So you think you've been cheated?

Sometimes it's tempting to think a lower-rated opponent may be cheating if they find an uncharacteristically strong combination and sit you on your proverbial bottom—but is this necessarily so? Sometimes the difference between two players is not that one can see the board more clearly than the other, but that one can do so consistently. So, although you would expect to win many more games than you lose against a significantly lower-rated opponent, it's well worth remembering that your opponent is capable of seeing the same things you do, without asking Fritz to help.

Nevertheless cheating does happen and has a long history—and sometimes at the highest levels.

It has been claimed that “in 1994 Garry Kasparov changed his move against Judit Polgár after momentarily letting go of a piece. He went on to win the game.” Given the stature and ability of both players this Wikipedia accusation is almost certainly false, but shows that absolutely nobody is so exalted that they can be free of accusations.

Then, of course, there was the infamous Toiletgate row in which Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating in the

toilet. The world press went into a feeding frenzy but it was something chess columnists could also enjoy Leonard Barden wrote about it in his Guardian chess column. The result was an extraordinary loss of prestige for Topalov who is, without a doubt, one of the finest chess players of the new century.

In 2006, an Indian chess player was banned from playing competitive chess for ten years for cheating. During the Subroto Mukerjee memorial international rating chess tournament at Subroto Park, Umakant Sharma was caught receiving instructions from an accomplice using a chess computer via a Bluetooth-enabled device which had been sewn into his cap. The accomplices he had been communicating with were outside the location at which he was playing, and were relaying moves from a computer simulation. Officials became suspicious after Sharma made unusually large gains in rating points during the previous eighteen months, even qualifying for the national championship. Umakant began the year with an average rating of 1933, and in 64 games gained over 500 points to attain a rating of 2484. Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Then, of course, there was the old complaint at grandmaster level—made by Fischer and others—that in the days of USSR dominance, there was collusion between Soviet grandmasters to grant each other easy draws. Cheating? Perhaps. It's not unlike bicycle racing when team members in races like the Tour de France sacrifice their own chances to assist their best-placed rider. The difference, of course, is that the Tour is a team event while chess is an individual contest.

At a local level I've known people to throw away chess games to keep their rating down so they would be eligible to win prizes in lower-rated tournaments. Is that cheating? Maybe—it depends on your point of view. Considering the low prize-money available in Australia, I honestly don't understand what they hope to gain—especially as those Under 1600 events are usually won by juniors who are improving rapidly and are often much stronger than their rating suggests.

Indeed, it was such an improving junior that brings me to the most blatant attempt to cheat that I've seen in a tournament. In the Under 1600 section of an Oz State Title a couple of years ago, White was a fellow club-member and I was waiting at the board to give him a lift home. He was a man in his 60s. Black was an eight year-old boy. The position is as shown in the diagram, but the computer will not accept the moves that follow: they are illegal.

White is faced with a dilemma. Black has just queened and white can now play g8=Q which will be immediately countered by Qb3+, exchanging the new-born queen, and allowing black to win easily with his unstoppable a-pawn.

White was a seasoned campaigner and thought he saw an opportunity. He played g7-f8, queening diagonally with check, while at the same time flipping his king onto the g7 square which had just been vacated by the enterprising pawn.

The boy called for the DOP and I supported him. The DOP set up the position to a point where both players could agree and stood there while the crucial moves were played.

The outcome? My club-mate copped a fourteen-month suspension for cheating ... and got to go home by public transport.