Cheating in chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:51 pm

Leonard Barden wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:20 pm
glancing furtively offscreen
Other pejorative descriptions are available.

edit : Leonard was himself quoting another source, which I should have made clear.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:58 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:12 pm
Here is the link
What are Bridge players concerned about? Is it like chess where an engine may be suggesting play or more uniquely to Bridge that information about cards held might leak between the pair. That's been a cheating hazard in Bridge since probably long before anyone tried to program it into a computer.
https://www.ebu.co.uk/article/radio-pla ... ng-scandal

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:11 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:58 pm
What are Bridge players concerned about?
John may have felt that he was keeping his head below the parapet by commenting on a non-chess website.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Leonard Barden » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:18 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:51 pm
Leonard Barden wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:20 pm
glancing furtively offscreen
Other pejorative descriptions are available.
John Cox's words quoted in a previous post, not mine.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:19 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:58 pm
What are Bridge players concerned about?
Please read the thread at the link provided by Matthew. That will both answer the question and also explain why John Cox commented there.

For those who may not know, John is a bridge player of international class.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:24 pm

So, cheating in online bridge is about illegal collusion, exactly the same as offline bridge. There is a process called self-kibitzing which quite a few of the most notable cheats were indulging in.
You'll be surprised that the detection systems are quite similar to those employed in chess.
I think an interesting difference between the two games is that a chess cheat (who is a reasonable player) will be able to explain why they have played the computer moves. A Bridge cheat cannot and they have to resort to repeatedly saying that they took a chance and a got lucky. This may explain why Fair play panels in Bridge tend to get more input from the accused than generally occurs in chess.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:32 pm

Leonard Barden wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:18 pm
John Cox's words quoted in a previous post, not mine.
Apologies Leonard, I realised that but should have edited the post to make it clear.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:18 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:24 pm
So, cheating in online bridge is about illegal collusion, exactly the same as offline bridge. There is a process called self-kibitzing which quite a few of the most notable cheats were indulging in.
With a few exceptions, self-kibitzing is specific to online bridge.

Matthew Turner wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:24 pm
I think an interesting difference between the two games is that a chess cheat (who is a reasonable player) will be able to explain why they have played the computer moves. A Bridge cheat cannot and they have to resort to repeatedly saying that they took a chance and a got lucky. This may explain why Fair play panels in Bridge tend to get more input from the accused than generally occurs in chess.
On the basis of your first two sentences, I would have expected it to be the other way round.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:46 am

David,
Sorry for not making myself clear. In general, in chess an honest player and a cheat (who is a reasonable player) will be able to explain their play equally well, because most of the time when you see the computer move it makes sense in hindsight. So speaking to the accused player about their moves reveals little new information.
The Bridge cheat is basing their decision making on information they should not have so there is no way for them to explain the rational behind their decisions. If a honest player has somehow managed to get lucky repeatedly they will be able to explain why they have played in a certain way even if it makes absolutely no sense.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:56 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:18 am
Matthew Turner wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:24 pm
So, cheating in online bridge is about illegal collusion, exactly the same as offline bridge. There is a process called self-kibitzing which quite a few of the most notable cheats were indulging in.
With a few exceptions, self-kibitzing is specific to online bridge.
I had to look up self-kibitzing so I think I should have said

"Cheating in online Bridge is primarily about illegal collusion, exactly the same as offline Bridge. There is also a process called self-kibitzing which quite a few of the most notable online cheats were indulging in."

Once again, apologies for being sloppy with the wording.

John Cox
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John Cox » Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:18 am

Cheating at bridge online is much more about self-kibitzing. Collusion between partners is no doubt commoner than it is at face-to-face bridge, but still far less common. Although it does have to be faced that cohabiting couples as a group have been over-represented in suspected online bridge cheating cases. Incidentally, the best US statistics-gatherer has estimated than 10% of hands played at online bridge above a certain level involved cheating (up to a certain point in time, before players came to know that some quite sophisticated software was tracking them, and before players started being quietly disinvited from tournaments without publicity, which two factors have caused a sharp decline in high-level cheating). So if we think we have it bad in chess, consider that.

With regard to the Osmak case, I do not have any comment to make on the decision, what will happen next, whether the tournament regulations are well-drafted, or anything of that nature. If anyone wants to know more about the publicly available facts or about FIDE's procedures in general, I may be able to help.

I am not sure why Matthew says he doesn't necessarily agree with my Bridgewinners post. I was hoping that my statement was merely factual and not really capable of being agreed with or not.

https://worlduniversity.fide.com/docs/F ... id_UPD.pdf

This is FIDE's official statement. You will see what they say about the burden of proof, and they explicitly say that the FPP's decision does not mean that there is, or is not, sufficient proof to found a finding of actual cheating.

On the question of how the Regan test deals with opening preparation, my understanding is that in round terms it simply does not consider any moves which have been previously played according to Megabase (I do not know about correspondence databases). There may be refinements, but that is the basic principle.

If a case comes before the FPC, of course, a player is given an opportunity to defend themselves. If the player says that in the game in question my preparation went far beyond the database moves, then the FPC can take that into account. I expect they might ask to see the computer files the player no doubt would have, and perhaps somehow check when they were created. After that they might perhaps ask Ken to rerun his tests with the moves which were claimed to be preparation excluded. This is all speculation; as far as I know the situation hasn't arisen, and if it did it would be up to the investigative committee which had been formed for the particular referral to decide what weight to place on the claim that many moves had been preparation, how to investigate it factually, and how to proceed after that.

In an FPP, there is no time for that and typically the player is not asked for his or her comments. So it is true that if a player plays a game which is in fact entirely opening preparation he or she might come under suspicion unjustly and have no opportunity to rebut that suspicion before a decision was made. That is not this case, of course, as far as I know.

John Cox
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by John Cox » Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:36 am

>So speaking to the accused player about their moves reveals little new information.

I understand your point, but in specific cases this is not always true. If you look at FIDE's statement, it speaks of four things. Two of them are computer analysis (the Regan test and the platform's algorithms). These are basically quantitative and I agree that an interview is not likely to assist much with them. A third is 'expert GM opinion'. What that tends to mean is GMs considering the game(s) and giving their opinion that the plan adopted is too sophisticated for the level of player concerned, or that certain moves approved by the computer are 'computer moves' which a human would not think of, or not typical for this class of player. A famous example which was much talked about on line was the move ...Kf8 played by a Polish junior player.

In this latter case, it is always useful if possible to interview the player and ask the player about the moves in question. If they reply, for example, that a move came into their head because they saw a similar move in such and such a game recently, or that they studied such positions with their coach and knew this move was useful or that this was the plan in such positions, and can prove it, that is useful. Or they may give a reason which makes it apparent that they simply got lucky and did not even notice the tactical justification of the move. And, on the other side, if they flounder hopelessly, that is also useful.

In general, it is always useful to interview the player (if they are reasonably fluent in English, of course). Like evidence in court, it is much easier to assess people when you see them speak than on paper.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Nick Ivell » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:37 am

I know very little about bridge, so can I please ask: what IS self-kibitzing?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:42 am

Nick Ivell wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:37 am
I know very little about bridge, so can I please ask: what IS self-kibitzing?
Joining as a spectator to a table you're playing at so you can see all four hands.

Bridge Base Online can't ban spectators, and I guess its just hard to catch it when its all going through a website.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:06 am

John Cox wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:36 am
In general, it is always useful to interview the player (if they are reasonably fluent in English, of course).
The comment in brackets seems to me extremely poorly worded. :oops: