Carlsen resigns on move 2

[JustinHorton]

If the technology existed 15 years ago, and we haven't found anybody using it or confessing to have used it as you suggest, it might be rather less my opinion and rather more actually existing reality.

I mean it really might be that there are considerable practical difficulties in operating an effective smart-cheating system, and that these are worth thrashing through, as I suggested some pages back.

Or we could not bother, and all assume that something is widespread that might not be happening at all, but that's what people call a moral panic, and it's a procedure best avoided.

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

DP Singh was a 2700 player who added 50 points to his rating by smart cheating?

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

. Are you switching your argument to even if it is possible a 2700 player would not cheat?

No, you're switching your argument. You haven't bothered with mine at all.

(Where you get "even if it is possible a 2700 player would not cheat" I have no idea.)

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

Just before you kick off, this was your quesion.

Would you accept there is still a problem if it is possible for someone to cheat in an elite event, even if it is unknown whether anyone has done?

Given that neither Ivanov nor Dp Singh has ever played an elite event, why are you using them as examples to bolster your thesis?

I really would prefer that you didn't ask me one question and then use my answer as if I had replied to a different one.

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

Paul, I set out my argment in three short parts, I don't think I need to add or clarify anything, it just needs to be read as I wrote it.

[NickFaulks]

Honestly, I think the technology existed 15 years ago.

With or without an outside accomplice?

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[Paul Cooksey]

.

[JustinHorton]

I understand asking me to respond to specific points framing the argument in a particularly way is a trap, but I have not yet seen how it catches me so I am going to blunder into it

I think I would be more than justified in responding to this sort of thing simply by not bothering further, but here we go.

I agree there are some difficulties, but these have been overcome by people who have wanted to cheat in the past.

I don't think this is really true where elite events are concerned (it's not like Rausis for instance). Feller, for instance, got caught.

I do not understand the difference between this and point a

Well to be fair I've had a few shots at it on this thread, but maybe it's best answered in the first instance with some questions. As Nick says above, are you going to use an accomplice? What (if there is an accomplice) are going to be your criteria and your means of communicating? What kinds of things, including but not limited to misunderstandings, could go wrong? What results are we expecting to achieve and is it actually realistic to expect them? Finally, will having this set-up at your disposal affect your play when you are not immediately employing it?

(The reason I am saying this stuff is that all kinds of people are saying this would be simple to do and it seems plain to me that it would actually be quite complex. I do not see anybody dealing with the likely real-life difficulties that we can imagine arising. As I say, this is a point I have made on this thread.)

c. this would depend on the motivation of the cheater and their goal but does not seem an impediment to someone cheating in any given event

That's plausible, but somebody rocking up to a tournament, cheating once and then never doing it again does not seem to be the model that is worrying people, does it? And it is certainly not going to get anybody into the elite or to significantly improve their standing there.

[Roger de Coverly]

With or without an outside accomplice?

I rather think that's a key point. At amateur events more could be done if it needs to be. Running a delay on the live analysis would reduce or cut out casual cheating where access to a phone or computer with the coverage is all that's needed to give a player assistance.

Arbiters have kept fairly quiet about the risk, but at elite events aren't they the weakest link? Alone amongst players and spectators they have access to computers and the live coverage along with being in eyeshot of players. Some make a specific point of not following game commentaries whilst the games are in progress.

Without an accomplice, the problem to be solved by the cheater is how to communicate moves to an engine and how to get back the suggestions, all without being seen by arbiters, spectators or the opponent. There's also a consistency problem as if it was necessary to play without assistance, would the resulting drop in playing quality appear outside normal fluctuations?

A name that appeared earlier was the bottom board of 6 for his country at an Olympiad, now some years ago. He played in the first round, lost and sat out the rest of the tournament.

[Paul Cooksey]

.