Chess Cheating Poll

[Roger de Coverly]

Spectators can be a real problem, nearly always unintentionally on anyone's part.

One of the last games to finish can often attract a crowd, particularly if the players are short of time. If the spectators turn away, that can be a sign that one player has a decisive advantage, or that it's a clear draw, Either way they've left because it's no longer interesting.

Playing just after the lockdown when spectators were not allowed and those finishing games were regarded similarly could be dispiriting, being alone apart from the opponent and perhaps an arbiter.

[Roger Lancaster]

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.

I'm not at all sure that that's my recollection, Nick. I certainly agree that greetings such as "How's your game going?" were commonplace - and of course in that respect you're right that times have changed - but I think there was a near-universal convention that overt assistance was forbidden. Unless my memory is playing tricks, I can remember occasions when a team colleague repIied "I think I'm winning" and I had to refrain from telling him that he was sorely mistaken.

[Roger Lancaster]

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.

SimiIarIy, I can still recall a tense game against David Levy - more than 50 years ago and long before he became an IM - before a crowd of spectators. After David played one move there was an audible and involuntary gasp from the crowd. Within seconds both David and I realised he had missed a one-move checkmate. Naturally I parried the threat and the game was ultimately drawn with the resuIt that I won the tournament in question.

[NickFaulks]

but I think there was a near-universal convention that overt assistance was forbidden.

Agreed, but I think the ( invented but plausible ) example I gave falls on the right side of that. You still wouldn't do it now.

[NickFaulks]

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.

Why? When Deep Blue beat Kasparov, Carlsen was six years old.

[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.

Why? When Deep Blue beat Kasparov, Carlsen was six years old.

That was a giant super computer - hardly remotely subtle for cheating Writing in the wall by then, but getting it shrunk right down took a good while.

[NickFaulks]

That was a giant super computer - hardly remotely subtle for cheating Writing in the wall by then, but getting it shrunk right down took a good while.

I don't think there has ever been a time when Carlsen was as good as the best pocket sized device. Could be close though, and I haven't done any research.

[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.

Why? When Deep Blue beat Kasparov, Carlsen was six years old.

That was a giant super computer - hardly remotely subtle for cheating Writing in the wall by then, but getting it shrunk right down took a good while.

Not so much. When Carlsen was 11, Kramnik could not win a match against Deep Fritz, a commercial software.

[MartinCarpenter]

That was a giant super computer - hardly remotely subtle for cheating Writing in the wall by then, but getting it shrunk right down took a good while.

I don't think there has ever been a time when Carlsen was as good as the best pocket sized device. Could be close though, and I haven't done any research.

Having checked/noticed the post just below, I think probably not actually close in MC's favour?

Kramnik - Deep Fritz was on a big computer and still only a 4-4 draw when MC was 12. The first iPhone was released when MC was 17.

That had a decent CPU (>> than its competitors iirc) but still not all that strong. From there on though, CPUs in mobile phones got faster at an astonishing rate.

It guess they'll have passed him somewhere around 2012-2015.

[NickFaulks]

The first iPhone was released when MC was 17.

Why are we talking about iPhones? They hardly set the standard for number crunching ability, nor were they intended to. I had an HP programmable calculator by about 2000 that could do all the stuff that my desktop could. What I don't know is how strong the commercial Fritz was by then.

I'm sure I have seen a history of chess computer ratings somewhere, from back when it was useful to measure them in competition with humans, but I can't find it now.

[Paolo Casaschi]

It guess they'll have passed him somewhere around 2012-2015.

Commercially available software have always been stronger than Carlsen. When Carlsen was 11, Kramnik as world champion could not defeat a commercial software: it’s safe to assume that same software was stronger than 11 years old Carlsen at the time. It’s a remote possibility, but it’s not beyond any reasonable doubt that Carlsen could have taken advantage of that if so inclined.

[MartinCarpenter]

The first iPhone was released when MC was 17.

Why are we talking about iPhones? They hardly set the standard for number crunching ability, nor were they intended to. I had an HP programmable calculator by about 2000 that could do all the stuff that my desktop could. What I don't know is how strong the commercial Fritz was by then.

I'm sure I have seen a history of chess computer ratings somewhere, from back when it was useful to measure them in competition with humans, but I can't find it now.

You were wondering about portable devices, and these days that means mobile phones Pre mobile phone devices didn't use fast cpu's on general. Laptops excepted of course.

It isn't always Apple's reputation but iPhones have always had the fastest processors in the mobile phone format, often by some distance.

[Tim Spanton]

I suspect Carlsen would be capable of beating the best engine available IF said engine were not allowed to use pre-programmed opening moves, ie it had to calculate from move one rather than relying on GM instructions. Carlsen should get a decent advantage out of the opening, and would probably also be the better player in many endgames, again assuming the engine was not allowed to use tablebases. Of course he would have to survive the middlegame for the latter to become relevant ...

[NickFaulks]

I suspect Carlsen would be capable of beating the best engine available IF said engine were not allowed to use pre-programmed opening moves, ie it had to calculate from move one rather than relying on GM instructions.

You mean like AlphaZero?

[NickFaulks]

You were wondering about portable devices, and these days that means mobile phones

Yes, but twenty years ago it didn't.

Pre mobile phone devices didn't use fast cpu's on general. Laptops excepted of course.

So you're saying that pocket sized devices were not capable of running a chess program, except for the ones which were, such as the one I owned.