Cheating at Chess

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Cheating at Chess

May 27, 2015

The European Women’s Championship is taking place from May 19 to May 30, in Chakvi, Georgia. It is an 11-round Swiss with a first prize of 11,000 euros.

After seven Rounds the rankings are:

1. Batsiashivili, Nino (GEO) [2473] 6.5 points
2. Sandu, Mihaela (ROU) [2300] 6.0 points
3. Girya, Olga (RUS) [2479] 5.5 points
4. Zhukova, Natalia (UKR) [2465] 5.5 points
5. Galojan, Lilit (ARM) [2275] 5.0 points

Ms. Sandu is doing well, but read on…

Games of European Women's Championship to be Broadcast with Delay, at Request of Participants

Chess-News has been informed that, from today, the games of the Women's European Championship will be broadcast with a 15-minute delay, at the request of many of the players. The competitors approached the organising committee with this request.

At this moment, the eighth round of the event is taking place. We would remind readers that in round six, the organisers decided to broadcast one game only with a delay, that involving Michaela Sandu. The then leader lost that day for the first time in the event. The following round, all games were broadcast normally, and that day she won again.

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/19113

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Cheating at Chess

At the recent Women’s European Championship, Mihaela Sandu, a 38-year old player from Romania caught the attention of all when she started 5.0/5.

The top 35 boards in Chakvi were being transmitted live on the Internet. But in round six, the top two boards were transmitted with a delay and in that round Sandu lost to Batsiashvili.

The next day her game transmission wasn’t delayed, and she won again, beating ex-world champion Stafanova.

At this point 32 of the 98 players in the tournament signed a letter asking the organizers to delay the transmission of all games by 15 minutes.

A second letter, signed by only 15 players, signaled out Sandu. Rounds eight and nine were transmitted with the delay and Sandu lost both games.

No evidence of her having cheated was found. Did the hysteria about her winning lead to her losses?

An observer on chess.com makes these points:

1. Results: Sandu's five victories (almost in row) over the players with much higher rating is stunning. I know the history of chess well enough - this is a very rare case, and perhaps even unique at this level. And let's remember that the Romanian player was born in 1977, so she can't be considered a chess prodigy. Many view women's chess very skeptically: well, no wonder, nobody of them can play good anyway... This is very wrong. Women's chess have their own hierarchy, it's a small world where everyone knows each other and knows what to expect from opponents. Concerning the results: if I'd defeated Dominguez, Karjakin, So, Giri and Caruana in a row, you'd probably be amazed, right? The rating difference in Sandu's case is even greater. And I did win games against half of those guys, while the Romanian did not. So no wonder there are suspicions.

2. Playing level: nothing extraordinary, except the Stefanova game with some subtle moments; the Romanian's playing doesn't raise many suspicions. For instance, against Melia and Javakhishvili, she got very bad positions. Still, even in those games Sandu's positions weren't hopeless - they remained complicated and playable. It's obviously not 'first line' playing, but, on the other hands, there are no blunders or big mistakes at all.

3. There is no direct proof of cheating. Indirect proofs consist of "this just cannot be" and Sandu's loss of both games when her translation was turned off or delayed, and this is not convincing.

4. The arguments about Sandu being a very smart cheater are also dubious. Yes, you can cheat smart, rarely making first-line moves and playing with necessary precision only in critical situations. Yes, this can happen. But if the cheater is that smart, why would that person attract so much attention? 5/5? Defeating all the European favourites? This will inevitably raise suspicions, and eventually they wouldn't be able to continue. A 'smart cheater' would go at +1, and then score +4 in the last few rounds.

Also, a smart cheater would most probably not be deterred by translation delay: this measure indeed lowers the risk of unfair play, but doesn't solve the problem of a well-equipped cheater who is determined to win by cheating. So, there are still many questions. I understand the chess players' concerns, who went to the organizers and asked for a translation delay, and I support the organizers who agreed. But this measure cannot solve the bigger problem. If we can say "this just cannot be" about a 2300-rated woman, what can we say about a 2800-rated man? We've already heard accusations directed towards the planet's strongest players. Even strong grandmasters harbour such suspicions. Sandu's case again shows how serious is this danger. Three years ago, when I started a campaign for organizing an anti-cheating commission, asking the question "Is cheating the main problem of chess?", many eyebrows were raised. Now it's obvious that many measures, especially technical, should be implemented as soon as possible, or else any big enough tournament would be marred by scandals and accusations.

Concerning Sandu - I don't have enough information to take sides. Presumption of innocence wasn't revoked, true. But what should people do when they see unbelievable things? And would you, yes, you be completely calm if you were to play an important game against the Romanian tomorrow? So, I ask everyone not to throw unbased accusations around, but, on the other hand, I support any prophylactic measures that can calm down the players, and I ask FIDE again to write clear rules and make anti-cheating measures their main goal, understanding that this isn't just a delayed-action mine - it's a real bomb planted under the foundation of modern chess. And the fuse is already lit...

Final Standings After Eleven Rounds

Zhukova (UKR) 9.5
Batsiashvili (GEO) 9
Kashlinskaya (RUS) 8
Danielian (ARM) 7.5
Guseva (RUS) 7.5
Girya (RUS) 7.5
Socko (POL) 7.5

Sandu with 6 points, was 26th.

http://chess-results.com/tnr164130.a...flag=30&wi=984

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Cheating at Chess

August 18, 2015

I am indebted to the English Chess Forum for pointing out this notice from the Maryland Chess Association

http://mdchess.com

As part of our increased security to prevent the use of electronic devices, MCA has purchased a thermal camera that can be used with cell phones.

(Pictured - A thermal image of a cell phone in a pocket)

This will allow us to monitor without having to disturb the players.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Cheating at Chess

This is so dumb.

During the last Quebec open, players were asked to give their cell phone when entering the playing area before the games.

I can't think of a dumber policy. First, a guy could just bring a dummy phone, give it to the ref and voilà! Secondly, you really think that will stop a cheater? Like, he's gonna think: damn, these brillant refs won't let me in with a cell phone, so let's forget about cheating.

Crack down on cell phones all you want, even with fancy thermal detectors. Cheaters will use other devices or means.

It's gonna end up like the TSA: they'll bother everyone with useless measures and won't be able to catch a goddamn cheater.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Cheating at Chess

This is so dumb.

During the last Quebec open, players were asked to give their cell phone when entering the playing area before the games.

I can't think of a dumber policy. First, a guy could just bring a dummy phone, give it to the ref and voilà! Secondly, you really think that will stop a cheater? Like, he's gonna think: damn, these brillant refs won't let me in with a cell phone, so let's forget about cheating.

Crack down on cell phones all you want, even with fancy thermal detectors. Cheaters will use other devices or means.

It's gonna end up like the TSA: they'll bother everyone with useless measures and won't be able to catch a goddamn cheater.

I wonder what happens if someone sneaks a phone into the playing area before the tournament starts, slips it into the opponent's jacket pocket or bag, then has a compatriot dial the number during play. :P

[Hans Jung]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Tom, youre a thinker. Stop giving non-thinkers (and crooks) ideas.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Tom, youre a thinker. Stop giving non-thinkers (and crooks) ideas.

Surely non-thinkers and crooks don't read ChessTalk?!

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Cheating at Chess

For about 20 years now there has been research ongoing on human/computer interface - that is, a direct link from a computer to the brain so that a screen monitor appears within the brain. When that is achieved, it will be possible to implant a computer chip under the skin or even within the braincase.
What then will be the definition of cheating? Will such androids be barred from chess tournaments. And what if the chip implants are not detectible by eloctronic means - as would be the case if the chip were made of neurons? And/or if the chips are needed for medical reasons?
It would seem the tough questions are a decade or two in the future.

[Walter De Jong]

Re: Cheating at Chess

I wonder what happens if someone sneaks a phone into the playing area before the tournament starts, slips it into the opponent's jacket pocket or bag, then has a compatriot dial the number during play. :P

With an evil laugh ringtone programmed in? :)

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Cheating at Chess

I wonder what happens if someone sneaks a phone into the playing area before the tournament starts, slips it into the opponent's jacket pocket or bag, then has a compatriot dial the number during play. :P

He he! With the sound all the way up. But seriously, couldn't the guy at least defend himself on the basis that it's not his phone?

And anyways, your post brings up another point: spectators and players do go in and out of the playing area (to go to the washroom, for example) continuously during the games. There's no point in checking them for a cell phone at the beginning of the round and then let everyone go around.

Checking for cell phones is just an annoying for everyone and I doubt we'll ever catch a lot of cheaters that way.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Cheating at Chess

He he! With the sound all the way up. But seriously, couldn't the guy at least defend himself on the basis that it's not his phone?

And anyways, your post brings up another point: spectators and players do go in and out of the playing area (to go to the washroom, for example) continuously during the games. There's no point in checking them for a cell phone at the beginning of the round and then let everyone go around.

Checking for cell phones is just an annoying for everyone and I doubt we'll ever catch a lot of cheaters that way.

If I can use the "it's not my phone excuse" then I can buy a prepaid phone and bring it along and if I am caught say "hey it's not my phone, prove it's mine".

This isn't as unlikely as it may seem. I was playing in a tournament at the RA about a half-dozen years ago and found a cellphone in the washroom. I was the only person there, so I called the last number that it dialed, spoke to the owner's wife, and took it with me up to the tournament room, where I was still playing my game and where the gent (who wasn't a player in the event) could pick it up. But luckily I caught myself before going into the tournament hall to give it to the TD because what if the phone rings while I am crossing the room?

[Hans Jung]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Surely non-thinkers and crooks don't read ChessTalk?!

Not any notorious crooks that Im aware of yet, but google goes everywhere. Google and goggle.

[Garland Best]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Two weeks ago I forfeited a game because I had a new phone, thought I had shut it off, and it beeped when my boss texted me responding ok to my message that I would not be available by phone for 4 hours.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Cheating at Chess

Cheating At Chess

September 4, 2015

Using the computer to detect cheating at chess makes sense. A paper from last year shows that some skepticism should be maintained rather than to accept any program’s results unchallenged.

On the limits of engine analysis for cheating detection in chess

David J. Barnes & Julio Hernandez-Castro

computers & security 48 (2015) pages 58-73

The authors say, “In this section we want to present a number of further games that, given the period at which they were played, can safely be discarded as not involving any computer-based cheating. We call this collection of games the “false positives”, because they would likely trigger alarms in any automated cheating detection mechanism based simply on move accuracy or correlation when measured or compared with computer moves."

….

"The game between Weiss and Burille given in Appendix B.3 is a good case in point. It was played in the 6th USA Congress in New York between Miksa (Max) Weiss (the co-winner of the Congress, with Chigorin) and the position after 13 half-moves had been encountered before in our historical database. From that point on, Mr. Weiss won the game by playing 26 consecutive moves that exactly match our engine's choices at depth 20. This is a much larger series of perfect moves than that we saw in the Morphy examples. Surely due to computer cheating, except for the fact that the year was 1889."

The paper can be found as a .pdf by going to

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...al/01674048/48

[Kenneth Regan]

Re: Cheating at Chess

When the FIDE Anti-Cheating Committee was drafting the ACC Guidelines in summer 2014 before the Tromso Olympiad and FIDE Congress, I was naturally assigned the statistical sections. Of all the possible aspects I could have led off with, the one I chose to mandate at top level is that there shall be a distinction between a screening test and a full test.

To my mind this paper expresses well many of the reasons why. What it describes is only a screening test. How my full test fares on its examples is mentioned briefly in my joint paper http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/pa...BHR2015ACG.pdf, which Guy Haworth presented in Leiden during the ICGA World Computer Chess Championship and conference in July. We've had some nice exchanges and Guy even visited the authors in Kent (UK); what we disagree about on the 2300 book cutoff and the importance of reproducibility is secondary. So my reaction to the paper is basically, "Amen!" :-)