GabrielGale wrote on 01/07/09 at 22:22:08:

Without knowing too many details "certain moves" is rather vague, of course we all sometimes play what an engine would play either (a) because we sometimes do things right by thinking/calculating, (b) because we sometimes know patterns (even if the computer derives the same conclusion by brute force), or (c) because it is obvious we should take the unprotected piece (or avoid the mate in 1).

Another thing is that in my experience against weaker opposition my play sometimes looks brilliant and I find all the (relatively) obvious little tactics, while against tougher resistance I struggle much more and make many more moves that are not ideal (simply because the opponent sets me harder problems).
GabrielGale wrote on 01/07/09 at 22:22:08:

Well, of course it could simply be that he is improving very fast and/or is much better than his opposition (see the comment above).

In the end to be really sure one way or another about this kind of cheating someone has to be caught at it. Or I'd also say it's clear if some middle-aged 1400 player plays an 11 round tournament with a 2800 performance, went to the toilet after every move and when searched was found to have a palm computer with pocket fritz installed in his jeans pockets. On the other hand, e.g. Kramnik playing a great few games agaisnt Topalov and going to the toilet very often doesn't really look suspicious to me. Or if a rapidly improving junior shows a performance exceeding his rating by a few hundred points in a tournament, that's hardly shocking, either (haven't we all had some great 5 round weekend tournament where we've scored 4.5/5 or 4/5? It simply does happen and in particular juniors often significantly outperform their rating.).

GabrielGale: Did anyone interview/ask him what he was doing? What I would do as a TD may be, and could be, different than how I would handle it as another player.  As the TD, If I witness devices being used I have enough evidence and I would expel.  But, as a player, one with a personal stake in the results, I felt the need to be more circumspect.

I think.  
 

Markovich:  hmmmm....I need to look into this further because I was not aware of this ability.  For the record, I am not a fan of the monroi, have no use for one, and had serious skepticism myself which was (I thought) squelched by interviews with the product developers, J. Hanken and others.  

Now, I need to think and learn more, so thanks for tipping me.  




An aside:  just because I have strong opinions does not mean I am married to them for life!  The nicest thing any people ever do for me is to get me to re-think a position.  And, if the end result is a change of mind, or heart, well then I am deeply indebt to those folks.

So again, thanks for that info, markovich.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:20:23:


I just read this post especially after what happened today in a U1600 (Australian rating) tournament. Very pertinent to this thread but raises some other issues not discussed as yet. A junior (14 years old) was caught (observed) red-handed in a toilet by arbiter consulting with a "hand-held" device. This action was taken after the junior's repeated trips to the restroom was observed by parent of junior's opponent. The parent sharp eyes also observed a "slight bulge" in the pocket of the junior's pants. He was thrown out of the tournament. His appeal against the severity of the arbiters' decision was dismissed unanimously by a committee of three. Other salient (or not so salient facts): Prize money is AUD $600 for 1st; AUD $450 for 2nd; AUD $300 for 3rd and AUD $200 for 4th.

1) I guess this answer's Markovich's original post.
2) @ Dr Kodos: Was he cheating? Well, circumstantial evidence ... can "convict". Remember the case of the Dutch player (last year) caught entering moves of his them current game into a hand-held device and yet was banned from chess for a ertain period. No conclusive evidence of cheating ...
3) Now to GM Kosten's proposal: same treatment for a 14 yo junior?

Markovich wrote on 12/29/08 at 01:15:01:



Monroi device does not connect to the internet.  It can transmit to a "hub" but it does not recieve.

My thinking is that it would be easier (and cheaper!) to compromise many other devices and find much easier ways to cheat than gutting a monroi and rebuilding it as a chess computer capable of recieving.



On another level, I've seen people cheating to win trophies (simply with sign language and other semi-verbal communications), so I am not so sure it is merely a finacial decision behind all cheating.   I suspect some of it, particularly the obscenely overt variety, is a pathological cognitive disorder.



And remember, if we play Monopoloy, I must insist on being the banker.  

GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:20:23:


I agree completely, but this would be hard to enforce since FIDE doesn't seem too interested in prosecuting cheaters from the past and the national federations have even condoned some cheating.  (Eastern European federations' names have been deleted to protect... ummm... me.)

I have been thinking more about this, I play bridge fairly seriously and if a pair wanted to cheat in all except the highest level tournaments ( where there are special anti cheating screens) it would be prettyeasy. but there is little money in Bridge and peiple are playing for the challenge so i do not think it happens, so probably similarily  in typical chess tournaments cheating does not happen.

I have been suspicious of some players in the past. And justthe thought has drained some of the enjoyment away, as has the fact that we all know Rybka would beat all the competitiors anyway.

i have always thought it would be better to play say 4  thirty minutegames  than one two hour games- I think tournaments would be morepopular then. 

That's a really sad thought imo. There has to be a way to keep our game normal. Can we just ban all electronics and have bathrooms/vending machines/water fountains inside of or directly connected to the playing hall? That or reduce the prizes so that this wouldn't be a profitable idea.