With all the cheating scandals and allegations (from amateur to professional and even world championship level) flying through various chess forums and the media, the questions are:
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
Should more be done or should we leave things be?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
“Medal detectors” is a hilarious typo if I may notice:
hehehe
yeah…
we only allow non winners to play
& if he has won some “medal”
can’t bring it to the match
😉
One thing i havent heard mentioned is these players communicating amongst one another during games. In particular the GM’s like to talk in foreign languages amongst one another. This should not be allowed as well. If they have something they need to discuss amongst one another they should both go to the director and only then discuss whatever they need to.
Susan what was the result of the big conference held a week or so ago at the Marshall Chess Club on this topic of cheating.
I would like to first hear what the experts are saying.
I am not sure about the meeting at the Marshall Chess Club.
Perhaps Mr. Jon Jacobs can let us know.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Please lets not make jokes. we all get this confused at times.
medal is like an olympic gold medal.
metal is like iron and steel and aluminimum and copper metal.
One of the rules of internet chats is that you are not expected to spell words correctly and mis-spellings are not suppose to be pointed out. same on grammar. so please be nice.
Well, here’s an idea I had during the wc match. Each player must be giving ‘stream of conciousness’ information after each and every move. They should be citing what they perceive to be key lines, explaining their rationale and choices, etc. This would not have to be very elaborate – a player could record comments on video in a private area, or jot down some scribbled notes, or make entries into an electronic pad.
Transcripts of these notes would be made available after the game to the tournament directors, and could be used if a result is questioned. I don’t think a player ducking into a bathroom for a minute could have obtained this sort of explanation from a hidden computer or transmitter; there wouldn’t be time. And remember – some data would have to be provided after every single move – not 4 times per game, not 20 times per game. And the time control can be adjusted accordingly to make time for this.
Sounds like a bit ‘too much’? Well, that’s what this thread is about – the cheaters have radically changed the nature of competitive chess at every level, and sadly some drastic measures must be taken to preserve this pasttime.
Susan, I am bothered this morning by what, in my opinion, is another form of chess cheating–the absurdly early draw.
This morning, in Round 2 of the Carlos Torre Memorial Tournament, I watched GM Jaan Ehlvest (2597, USA) and IM Julian Estrada Nieto (2379, MEX) played this abbreviated Queen’s Gambit Accepted:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bxc4 e6 5.Nf3 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.dxc5 ½-½
Patzer that I am, I would be ashamed to have such a game published under my name. Do you agree?
This type of game cheats spectators, sponsors, and players alike. There must be some way, through penalties, rewards, or simple peer pressure, to convince these players that quick draws belong in pistol matches and not chess matches.
>>- Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
>>
Probably no. It was too late to change the rules in mid match last time, but with the World Open incident, and the Sharma case, stricter measures have to be taken. At San Luis managers sat a few feet away from players with Fritz running on open laptops, perfectly capable of signalling moves, or at the very least attitudes (“My manager looks happpy. Fritz must like my position.”).
That doesn’t mean that anything untoward actually happened, but the potential was there. GM events can’t be run that loosely.
As I understand it, Elista had metal detectors and radio jamming equipment in place. A rest-room attendant might not be out of order (insert pun here). Players are used to having the right to be totally out of sight for a while, but the advance of technology may necessitate that right going the way of the adjournment (in the real world, they’d say “the way of the Do-Do”).
>>
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
>>
Nah. Restroom attendants, as well as the other precautions, should be enough.
>>
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
>>
In a large Open, probably no. In a super-GM event, yeah. It’s small enough to take more detailed precautions.
>>
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
>>
I thought they already had them. The USCF doesn’t seem to have done anything about the two World Open perpetrators, but they certainly have the power to.
However, they should probably codify the rules more specifically, though. In the World Open, Mr. R, was caught with physical evidence, but Mr. V wasn’t. Does that mean they should be dealt with differently? The rules should be written to be more clear about what levels of proof are needed to enforce what penalties. Should physical evidence be necessary to expel a player from the USCF, and if so, what kind?
In Mr. V’s case, even without physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear. If you study all his games from the event, it seems virtually impossible that the guy who went down almost without a fight those last two rounds was the same person who beat Smirin in a nearly perfect game the round before. The person playing in those last two games seemed to be about 1600 strength. Still, that’s a judgment call. Is that enough to suspend a player? Or should physical evidence be required, and if so, how much? In Mr. R’s case, what about people who really do need hearing aids?
Even if they aren’t suspended, Messers R and V should at least be on a list available to all organizers, as people who have been involved in previous incidents, so that future organizers will know to watch them more carefully. It’s absurd that someone could be caught wearing a Phonito at the World Open, be kicked out, and if the incident hadn’t made the mainstream news, the person could simply try his luck again in another large open run by another organizer.
As the World Open cases show, bathroom breaks aren’t the real issue. Both R and V appear to have received information electronically while sitting at the board.
And, as the Topalov incident showed, players can damage the game with spurious accusations just as surely as they can by cheating. Penalties have to be clearly in place to protect players from being falsely accused. A player who jumps up on the table at the World Open, and yells “My opponent is cheating!”, should be expelled from the tournament just as surely as if he had cheated himself. And if he goes to the newspapers in between rounds and tells them that his last round opponent cheated, then mere expulsion from the tournament may not be enough.
I feel cheaters should have punitive damages and expulsion for at least 2 years and then be on a list for 3 years.
Bathroom breaks should not be controlled.
No communication devices allowed period in a tournament.
These are pertinent questions and the answers quite simple:
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
A: NO, absolutely. However, the implementation of this rule might only be feasible in tournaments with considerable budgets – higher level tournaments.
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
A: YES. Exceptions can be handled in a case-by-case basis and with a medical prescription.
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
A: DEFINITELY YES! Moreover, a full search for pocket sets must be also allowed.
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
A: YES and simple – completely ban them forever.
Should more be done or should we leave things be?
A: The Kramnik-Topalov match is an alarming precedent. Contracts need to be signed including anti-cheating clauses to the deepest possible detail.
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
Yes.
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
It acceptable that some people have medical conditions or temporary illnesses that would require frequent breaks.
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
None should be subject to metal detectors.
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
Abosolutely.
Detailed definitions of what is considered cheating.
1 year ban for first offense.
Lifetime ban for second offense.
>>
A: The Kramnik-Topalov match is an alarming precedent. Contracts need to be signed including anti-cheating clauses to the deepest possible detail.
>>
It had some pretty detailed procedures in place. This falls more under my final point, about false accusations damaging the game.
According to what Topalov said in the Game 6 Press Conference, he basically lost his head and made a mistake, no doubt spooked by the result of the first two games. To those of us who can be more objective about it, it’s obvious that nothing other than Topalov himself caused him to overreach in Game 1, or to overlook the easy mate in Game 2. But when you’re there under the gun, so to speak, facing the pressure of the conflict, things can appear differently. Ironically, Topalov himself suffered from similar accusations by people spooked by the result of San Luis, but who also had no real evidence.
With the current climate, anyone having a bad run is likely to imagine his opponent is cheating, whether they are or not. But to allow panic to rule the day is to chase players and sponsors alike away from the game. Ironically, thanks to his prominence, Topalov himself probably did more damage to the game with his unfounded accusations, than Sharma did by actually cheating.
Jerry McDonald wrote:
Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
>>
What’s so bad about metal detectors? I have to go through one every time I go to an amusement park. I don’t see making a GM walk through one as a terrible inconvenience.
>>
Susan, I am bothered this morning by what, in my opinion, is another form of chess cheating–the absurdly early draw.
>>
When Capablanca and Rubinstein agreed to a 13 move draw at London 1922, the press suggested exactly that; that it might be a form of cheating. That the public was looking forward to those games and they deliberately refused to play them.
But it’s hard to blame the players. In a tournament, points are money. You can’t give players the right to print their own money (in effect), and expect them not to use that right.
In football, there’s a saying that you should never take points off the board. If you kick a Field Goal, but the opposing team is penalized, do you take those 3 points off the board, and try for the touchdown (and risk coming up totally empty?). Or do you figure that 3 points in the hand is better than 7 points in the bush and keep the Field Goal? A lot of coaches simply will not take points off the board to gamble them for even more. Similarly, how often does a team go for the 2point conversion when there’s no special reason to? Not very often. The 1 “sure” point is better than the iffy 2 points.
A draw offer puts players in the same situation. The draw offer, in effect puts a half point “on the board”. It’s yours. To keep playing means to take that half point back off the board, and risk losing everything. If football players hate to do it, we can only be so hard on chess players. Especially if the person receiving the offer is playing Black.
As a result, the draw offer can actually be used as a winning attempt in odd situations. If you’re in a slightly inferior, but ultimately safe position, a draw offer (that you know will be refused) can be used to goad your opponent into unwarranted aggression.
Probably the best answer is the Sofia Rule. Don’t let players print their own money, let the arbiters make the final call about whether a game can be drawn.
“Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?”
No. At the highest level when big money and prestige is on the line it is ridiculous to think that players should be allowed to be either off camera or without supervision. You can have your privacy before and after the game. If you want to participate in the olympics then expect to pee in a cup. If you want to participate in the chess world championships then don’t expect to be able to spend half the game off camera and without supervision.
“Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?”
No. If a player went in his/her pants then it would look pretty bad.
“Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?”
I don’t see why not.
“Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?”
Absolutely.
Graeme said…
>>
It had some pretty detailed procedures in place. This falls more under my final point, about false accusations damaging the game.
>>
That’s unfortunately not the point. Even if that is what happened in that match, that does not answer the general question. In the event that Kramnik had been in fact cheating (I am not saying the was) the organization was not ready to prove he was nor were there enough measures to eliminate cheating from him or anyone in his place in the future. That is the point of the bad precedent, regardless of whether or not there is willingness of bad accusations.
There shouldn’t be a private area while the match is ongoing, just as in any other sport
There should be a limit in the number of times a player is allowed to abandon the arena, just as in any other sport
Simple as that
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
No
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
Yes
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
Yes
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
Yes
Mr Cat:Each player must be giving ‘stream of conciousness’ information after each and every move.
————————–
Topalov:”1.e4. Bobby said that it was best by test. I like it because I’m Topalov, muahahaha (sorry for writing my amusement, this is my stream of consciousness requested by Mr Cat). Play might continue with 1…e4 (open game which will lead to many lines), 2.Nf3(logical developing move)or maybe 2.f4(if I feel like I suddenly want to surprise him with the King’s Gambit!), then after 2.Nf3 Nf6 (wait, didn’t he play the Petroff against Fritz X?)3.Bb5…
You get the point. Are you telling them to indirectly write a book of the match?
Gabor said…
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
BUT GABOR WHY WAS KRAMNIK ALLOWED TO DO THAT AT THE LAST WORLD TITLES
Renzo – IncaKing @ ICC said…
That’s unfortunately not the point. Even if that is what happened in that match, that does not answer the general question.
>>
Which general question do you mean? If you’re talking about lax security, it unfortunately wasn’t a precedent. The security in Elista was actually a lot stronger than at San Luis, where players were allowed to be in visual contact with people who had Fritz open on their laptops. The game has to move with the times. Elista’s security was pretty good, but we need even better if chess is to survive.
The only real “precedent” at Elista was a player being allowed to make public accusations and get away with it. They’re going to try to ignore it and pretend it never happened this time, but the next time, but obviously this kind of thing can’t be allowed to go on, or the game is dead.
>>
In the event that Kramnik had been in fact cheating (I am not saying the was) the organization was not ready to prove he was nor were there enough measures to eliminate cheating from him or anyone in his place in the future. That is the point of the bad precedent, regardless of whether or not there is willingness of bad accusations.
>>
They seemed fairly prepared. They had metal detectors and anti-radio equipment. Both players and rest areas were thoroughly searched before the games. If you want examples of lax security, this was, unfortunately, one of the better events for such things. Possibly the best to date. Most are much worse.
Now, was it good enough? Probably not. I think in the long run, the right of players to be completely unsupervised during a game is going to have to go bye-bye. Even before the computer age, this was occasionally an an issue. There was a famous incident where Lasker disappeared for 20 minutes during the opening of a game. Some said he went to his hotel to check an opening book, but there was no evidence of any such thing. As often happens with rumors, somebody simply made up a story out of thin air, and started passing it around. But that’s the way rumor works. People talk even without evidence. To survive, the game has to insulate itself from that sort of thing. It’s even more of an issue now, with pocket computers and large sums of money involved. Lots of players get very restless when not on the move, and tend to roam around, but that may have to change.
Graeme said…
>>
Which general question do you mean? If you’re talking about lax security, it unfortunately wasn’t a precedent. The security in Elista was actually a lot stronger than at San Luis, where players were allowed to be in visual contact with people who had Fritz open on their laptops.
>>
My friend, you miss the whole point. I am not talking about searching people for electronic devices, metal detectors, etc. I was not even comparing secutiry scheme in Elista with that in San Luis or any other previous event.
The point resides on how vulnerable an event is to situations as the one that appeared in Elista, where it can easily get out of control. It was a comedy of errors that I will not even try to summarize here as that is not the point (regardless you are clearly biased towards Kramnik) and it was exhaustively discussed before.
Bottom line is that the event organization needs to ensure that if a player is even suspicious of cheating it should provide the infrastructure and other means (including contractual) to (1) prove that and (2) avoid the situation getting out of your hands.
If you want more detail, read my comments during the Elista events. I hope you finally got the point.
Renzo dude,
You need to prove someone cheated. Not that someone did not cheat. False accusiations with ABSOLUTELY no proof is wrong.
– Vinay
I think Elista had sufficient security to ensure against cheating occuring.
Private rest areas (monitored & searched) are okay in big events.
The real question is unmonitored areas, such as bathrooms, the possibility of attended bathrooms may have to be a sad necessity. I personally feel sorry for the person who has to spend 6 hours standing/sitting in a smelly toilet though.
Metal detectors are okay, but I doubt they would show up the sort of modern transmission and electronics devices that are available. It may be necessary to institute body/clothing searches.
Tournament entry forms should have a section where players MUST sign to permit their clothing and possessions to be searched for electronics.
There should also be a ‘cloakroom’ where players can turn in any electronic devices before the start of the game, with the stipulation that if any electronics are found during the game will result in HEAVY PENALTIES.
There should be a BLACKLIST that is accessible via the internet and maybe a program that will automatically search a list of players for blacklisted players. All cheaters should be blacklisted for life, so that tournament organisers will know who they are.
First offense should result in a MULTI-YEAR BAN and being kicked out of their chess federation. There should be a LARGE fine, in the order of several thousand dollars, in order to be readmitted to their federation AFTER the ban wears off. The second offense should result in a PERMANENT BAN.
some 5 posts up, there was an anonymous reply to my ‘stream of consciousness’ suggestion.
Answer: yes. This is in regards to writing a book. In fact, these notes COULD be used after editing as an official book of the match (kind of like the famous ‘Second Piatagursky Cup’.
I am simply playing with ideas that could ensure that each player in a match is generating their own moves and strategies; one that doesn’t turn a Chess match into a terrorist security alert. The idea was to defeat being fed a move by a computer, or signalled by an individual. A player would have to be able to justify the ‘thinking’ behind the move – even erroneous thinking (and this could be instructive).
I won’t offer a sample now of move annotations. One could see the book above, or Chernev’s ‘Logical Chess Move by Move’, or even any of Pandolfini’s ‘Solitaire Chess’ columns as examples. The poster didn’t like my idea, but apparently didn’t have one of his own to offer. Many other ‘obvious’ suggestions have been hashed over in this thread, and elsewhere.
”A CHESS PLAYER SHOULD NOT BE TAKING REGULAR WALKS IN A SMALL TOILET WITH THE DOORS CLOSED”!!!
>>”Medal detectors” is a hilarious typo if I may notice:>>
Yeah, it looks like Muttley won’t be allowed in.
Kramnik is a farce, people say they want proof, He claims he was taking walks in the toilet, but the door was closed. I think we have a naive public that enjoy being ‘lied to’. There are so many things that strongly imply Kramnik’s behaviour was suspicious. You Kramnik supporters just choose to have a blind eye, ”equivalent to a Wife who knows her husband is cheating on her but accepts the lies he tells her because she has not caught him on camera” yet she has many other signs of evidence. Jeezus Christ … open you eyes. Kramnik has Dubious, Powerful freinds and Russia is desperate to hold their title, they have done so for 70 years (Excluding Fischer) and intend to go on for another Generation, and will do everything in thier Power to do so. PUBLIC PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN FOR ONCE AND SEE THE LIGHT.
>>
Vinay said…
Renzo dude,
You need to prove someone cheated. Not that someone did not cheat. False accusiations with ABSOLUTELY no proof is wrong.
– Vinay
>>
Of course it’s wrong. Not only wrong, but a direct violation of FIDE Ethics Rules. See, for example, this page:
http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10
Read Rules 2.2.9 and 3.2 carefully, to see what FIDE could have done to Topalov if they’d wanted to get rough about it.
But, at the same time, an event does need to be able to protect itself and maintain a clean image. It’s wrong to accuse without evidence, nevertheless, people do it. Gossip is part of human nature. An event has to conduct itself so well that the gossip has no plausibility.
Elista isn’t really a good example. The security in place there was actually pretty good. The crisis was precipitated by Topalov losing his head (I’m not putting words into his mouth, he said the same thing himself in one of the Press Conferences).
So, let’s look at San Luis. The security there was extremely lax, and very easy to circumvent. As a result, a couple of disgruntled players started circulating rumors afterwards that Topalov’s remarkable first half result was due to computer assistance on his own part, and the rumor has floated around ever since then.
Now, you can say it’s wrong to talk about him that way, and you’d be right. Nevertheless, people have talked about him that way, wrong or not.
Wouldn’t it be better if it could be said that the security at San Luis was so good, that a player couldn’t have cheated even if he wanted to? That would have provided Topalov (or whoever won) with protection against such talk. The more implausible a rumor appears, the less mileage it gets.
It’s like the real world. You can say that burglary is wrong, but you lock your doors anyway, because you know that people still do it. Similarly, in chess, accusing people of misconduct without evidence is wrong, but since we know people do it anyway, we do the best we can to neutralize it. Strong tournament security is just another form of locking our doors.
There is one solution for the computer cheating fear in chess and I think sooner or later it will come: allow the use of computers.
The problem is: will all computers be equally fast? will players come with their own equipment or tournaments will have to provide laptops for all.
All this is impossible in any level below closed, invitational events. How would you enforce this on an open? well maybe poor players who does not have a laptop will not play.
– Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
Answer: If anyone follows me into the loo during a game, she better be young, blond, and stacked.
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game (perhaps 2-4 times in the first time control, then 1 -2 times for each additional time control)?
Answer: Limits are ridiculous, If an opposing player wants to watch cartoons while waiting to move, what’s the problem, it’s his or her time to waste.
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
Upon demand, ALL female players MUST go through MY personal full body search.
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
Off with their heads!
Should ANY player be allowed to have access to private, unattended rest area?
Yes Under condition that it willbe under hidden recorded camera with access only to the organisers.
– Should ALL players be limited to X amount of bathroom breaks per game …
Yes Instead, players should be restricted to stay at least 50% of the time at the chess board (automatically controlled by an electronic timer, the players should be warned when they are reach 40% absence to stay more at the chess board). Chess is a game of two physically present players
– Should ALL players have to go through metal detectors?
Yes The purpose is no so much to catch but rather to prevent attempts and calm down anxieties. Unfortunately today computers and communication technologies become too powerful and have to be taken in consideration.
– Should National Federations and FIDE come up with written rules / severe penalties for violators?
Yes Cheater should be severely penalised both with long bans (at least 5 years) from tournaments and with sweeping out all their ELO points, as they are the ultimate disgrace for our beautiful game.
>>the only way to solve it is by having the organizers stop inviting people who do not fight hard on the board.
So Drawnik must be excluded from all tournaments.
”A CHESS PLAYER SHOULD NOT BE TAKING REGULAR WALKS IN A SMALL TOILET WITH THE DOORS CLOSED”!!!
And linked to internet with a cable hidden under the roof tiles (precedent:Elista)