Cheating at Chess

[Zelandakh]

Yes, but they still make bad moves. Nobody with a lowish rating can replicate a long series of computer moves except by cheating.

This is rubbish btw. I have replicated a series of GM moves to around move 40 in a serious game, simply by memorising the book line. There is no reason why a player cannot do the same for computer moves.

[EricK]

This is rubbish btw. I have replicated a series of GM moves to around move 40 in a serious game, simply by memorising the book line. There is no reason why a player cannot do the same for computer moves.

OK. This can happen occasionally. But is does require your opponent to make the moves in the line you have learnt - and you would also be able to point out where you got those moves from if asked. But once out of book, even GMs can't make the best moves consistently (unless there is a forcing line leading to victory); it is basically impossible for non-rated players to do it.

[billw55]

Perhaps some do it just to see if they can get away with it, undetected.

 

In chess any outside observer can see all the pieces (complete information) and consult a computer.

In bridge this would be difficult to do (unless it's VuGraphed) but then who/what do you consult, and how to do it quick enough?

 

Better to hack the deal machine/network.

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

[lamford]

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

The simplest bridge cheating is providing the board before it is played, as a fellow countryman of mine used to do before he was banned for 10 years. Patrick Jourdain vaguely recalled the theme of a slam he played with AKxxx opposite xx in a side suit, where declarer cashed the ace and ducked one, and then ruffed the two losers, guarding against the suit breaking 5-1 which it did. Very pretty, and as Patrick discovered by rummaging through old bridge magazines, card for card as a hand played by Belladonna in the early 1960s.

 

The Kramnik v Topalov World Championship match was marred by allegations of frequent calls of nature at key moments in the game, and a possible hidden computer. The truth about Toiletgate 2006 has never been flushed out, if you forgive the pun.

[billw55]

The simplest bridge cheating is providing the board before it is played, as a fellow countryman of mine used to do before he was banned for 10 years. Patrick Jourdain vaguely recalled the theme of a slam he played with AKxxx opposite xx in a side suit, where declarer cashed the ace and ducked one, and then ruffed the two losers, guarding against the suit breaking 5-1 which it did. Very pretty, and as Patrick discovered by rummaging through old bridge magazines, card for card as a hand played by Belladonna in the early 1960s.

 

The Kramnik v Topalov World Championship match was marred by allegations of frequent calls of nature at key moments in the game, and a possible hidden computer. The truth about Toiletgate 2006 has never been flushed out, if you forgive the pun.

Yep, lots of ways to cheat.

 

In fact, I was once accused of cheating in a chess tournament. As often happened, I was there with several friends, and we would chat away from the table during games. One opponent lodged a complaint. Director gave no penalty but asked that we stop in this particular case.

[antonylee]

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

Well, instead have a "kibitzer" to go and kibitz a table whose number corresponds to a board where slam is on (or rather, where you need an anti-percentage play)...

[barmar]

2. A 16 year old winning more than his rating would suggest is hardly enough to justify suspicion. Doesn't everyone with a high rating get it by starting out with a low rating and beating higher rated players?

Of course everyone who is highly rated started out lower. But they don't usually come from nowhere and start beating everyone in sight, they improve gradually.

 

There are occasional prodigies, of course. But they are rare, so it's reasonable to be suspicious. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

[jeffford76]

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

 

Or alternately, the fact that this piece of information is so easy to convey in 100 other ways explains the pointlessness of the ban on cell phones.

[barmar]

Or alternately, the fact that this piece of information is so easy to convey in 100 other ways explains the pointlessness of the ban on cell phones.

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

 

You do the best you can -- prevent as many cheating methods as is reasonably feasible.

[lalldonn]

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

 

You do the best you can -- prevent as many cheating methods as is reasonably feasible.

That would make sense if they were doing anything to prevent the other methods. But there are kibitzers allowed, unsupervised bathroom breaks allowed, walking around the room with no one noticing that you are glancing at hands, players hanging out together in the hallway after rounds, etc. Cell phones aren't even close to the best way to cheat even if you wanted to IMO.

 

Other than using computers to play, the best solution is to switch to barometer. Banning cell phones is pointless and always has been. I still believe it originated as an overreaction to the cell phones ringing since that penalty was so inconsistently being enforced.

[jeffford76]

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

 

Yes, essentially, despite you calling it ridiculous, and assuming that the methods are equally easy. As long as there are easy ways to cheat, then banning some of them just steers people to the others.

[barmar]

So we should get rid of screens?

[billw55]

Yes, essentially, despite you calling it ridiculous, and assuming that the methods are equally easy. As long as there are easy ways to cheat, then banning some of them just steers people to the others.

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

[kuhchung]

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

 

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

 

Edit: I may have responded to a straw man, which is unfortunate.

[dwar0123]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

So we should never cure anything?

 

This is becoming a tautology.

 

Or do you mean to suggest that banning cell phones is worse then cheating? Cause I am totally not following you on that one.

[kuhchung]

So we should never cure anything?

 

This is becoming a tautology.

 

Or do you mean to suggest that banning cell phones is worse then cheating? Cause I am totally not following you on that one.

Sorry, see my edit.

[jeffford76]

So we should get rid of screens?

 

Assuming this was addressed to me, no. Screens are used to mitigate unauthorized information. They seem to do it well.

 

This doesn't seem particularly relevant to a discussion about how to deal with intentional cheating. I think there are many people who inadvertently use UI who wouldn't dream of stacking a deck or looking at hand records or getting information from a confederate or any of the other things that require *actively* cheating.

[jeffford76]

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

 

In general to evaluate the effectiveness of a security measure you have to decide how effective it is and how annoying it is. The more annoying it is, the more effective it had better be, and if it's not particularly effective, then it better not be annoying.

 

The argument against the cell phone ban has always been that it is not effective and that it is annoying, and therefore shouldn't exist.

 

In particular, by "not effective", I mean that for a player who is willing to actively cheat, there are many ways to communicate illicit information, and removing their cell phone doesn't particularly increase the difficulty of them doing so. It is also not effective because it does not have effective enforcement. Do you really think with the current rules that someone who wants to cheat with a cell phone won't bring their phone into the room anyway?

 

I won't get into the argument about whether it is or isn't annoying to not be allowed to carry a cell phone. Many people think that the ban is annoying, and you're not going to convince them that it's not, although certainly in the past people have tried.

 

It's not as catchy as your statement, but I would say that if we can't do enough to make a noticeable difference, and the things we do annoy people, then we shouldn't bother doing anything.

[CSGibson]

I think another way of saying what Jeff is suggesting that banning cell phones only makes sense if it prevents or reduces cheating and/or its effectiveness. If it only changes the method, so that cheaters still cheat just as effectively, but in a different fashion, then the only real effects of the cell phone ban are related to keeping cell phones from ringing in the playing area and to inconvenience bridge players in their social and business obligations that require a cell phone to be at peak efficacy.

 

For what its worth, I think that having no cell phones in the playing area does reduce the efficacy of cheating in that lookers/conferers/bathroom talkers are more likely to be caught cheating than those using electronic communication, increasing the risk/reward ratio. But that is an entirely uninformed opinion.

[jeffford76]

For what its worth, I think that having no cell phones in the playing area does reduce the efficacy of cheating in that lookers/conferers/bathroom talkers are more likely to be caught cheating than those using electronic communication, increasing the risk/reward ratio.

 

I wish that this were the argument being made by the ACBL. I don't agree with it (as equally uninformed as you, no doubt), but it indicates comprehension of how security tradeoffs should be made.

[mikestar13]

As a computer programmer I can tell you this: even if it is, in point of fact, difficult (never impossible) to hack the score-sheet application, it's not so hard to hack Windows; something that the various governing bodies in Bridge would do well to keep in mind.

[billw55]

I am wondering, when did recording a chess game with pencil and paper become so difficult, that use of a computer and program are now necessary? How hard is it really to enter a game into the program from a written record, after the game (or event) is over? Sheesh.

[semeai]

I am wondering, when did recording a chess game with pencil and paper become so difficult, that use of a computer and program are now necessary? How hard is it really to enter a game into the program from a written record, after the game (or event) is over? Sheesh.

 

For some at least, recording a game breaks concentration, and hence makes the player a bit weaker.

 

Compare three methods:

 

1) Having a friend record the game for you.

 

2) Recording by tapping/clicking out the moves on a screen.

 

3) Recording on paper by converting to algebraic notation.

 

Converting to algebraic notation in (3) requires more thought than just visually making the move on a screen in (2) and thus likely requires more of a break in concentration. For some I imagine the difference in strength is substantial.

[TimG]

I think it would be nice to be able to record my bridge results on my iPod (or similar device).

 

During a team game, it would be nice if my teammates could also record their results on a similar device so that we could easily share results (and score extra quickly). After the round is complete, of course.

 

That would seem to be a security risk.

 

One further thing, I don't understand why bridgemates are not used in team events. I imagine it would speed up reporting of results.

[gnasher]

I think it would be nice to be able to record my bridge results on my iPod (or similar device).

 

During a team game, it would be nice if my teammates could also record their results on a similar device so that we could easily share results (and score extra quickly). After the round is complete, of course.

Isn't that called a Bridgemate?