How to Catch a Chess Cheater

All discussions about actual cheating instances on chess.com are to be held in the special dedicated forum. This discussion is about an article published in an internationally respected chess magazine about statistical methods used in pursuit of cheating. Very distinct topics. And very appropriate here. And we are fortunate to be able to discuss this topic with the author directly, right in this forum.

But this analogy is rather misleading. Nobody contests the fact that isolated upsets are sometimes possible - see for example :

http://www.pogonina.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2496&Itemid=

However, that's not what Regan is measuring : he is measuring the similarity between a player's moves and engine moves by looking at every single move over many games.

So, it's more like the #10000 tennis player in the world, winning two tournaments in a row and suddenly running and serving twice faster than he has ever done. 

One important point that has not been clarified in this discussion group is the difference between harm caused by an individual versus harm caused by Authority.  During our lifetimes most people have been or will be cheated by individuals and it hurts.  But the harm caused by being cheated by the System can be catastrophic to individuals.  There is little point in trying for the prize if They are not going to give it to you anyway – no matter what you do.

Any hint of different rewards for the same performance by two different individuals will damage chess.  It smacks of a quote by Joseph Stalin, “The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”

The notion of equal pay for equal work (performance) is essential for marketing to the “99% of us”.  Rags-to-riches stories are part of the charm of sports.  Any suggestion that you must improve at a limited rate, or can’t be permitted to receive the first prize because you don’t satisfy Authority Criteria for Acceptable Winners will damage chess marketing.

  Chess management needs to proceed cautiously.  The risk of turning-off chess players may exceed the reward of catching a handful of high-level cheaters.

What will hurt chess more ? Knowing that you can't grab the first prize at the World Open with a 3200 performance, or knowing that half your opponents are using their Fritz in the restrooms while you try to play honestly ?

I've quoted above a website that lists weekly upsets. I think the 1500 player that beats a 2000 player in his weekend tournament is pretty happy with his result (especially since it's his result, not his engine's).

Lots of players are happy to show the great games they've played, sometimes irrelevant of the final result. So I don't think chess has lost any of its charm as a sport.

There is no suggestion anywhere that you must improve at a limited rate. You're welcome to win 500 elo points next year. What Regan is fighting is people who just happen to pick the same moves than Houdini, play without calculating nor thinking at the board and pretend they have smelly socks...

Because those people are ruining the dream of the young guy who does improve at a fast pace and hopes to reach the stars some day. If we let cheaters prosper, there won't be any dream, any fun or anything left to play for. At all.

Now if there is a real fast improver on chess.com (with real ID and real OTB rating) who wants to share his frustration at Regan's works and the FIDE anti-cheating committee, I'd like to meet him.

I think the only people annoyed are those who play online, don't go much OTB to preserve their fragile ego, and prefer to dream that 'one day, if I want it very hard I could become a GM too, were it not for this stupid anti-cheating system !'.

@Spin, I agree that we do not want some faceless authority (Stalin is a good example) to say what is acceptable using some faceless algorithm out of anyone's control to understand or influence. On the otherhand (like @hicet says) competitors want to know that there is some sort of cheating detection in use. 

This discussion is a good example of some of the moral dilemmas we face in an increasingly online world (yes cheating is also OTB, but there are existing protocols to [imperfectly] deter). Online, we ask of our chess opponents... Who are you? Are you who you say you are? Are your actions (like making a move) your own?

None of these are easy questions to ask, or to answer, or to prove the answer, for either the person asking or the asked.

So stupidgm is as talented as Josh waitzkin.

that was funny, whether intended or otherwise :-)

So the 20 year old Stupid GM beat the 8-year old 6-0? Why is this even a comment? Why did this thread get revived after 3 years?