whether they use Fritz, Rybka, Crafty, HIARCS etc

I play on redhotpawn.com and ICC but my moves probably don't enter an engine's consideration!!!

Yes that's true - the engines do vary somewhat, there are even differences between say Fritz 10 & Fritz 11.
The speed of the pc also makes a big difference in looking at 30 second top 3 matchup. That is why I always quote what I'm running at the top of the .PGN.
The various games mods on the site have access to Fritz, Shredder, Rybka & so on, so chances are a blatant engine user will be discovered & banned from that site.

[Steve Collyer]

It just goes to show how misleading stats can be!
I just played through the game and black does indeed have an unusual number of forcing moves (recaptures etc) and many others which are rather obvious. White also played a very poor game. None of blacks moves look suspicious to me at all and I hope Cherniaev has the decency to apologise

I'm told this is why 20+ games all with at least 20 moves out of database is just the starting point for building a case.
Anyone who can get the matchup stats I posted above over time & against decent opposition is either a cheat or an undiscovered genuis who would make Fischer look ordinary by comparison!

[Nick Thomas]

Steve.
Is the information you've given correct for long play games

[Steve Collyer]

It covers all games, although logic dictates you'd expect a slightly higher matchup %'s for longer time controls in CC than in OTB with 3 minutes or so per move.
However, many people playing CC have 50+ games in progress & make several hundred moves per month. All these are logged also, so unless you have a Super GM giving a free online simul blitz demonstration, anyone approaching the top 1 match = 60%, top 2 match = 75%, top 3 match = 85% is almost certainly being rather naughty.

[Nick Thomas]

It covers all games, although logic dictates you'd expect a slightly higher matchup %'s for longer time controls in CC than in OTB with 3 minutes or so per move.
However, many people playing CC have 50+ games in progress & make several hundred moves per month. All these are logged also, so unless you have a Super GM giving a free online simul blitz demonstration, anyone approaching the top 1 match = 60%, top 2 match = 75%, top 3 match = 85% is almost certainly being rather naughty.

Well this sounds a bit suspicious to me. The stats for CC (considering it is mostly bullet, blitz or quickplay) must be VASTLY different to over the board longplay. I just had a look at my last OTB game and came up with these stats:
Top 1 Match = 65%
Top 2 Match = 80%
Top 3 Match = 87%
I wouldn't be surprised if this is fairly normal for a half decent player in OTB longplay

[Steve Collyer]

It depends on many factors including how tough the opposition is.
A 2300 rated CC player (also rated about ECF 200) has told me that his top 3 average is around 80%.
If you are averaging 85%+ top 3 choices in your OTB games once out of book (and they are against similarly rated players) then you have outperformed Kasparov & Kramnik in terms of matchup rates!

[Nick Thomas]

It depends on many factors including how tough the opposition is.
A 2300 rated CC player (also rated about ECF 200) has told me that his top 3 average is around 80%.
If you are averaging 85%+ top 3 choices in your OTB games once out of book (and they are against similarly rated players) then you have outperformed Kasparov & Kramnik in terms of matchup rates!

Mmm. Outperformed is a strange word to use. I expect K and K are stronger players playing longplay than fritz running on a pc at 30 second per move so their lower matchup might indicate greater strength rather than weaker play.

[Matthew Turner]

Just some thoughts on cheating. I estimate that if you cheat once during each game that it will probably improve your rating by 100 points. This is a big deal, for someone like Cherniaev, it may mean that he could play chess, rather than coach, for someone like Stephen Gordon it might mean he could make a reasonable living from playing and for someone like Luke MacShane it could mean him cracking the big league. Given the size of the incentives then I think we would be naive if we thought cheating did not occur. I predict that in the next five years there will be a case of a big player (one we have all heard of) being caught cheating. Chess will have to consider what the appropriate penalty should be - not an easy question, perhaps a two year (worldwide) ban, although past evidence suggests that FIDE woudl have great difficulty imposing this.
However, we also have to consider what happens in the event of an unwarranted accusation. Cherniaev has accused McPhillips at Hastings and previously Tristan Cox was accused of cheating at Blackpool. In both cases there seems to have been no evidence whatsoever. Given a totally unsubstantiated accusation of cheating brings the game into disrepute, I would suggest the penalty needs to be quite severe, possibly including loss of appearance fee and exclusion from the tournament.
Any thoughts?

[James Coleman]

Unsubstantiated accusations of cheating with nothing to back up the claim should carry a clear penalty. It's quite likely that an innocent player, if they were accused of cheating, would have the rest of their play and their tournament affected by the accusation. Considering a typical player may have paid a substantial entry fee, spent a few hundred pounds on accommodation and maybe taken holiday from work to indulge in their hobby this is hardly acceptable.

Matthew's comment actually propmpted me to think about how someone might cheat. It seems that it would be quite difficult to do, at least without involving an accomplice (not that this would be a particular problem for a determined cheater), but the documented attempts of cheating that I know about eg text messages on a mobile / pocket fritz in the bathroom / ludicrous headwear covering receiving equipment etc seem quite clumsy, and almost certain to be noticed sooner or later.

But maybe the point is perhaps the people who would be "good" at cheating would be the ones you never hear about !?

[Matthew Turner]

James,
I think the documented cases of cheating that you are talking about involve a 1200 player suddenly playing at 2500 - not too difficult to detect! I am talking about something a bit different, perhaps a 2400 using a computer just once during a game. They could simply walk back to their hotel room (on the pretence of getting an aspirin if necessary) and looking at their laptop. Very low-tech, but practically quite difficult to stop unless you have a totally different (and in my view undesirable) approach to chess tournaments.