Chess Cheating Poll

[Mick Norris]

I would like to know why anyone thinks the answer is yes, beyond any reasonable doubt, given there's no firm evidence

Still, along the lines Joey mentions, the best thing is not to end up in court as you may get wrongly convicted

[Paul Cooksey]

I would like to know why anyone thinks the answer is yes, beyond any reasonable doubt, given there's no firm evidence

I suppose it might be a confession, but that seems very unlikely!

[Ian Thompson]

I went for "cannot decide" on the grounds that someone who is prepared to cheat online may well cheat OTB if the opportunity arose, even if they had no plans to do so before the game began.

I would have thought the fact that, even on pessimistic assumptions for the latter, many more people cheat online than OTB somewhat contradicts this - not only is online cheating easier, it is widely regarded (approve of this mindset or not) as "less serious".

I was thinking of discussing the game with another person while it is still in progress, for example. No computers directly involved; no plans to do it in advance. If someone approached a player and started discussing their game what proportion of players would stop the discussion immediately and what proportion would take advantage of the opportunity?

[JustinHorton]

I would have thought the fact that, even on pessimistic assumptions for the latter, many more people cheat online than OTB somewhat contradicts this - not only is online cheating easier, it is widely regarded (approve of this mindset or not) as "less serious".

I am not sure this is true, though it may depend on whether we mean "by the people who do it" or "by the people who don't".

[Paolo Casaschi]

Anyone who chose 'no, beyond any reasonable doubt' I would like to personally select you as my jurors if I am ever convicted of a crime.

Agree.

That option should not even be there, you can not prove a negative and you should not be required to do so.

As far as I can tell, not even Carlsen has ever proven that he is not cheating beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, two elements raise suspicion about Carlsen: 1) he plays chess very well 2) he thinks a lot of people are cheating

Anyone asking Niemann to prove he is not cheating should ask Carlsen first.

[Roger Lancaster]

I was thinking of discussing the game with another person while it is still in progress, for example. No computers directly involved; no plans to do it in advance. If someone approached a player and started discussing their game what proportion of players would stop the discussion immediately and what proportion would take advantage of the opportunity?

Personally, no doubt about it, I would stop the discussion immediately. So, I hope, would most pIayers - even if the discussion was harmless, eg. revolved around something which occurred or might have occurred much earlier in the game.

[MartinCarpenter]

Anyone who chose 'no, beyond any reasonable doubt' I would like to personally select you as my jurors if I am ever convicted of a crime.

Agree.

That option should not even be there, you can not prove a negative and you should not be required to do so.

As far as I can tell, not even Carlsen has ever proven that he is not cheating beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, two elements raise suspicion about Carlsen: 1) he plays chess very well 2) he thinks a lot of people are cheating

Anyone asking Niemann to prove he is not cheating should ask Carlsen first.

Carlsen - and all of that generation - have the great advantage of being known to play at their level before it was really practically realistic to cheat OTB & no one cared about online.

Unfair but any youngsters coming up now & into the future are going to be much more prone to suspicion. It'll probably be even worse for any future later life improvers on the line of Hawkins etc.

[Roger Lancaster]

Carlsen - and all of that generation - have the great advantage of being known to play at their level before it was really practically realistic to cheat OTB & no one cared about online.

Are you sure about that? Allwermann (1998) is but one of severaI pIayers suspected of OTB cheating in the past.

[NickFaulks]

Personally, no doubt about it, I would stop the discussion immediately. So, I hope, would most pIayers - even if the discussion was harmless, eg. revolved around something which occurred or might have occurred much earlier in the game.

You wouldn't have forty years ago, though. Conversations during the round such as "I bet you wish you had castled kingside now", "no, I think my attack gets in quicker", were entirely routine and nobody thought anything of it, right up to top GM level. Times change.

[MartinCarpenter]

Carlsen - and all of that generation - have the great advantage of being known to play at their level before it was really practically realistic to cheat OTB & no one cared about online.

Are you sure about that? Allwermann (1998) is but one of severaI pIayers suspected of OTB cheating in the past.

Hard to be sure, sure but if you're trying to do it at an elite level? You need things small.

Track the march of technology. When did smartphone cpu's hit >super GM level? Not sure when but relatively recent I guess. That's the first semi convenient time, but frankly you'd be caught pretty fast in any size/level of tournament.

So a few years on from there. Also tiny camera technology etc etc.

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you sure about that? Allwermann (1998) is but one of severaI pIayers suspected of OTB cheating in the past.

Also "von Neumann" (1993)

https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-history ... g-in-che-2

[Paolo Casaschi]

Carlsen - and all of that generation - have the great advantage of being known to play at their level before it was really practically realistic to cheat OTB & no one cared about online.

Not so sure.
Kasparov lost to Deep Blue in the 90s.
Carlsen was 11 when the world champion Kramnik could not defeat a commercial software in a match. Shortly afterwards man vs machine matches did not make any sense anymore.

[NickFaulks]

Bit late now, but perhaps the wording of the question is not ideal.

"Do you think it is likely Hans cheated OTB?".

No, I do not think it is at all likely, and I felt that the fifth option came closest to representing that opinion.

Would I concede that there is, say, a 0.01% chance that he is cheating in his OTB games? Yes, of course I would, and I would say the same about any top player. However, ticking the fourth option suggests to me something more like 20% than 0.01%, so I did not feel able to tick it.

My preferred question would be "if we could know tomorrow, with certainly, whether Hans cheated in the Sinquefield Cup, at what odds would you back yes or no? With some ranges. The problem is that most people are not trained to think in those terms.

[J T Melsom]

I suspect the reaction of spectators watching a game might sometimes be wrongly construed as a hint to a participant, which suggests it might occasionally be a deliberate act. At the end of a very tense match, one of my opponents made a horrible blunder. I saw the win but in my excitement glanced up at a spectator before moving. Pure relief that the title challenge hadn't been derailed, but my action and any reaction could have been misunderstood.

[NickFaulks]

I suspect the reaction of spectators watching a game might sometimes be wrongly construed as a hint to a participant, which suggests it might occasionally be a deliberate act. At the end of a very tense match, one of my opponents made a horrible blunder. I saw the win but in my excitement glanced up at a spectator before moving. Pure relief that the title challenge hadn't been derailed, but my action and any reaction could have been misunderstood.

Spectators can be a real problem, nearly always unintentionally on anyone's part. Had this one, possibly the club's strongest player, shown on his face an involuntary look of horror, might you have looked back at the board and realised that your opponent's blunder was in fact a devilish trap? These things happen.