Any Competitor to Monroi Chess?

Which is the missing step, in my mind. If we allow enotate devices, we should define a standard API by which the moves must be transmitted as they are entered to a central database where statistical analysis is done. And then require all tournament players who wish to be eligible for prizes to use an enotate device. 

Open the API and publish an open source library of functions to access the API. That will drive cost down significantly as any compitent programmer can make an ennotate device. 

And at that point, certification doesn't matter because the anti-cheating function will happen at the only level that really matters: that of move selection. 

There are pragmatic concerns, like cost.  A better approach, given that not everyone is cheating, is to handle it on a more case by case basis, rather than adding any forced cost to each player.  People already complain about entry fees and memberships.

If the api's are open, then the user cost is trivial. There will be free apps on on the phone to do the job.

The cost of the central server should be picked up by the national federation who has a vested interest in keeping OTB chess viable. Yes, it'll cost a twenty or thirty thousand dollars to set up. Which amortized over the life time of the server comes to what, $0.50 per OTB chess player per year? 

This is something that is achievable today. That it's not being done is due simply to a lack of imagination on the part of the powers that be.  

I don't think the concept will file pragmatically, financially, or politically.

Morevoer, discussing future  concepts really isn't the point of this thread.

Yes - there are alternatives to Monroi. 

Even if I were to concede the point that it was theoretically possible to design mobile software which while running converted the device into a Monroi-equivalent, what is to prevent someone from writing and freely distributing a clone of this app which looks exactly the same? Imagine dozens upon dozens of these things in a scholastic tournament, or some open tournament, and you can imagine how difficult the detection problem becomes.

Are you going to analyze all moves afterwards? Would you even have all the moves available? People don't always turn in their score sheets. Restricting to hardware solutions might not be the most popular, but chess players will play chess no matter what. I have not heard a compelling argument around allowing software-based solutions.

The app is registered and registration is published, just as ownership of enotation devices is registered and available.

Ozzie -- the idea is that if you have an app that transmits moves to the API as they are being entered, and transmits app focus info (so you can see if someone switches out of it) and both players are using the same API, then whoever is running the tourney can use a simple software program to see if the same moves are being recorded, if the app is keeping focus, and lastly, the game can be submitted for statistical analysis in real time to check for computer use. 

Which means you wouldn't need to really worry about someone making a clone. So what if they do? They're games will be being analyzed as they play, and if they're getting computer match moves too often then they're going to be booted from the game.

To me that's the part that's missing. Right now, today, anyone can make a MonRoi clone anyway. Nothing is stopiing someone from buying a MonRoi, gutting it, putting in tehir own computer chip, programming it, and going to town. Sure it's an expensive proposition, but if you're gonna win the world open it might be worth it.

OTB cheating can't be controlled by device certification. It can be controlled by statistically analyzing the games being played.

 

How does that work with a large tournament and multiple events on the same day? I dont think your suggestion is pragmatic.

I like the idea of doing move matchups but I think you need more of a sample that a single game. Discussions of move matchup analysis have shown that you need to do things like eliminating moves that are 'book', eliminating 'forcing' moves (like recaptures) and provide more weight to games played against strong opposition. Otherwise you may get false positives.

KBalcher it's not impractical. But it would require people in power to proceed with both a vision and not conflate a desire to create a revenue stream with a desire to address the problem. You're not likely to see that from anyone in a leadership position at the USCF, so . . .

BigDogProblem: the idea would be that all of a player's games are transmitted. The analysis would be being done on more than a single game at a time. And yes, it would require some effort to ensure that only viable moves for analysis are being considered. But those are tractable problems.  

Kingpatzer - its definately impractical.  Think about how you would accomplish this.  The problems abound.

BigDogg - haven't you read about any of Ken Rogoff's analysis?

What exactly is Ken Rogoff's analysis? Excuse me if I am ignorant.

GM Ken Rogoff is an accomplished economist (Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard University) who has also studied applying statistical analysis to chess cheating.  If you search on Rogoff, chess and  cheating I'm sure you'll find many references

The PlyCounter has now been certified by the USCF.    Hopefully FIDE certification is not far off. It should meet all of the FIDE requirements since the required specifications are nearly identical with the exception that FIDE requires that an electronic scoresheet be a purpose built device (which is why eNotate is not FIDE certified).

http://www.plycount.com/

"Purpose-built devices? I have tons of those!" -Borislav Ivanov

Relying on the app to transmit app focus information does not make any sense at all. Why would an app clone be trustworthy in any way?

If you stick with a technical solution, then the bar IMO needs to remain at the hardware solution level.

I was going to say that you could give TDs the leeway to allow various devices, and leeway to do their own detection, but I just don't think it's practical. They have enough stuff to worry about besides roaming through the playing hall looking for monkey business.

If we have certified devices, and if people understand the rules and function of certified devices, then monkey business generally should be fairly apparent to the opponent.

PlyCounter is now certified by the United States Chess Federation (USCF)

http://www.plycount.com/

Yes, it has been for several weeks now.

Also, Enotate has upgraded its versions.

 I think perhaps you are actually referring to 'Ken Regan' (and not the economist and chess GM, Ken Rogoff), an IM and a Professor of Computer Science. He's been an advisor to FIDE regarding these cheating scandals and you can find more on his professional work in this area at :

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/

 --Vic.