Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 03 May '11 05:34
    Chess, the honorable game of kings, has had a markedly dark and diverse history of cheating. The most popular methods of cheating appear to be:

    1. A covert earpiece to receive transmissions from a distant accomplice who is using a supercomputer to suggest moves (ex. 2006 World Open, 2 players were disqualified)

    2. A strong player posing under a weak player’s name to cash in on an easier section (ex. 1993, John von Neumann at the World Open in Philadelphia)

    3. Classical Collusion: A weaker player leaving the board to receive advice from a stronger player (ex. 2002 World Open, 2 Russian players working together)

    4. Taking multiple trips to the bathroom to consult a PDA/chess engine (ex. Alleged and Unproven “Toiletgate” Scandal – 2006 World Championship Match between Topalov & Kramnik: in 1 game Kramnik went to the bathroom more than 50 times)

    5. Internet Chess – Cheating by using a computer program (ex. 2004, GM Arkadi Naiditsch)

    6. Cell phones – principally receiving texts from an accomplice using a computer (ex. 2010, select members of the French Olympiad team)

    So why do players Cheat in Chess?

    Historically there was not much money to be made by winning chess tournaments. However, since Bobby Fischer demanded legitimate prize funds in the mid 20th century to support professional players – tournament wins actually equate to significant prizes. And not just at the top level – The annual World Open in Philadelphia boasts a guaranteed total prize fund of $225,000 USD, with 1st place prizes per section ranging from 12k (U-1300) to 25k (Open section).

    Cheating happens at all levels, and counter-security measures and punishments need to be taken more seriously. As evidenced by the recent scandal involving 3 players from the French Olympiad team in Ukraine, 2010 – cheating may occur at the top level. One of the defendants in this case, Sebastien Feller, won the 2010 Paris Championship with an impressive 8/9 points and a whopping 2859 performance rating. How can organizers and participants be sure that he was not receiving assistance in this tournament as well?

    Preventive measures to counteract cheating in chess need to be given higher priority, and punishments need to be made more severe.


    Prevention
    It appears that the use of radio-frequency/cell phone jamming devices may be necessary at top-level tournaments and tournaments with large cash prizes (such as the World Open in Philadelphia) to prevent the incorrect use of cell phones and covert earpieces. Also, tournament directors need to be more attentive to leading players in later rounds at large prize tournaments, as these players could be receiving assistance via other methods.


    Crime & Punishment
    Apparently the severity of the current punishments for cheating is simply not high enough. The aforementioned French Olympiad players received something along the lines of a 3 year suspension to be followed by 2 years of community service for the French Chess Federation. 5 years is a good amount of time to figure out new ways to thwart the system and cheat your way to the top again. I propose a minimum 10 year ban on anyone caught cheating from their chess federation and FIDE. As this also might not be enough to deter cheating and some players might find it worth the risk in light of the huge cash prizes currently available at select tournaments – how about suggesting a criminal penalty? If a player successfully cheats and wins a prize of over $20,000 USD – he has successfully committed a fraudulent act. For example, for scam-artists caught cheating in tournaments with a single prize of over $5,000 dollars, is there some way to work with local governments to criminally charge Fraud to truly deter cheating? I understand this sounds a bit harsh, however the number of cheaters and scam-artists has certainly not gone down in recent years. There must be a better way to deter this type of nonsense, and apparently kicking players out of tournaments and banning them from local chess organizations is simply not enough.
    Will Stewart - NM - http://www.onlinechesslessons.net
  2. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    03 May '11 07:49 / 2 edits
    In England, Wales and Northern Ireland Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False representation) may apply and get you a max of a year inside at Magistrates Court or 10 years from a Crown Court Judge.

    2 Fraud by false representation

    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

    (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
    (b)intends, by making the representation—

    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

    (2)A representation is false if—

    (a)it is untrue or misleading, and
    (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

    (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

    (a)the person making the representation, or
    (b)any other person.

    (4)A representation may be express or implied.

    (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

    I should think that if you "represent" a computer's moves as your own, you are on the slippery slope if there was a prize at stake.

    It's also interesting to speculate whether, if the "gain" was an RHP T shirt for example, Zygalski's expert evidence would swing the case under the withering attack of the Defence Barrister in a "not guilty" trial, given that the the Crown Prosecution Service would take the case on in the first place. A number of hoops to jump through - prove the user name is the suspect, prove the moves are falsely represented, prove there was intent to gain something tangible, and so on. But the threat of criminal action might deter.

    At OTB tournaments Section 6, "Possession etc. of Articles to Commit Fraud" (earpieces, computers etc) might well be easier to prove.

    No more pocket Fritz on the smart phones in the playing hall, and don't write down any of GP's telephone number codes...

    Sorry Russ, I'm just deleting my Rival Chess Android App as we speak, don't want to be caught in the toilets with it!
  3. 03 May '11 12:12
    Hi Will

    You say Chess has a dark history of cheating but have only
    listed, apart from consulting, the modern electronic methods.

    Adding minutes to a clock whilst you opponent is at the toilet.

    Moving a pawn from h5 to h7 in a pawn race.

    Going to the toilet with a pocket set or one of those slim
    pocket set of opening books.

    Moving a piece and then trying to take back the move.
    (ahem....Mr Kasparov).

    Then there is Moral Cheating.

    OTB grade shedding (Sandbagging). Throwing league games to keep your
    grade low and winning minor tournaments with 100% scores pocketing £100-£200.

    Throwing a game for a fee to enable a player to get his IM or GM norm.

    A group of players not trying too hard against each other
    ensuring members of their group fill the prize winning slots.

    Fischer and the 1962 Candidates which Korchnoi later admitted happened
    spring to mind, but this is quite rife with players agreeing before a
    tournament to split winnings and 'help' each other.

    And Ungentlemanly Cheating.

    It was once considered very bad form to actually analyse adjourned games.

    And Hoffer was most upset with Halprin in his game v Pillsbury Munich 1900
    because Halprin with the help of Marczy dare to prepare his opening moves.

    "...Pillsbury going in to it unconscious that he was playing against analysis."
  4. 03 May '11 14:32
    I've heard of another cheating story, it has something to do with a guy telling his opponent that the opponent made the wrong move, then proceded to make his opponent's move for him.
  5. 03 May '11 15:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Will

    You say Chess has a dark history of cheating but have only
    listed, apart from consulting, the modern electronic methods.

    Adding minutes to a clock whilst you opponent is at the toilet.

    Moving a pawn from h5 to h7 in a pawn race.

    Going to the toilet with a pocket set or one of those slim
    pocket set of opening books.

    Moving a piec ng moves.

    "...Pillsbury going in to it unconscious that he was playing against analysis."
    when did Kaspers try to take his move back?
  6. 03 May '11 15:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    when did Kaspers try to take his move back?
    I don't remember the year (before my chess time), but I'm sure he'll say it was the infamous game with Judith Polgar.

    Edit: Linares 1994
  7. 03 May '11 16:49
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    I don't remember the year (before my chess time), but I'm sure he'll say it was the infamous game with Judith Polgar.

    Edit: Linares 1994
    Lol, Kaspo, getting beat up and then cheating against a lady! the shame of it!
  8. 03 May '11 18:23
    I have always considered a second cheating. Maybe two or more players studing before a match is O.K. but not during a match.
  9. 03 May '11 18:43
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    when did Kaspers try to take his move back?
    When he moved his knight and let it go, he realized it was a blunder and immediately moved it elsewhere. It's on video on youtube.
  10. 03 May '11 21:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    And Hoffer was most upset with Halprin in his game v Pillsbury Munich 1900 because Halprin with the help of Marczy dare to prepare his opening moves.

    "...Pillsbury going in to it unconscious that he was playing against analysis."
    I don't think Pillsbury would've been that all unconscious. Harry was a USAnian, who aren't, and even then weren't, that naive about such matters. That was, and to an extent remains, the privilege of the English, Hoffer among them.

    "...and they practice beforehand, which ruins the fun."

    Richard
  11. 03 May '11 22:37 / 3 edits
    The Pillsbury - Halprin game was drawn. Leopold Hoffer was Hungarian.

    Hoffer was one of the Romantic era when it was considered bad
    form NOT to accpet sacrifices. The thought that players actually
    analysed an opening together and not seek inspiration over the board
    appalled him.

    Of course players looked at each others games but their opening prep
    left a lot to be desired.

    In 1892 Marco fell into a trap Tarrasch published 18 months earlier
    in a German chess magazine.

    In 1897 Tarrasch caught Zukertort in another trap he invented. Three
    years later in 1890 he caught Marco with the same trap.

    One of the known cases of Morphy facing 'prepared analyse' was
    his game v Marasch.

    (coincidental link here: Pillsbury's middle name was Nelson. Marasch's
    first name was Napoloeon.....er.....OK I'll continue...)

    Marache - Morphy New York 1857

    Marache's 9.e5 was a TN. Morphy defused it winning quite brilliantly in 20 moves.
    Marache was an ex-champion of the USA and no mug at the board.

  12. 04 May '11 01:29
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Will

    You say Chess has a dark history of cheating but have only
    listed, apart from consulting, the modern electronic methods.

    Adding minutes to a clock whilst you opponent is at the toilet.

    Moving a pawn from h5 to h7 in a pawn race.

    Going to the toilet with a pocket set or one of those slim
    pocket set of opening books.

    Moving a piec ...[text shortened]... ng moves.

    "...Pillsbury going in to it unconscious that he was playing against analysis."
    You seem remarkably well read on this subject.

    I always wondered how you got so good.
  13. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    04 May '11 02:33
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    You seem remarkably well read on this subject.

    I always wondered how you got so good.
    GP and SW are very remarkable chess minds, to say the least.
  14. 04 May '11 11:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    You seem remarkably well read on this subject.

    I always wondered how you got so good.
    I was there....

    The cheating issue and fear of the OP has been covered. FIDE has acted.
    My mate, Scotland's top Arbiter, Alex McFarlane has been summoned
    to take charge of the 2011 candidates matches.

    http://chessscotland.com/archives/alexarb2011.htm

    He won't stand no nonsense from these guys. McFarlane Rules OK.

    Continuing with players preparing openings and analysing off board
    with a colleague. I now give the Halprin v Pillsbury. Munich 1900 game.

    Background:
    At Budapest in 1896 Pillsbury defeated Halprin winning the Brilliancy Prize.
    We fast forward to Munich and the 8th of August 1900.
    Halprin and Maroczy are hatching by candle light their fiendish plot.

    (Coincidence no 2. Halprin's first name was Alexander.
    So now we have Nelson, Napoloeon and Alexander the Great...OK....moving on.)

    Maroczy had a motive, He, Schlechter and Pillsbury were all tied
    going into the last few rounds. Halprin went along for possibly revenge
    or did not fancy seeing his name attached to the wrong end of another brilliancy.

    The tournamanet end in a 3 way tie. Maroczy, Pillsbury and Schlecter.
    So the three played off a tie break intending to play each other twice.
    However in the first game between Maroczy and Pillsbury,
    Maroczy blundered badly and withdrew due to illness.

    Maroczy - Pillsbury Play-off Munich 1900.


    Black has just played 24....RxRd1. Marcoczy played 25.Nxd1? Nd3!


    Black wins the exchange. White resigned.

    Schlechter and Pillsbury played on, their mini match was drawn so they split the prize.

    Halprin - Pillsbury Munich 1900

    (Apparently, This game is used in Roger Zelazny's story "Unicorn Variations",
    a human (white) -v- a unicorn (black).)

  15. 04 May '11 11:48
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    I was there....

    The cheating issue and fear of the OP has been covered. FIDE has acted.
    My mate, Scotland's top Arbiter, Alex McFarlane has been summoned
    to take charge of the 2011 candidates matches.

    http://chessscotland.com/archives/alexarb2011.htm

    He won't stand no nonsense from these guys. McFarlane Rules OK.

    Continuing with players ...[text shortened]... .} 21. Bxg7 Kxg7 22. Rg3+ Kf8 23. Rf3+ Kg8 24. Rg3+ Kf8 {Draw by perpetual check.}[/pgn]
    That last game's a beauty!