Interesting points beings circulated here. In theory it would be easy for a very strong player to use cheating methods, to only help him in crucial situations. Such a player, say 2700+ would hardly be suspected of such a thing, and easily get away with it.
As I was driving to pick up my kids from school I thought about a super GM currently cheating with: "moves through chips, which could have been placed under the skin, in the ear, or in the teeth"
Technology is great, but in the hands of someone intent on doing harm/fraud, it becomes an even more "powerful" tool than what it was originally designed for. Unfortunately, we are at a juncture in our development where "old" values are disappearing, and the new thinking is "get ahead at any cost". We are becoming so immune to corruption, violence, and fraud that they don't even hold our attention anymore...they have become the norm.
Let's make it happen!
Has it got to the stage of the unthinkable?
Cheating is so hard to detect, in fact impossibly so, that you may as well put houdini in between the clocks and either player can freely look at it?
Cheating is not hard to detect, the problem is that 99.99% of the world have no idea, because they lack the expertise and/or experience in the field. Real numbers (do your research), no joke.
Centaur matches do not appeal to me, thanks. There is no reason to change the game that we love, just get competent organisers, and be aware of what's happening.
If we remove live broadcasts and spectators it is detrimental to the game also. Just use better methods when running events and hire experienced people/organisers who know what these methods are.
Lilov's 'analysis' is poor, he doesn't use his experience to say why the moves were computer moves, just has an engine running and points out when the moves come up. Nothing anyone else can't do.
It just goes to show a player's rating is not all that is required to be a good teacher. With his experience, it appears that he should be able to get the message across. However you do need to realise that sometimes explaining situations fully to those who do not have the same level of chess experience requires a lot of time, energy, and "coming down" to that player's level. I was amused with some parts of the video because it made me understand his chess style. For players rated over 2000 otb, you know what I mean here. Considering that he produced the video for a wide range of chess level's in the audience, one cannot criticise. I'm sure that if you asked him some questions that you did not understand, he could make the time to explain each part. The bulk of the proof is in the fact that Ivanov was a patzer in an event played a few weeks before the Zadar Open, and then he turned into a GM killer with consistent computer moves. It's impossible. Don't believe in superman.
If he ever enters this site he is going to get it. Me... way way way back and not watching. The screams for him asking for help would give me nightmares.
Well there are people on this site that are cheating more often than Ivanov... like 95% of the live blitz players rated over 2200. Give it to them while you wait for Ivanov to come back to this site. If nothing is done about cheating, it gets worse and encourages even GMs to do it (think of the one that cheated on this site as a prelude to his suspicious otb play).
I'm also very curious as to how the staff can be quite hypocritical when it comes to discussing cheating. For a start, both Clark Smiley and Borislav Ivanov are members of this site. We can talk about them in this thread??
And on the other hand when they say "take it to cheating forum" you are not allowed to discuss names there. What's the point of that forum then? To hide reality from those that do not join? We need to encourage constructive criticism. All players accused of cheating have the right to defend themselves. In most cases of false accusation, this can be done quite effortlessly.
Ivanov's actions really have had a negative effect on competitive chess, at least in the perception of the non-chess playing public.
I've seen the incident discussed in other non-chess related sites and comments like Why is there even competitive chess when computers have solved it? and Maybe he just memorised a mathematical formula being a computer programmer? are very common. Not to mention the hilarious Maybe he just practised like 10 hours a day for a year or something?
Seeing as this is the only chess story in recent history to be reported in relatively mainstream media, those thoughts are what's going to stick in peoples minds when they think about chess. Hurts doesn't it?
Yes, chess publicity is extremely negative at the moment. Apart from an incompetent world federation who wish to milk players dry, fake games in world championships, and engine cheating use, there are not many stories in mainstream media going around! This needs to be changed now.
So instead of rehashing the same arguments in this thread, let's think about the future of otb chess.
We'll never be able to detect the good cheaters.
That's only what it appears to be for players who are not experienced in chess. But don't fear, we can detect the "good cheaters".
For example, if an already strong player 2400+, just used engine assitance a couple of times a game in positions where they were unsure and still went with their original move provided it wasn't a mistake, how much could they boost their rating? I'm guessing at this level such a thing would make a big difference, and it would be hard if not impossible to detect without physical evidence.
Physical evidence makes it much easier, it is true, but a competent organiser can detect it. Let's examine:
What would you do when a 2600+ GM is accused of "centaur cheating" in a tournament? There is the case of Feller + helpers, caught because of extreme carelessness with a mobile phone.
With new technology that Valeri Lilov mentions, would the common person be able to detect this advanced form of cheating? I would think not. Throw all those statistics out the window in the case of centauring by smart 2600+ cheats. Your numbers will not be a significant match, even after they cheated. The centaurs would play the cheating moves only at critical moments. And don't tell me that those sort of players would not cheat, especially with large prizes for elite events. It is reality.
Just to explain to the stats bandits, picture this scenario: two 2500+ players, one is the player, the other is the computer engine user. They can swap roles should they need to. The player wears the technology. And the engine user relays not just engine moves to this, but plans, ideas etc. Lets assume the product used are technological spectacles, for the purposes of this demonstration. These can basically show a notepad of ideas to the player. And because of his chess skill, he can choose whatever he likes, mostly his own moves. If one of his own moves is not mentioned on the spectacles, he could try to investigate why, or just play a suggested idea instead. He could even play his own move if he works out that it is not a catastrophic blunder. Perhaps even more advantageous technologies allow communication with the engine user! Even if his moves are not god-like Houdini moves, he might have saved a lot of time in his game, so much that he will not be in time trouble. Statistics will not match, and perhaps his opponent makes mistakes in time trouble!
So let's be sensible in events that are likely to attract cheaters (i.e. with large prizes), without restricting chess freedom. Allow spectators one consecutive viewing period, no mobile phones in the playing area. A relay delay. Jammers perhaps will not be necessary. A metal detector for suspicions. Hide metal detectors in the WC area.
But the most important is to have at least one experienced person who knows what to do in the event of unusual behaviour/results. People are not robots, treat them how human beings should be treated. You could save a lot of time, effort, and embarrassment.
Technology is great, but in the hands of someone intent on doing harm/fraud, it becomes an even more "powerful" tool than what it was originally designed for. Unfortunately, we are at a juncture in our development where "old" values are disappearing, and the new thinking is "get ahead at any cost". We are becoming so immune to corruption, violence, and fraud that they don't even hold our attention anymore...they have become the norm.
In life, not many things are resistant to change. We have to accept this new technology (even things like the A-bomb) but find better ways to use it. But I do prefer the "old" thinking, where human beings are respected. Some cultures still have these values, which is great!
Well said!
Has it got to the stage of the unthinkable?
Cheating is so hard to detect, in fact impossibly so, that you may as well put houdini in between the clocks and either player can freely look at it?
Cheating is not hard to detect, the problem is that 99.99% of the world have no idea, because they lack the expertise and/or experience in the field. Real numbers (do your research), no joke.
Centaur matches do not appeal to me, thanks. There is no reason to change the game that we love, just get competent organisers, and be aware of what's happening.
If we remove live broadcasts and spectators it is detrimental to the game also. Just use better methods when running events and hire experienced people/organisers who know what these methods are.
Lilov's 'analysis' is poor, he doesn't use his experience to say why the moves were computer moves, just has an engine running and points out when the moves come up. Nothing anyone else can't do.
It just goes to show a player's rating is not all that is required to be a good teacher. With his experience, it appears that he should be able to get the message across. However you do need to realise that sometimes explaining situations fully to those who do not have the same level of chess experience requires a lot of time, energy, and "coming down" to that player's level. I was amused with some parts of the video because it made me understand his chess style. For players rated over 2000 otb, you know what I mean here. Considering that he produced the video for a wide range of chess level's in the audience, one cannot criticise. I'm sure that if you asked him some questions that you did not understand, he could make the time to explain each part. The bulk of the proof is in the fact that Ivanov was a patzer in an event played a few weeks before the Zadar Open, and then he turned into a GM killer with consistent computer moves. It's impossible. Don't believe in superman.
If he ever enters this site he is going to get it. Me... way way way back and not watching. The screams for him asking for help would give me nightmares.
Well there are people on this site that are cheating more often than Ivanov... like 95% of the live blitz players rated over 2200. Give it to them while you wait for Ivanov to come back to this site. If nothing is done about cheating, it gets worse and encourages even GMs to do it (think of the one that cheated on this site as a prelude to his suspicious otb play).
I'm also very curious as to how the staff can be quite hypocritical when it comes to discussing cheating. For a start, both Clark Smiley and Borislav Ivanov are members of this site. We can talk about them in this thread??
And on the other hand when they say "take it to cheating forum" you are not allowed to discuss names there. What's the point of that forum then? To hide reality from those that do not join? We need to encourage constructive criticism. All players accused of cheating have the right to defend themselves. In most cases of false accusation, this can be done quite effortlessly.
Ivanov's actions really have had a negative effect on competitive chess, at least in the perception of the non-chess playing public.
I've seen the incident discussed in other non-chess related sites and comments like Why is there even competitive chess when computers have solved it? and Maybe he just memorised a mathematical formula being a computer programmer? are very common. Not to mention the hilarious Maybe he just practised like 10 hours a day for a year or something?
Seeing as this is the only chess story in recent history to be reported in relatively mainstream media, those thoughts are what's going to stick in peoples minds when they think about chess. Hurts doesn't it?
Yes, chess publicity is extremely negative at the moment. Apart from an incompetent world federation who wish to milk players dry, fake games in world championships, and engine cheating use, there are not many stories in mainstream media going around! This needs to be changed now.
So instead of rehashing the same arguments in this thread, let's think about the future of otb chess.
We'll never be able to detect the good cheaters.
That's only what it appears to be for players who are not experienced in chess. But don't fear, we can detect the "good cheaters".
For example, if an already strong player 2400+, just used engine assitance a couple of times a game in positions where they were unsure and still went with their original move provided it wasn't a mistake, how much could they boost their rating? I'm guessing at this level such a thing would make a big difference, and it would be hard if not impossible to detect without physical evidence.
Physical evidence makes it much easier, it is true, but a competent organiser can detect it. Let's examine:
What would you do when a 2600+ GM is accused of "centaur cheating" in a tournament? There is the case of Feller + helpers, caught because of extreme carelessness with a mobile phone.
With new technology that Valeri Lilov mentions, would the common person be able to detect this advanced form of cheating? I would think not. Throw all those statistics out the window in the case of centauring by smart 2600+ cheats. Your numbers will not be a significant match, even after they cheated. The centaurs would play the cheating moves only at critical moments. And don't tell me that those sort of players would not cheat, especially with large prizes for elite events. It is reality.
Just to explain to the stats bandits, picture this scenario: two 2500+ players, one is the player, the other is the computer engine user. They can swap roles should they need to. The player wears the technology. And the engine user relays not just engine moves to this, but plans, ideas etc. Lets assume the product used are technological spectacles, for the purposes of this demonstration. These can basically show a notepad of ideas to the player. And because of his chess skill, he can choose whatever he likes, mostly his own moves. If one of his own moves is not mentioned on the spectacles, he could try to investigate why, or just play a suggested idea instead. He could even play his own move if he works out that it is not a catastrophic blunder. Perhaps even more advantageous technologies allow communication with the engine user! Even if his moves are not god-like Houdini moves, he might have saved a lot of time in his game, so much that he will not be in time trouble. Statistics will not match, and perhaps his opponent makes mistakes in time trouble!
So let's be sensible in events that are likely to attract cheaters (i.e. with large prizes), without restricting chess freedom. Allow spectators one consecutive viewing period, no mobile phones in the playing area. A relay delay. Jammers perhaps will not be necessary. A metal detector for suspicions. Hide metal detectors in the WC area.
But the most important is to have at least one experienced person who knows what to do in the event of unusual behaviour/results. People are not robots, treat them how human beings should be treated. You could save a lot of time, effort, and embarrassment.
Technology is great, but in the hands of someone intent on doing harm/fraud, it becomes an even more "powerful" tool than what it was originally designed for. Unfortunately, we are at a juncture in our development where "old" values are disappearing, and the new thinking is "get ahead at any cost". We are becoming so immune to corruption, violence, and fraud that they don't even hold our attention anymore...they have become the norm.
In life, not many things are resistant to change. We have to accept this new technology (even things like the A-bomb) but find better ways to use it. But I do prefer the "old" thinking, where human beings are respected. Some cultures still have these values, which is great!
Well said!
Unending wall of text!
Borrowing some of the Sisu's ideas, I think a simple and cost-effective way for chess tournament organizer to prevent cheating would be as follows:
1. The players would play in an isolated room. During an ongoing game, there should be no contact with outside world (family, friends, relatives, etc.). There should be separate restrooms for the players.
2. No electronic devices are allowed in the playing area.
3. Games should not be broadcasted live. Instead, it should be broadcasted with one move delay. So the broadcasted games will be one move behind.
4. If possible, there should be CCTV cameras in the playing area to review the behavior of suspected individuals should cheating occurs.
With these measures alone, it should be very difficult for people to cheat. There is no need for high-tech signal jammers, etc.
Technology is great, but in the hands of someone intent on doing harm/fraud, it becomes an even more "powerful" tool than what it was originally designed for. Unfortunately, we are at a juncture in our development where "old" values are disappearing, and the new thinking is "get ahead at any cost". We are becoming so immune to corruption, violence, and fraud that they don't even hold our attention anymore...they have become the norm.
I'm sorry but your vision is quite ignorant about historical evidence. There were other races which were human-like, and now there is only one, I hope you can guess what happened. The tiger was called man-eater, now is nearly extinct, and so on. There is not 1 year in human history where there weren't genocides or slaughters, wars and so on. So the law of the jungle has always been the norm. Technology is making it available also to chess. I also don't believe some "old values" existed, since if you read upton Sinclair, you will find the same problems in the food industry, you find today.
There will be no action to prevent cheating, unless the "will" is there. The question is "where is the will"???
Cheating is good for chess, because it makes us all have to study harder in order to win. Every tournament needs a couple computer cheaters just to keep things from getting too easy for the best players.
Borrowing some of the Sisu's ideas, I think a simple and cost-effective way for chess tournament organizer to prevent cheating would be as follows:
1. The players would play in an isolated room. During an ongoing game, there should be no contact with outside world (family, friends, relatives, etc.). There should be separate restrooms for the players.
2. No electronic devices are allowed in the playing area.
3. Games should not be broadcasted live. Instead, it should be broadcasted with one move delay. So the broadcasted games will be one move behind.
4. If possible, there should be CCTV cameras in the playing area to review the behavior of suspected individuals should cheating occurs.
With these measures alone, it should be very difficult for people to cheat. There is no need for high-tech signal jammers, etc.
**********
With all due respect I think that the horse has bolted. I recall articles on cheating in British Chess Magazine in the 1990's. In a world of Tofleresque future shock I have no doubt that cheaters and their sophisticated methods will be ahead of any counter-measures. Prevention has been and gone as an option. Statistical analysis of games is the only measure left, as problematic as that can be against "smart" cheaters who mask their cheating with some deliberate "non-cheat" moves.
Let's make it happen!
I'm not engaging in paranoia. I am just recognising that while preventative measures will stop MOST people from cheating, they will not stop determined shysters with the latest in technology.
@sisu: Good ideas there. For #4, I am not so sure if it is invasive. Nowadays, almost everywhere we go (be it a shopping mall, airports, subway stations, etc.), there are always security cameras lurking around the corners. It has become an integral part of our lives.
@linuxblue1: Statistically speaking, putting locks on doors do not prevent theft. Does it mean we should give up using locks on our doors? Hell no. The same applies here.
"However you do need to realise that sometimes explaining situations fully to those who do not have the same level of chess experience requires a lot of time, energy, and "coming down" to that player's level. I was amused with some parts of the video because it made me understand his chess style. For players rated over 2000 otb, you know what I mean here. Considering that he produced the video for a wide range of chess level's in the audience, one cannot criticise. I'm sure that if you asked him some questions that you did not understand, he could make the time to explain each part. The bulk of the proof is in the fact that Ivanov was a patzer in an event played a few weeks before the Zadar Open, and then he turned into a GM killer with consistent computer moves. It's impossible. Don't believe in superman."
None of that is relevant to my post.
It's not that I didn't understand what he said - he didn't actually say anything.
Let's make it happen!
He played first canidate moves as soon as the opening was over. People don't think like engines, why are people wasting their time with 3 page long responses? He cheated, like it or not. All there is to be said.
So far, Ivanov's results in his current tournament suggest that he's not the superman he claims to be. He lost to an FM and drew a ~1900 rated player, scoring 2.5/4 in early going. His performance so far is much more in keeping with someone rated ~2100-2200 than someone who went 10-0 against Houdini and Rybka.
...
I see only 1 win against a ~1700 rated player in his current tournament:
http://chess-results.com/tnr85628.aspx?lan=24&zeilen=99999
http://chess-results.com/tnr85628.aspx?art=9&lan=24&fed=BUL&flag=30&wi=821&snr=34
The date of that entry was Sunday, February 3rd. Try an updated connection.
Here's a link to his current status:
http://chess-results.com/tnr91542.aspx?art=9&lan=24&fed=BUL&flag=30&wi=821&snr=34
...no I don't approve, and never will...too often the honest ones are never given the rewards they deserve, the greedy and corrupt seem to be always rewarded...and then after having already made millions and caught...the cry is now to forgive them...I say off with their heads...