Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Paul Cooksey]

I was very upset to be accused of bullying by Justin.

I do not accept the accusation is true. But I don't want to be involved in a discussion where that accusation can occur and poor judgement on my part to allow it. I have deleted my posts from this thread and will rethink my use of this forum.

[JustinHorton]

Fourth question (or kind of two questions). Cheating comes with the risk of being caught, and the longer Grifter cheats for, the greater that chance. How long is he going to keep it up? Until he gets caught, until fingers start getting pointed (but, he hopes, before he actually gets caught) or until he's reached some previously-agreed target which he may or may not be able to stick to?

Now if he stops, what happens then? His Elo slides by a lot of points - and the more effective the cheating, the bigger the slide - he starts making more errors, people stsrt talking if they were not talking before. Perhaps better not to stop after all? But if he carries on indefinitely....

Also, what is the effect on his play of worrying about being caught? I've never seen this commented on, and my guess is that it might be substantial at first, but wear off as time goes on (though by the same token, increasing confidence may lead to recklessness). But it's not clear to me that it's something you're getting for nothing.

[NickFaulks]

I was very upset to be accused of bullying by Justin.

For heaven's sake, Paul, many of us have faced worse, just ignore it. To be honest, I generally find Justin's posts constructive and have no idea why this thread has gone in such a bad direction.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Some of us aren't impressed with appeals to authority in general, and with regard to this topic in particular.

Just something to bear in mind.

[Ian Thompson]

Question 1 - not something that I've considered. Other people seem to think it would be of significant benefit.

Question 2 - I'd assumed they'd be told every time a game changing move is a possibility. Unless the cheating method is foolproof, the more times they're prompted, the more likely it is they'll get caught. Depending on the method of cheating, the cheat might be able to fix how many times they're told in a game.

Question 3 - this is a specific example of question 1. I'd have thought the answer is yes, they're going to miss things. If they, for example, see a sacrifice which is sound but not quite game winning, the absence of a buzz might cause them to incorrectly think it's unsound for some reason they haven't seen.

[NickFaulks]

Mutual blindnesses are fairly common at all levels, where a player follows an obvious plan, foreseen by both, but with a faulty move order. Quite often their opponent will not give this much thought, but will simply transpose back to the line they had been expecting. A buzz of some sort would be very helpful.

I know I've had plenty of these, and before the days when games are routinely put into a computer I'm sure that many never even got noticed.

[Roger de Coverly]

Engines already tell spectators the advantage in the current position and the prospective advantage if the best moves are subsequently played, so the information is readily available to pass on to the player.

One might speculate that a small minority of online players in the quiet and privacy of their study were doing this. Playing the game themselves but also spectating on their own game. So if the commentary aka the watching Stockfish came up with something, they would know about it. There were various bans during the period when online chess was the only game in town,

I don't think it can completely work OTB because it's not possible or at least very difficult to continuously monitor the commentary.

[JustinHorton]

Question 1 - not something that I've considered. Other people seem to think it would be of significant benefit.

Question 2 - I'd assumed they'd be told every time a game changing move is a possibility. Unless the cheating method is foolproof, the more times they're prompted, the more likely it is they'll get caught. Depending on the method of cheating, the cheat might be able to fix how many times they're told in a game.

Question 3 - this is a specific example of question 1. I'd have thought the answer is yes, they're going to miss things. If they, for example, see a sacrifice which is sound but not quite game winning, the absence of a buzz might cause them to incorrectly think it's unsound for some reason they haven't seen.

OK. Now I would suugest that, absent any research on the question, while "other people seem to think it would be of significant benefit" is definitely true, what they "think" is not in fact of great value. It might be of significant benefit. Or we might find that in fact gamechanging moves within your definition (or maybe any other) which are not found in practice, but which are found if a nudge is available, and which do change the result, are less common than some people are supposing.

Now obviously researching this wouldn't be straightforward, but at least the availability of such moves could be tested by, say, going through a high-status tournament using a computer with the criteria you suggest. (I can also see how one could research the likelihood of top players successfully using the nudge, but it would be very hard to arrange.)

My gut feeling is that given all the various ways this could go wrong, it might be better for Grifter not to bother in the first place, and partly for this reason, I am unpersuaded that people are bothering in the first place. But of course this could be wrong.

[NickFaulks]

I am unpersuaded that people are bothering in the first place.

I am broadly in agreement, but here is the opposing argument.

It wouldn't take many players cheating at the top level to cause massive disruption to the whole game. As we are seeing, a single questionable case can do that.

Also, if there were just one, this would be a highly unusual individual who would not necessarily follow the cost / benefit logic you have described.

[Paul Cooksey]

I was very upset to be accused of bullying by Justin.

For heaven's sake, Paul, many of us have faced worse, just ignore it. To be honest, I generally find Justin's posts constructive and have no idea why this thread has gone in such a bad direction.

Justin has often used the trick of requiring others to disprove his assertions, instead of attempting to prove them himself. His conclusion might be right or wrong, but I think his reasoning was disingenuous. It made me cross.

But this isn't my problem. My problem is the one people often raise about this forum, that if you roll in the mud with a pig you both get dirty but only the pig enjoys it. I don't want to be the sort of person who rolls in the mud, and I definitely don't want to become the pig. So I am going to take a break for a bit.

[Roger de Coverly]

An editorial in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ven-guilty

I do not think there is anything new but it contains a number of links to other material.

[JustinHorton]

Also, it ends

any repeated cheating in the rarefied conditions of elite tournaments would soon be exposed

which is kind of the point at issue rather than settled fact. (I mean, I largely agree, but it's a view that could presumably be overturned precisely as a result of that rnquiry.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

This is interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciXhruTAsjE

[Nick Burrows]

https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/did- ... dium=email

[NickFaulks]

https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/did- ... dium=email

Yes, but this only tells us what we already knew. Anyone using Lets Check as evidence of cheating is dishonest and doesn't care who knows it.