Speaking of cheating in simuls in the old days, Tim Krabbé related this in the 1970s (I translated to algebraic):


The Dutch master Bouwmeester often tells this instructive story.  In a simultaneous exhibition he was faced, once again, by a Damiano:  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 (Incidentally, the name of the Portuguese apothecary Damiano sticks to this patzer opening for the wrong reason:  he mentioned it in his 1512 book to warn against it!).  Bouwmeester now threaded the path thousands have traveled:  3. Nxe5 fe 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxe5+, winning the Rook.  At least, that's what he thought.  But when he returned to this board he noticed that Black had not only played 5...Qe7, he had also removed White's e-pawn, pinning the Queen.  No Qxh8!  For a moment, Bouwmeester thought of reprimanding his cheating opponent, but then:  what a fuss there would be, other players would start interfering, it just wasn't worth it.  And couldn't he beat a Damiano-player just as easily a piece down?  So he grimaced, settled for Qxe7+ and moved on.  When he returned again he was greeted by a shattering surprise:  Black had played 6...Bxe7 and the White e-pawn was back!

I'm pretty sure the Fischer story was in John Donaldson (1994) A Legend on the Road: Bobby Fischer's 1964 Simultaneous Exhibition Tour, but I don't have it in front of me so I can't give the page number. Fascinating stuff in that book.

The most obvious way to cheat in an otb simul is by moving the pieces around when the exhibitor's back is turned. What the amateurs don't realize is the chess master really is playing a "simultaneous" -- they are playing all the competitors in parallel, not one at a time in serial. So they keep their eye on the whole room while they are moving around. Plus it's not easy for an amateur to get the pieces back on their proper squares with 100% reliability, but the chess master knows all the positions at every board exactly. Even more so in a blindfold simul. A less obvious way to cheat is by receiving help from the spectators. Before computers this help was highly variable in quality, particularly because even if the spectators were strong it wasn't their game so they made mistakes they wouldn't necessarily make if they were personally responsible for the result.

An example of playing the whole room: I remember when IM Jim Rizzitano gave a club simul (I was helping with the demo board and refreshments), when he came by the refreshment table he explained. Jim ran into trouble on one of the boards against an A-player, but knew his opponent was a slow thinker. So he sped up the pace a little, as well as offered a couple of strategic draws to quicken the circuit even more. A rule in otb simuls is the player has to move as soon as the exhibitor appears at the board. Sure enough, the A-player soon cracked and blundered.

I see that Donaldson and Tangborn have four or maybe five new Fischer books that I haven't read yet. Last I heard they were "in the works", but I guess they are fact now.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 06/14/21 at 13:59:51:


I am very intrigued. How did Fischer's simul opponents cheat at the time ?!

bragesjo wrote on 06/14/21 at 13:26:15:


Not the same thing, but this reminds me of when one of my old clubs used to have simuls, there was a guy who used to bring along his computer chessboard and have the strong player play against that. He got a lot of satisfaction out of it but no-one else could understand why...

Uberdecker wrote on 06/14/21 at 11:29:56:

My take was that it was pretty clear what was going on, but Anand stayed classy about it and she followed his lead.

Anand reacted with a lot of class. The attitude of the young billionaire who cheated is just pathetic.

Maybe the format could be revisited, like give every player a titled helper so that they can at least play a decent enough game, or even better, adjust the strength of the helper to the amount donated ! 

cathexis wrote on 06/14/21 at 12:12:23:


Unfortunately, that tweet was posted by another one of the commentators of the event, though in his defence, he is not a strong or titled player, but an internet celebrity/ chess enthusiast. So in his case, one may give the benefit of the doubt.

As for Anand, he obviously knew exactly what was going on, but he has since stated that the use of an engine was not pre-arranged and there is no evidence to doubt his claim.
During the post-games talk, he did subtly hint at the fact that the games were not kosher "This is not the play of people who only know the moves", but it was obviously not his place to explicitely call out the participants for their cheating. That should have befallen the organizers or those who represented them publicly at the time, in other words, the commentators.