Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Paolo Casaschi]

You didn't miss much by not being able to read it.

I agree, there's not much new insight in that article.

However, I find disturbing what Rogoff suggests to happen after the proposed match to resolve the issue: if Niemann does not beat Magnus he would be outed as a cheater and would "voluntarily take a one-year hiatus from chess". Instead if Niemann proves he can beat Magnus in a match, then "Carlsen would agree to apologise in writing and retract previous remarks and insinuations".
One year ban for Niemann vs an apology from Carlsen. Once again evidence how the chess world is biased in favour of someone against someone else.

[NickFaulks]

but you have to wonder how long people are going to feel able to say stuff like this without either the evidence to back it up or any effective pushback.

By the way, I have felt that Ramirez' simpering questions to other players of "you are playing Niemann in round x, this must be very unsettling for you and how are you handling it?" have been beyond disgusting. Assuming St Louis chess survives this, I hope never to see the little creep there again - in future years, obviously.

It has been quite clear that Ramirez has all along seen this as a path to making a journalistic breakthrough by getting Niemann convicted as a cheat.

As I have been saying ad nauseam, the solution lies with CAS.

[Matt Mackenzie]

You didn't miss much by not being able to read it.

I agree, there's not much new insight in that article.

However, I find disturbing what Rogoff suggests to happen after the proposed match to resolve the issue: if Niemann does not beat Magnus he would be outed as a cheater and would "voluntarily take a one-year hiatus from chess". Instead if Niemann proves he can beat Magnus in a match, then "Carlsen would agree to apologise in writing and retract previous remarks and insinuations".
One year ban for Niemann vs an apology from Carlsen. Once again evidence how the chess world is biased in favour of someone against someone else.

Carlsen would be expected to beat Niemann in any case, shurely?

Not convinced it is a useful or practicable idea anyway, but "Niemann performing at about his current rating" might be a better yardstick.

[Chris Rice]

In Titled Tuesday last night in round 10 the following "game" was played: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5926745 ... pr-It-g4-g Mamedov, who was white, had just beaten Hikaru and was leading the tournament on 8/9 with two rounds to go. This "win" helped Magnus to win the tournament with 9.5/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kheK31x ... ChessGames

Ive just had a look at this. if you go to 1hr 52min 30sec on the video.

You see Mamedovs clock going down to 2.49, then up to 2.59 after making his 1st move, then another couple of seconds before the resignation.
It looks like he had connection issues. But unsure why the resignation

or maybe meant to offer a draw and hit resign by accident?

Thanks for that. It's interesting to see what happened even if we don't know why.

We do now. Mamedov resigned because he felt Carlsen was mocking the other players though apparently if Nakamura had done it then that would be ok. What?

[Roger de Coverly]

Mamedov resigned because he felt Carlsen was mocking the other players though apparently if Nakamura had done it then that would be ok.

He doesn't play in tournaments with Basman then.

[Mick Norris]

Chess Mind has a link to a video explaining how easy it is to cheat OTB

I was hesitant to publicize the video (though of course all my readers are scrupulously honest), but it’s likely that in a general way many readers already knew about this in a general if not a specific way, and those who are really determined to cheat will easily find the info they need on the interwebz without my help. But the main reason why I mention it is that the better known these methods are, the sooner the good guys can come up with some solutions - and the sooner they will be forced to find solutions. There is Bluetooth jamming, for instance; those of you who know more about these matters are invited to weigh in. Is jamming effective and affordable? Will the black hats be able to work around that without bankrupting themselves?

[Roger de Coverly]

Chess Mind has a link to a video explaining how easy it is to cheat OTB

Needs a collaborator though, A low tech way of monitoring that would be to pay attention to anyone accompanying a player to every match and tournament if there was no immediately obvious reason why they would be there.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Chess Mind has a link to a video explaining how easy it is to cheat OTB

Needs a collaborator though, A low tech way of monitoring that would be to pay attention to anyone accompanying a player to every match and tournament if there was no immediately obvious reason why they would be there.

It’s getting quite ingenious/devious. I would never have thought of hiding a metal receiver behind a metal button, so a positive scan detection wouldn’t even matter. I think later in the video he was talking about a two way link with a computer, so presumably that could be running in a hotel room without actually needing an accomplice? It all sounds like a lot of work, but I think people at lower levels might sometimes do crazy stuff like this just to get some big accomplishments in their lives.

[Mick Norris]

Yes, he's saying in the video you don't need an accomplice

Quite scary

[MartinCarpenter]

Chess Mind has a link to a video explaining how easy it is to cheat OTB

Needs a collaborator though, A low tech way of monitoring that would be to pay attention to anyone accompanying a player to every match and tournament if there was no immediately obvious reason why they would be there.

It’s getting quite ingenious/devious. I would never have thought of hiding a metal receiver behind a metal button, so a positive scan detection wouldn’t even matter. I think later in the video he was talking about a two way link with a computer, so presumably that could be running in a hotel room without actually needing an accomplice? It all sounds like a lot of work, but I think people at lower levels might sometimes do crazy stuff like this just to get some big accomplishments in their lives.

That computer can be tiny these days! A second cpu etc within a switched off mobile would be easily possible & strong enough. Or sewn into clothing somehow , or....

If you've got a computer then you do need to get the move from the board to it.

Slightly difficult at least. I mentioned a bunch of ways you might do that way up thread, they're non trivial but far from insane if you're presuming intelligent effort.

Yes, it is a bit scary if you stop and think about it - as Carlsen & various super GM's quoted upthread have I think concluded! Look at something like the state organised doping regimes that Russia did for some sports. Those needed quite a bit more.

[NickFaulks]

Quite scary

Perhaps, but nothing remotely new. He is saying that all you have to do is secrete an electronic device on your person which nobody will find unless they actually look. Then you have to twitch many times before and after every move without raising suspicions. You have to do this every game and if you get caught just once you're finished.

I certainly hope there are people within FIDE whose expertise goes way beyond this.

[Roger de Coverly]

Then you have to twitch many times before and after every move without raising suspicions.

You cannot actually make a two character code work. Either short algebraic is needed which would require a representation for pieces, or more likely international postal which needs four characters.

I doubt a very weak player could make it work reliably. A strong player on the other hand perhaps, but they would still have to input the position every move even if they only consulted the engine intermittently. There is the question as to how secure is the broadcast from the sensory board.

[Geoff Chandler]

Yes, he's saying in the video you don't need an accomplice
Quite scary

Don't worry about it Mick, use plan A.

Plan A,
In future only play in tournaments where Hans is playing as that guarantees the security there will be top notch.

[NickFaulks]

He is saying that all you have to do is secrete an electronic device on your person which nobody will find unless they actually look. Then you have to twitch many times before and after every move without raising suspicions. You have to do this every game and if you get caught just once you're finished.

Oh, and by the way you also have to use the moves you are being fed selectively so as to fly under the Regan radar. How does that work?

[Paul Cooksey]

He is saying that all you have to do is secrete an electronic device on your person which nobody will find unless they actually look. Then you have to twitch many times before and after every move without raising suspicions. You have to do this every game and if you get caught just once you're finished.

Oh, and by the way you also have to use the moves you are being fed selectively so as to fly under the Regan radar. How does that work?

I think the way anti-cheating should work is:
1. You control the playing area so a cheat has to bring a device into it.
2. You use the Regan algorithm to detect suspicious players
3. You have good enough detection that a device can be found on a suspicious player

Part 3 probably is an arms race between cheaters and arbiters. I enjoyed the video where a metal detector was circumvented by a few slices of Bologni. But with Part 1 - move delay and control of spectators - I do think the odds are shifted significantly against cheating.

(All assuming you believe cheating is a problem that should be addressed of course...)