Cheating Hearts Redux

Comments

>>You may have noticed that the 2006 World Open thread has turned into an informative and interesting look into several cheating allegations made during the tournament. <<

Yes, and then it turned into a less interesting forum for IMs bashing weakies and vice versa. :)

As I recall, someone was tossed from the US Amateur Team East this year -- a tourney with no cash prizes. So cheating isn't solely a result of big $$; some people will cheat for almost nothing!

I don't play in rich tourneys and if some poor dumb sap is pathetic enough to cheat me in a weeknight club game, well, I pity him more than I'm going to worry about the loss. (Although if I catch him at it, I'll happily throw him under the bus.) My greater worry is that some day I won't be allowed to get up from a rated game to go to the men's room. Those of us with bad nerves will wind up being locked out of tournament play because of the dingbats with pocket Fritz.
Posted by: Derek at July 7, 2006 10:38

Mig,

If you believe that (beyond reasonable doubt) banning someone for a year or (better yet) life is too harsh, what would you consider as "severe punishment meted out?"
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 7, 2006 11:03

"I can tell two players were ejected when they proved uncooperative with the investigation into the claims."

Unless Mig knows something that the rest of us don't, then this sentence is false. Varshavsky lost his hat but was allowed to continue playing.

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 7, 2006 11:43

Actually this is quite amusing to me. In the case of the world open, we have a guy who has the tournament of his life, and rather than congratulate him on some good games, we call him a cheater.

If he was 11 years old and playing the same moves, we'd call him a prodigy, with a "natural feel" for the game. Whether or not a person acts strangely (compared to the norm of chess players) is no indication for even an investigation into whether or not they're cheating. Only overt actions, such as looking at their Russian Coach for approval of moves (as happened at this years US game/15 championship), or if they are clearly leaving the board after every move or every other move to dissapear for 5 minutes.

What was most amusing to me was John Bartholemew's description of what happened. He was convinced the guy was cheating because he was staring intently at the board? Come now! Can Bartholemew just admit he played poorly and lost? No, he has to imply that somehow he was cheated out of the game. Please.
Posted by: Michael Parsons at July 7, 2006 11:47

Mike, you make some sense, but take care not to shade off into a ACLU-type position. After all, no one accused Jake Kleiman or Kazim Gulamali of cheating.

I too was amused by Bartholomew's assertion that he could tell Varshavsky was cheating by "looking into his eyes" (John's a good writer, his musings would be well placed in a novel, and I'm not being facetious here...). But note, Mike, that it wasn't just the eyes. The guy did disappear into a bathroom stall for a lengthy period, not once but twice, precisely when TDs were demanding to inspect his person.

And anyway, he (Varshavsky) wasn't even punished, since they found no device...a device he might well have had and gotten rid of.

Chessbase a couple years ago ran a humorous (but true) news item about an incident where someone was caught consulting Pocket Fritz in the bathroom. Chessbase's news item went on to give detailed (but tongue-in-cheek) advice, including photos and diagrams, about how to more effectively hide in a bathroom stall while a TD is trying to look inside and you're analyzing with pocket Fritz.

Those of us over 40 can well recall the life-saving uses of toilets to a suspect. ("Open up, it's the police!" Sound of water flushing....)

I can see it now: Ads for Fritz 10.0 will make prominent mention of the fact that it's compatible with devices small enough to be flushed down a toilet.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 7, 2006 12:19

Mr. Aigner is correct. Eugene Varshavsky was searched twice (before round 8 and before round 9). Nothing was found on him either time. Carol Jarecki made him play without his hat, but Varshavsky did play his last two games, and his results will stand. He is, however, likely to receive a CCA minimum rating of 2400-2500 after this tournament.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 7, 2006 12:21

Does anyone know if Steve Rosenberg has been banned from tournaments for life yet? I would be shocked if it didn't happen. Either way, I doubt he'll show his face at a tournament again. It would be too embarassing to suddenly go back to 1700 strength.
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 7, 2006 12:48

Gary,
I was one of Steve's victims at the Motor City Open. Maybe he's just a better player than you (and me). Have you ever considered that? Let it go.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 13:09

Derek said: Yes, and then it turned into a less interesting forum for IMs bashing weakies and vice versa. :)

I challenge you to quote where Ben 'bashed' us weakies. And David was only refering to those folks who were 'bashing' Finegold and his wife. Please prove me wrong.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 13:14

In response to Mr. Parsons:

You totally misinterpreted my original post.

I am not trying to deflect blame away from myself for my play against Varshavsky. I freely admitted that my technique was poor.

I have played a great deal of top-level tournament chess over the past five years and have gained a pretty good idea of how players behave during games. I have never before accused one of my opponents of cheating.

At the World Open, I spoke with over 20 masters in the Open section who shared my concern over Eugene Varshavsky’s behavior and results. When I returned home from the tournament, I saw that his play was being discussed on this site as well as the ICC. Do I not have a right to question the legitimacy of my opponent’s play when many others empathize with me?

So, Mr. Parsons, I ask you: were you at the World Open? Did you watch Eugene Varshavsky’s behavior during his games? Have you reviewed these games? Do you even wonder why a floored USCF master could play 25 Fritz moves in a row to beat a world-class GM like Smirin?

Perhaps you are willing to believe that Varshavsky. had “the tournament of his life.” I, and many others, are not so naive.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 7, 2006 13:38

It was very amusing to hear from people saying about Varshavsky's behaviour at the board. From their statements, one can easily deduce that he is innocent. There is no factual evidence, that he cheated. The only thing they have is his strange behaviour that made him a cheat.
I am especially amused to hear the story from John Bartholomew. So what if 20 masters shared your concern over Varshavsky. It means nothing. He just beat GM Smirin and I bet 200 masters in that hall will feel the same. But how does that feat can make him an instant cheat. He can be a strange person with eccentric qualities. But anyway tell me,what is your idea of a Chess player. He seems to look normal and play normal? He has to be on time and after every move look at the crowd? From the description you gave of this man's behaviour, it seems to me that this man seems to have great qualities. Accept that, He played the tournament of his life. It is very unfortunate story.
Posted by: Ryan at July 7, 2006 14:23

Gary,
"I was one of Steve's victims at the Motor City Open. Maybe he's just a better player than you (and me). Have you ever considered that? Let it go."

Have you ever considered that he was using a transmitter, since he was actually caught using one?
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 7, 2006 14:26

Ryan -

When you explain to me how it is possible for a floored USCF master to play 25 consecutive Fritz moves against a Grandmaster in one game while managing to drop a piece on move 10 the round before, I will give an actual response to your post.

Thanks.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 7, 2006 14:47

Did GM Smirnin ask to do post mortem with Varavesky? Or any of Varvesky's opponents for that matter.
Posted by: jed at July 7, 2006 15:05

>>I challenge you to quote where Ben 'bashed' us weakies. And David was only refering to those folks who were 'bashing' Finegold and his wife. Please prove me wrong. :) <--

was intended to convey that my comment was light-hearted, intended to be humorous.

I challenge you to provide a different interpretation of a smiley face :)
Posted by: Derek at July 7, 2006 15:10

Look at the results for the U1200 section and look up the top 3 sandbaggers. Their names are Xiahua Xu (he's beaten 1400s but lost recently to a 400?!?!?) Willianth Williams (This COWARD smelled really bad, had really long dirty fingernails and has beaten a 1500 but lost last month to a 300 and a 400) and Vanessa Diaz (last month over 1450, this month rated U1200).

Thats just plain pathetic. Thats like failing First grade intentionally three times so you can spell "CAT" perfectly on your spelling test.

LOSERS.
Posted by: Fair Player at July 7, 2006 18:10

I played in the 2001 World Open, Open section.
1-2377 Drew
2-2392 Lost
3-2331 Lost
4-1925 Drew
5-2292 Won
6-2264 Lost
7-2215 Won
8-2251 Drew
9-2259 Lost
Really, I just like chess, but I do not get to play often. I work all the time!!
Posted by: Morrowind at July 7, 2006 19:34

outrageous. unbelieveable.
Posted by: tommy at July 7, 2006 19:37

I was referring to the comment made by fair player not morrowind. sorry about that.
Posted by: tommy at July 7, 2006 19:38

Off Topic Question about the actual Games at the World Open:

Has anyone figured out what happened in the Stocek-Yusupov game in round 9? The final position was totally winning for Yusupov, and yet the result was a draw. I can only assume that the game score was incorrect. Can anyone confirm the situation in that game?
Posted by: Icepick at July 7, 2006 19:45

Varshavsky..a misunderstood eccentric? or sneaky cheater? I gave Varshavsky the benefit of the doubt until I read Bela's post about him using a hearing aid at the 2005 National open. Where was it at the 2006 tournament when I played him? Did his hearing suddenly improve along with his chess skill? Hearing aids are not toys. He seems to have replaced his hearing aid with a hat. Well, I'm now personally convinced he's not just a persecuted loner. By the way, John Bartholomew's description of Mr. V's eyes and eerie vibe gave me gooseflesh. If you haven't been up close to the guy you may not understand. John's not just being a sore loser..he's very perceptive and is not exaggerating. For the record my name is Phil Irwin. I'm not here to gossip. This is a serious problem and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 7, 2006 22:31

Lest we forget, it's only personal integrity that really matters. Re-read Plato's Republic.

"Frank Marshall won the U.S. chess championship in 1904, but did not accept the title because the current U.S. champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, did not compete.

In 1906, Pillsbury died and Marshall again refused the championship title until he won it in competition in 1909."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall]

Posted by: Dale Lichtblau at July 7, 2006 23:16

Although I said I would not post here again....well....it lasted one day! :)

This is just an informational post for Icepick who legitimately questions the result of the Yusupov game.

I read that BOTH flags were down, and the game was drawn for that reason. I also thought Yusupov was winning the last 20-30 moves of the game, and was doubly surprised it was drawn, as he seems to be winning in the final position. Both flags down is possible though, as when I left the tournament hall, they both had 10-15 minutes left.

Too bad for Yusupov, as he did well to get a winning position with black, and had he won, he could have got some good scratch.

Anonymous IM ;)
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 7, 2006 23:59

thanks Ben

that sounds like a pretty good explanation.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 00:47

As Fritz and co are the main weapons of the cheaters, they would be the best helpers of organizers to catch cheating. One might play strong moves maybe 10 or 15 in a row, but they would be different than the computer moves. After all as Kasparov said in the Botvinnik section of his book, there are various ways of executing successful plans or achieve success on board.

I'm a low expert and remember beating two titled players in a row in one day. I just reached to my peak, and was seeing everything so clear. Still, some of the moves were not the first or second choices of the machine as I analysed later.

We need well kept scoresheets, and one or two good chess software users with decent chess knowledge. It shouldn't be hard to find these for people like Goichberg I believe.
Posted by: Xchess at July 8, 2006 01:03

The guys who run the chess league based out of chessville claim they have a computerized system to detect cheaters with virtually 100% certainty. When I was playing,I wasn't so sure about it, but apparently every person they have called out later admitted it.

Maybe someone should talk to them about doing this in major tmts on a contract basis. Keith Hayward is the one I know of [Master in TX, and a computer geek:)]
Posted by: Dondo at July 8, 2006 02:14

Much has been written about how the last 25 moves of the Smirnin-Varshavsky match Fritz.

Have you looked at the game? Below I give brief comments about each of the last 25 moves for Black. No doubt what I consider "obvious" you may disagree with - but even so take a look. I am not using computers and am making rather superficial assessments, but I think reasonable ones. I am not claiming Varshavsky is a secret GM - I suspect he is an improving 2100+ player (maybe 2200's and climbing). He doesn't have a lot of experience (technical draw claims, even comfort in notation). Losing badly in the last two rounds could simply be consistent with being accused of cheating and searches - which clearly affected his concentration.

My point is that most of Varshavsky's moves are hardly a surprise, and often there is much less choice than you might think (assuming somewhat sensible choices of a 2100 player).

Smirin-Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2

Let's look at the last 25 moves:

33...Qxd4 (Black's previous move was 32...Qe7-a7, so this can hardly be a surprise.) 34. Nxd4 Be4 (I claim this is a fairly obvious move, but admit 34...Rc8 is also a strong candidate. Perhaps 34...Be4 avoids whatever 35.f5 might have to offer White. So while I am not surprised at the choice of 34...Be4, the argument is that "all" of these choices coincided with Fritz. Let's continue...) 35. g3 Re8 (The obvious move would be 35...Be7, but that runs into 36.Nc6 and the B pair disappears. Is there an alternative? I would think any expert is capable of finding that there is one with 35...Re8. Not hard to choose once you bother to look for it - and White forced the question on Black.) 36. Rc1 g5 (In my previous post I suggested this was a non-obvious move. Given the game's development - i.e. a focus on the pinned f-pawn, I now think this is a rather logical follow up. Note the moves follow the position created by the previous moves. Also notice there was only one other choice here of 36...Bd8 to avoid losing a piece) 37. f5 Rxe5 (A two-move combination which wins a pawn, allowed by White's previous move.) 38. gxh4 gxh4 (capturing an extra pawn) 39. Re2 Ree7 (A sensible move, but Black does has some choices here) 40. Rf2 Rc7 (Almost certain given Black's previous move) 41. Rcf1 Rf6 (Blockading the f-pawn, in light of White's previous move, is certainly a leading candidate) 42. Rf4 Rg7 (Looks like the obvious leading candiate to me) 43. R1f2 Kf7 (Note Black has pretty much maxed out his rook moves, and pawn moves don't make sense. Moving King to the center is something he can grasp - while avoiding a Ne6 fork. I'll even guess most experts will now get the few-move plan of marching the King to e5) 44. Rxh4 Ke7 (continuing with plan) 45. Rg4 Rgf7 (Note 45...Kd6?? allows 46.Rxd6, and 45...Rxg4 46.hxg4 allows White to protect the weak f-pawn - in fact 45...Rgf7 is the obvious move here) 46. Kg3 Bxf5 (taking the free pawn before White can play Kg3-f4) 47. Rgf4 Bd7 (The White N has to be kept out of c6 - this is the only B move which does this. This is not hard to see at all) 48. Re2+ Kd6 (Moving K to center - this seems an obvious move to me) 49. Rh4 Rg7+ (An obvious move to push White's King back) 50. Kh2 Rg5 (While I like this move, I can't call it so obvious. I would accept this is the kind of position experts might lose their way. Of course, they might find a right idea too) 51. Rd2 h5 (Given Black's previous move, this move is fairly obvious to free the other rook) 52. Re2 Rf1 (Clearly better than ...Rf7 or ...Rf8) 53. Rd2 Be8 (A few-move plan to reposition the Bd7. I'll admit that may not be obvious - though it should be.) 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ (54...Re5 is the only alternative. Trading is simpler and avoids White's rook becoming active. Both strong candidates, not exactly a surprise to choose to trade) 55. Kxg2 Rd1 (Aha! The "obvious" move would be 55...Rb1, and 55...Re1 heading to e4 would be another strong candidate. So for the first time a non-obvious move is passed up for quite likely a better one.) 56. Kf2 Rd3 (56...Rd2+ would be a serious candidate, but makes little sense since Black could have won the b2-pawn with an extra tempo with the previous ...Rb1. Given the previous move, this is consistent with taking aim at the Q-side pawns. When the Nd4 is ousted, both pawns will fall. On d3, the Rook prevents the White King from protecting the Nd4 while keeping an eye on it as well.) 57.Ke2 Bg6 (The only move which doesn't immediately lose material) 1-0

I think consideration of the choices Black actually had puts a very different perspective on the seemingly incredulous matching Fritz for 25 moves.

Sometimes high rated players don't play well. Even then, they usually find a way to get back in the game. Sometimes, the opponent's side is just too easy to play.

I think Michael Aigner (hope I am pronouncing that right) has it right - we may all be accused of cheating - if we dare try to improve or get a lucky break.

-ron kensek
Posted by: ron kensek at July 8, 2006 03:23

Thanks for the analysis, Ron, it seems that this Varshavsky guy didn't cheat afterall. All this accusation and witch hunting is ridiculous.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 06:25

I just had a thought.

maybe have a stated printed agreement ahead of time that anyone winning $1000 or more will have to submit all his game scores for computer analysis by the tournament director before checks are awarded. and that if there are too many matches to computer moves then no money will be awarded. of course some games will have to be double checked with the opponents for real large prizes. but those can be collected before the last round.

one might also have the top boards in all the sections running on Monroi. that way anyone ending with a 8.5 out of 9 in the class sections will have all or almost all the games recorded.

then have the computer expert who can detect cheating analyze the games 24/0 on his computers.

falsely accusing someone of cheating is very bad. we must not ruin someones reputation friviously. we need to have solid procedures in place. procedures that do not accuse someone of cheating but procedures that say we dont pay prize money if such as such occurs. eventually such procedures will be implemented. we should start now on writing up the procedures and practice so as to discover what works to protect the reputation of the players and protect the honesty and integrity of the tournaments.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 07:20

I decided to check the Bartholomew - Varshavsky game with Fritz 9, here's my findings:

[Event "3'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.07.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bartholomew"]
[Black "Varshavsky"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C69"]
[PlyCount "122"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8.
Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1
Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 (h5 is not even in the top 10. Fritz 9 suggests Ng6 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7
21. Bg3 Be3 (Be3 is the 5th strongest move according to Fritz 9. It is suggesting c6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 (Ne7 is third strongest move according to F9. It is suggesting g6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

27. Ng3 Rde8 (Rde8 is third strongest move according to F9. It is suggesting Be5, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

28. Kf1 Rhf8 29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7 33. Nce3 Rg8 (Rg8 is not even in the top 10. F9 suggests g5 and thinks the position is drawish)

34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40.
Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 (F9 thinks Rxe8 is stronger here, and thinks black is slightly ahead)

42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46.Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 (b6 is third strongest according to F9. It suggests Re2 and thinks the position is drawish)

50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5
53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 (Kc6 is third strongest according to F9. It suggests Bb1 and thinks black is almost a pawn up)

57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59.
Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

So looks like Varshavsky didn't cheat in this game either.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 08:14

I have not make a decision on the Varashevsky accusations yet. However after reading the above analysis of the game I am leaning more toward the view that there is no evidence here.

I want to comment on John Bartholomew's original posting that he felt varashevsky was cheating because he never looked away from the board.

It seems to me that if he sat there the entire game looking at the board it is very strong evidence that his mind was totally occupied with the game. that he was One with the Game. and he was in no way thinking about cheating. such evidence seems to me is very strong evidence that he was NOT cheating. and certainly if he was to win the game the best way is to concentrate on the game itself. even his opponent was preoccupied with what Varashevsky was doing instead of being occupied on the game. Varashevsky would not even know his opponent was not paying attention to the game because he was totally absorbed into the game. becoming One With the Game. the perfect way to win.

The only so called evidence and I mean ONLY is the following of fritz for many moves but that now seems to be easily dismissed from the analysis given here above by Ron Kensek. the wearing of a lucky hat does not seem to change things. nor his losing in the last 2 rounds.

I remember at the recent US Championships a lovely lady beat some grandmasters and everyone loved her. she then was not able to continue winning but ended well getting a norm. I am happy to say everyone said she was having the tournament of her life.

there were over 1300 people at the world open. I would hope there would be someone having the tournament of their life for at least the first 7 rounds.

as regards this accusation that someone lost a piece. Gata Kamsky at this years world open said that he accepted a fast draw in the last round because he almost dropped a rook in a previous game because he was tired and thought it better to take the draw then to take a chance on dropping a piece. he felt he was too tired for a long hard game. so if gata kamsky can say he almost dropped a rook I see the dropping of a knight by a class player as happening in every round of that tournament. it is what a lot of games are all about. this is not proof of cheating. but proof of being human.

I see only a lot of hysterical judgments by people who do not have appropriate policies in place. a tragedy that will continue to hurt players reputations until a good policy is written up and published for all players to read before the tournament. a policy that should not be focused on finding guilt but a policy of when checks will be paid and when checks will not be issued. and if necessarily, all players can sign the agreement before playing.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 08:23

Now Leto had a conclusion of NOT cheating.

I really believe that the TD needs to get game scores and analyze the game scores before any accusations are laid. accusations of cheating can carry on a person's reputation for the rest of their life. even if later proved false many people will still believe in the person's guilt. continuing to severely hurt his reputation and impact his life. those in power must be very super careful about accusations of guilt of cheating. better to focus on a policy that states when checks will be paid and when they will not be paid and forget about guilt.

guilt can be found over and above the policy when a person is really caught with lots of solid evidence.

Until then if I pay $400 to play in a tournament I dont expect to come home with my reputation ruined if I played honestly. and I dont expect my reputation to depend on the judgements of witch hunting people who have gone off the deep end of hysterical judgements. which is all too prevelent in today's society with the rush to judgements.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 08:32

Leto, matching moves is inherently problematic because we don't know the program and time control (assuming one was used). Varshavsky is said to have moved quicky after arriving very late, so a confederate may have been running a program at 5/5 for all we know.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 8, 2006 09:00

Hey Tommy,

With all due respect to you, I have never seen anyone sit and stare at a board as intently as Varshavsky did, whether it be an amateur player or a world class GM. I'm sorry, but the blunder against Kacheishvili is inexplicable, and I could play 50,000,000 1-min games and never make such a blunder. In fact, I doubt that anyone over 1500 would ever play that. Having said that, there is no proof and this is why the people who created these silicon geniuses all deserve to die. :) Technology....sigh.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 09:14

Also, I'd just like to say that Ben Finegold is absolutely dead wrong when he refers to the open section and how "top players" deserve all the money.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 09:16

Hikaru, wasn't it just a month or so ago when Aleksandrov played the horrible 18...Bc8?? losing immediately against Kramnik? I believe Aleksandrov was rated 2634 during that time.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 09:26

Former World Champion Boris Spassky lost his knight in the ninth move against Lieb in 1979:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1129050

World Class Grandmaster Bareev played the horrible 35...Ba7?? allowing a mate in one:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069122

Grandmaster Krasenkow played the horrendous 45...Qf3+?? losing his queen immediately:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1379791
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 09:38

A question - "With all due respect to you, I have never seen anyone sit and stare at a board as intently as Varshavsky did, whether it be an amateur player or a world class GM."

How does staring at the board facilitate cheating? I'm just wondering how the guy might have gotten the moves to his partner, if that is what he (allegedly) was doing - did he have a small camera on his lucky hat or something?
Posted by: Logan5 at July 8, 2006 09:41

I don't think that transmitting the moves would be as hard as most people think. The obvious choice for me, if I wanted to cheat, would be to use a wireless telegraph system. A small 3-way switch held, perhaps, in the heel of my shoe that I could tap out moves in international correspondence notation. No one would notice the slight movement by my foot and the response from my buddy could either come in audio or even in a vibrating receiver (hmmm... now where could I put that?!). In any case, the technology is low, the means is easy, and the motive is there. No proof, just a convenient framework to support all this suspicion.

Hikaru, thank you for standing up and saying that you are not looking for more of the fish's entry fees. Finegold has certainly done a bang-up job painting a different picture from the Open perspective.
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 10:21

I don't think that transmitting the moves would be as hard as most people think. The obvious choice for me, if I wanted to cheat, would be to use a wireless telegraph system. A small 3-way switch held, perhaps, in the heel of my shoe that I could tap out moves in international correspondence notation. No one would notice the slight movement by my foot and the response from my buddy could either come in audio or even in a vibrating receiver (hmmm... now where could I put that?!). In any case, the technology is low, the means is easy, and the motive is there. No proof, just a convenient framework to support all this suspicion.

Hikaru, thank you for standing up and saying that you are not looking for more of the fish's entry fees. Finegold has certainly done a bang-up job painting a different picture from the Open perspective.
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 10:22

Stendec, I find your 'tap your moves' idea ridiculous. Besides, what does staring at the board intently have to do with tapping your feet?

Could you explain to me how exactly would you foot tap the following move?: 38...Rhd8

Or how about the following move?: 29...Nge5
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 10:27

This is all very scary. I was hoping to make the trip to Chicago for the US Open (one of the few sites I can get to for less than a $400 round trip ticket!). Now, I'm not so sure. I've been an Expert for most of the past 10 years, and I'm 33, an age where it seems no longer legal to improve. If I make the mistake of actually doing well, I'll probably be subjected to showing up for games in my birthday suit to "prove" I wasn't cheating. (Hmm, maybe it's you guys who will be subjected to seeing my fat behind, heh heh).

Detecting cheating by evaluating concordance with computer-generated moves seems like a good idea. I play in the Online Chess League where that is used. It seems like a fairly good system, and yes, the majority of people "outed" later come to confess (including a team mate of mine ;-/). That said, I really doubt it has 100% sensitivity, and more importantly, doubt 100% specificity. In a litiginous society like ours, that is a major issue if it is used where big prizes are involved.

I suppose a major question that needs to be answered is how willing are we to (hopefuly rarely) falsely accuse someone of cheating to preserve the integrity of tournament chess. And what liberties are we willing to give up to allow the detection mechanisms to work? Since HB last year, I for one have stopped bringing my phone to the playing hall during play, and stopped listening to music during games. I guess metal detectors will be a possibility in our future, and who knows what's next. I am not saying these changes are necessarily bad, just an extra "cramping of one's style".

Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 10:41

Oh, and for the record (not that anyone cares), this World Open was the first in a very long time that I did not average coming 20 minutes late for the game. And in a good majority of my games, win or lose, I have 20-30 minutes more time left on my clock by the end of my game. Yes, I know you can't take the extra minutes to heaven (or to the bank) ...

Cheers
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 10:53

Just some thoughts on some issues, everyone...

Re big $$ as motivation for cheating: Of course a big incentive, but let's keep in mind that the ICC has many, many cheats and there is NOTHING to gain (other than ICC rating points; which are exclusive to the ICC). The lower range of the human condition is more sadly exposed when anonymity mixes with insecurity and low self-esteem...

One hit wonders: I recall a NY Open where then US Champ Lev Alburt lost to a 1900. He even had the class to annotate the game in Chess Life!
There is also the time (I believe in Linares 1982) World Champion Karpov lost a piece in 12 moves to Christiansen and resigned. I was witness to GM Dzinzihasvilli hanging his Q to an expert at the US Amateur team East a few years ago. These things happen, which is why we buy lottery tickets or enter big money opens...
Since I was not at this year's WO, I cannot comment on the specifics of those in question, but evidence should be +- in order for action to be taken.
Posted by: MRitter at July 8, 2006 11:02

Okey,

Thanks for your observations. You are always articulate and thoughtful.

My personal feeling has always been that computer move-matching isn't evidence of cheating. But I am keeping an open mind about this, because so many people seem to believe it's the magic bullet (including some people in power, and evidently, some strong players too -- and it's their opinions that should count most on this particular question since it involves technical chess knowledge).

Instead, my program emphasizes looking for physical evidence -- exactly what the World Open officials did in the Varshavsky and Rosenberg cases.

For details, please see: www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com. Also, for an influential TD's take on the same issues, check out: www.uschess.org/tds/tdcornerfeb06rs.pdf

Please note that, when I state (in the first link) that the HB rules are "a good starting point" for anti-cheating policies, I DON'T mean adopting all those rules lock, stock and barrel, and then adding onto that. I mean they are a starting basis for study of what should be kept and what shouldn't...because they were implemented in practice at a large tournament (successfully, I believe).
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 8, 2006 11:12

Just for the record,

I analysed the Smirin game and found black's moves, from move 11 on, to match Pocket Fritz' best moves 83% of the time.

First move match: 39/47

Second move match: 3/47

Nether 1st or 2nd move match: 5/47

Blacks moves therefore matched Fritz' first or second choice an incredible 89.3% of the time. Amazing.
Posted by: John J at July 8, 2006 11:16

"Grandmaster, don't you know that doubled pawns are bad?"

Micro transmitter-receiver set: $70
Tournament entry fee: $350.
A True-1400 telling off a 2650 FIDE grandmaster in a splayed-leg, self-revelatory fashion: Priceless.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 8, 2006 11:17

Hey, I am not saying that Varshavsky was cheating, but after he was "forced" to play his games without the lucky cap he was not focusing as intently on his game. He also started glaring at anyone who came and observed his game. Now he could be upset, but the very fact that I never saw him look up at anyone or anything during his previous games says something to me... I also heard that there was a previous incident with Varshavsky at the National Open (I think it was this tournament) this year.

All this really shows me is that it is extremely difficult to catch people whether they are or are not cheating. This kind of reminds me of the whole situation we have in regards to terrorism where many dangerous criminals are caught, but a lot of innocent civilians suffer the injustices of being accused at the same time.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 12:02

- Thanks Jon for your kind words, and the links!

- Hikaru is spot on with his comments.

Ok, I guess I should get out and try to enjoy one of the 20 days of summer we have up here :)

Take care all.

Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 12:15

Some have said in the other thread (and this thread too it seems) that when Varshavsky was forced to play without his hat for the last two rounds, he lost both games. It should however be pointed out that in those two games he played against 41st finisher GM Evgeny Najer, and 45th finisher GM Magesh Panchanathan. It's not like he lost to complete patzers...As for him glaring around during these two games, sounds to me like he's pissed about the situation. How would you feel if you were having the tournament of your life and find out that people are accusing you of cheating?

Oh and I'm still waiting for an explanation on how someone can transmit the following moves using a 'foot tapper' device:
38...Rhd8
29...Nge5

Seeing as how Stendec claimed that it would be extremely easy to transmit moves via a foot tapper, I thought someone would have given some kind of explanation by now.

If Varshavsky was staring so intently at the board, as claimed by Hikaru Nakamura and other players, then he cannot be using a pocket fritz or similar device. How exactly then did the guy transmit his moves to his partner?
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 15:27

A) Varshavky's moves matched perfectly to Shredder, not Fritz. Shredder fortuitiously was the engine used to check him.

B) Robby Adamson, John Bartholomew, and Ilya Smirin deserve compensation for Mr Hat's antics. Not Joel Benjamin, MrHat on ICC, but the nefarious World Open Mr Hat. I would suggest Robby and John get together and agitate jointly on this one, maybe at the new and improved USCF website!

C) Was Varshavsky tanking/early blundering against Kacheishvili to throw people off the scent or was his accomplice not set up yet so early in the game?

D) Since Goichberg knew about Varshavsky from earlier antics at a prior event, the directors should have nipped this particular cheating "bud" very early on at the WO. Just rip his hat off when the guy shows up at his typical start-time of 20 minutes late. Is a punch to the nose warranted when the transmitter falls out? (Hypothetical inquiry). That's why Robby, John and Ilya should be handsomely compensated. The entire thing is outrageous.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 8, 2006 15:40

Leto:

Googling "international correspondence notation", the first link I find is:

http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Notation/numeric.html

You're not trying very hard, are you?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2006 16:11

The Varshavsky - Kacheishvili game was on the 6th round, just before his game against Smirin. How exactly anyone can claim the 6th round to be 'early in the game'?

So apparently the conspiracy theorists now say Shredder was used rather than Fritz. What version of Shredder did the TD use to claim this?

Let's see if his moves match perfectly with Shredder in the Bartholomew game. I gave each move up to two minutes of analysis time, if the moves matched perferfectly sooner than that I move on to next move:

[Event "3'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.07.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bartholomew"]
[Black "Varshavsky"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C69"]
[PlyCount "122"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8.
Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1
Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7
21. Bg3 Be3 (Be3 is the 4th strongest move according to Shredder 10. It is suggesting Ng6, and thinks white is almost a pawn up)

22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 27. Ng3 Rde8 (Rde8 is second strongest move according to S10. It is suggesting Bg6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

28. Kf1 Rhf8 (Rhf8 is fifth strongest according to S10. It is suggesting Bf4 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7
33. Nce3 Rg8 (Rg8 is fourth strongest according to S10, it suggests Bd8 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40.
Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46.Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5 53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 (Kc6 is third strongest according to S10. It suggests Bb1 and thinks black is almost two pawns up)

57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59.
Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

So in this game at least his moves don't match Shredder 10 perfectly. I'm interested in which version of Shredder 10 the TD used to determine that Varshavsky is a cheater.

Anonymous, what exactly are you showing me there with that link? I see nothing mentioned about foot tapping in that link.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 16:30

In answer to Leto's question. My guess is a foot tapper could be used to transmit long algebraic notation e2 - e4, etc do the coordinates 1 tap for a, 2 tabs for b, 3 taps for c, etc then a pause, 1 tap for 1, 2 taps for 2, etc I remember watching doccumentries about teams of people using similar methods to try and cheat vegas casinos.
I don't think this type of cheating in a chess tournament makes a whole lot of sense. You can only win / steal a fixed amount, ie. the prize fund, you are limited to doing it pretty much once a year. It is a long tournament, so it takes about a week to acomplish this, you have to split the money with anyone who helps you, you pay taxes off the top, you have expenses like hotel, food, cheating equipment, success is not gaurenteed ie the position might get mixed up between the tournament game and the computer, or you run into someone who is also cheating, or your computer just gets beat, or you get caught. Seems like way too much time and effort for too little of reward. But I guess not everything people do makes sense.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 8, 2006 16:32

Rusty, that's interesting. So to transmit the move Rhe8, the guy would have to tap 8 times, pause, and then tap 8 times, pause, and then tap 5 times.

To transmit the move Ng6 to e5, he would have to tap 7 times, pause, tap 6 times, pause, tap 5 times, pause, and then tap 5 times.

Sounds like a very complex procedure! How come no one noticed any tapping? If tapping wasn't used to transmit the moves, what other method is there?
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 16:41

I certainly hope and expect that Goichberg and USCF will take specific action. I am not sure if the game score is available but in his quick loss to Kashiesvili, it went something like this - very bizarre for someone to play like this one round and then beat Smirin, with black, and match Shredder for 23 straight moves!

Varashavsky - Kashiesvili: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.Qe1 0-0 8.Be3 d5 losing a piece. He proceeded to demand the game be declared a draw - I have no idea why.

First of all, 6.Qe1 is a 1000 USCF player type move (this is not a Grand Prix where it makes sense); Second, 8. Be3 allowing d5 is probably a 1200 player type of mistake.

There is no question in my mind as well as to the other GM's who have looked at this situation. Varashavsky could not even play a real game once he was forced to take off his hat.

At World Open:
Varshavsky with the hat: 5-2
Varashavshy without the hat: 0-2

At North American Open:
Varashavsky with hearing aid: 4-0
Varashavsky without hearing aid: 0-2

Here is some good information according to Goichberg. When Varashavsky arrived to play his Round 8 game, he was headed into the tournament hall, wearing his hat and had just grabbed a scoresheet when Goichberg said he wanted to speak to him. At this point, Varshavsky said he would speak to Goichber but first needed to use the bathroom. So, he turned around from going into the tournament hall and went to the bathroom. He emerged from the bathroom and then was searched. Nothing was found.

Then later in the round, Varshavsky went to the bathroom again and locked himself in the stall for 30 minutes. In order to get Varshavsky removed from the stall, 2 security guards forced him out of the stall and he was searched again, but nothing was found.

In any event, this guy is not worth spending too much more time on. He will be dealt with accordingly, I hope, by CCA and USCF. I am just very sorry that something was not done sooner. Many individuals lost a lot of money in this tournament as well as all the other tournaments because of some highly questionable conduct.

I guess the thing that scares me the most is when some IM or GM does in fact cheat and wins some tournament, people will say, well he is IM or GM - he can play at that level. Well obviously thats possible, but even the best GM's dont even approach matching the frequency of how this guy matched Shredder 23 times in a row. I would bet Smirin doesnt match Shredder even 50% of the time.

Robby Adamson
Posted by: Robby Adamson at July 8, 2006 16:46

I don't think anyone made any claims that method was actually used, just that it is possible. I certainly never claimed that method was used, I wasn't even there.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 8, 2006 16:49

Robby, did you see Rob's analysis of the Smirin game? He said most moves were pretty much forced or obvious.

As for opening mistakes, even former world champions have done them in the past. For example take a look at a 1979 game in which Boris Spassky loses his knight in the ninth move, and goes on to lose the game in 22 moves:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1129050
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 17:00

I've never been to the world open....Is it feasible that there was no "transmission" of moves made and the alleged cheaters had accomplices that watched the games, analyzed with a computer, and radioed moves back thru the earpiece? Maybe several accomplices? It seems to me that a running commentary from a strong player who is occasionally checking with the computer would produce the erratic matching patterns discussed above.

I've been reading all these cheating threads and I think this is a core issue. Exactly how was the earpiece used to cheat? Since Varshavsky stayed at the board for some long periods and made moves fairly quickly at times there are not many cheating scenarios that are feasible. We shouldn't make any accusations until we have outlined some kind of specific theories. Also...the idea that several other people could be involved but not implicated is particularly alarming. And whats with that grainy image on the grassy knoll? :) Seriously, the foot tapping device is the only specific cheating scenario I have read....how else could he have done it?
Posted by: wizardofoz at July 8, 2006 17:03

Leto,
If you read my post, you'd see that I recommended international correspondence notation. The "how" is something like Morse Code. Sorry, thought that part was obvious enough...
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 19:17

Many wireless cameras could be concealed in a hat. Even relatively inexpensive ones can transmit wirelessly up to 100 meters. Moves would be received via an earpiece. My occupation requires me to work with private investigators frequently, and the technology readily available to anyone is remarkable. Don't have much time, but here's the first link I got from googling "micro cameras":

http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/pinholecameras.html
Posted by: shoveldog at July 8, 2006 19:42

Ahem... Of course Ben Finegold was right after all. He did not reply to the post James refers to. Let me quote the first sentence of Ben's post:

"Ok, ok... I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!"

This makes it very, very obvious about which post he was speaking. Except for our good friend James of course, who did not understand.

Let me help you out James: Ben was explaining that in Patzerjoe's sentence "Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold." the word "your" is not used properly.

So James, PLEASE... Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.

Posted by: Oscar at July 8, 2006 18:09
Dear Oscar, Thank you for correcting James! You beat me to the punch, thanx again. Kaliman

James, If you were a little more vigilant, you would realize that Finegold was replying to Patzer Joe and not john as you contend. Go back and check the times for yourself, thank you very much. Need I say more? Respectfully yours, Kaliman

James said,
When someone like Ben Finegold comes on here and displays his arrogance he deserves what he gets. Ben, when you show the arrogance to attempt to correct the grammar of someone on this forum you should at least make sure you are correct. Yesterday Ben replied to this post by John:
"yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife."
Posted by: john | July 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Ben immediately replied with this comment:
"First, it is spelled "you're" not your."
Let me correct Ben Finegold. The correct word is "your" and John was correct. The word you're is a contraction which stands for "you are". Saying..."....and so does you are wife" is incorrect. The word "your" shows possession such as "your" book or "your" car or "your" rating, etc.....
So PLEASE.....Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.
Posted by: James at July 8, 2006 15:34

Patzer joe said,
Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.
By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59

Finegold said,
I will go back to reading silly posts instead of posting them myself and arguing the gawking rabble.
Usually I can post for 3-4 days before getting fed up, but my patience is either less than it is used to be, or people here are even more annoying than before (as the mayor's aid said to Joe Quimby, "Dumber sir.")
Ok, back to reading the insulting posts instead of absorbing them! :)
BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:02

john said,
yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife.
Posted by: john at July 6, 2006 23:05

Finegold said,
Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!
First, it is spelled "you're" not your.
Top level Eurotrash??? lol....that is funny, but I am not sure why.
My book on the Smith-Morra was co-authored by Bob Ciaffone, and it generally gets good reviews, mainly due to the fact that it is all original analysis and most of it is quite good. I did none of the prose, just the analysis. The book was published in 2000, so there have been some errors found. We may come out with a second edition, not sure....that is really up to Bob.
I am surprised you did not like my book, yet you have all three of my DVD's? Most people told me they like the DVD's, but you are entitled to your opinion. Making them was fun anyways.
Ok, I am done......I know when I am not wanted! :)
BPF
PS Still fun to read the posts when people don't lambaste you to pieces!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:08
Posted by: Kaliman at July 8, 2006 19:47

I posted a version of this in another thread: apologies for the repeat. One may wish to take an independent look at the position after White's 58th on Bartholomew-Varshavsky before reading further...

.
.
.

In the Bartholomew-Varshavsky game, I'd argue that the tactical prophylactic 58...Rc7 is suspect. True, a strong human can quickly see that the "natural" 58....Kb5 allows 59.Nxc5 (even I, whose peak rating is not far away from Varshavsky's, might see this quickly OTB), but a strong human would also see 59...a5 as the NATURAL reply--this weakie sees it immediately. But would a human go one ply further, see 60.Na6!? on move 58, and evaluate it as White's best? I think not, even at GM level.

BTW, it looks like both moves win.
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 8, 2006 21:36

To Ben Finegold, thanks for the update on the Stocek-Yusupov game.
Posted by: Icepick at July 8, 2006 22:43

Leto wrote: "How come no one noticed any tapping?"

Are you serious? Have you ever even been to a chess tournament? Look under the tables during the middle of a round, and a good 70% of the players are bouncing their legs up and down.
Posted by: Icepick at July 8, 2006 22:49

A simple question:

Did any of the so called over achieving cheaters sit down with their opponents after the game to discuss and analyse? Not doing so isn't a crime of course but if they did in fact analyse with their opponent then that would be a strong indication to me that they were not cheating. To make excellent moves in a game is one thing but to demonstrate accurate vision of alternate moves/lines during analysis is quite another.
Posted by: Steve K at July 8, 2006 23:00

Amazing comments. Robby Adamson, a known cheat and an emotionally disturbed teenager who never grew up. Finegold--the guy who tried to "secure" his last norm in chicago and was not awarded a GM title. THESE people post things about cheating?
AY
Posted by: alex y at July 8, 2006 23:02

Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!

And that was said by a future (and now past) governor!

Anonymous IM BPF from Michigan

PS Hikaru, go to your room!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 23:20

The following appears as a "News item" on the USChessLive intro page. It concerns one of USCL's highest-ranking administrators, who uses the handle "Alrightnow" -- and who I was told, is Steve Rosenberg.

(For those not familiar, USChessLive is the server operated on behalf of the USCF, on which all USCF members get special free privileges.)

The day before this news item appeared -- Wednesday, July 5, i.e., the day after the World Open ended -- "Alrightnow"'s profile, games, and other records were deleted from the USChessLive server.

Here is the news item:

1830 (Thu, Jul 6) Re: Rumors

Fellow Chess Live members, please avoid spreading rumors and muckraking. Recently rumors have been going around about a former Chess Live staff member. To set the record straight, former Assistant Head Administrator and Co-Head Administrator alrightnow has VOLUNTARILY resigned all of his positions for personal reasons. We thank alrightnow for his numerous contributions to the server and look forward to continuing the good work that he has done for us all.

Posted by superpanda.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 8, 2006 23:39

It is relatively easy to cheat with a foot switch. Actually it would be called a toe switch. It is a device that fits in the shoe under the toes. In its simplest form it is a contact switch under the big toe that can be depressed by the big toe, sending a "signal" to someone with a receiver.

Full algebraic notation can be used by simply depressing the contact the right number of times. Shortcuts could also be used, for example if only on piece can reach the destination square there is no need to give the starting square.

A little more complicated would be 2 transmitters, one in each shoe. The left transmitter would be for the first 4 ranks or files, the 2nd transmitter (on a different frequency) would give the 5th through 8th ranks and files. This way the most "clicks" needed would be 4 instead of 8.

Example: 1. e4 would be (1 click right, 4 clicks left), (only 1 piece can reach e4)

2 Nf3 would be (3 clicks right, 1 click left) + (2 clicks right, 3 clicks left)

3 Bb5 would be (2 clicks left, 1 click right), (only 1 piece can reach b5)

A similiar idea (device hidden in shoe) has been used to beat the blackjack tables in Vegas.

The same code could be used in the toe tapping scenario.

But this all seems primative to methods readily available, such as a minature video camera hidden in a hat or jacket (so accomplice can see the board) coupled with a hearing aid receiver (or cell phone set on vibrate).

Or the accomplice being a master strength player, simply observing the game, then signalling the moves from a distance.

Sadly, it is relatively easy to cheat. From what I have read some of the methods clearly were not used (taking pocket fritz into the bathroom). But there are several other methods that could have been used.

If in fact a receiver was discovered on Rosenberg, that is pretty damning. The other case is much more circumstantial. I hope the TDs have had good legal advice on how to DQ cheaters without getting sued.
Posted by: superpatzer at July 9, 2006 00:25

Keep reminding us your a IM Ben. Its a shame your so arrogant.
Posted by: georgie at July 9, 2006 00:52

Speaking as a very ordinary player of no great importance I'd like to say something reading this entire thread reminds me why I am quite happy sticking to pickup chess with friends whatever happened to the old days when people played for the love of Chess itself a very ancient time you know when there wasn't all this greed,ego, bad sportsmanship, cheating with computers?! look over at the junior side of it the game it's not any better Chess Coaches and parents teaching their kids to kick their opponents in the crotch and shines under the table and use dirty tricks to win at all costs?!

That's not the Chess I know or want any part of.

Elizabeth.
Posted by: Elizabeth at July 9, 2006 01:12

????

What are you talking about??

Sincerely,

Anonymous 2002 World Open, 1994 US Open, and 2005 National Open Co-Champ.

PS See...I did not point out "your", "it's", "a" or your anonymity. :)

PPS Oops... IM also....almost forgot!

PPPS I also have a Speedy Rewards Card!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 01:15

Elizabeth,

You are absolutely correct. The World Open is the biggest tournament in the US every year, with nice prizes (and EFs). Most tournaments are casual and fun, and although 1200+ people play in the World Open every year, most USCF members never experience such as event. I tell all my Michigan homies to go to the World Open, just to watch, as it is a great experience....everyone I know who watches and does not play, has more fun than the players!

One of my favorite philosophers once said, "Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive." ....That Bugs Bunny was a helluva thinker.

Anonymous Human
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 01:24

Come on, folks ! Let us stop this mindless slander !!. The TDs have already taken action.

Let us have respect for titled players like Mr. Finegold for what they have accomplished.

Forget and Forgive !!! Spread Love !!!
Posted by: peach at July 9, 2006 01:34

I can see why there are very few titled players posting here...most end up getting attacked. Kinda sad IMO.

To those giving constructive input: thank you. To others, I suggest you google the term "ad hominem." You might learn something.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 9, 2006 02:13

I've been reading the cheating threads with great facination (although I havent played a tournament in 20 years). Both because the discussion is interesting, but you could also see this as "Arguing on the internet 1.0.1"

Ben says big $$$$ for lower rated players is an incentive for cheaters; and immediately 20 people screams that he's an arrogant bastard who wants all their money. To many people create new and unspoken meanings from relatively harmless opinions.

Ben could of course have worked alot harder on posting absolutely precise and relatively boring stuff, over three pages, but he should not have to. And well, it's a blog, and we like it that way...

Q
Posted by: Quely at July 9, 2006 06:12

To be fair to my detractors, the blog is a lot funnier and fun to read when people totally dis' everyone.....it just sucks when that someone is you... :)

Also, it should be "a lot" not "alot" ...a common error.

Anonymous grammar nazi
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 10:11

I didn't go to Philly and so I must rely on the same testimonies many give here but:

For anyone who has been playing chess for a long time, no matter the level or rating, the behavior described above leaves a lot of smoke in the air. This mix of coming late, wearing odd stuff, the strange time distribution, the uneven level etc etc.

If to give an extreme (and albeit exaggerated:))example: Pretend you are watching a 100 yard dash on tv. Lined up are 5 stars, all dressed in aerodynamic attire, and one goofy looking fella dressed in jeans and flip flops. The starter gun fires, and the 5 stars are running their hearts out, while the goofball just stands there for another 3 seconds. He then bursts out and finishes second. If I am alone in thinking that'd be odd, then I am a weirdo. No problem.

When I see people examine the erratic behavior and results, seeing one game where some guy losses a piece in 9 moves, and at the same event beats Smirin(!) and find that reasonable, I understand how OJ got free.

Lastly, slightly off topic: Why is it wrong for a titled player to sign with his title on a chess forum? If this was a science paper and someone who sign with his PhD, that would be quite normal. Just because titled players who play for a living don't earn what other professionals earn, doesn't make them any less of an authority.

Aviv Friedman
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 10:39

Segregate and/or sequester the top six boards of each section in an area with frequency scanners. This area would also have its own exclusive TD and private restroom. Participants would enter through a metal detector set to a low threshold and not leave until the completion of the game.
Posted by: Robert Blake at July 9, 2006 10:48

I am surprised that people want to lay blame and guilt. Personally I would feel better if we could prove that no one cheated.
Posted by: tommy at July 9, 2006 10:59

I like Robert Blakes comments above. He is talking about procedures to use to solve problems. He is not discussing guilt.

I might suggest more than the top 6 boards be in the room.

but if nature calls you have to go to the bathroom. you can not expect less in a 7 hour game.
Posted by: tommy at July 9, 2006 11:07

John B. and Aviv,

You have a point that some of the attacks directed against IM Finegold here were rather mindless. But more importantly, you are overlooking the critical fact that it was HE who "threw the first punch." Therefore he is getting what he deserves, in my opinion.

Mr. Finegold's very first post on the related thread ("World Open concludes", or something like that), led off with a gratuitiously hostile, and I daresay mindless, description of us class-players who pay his, and your, salaries. By "salaries", I refer not only to your Open section prize funds that we subsidize, but also your lesson fees, book and DVD royalties, etc.

Of course you provide value for the money we pay you. But how would your own (Ben, John and Aviv) private students or after-school-program chess students feel, if I were to somehow obtain their names and home addresses and send them a mass mailing that quoted Ben's comments about ALL non-professionals being "terrible chess players," who have "little ability" and "no great acumen at the game."

I also note that Mr. Finegold then went on to say he didn't see how our fees "subsidize" the Open section prizes. This showed that while he, and you, as titled players are entitled to some deference toward your opinions on over-the-board matters, when it comes to logic or the simplest mathematical reasoning ability, a chess IM or GM's "strength" can closer to 1000 than 2500.

Ben, John and Aviv, were you all BORN with 2500 ratings???? Weren't each of you patzers at one time? (N.B. Someone took me to task not long ago for a similar comment I made on USCF Forums, where I referred to "scholastic" members of USCF -- whose average rating is below 600 -- as "not real tournament players, but an accounting fraud" intended to artificially inflate USCF membership rolls.)

So, before saying things like "I can see why few titled players post here, because they'll get attacked," please take care to be aware of the FULL context.

I think it's also telling that Hikaru Nakamura -- himself a controversial figure in some quarters -- jumped right in and declared Finegold "absolutely dead wrong" to argue that all the money should go to the top section. Hikaru at least understands that we tournament entrants at the bottom and middle of the ratings pyramid are holding up, not ripping off, the ones on the top.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 11:25

I would like to know if Ben, Fluffy and any other titled players, who take issue with counter remarks to their opinion of amateur prizes, think that a fair and equitable solution would be to distribute the prize money in each section according to the number of paid players in each section as presented by anonymous "B player"?

I can't think of any fairer and appropriate answer than that. Also, the TD and staff would still garner the same percentage of compensation for their work and provision of a facility. Ben, Fluffy and any other titled player(s), the ball is in "your" court.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 9, 2006 12:59

Wow. Leave for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose!

John Bartholemew -

Hey man, I wasnt there, but living in Iowa I've played some real 'winners' in life. Ever heard of Dave Wolz? I dont accuse Dave of anything but being weird, and I never thought to accuse him of cheating if he plays a good game against a higher rated opponent.

Also, I havent played nearly as elite competition as you have. I am an A player (for life im afraid, but that's another topic)... But I have played in a couple of master strength round robin events and have taken points off of my fair share of masters. Now does this mean I could beat Smirin? No, probably not. But let's say that we played next weekend, and I beat you. Are you going to say, "he seems like a normal guy, and a normal 1800 player could beat me if he's having a great chess day?"... How about if I need to use the restroom during the game, and I am constipated. I'm just saying dude :-) It should not be out of the realm of possibilities that a lower rated player (especially what appears to be a rapidly improving 2100) beats a master, or even a world class player like Smirin. Sometimes it happens. It just never happens to me :-)

cheers!
Posted by: Mike Parsons at July 9, 2006 13:54

While chess players know for under $1000 you can have GM in a briefcase, they may not be aware for under $300 one can purchase all manners of hidden two-way communication devices. The good news is that there exist numerous equally low cost counter measures. Corporations and institutions dealing with sensitive info, e.g. law firms, have been dealing with similar issues for some time.
Posted by: Robert Blake at July 9, 2006 14:26

Jon Jacobs,

Sorry to nitpick, since I agree with most of you said, but you've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. You do NOT pay IM Finegold's salary by buying his books. You enter into an economic contract with a company which then pays him royalties, and such a transaction gives you NO moral sway over IM Finegold -- not on this board, nor anywhere else. Moreover, the "Hey, I pay your salary" argument is just petty, even when it is applicable. Would you ever consider making that statement in an argument with a fireman, policeman, or soldier? You'd have a better case, but I sincerely, sincerely hope you wouldn't be that small.

Furthermore, I would hope that if someone made good on your threat to send a mass e-mail to Finegold's students, the recipients would have the good sense to trash it immediately, as they would any other piece of junk mail.

Yours,
A Terrible Chess Player with No Real Acumen for the Game
Posted by: Mr. Paul Richard Ian Chester Kane, nitpicker extraordinaire at July 9, 2006 14:34

Jon Jacobs,

Sorry to nitpick, since I agree with most of you wrote, but you've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. You do NOT pay IM Finegold's salary by buying his books. You enter into an economic contract with a company which then pays him royalties, and such a transaction gives you NO moral sway over IM Finegold -- not on this board, nor anywhere else. Moreover, the "Hey, I pay your salary" argument is just petty, even when it is applicable. Would you ever consider making that statement in an argument with a fireman, policeman, or soldier? You'd have a better case (tax evasion having legal consequences and all), but I sincerely hope you wouldn't be that small.

Furthermore, I would hope that if someone made good on your threat to send a mass e-mail to Finegold's students, the recipients would have the good sense to trash it immediately, as they would any other piece of junk mail.
Posted by: Nemo at July 9, 2006 14:37

I beg to differ, especially about the "I pay your salary" argument in the more general case.

That is the sort of statement people constantly make, and have every right to make, when dissatisfied with the actions of a particular public official or public servant. I made that very argument, in those very words, just last weekend while driving home from the World Open, when a tollbooth attendant in Pennsylvania was rude in fielding my request for directions to a certain highway. (I pulled over after the tollboth, went into the office alongside, and filled out a complaint form about the man's behavior.)

You may feel it is "petty", and therefore presumably invalid. But that's just your opinion, which I suspect most people don't share.

As for the product buyer / royalty payment relationship that we average chess players bear to Mr. Finegold and other titled pros, you may be right that "paying his salary" is the wrong concept, from an economic analysis standpoint. But as you said, it's nitpicking.

The essence of my comment is that by paying for Mr. Finegold's books, lessons and lectures, we are showing our respect and admiration for his ability. If he repays us by expressing contempt for us, he does so at his (economic) peril.

That was also what I meant by my (hypothetical) threat to broadcast IM Finegold's expressions of contempt for us "terrible" players, to those other "terrible" patzers who take lessons from him in-person. You are entitled to your opinion that his students would merely shrug off such knowledge. But again, I think your opinion would be in the minority, and at least a few of Mr. Finegold's students would be offended, and perhaps feel personally slighted enough to reconsider their relationship with him, upon hearing HIS opinion of amateur players published on this blog.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 15:13

Elizabeth - Yes, we chess players, pro's and amateurs together, do form a dysfunctional family. But don't let that deter you from enjoying the fun of tournament play - both big and small. I couldn't tell from your post how long ago the "old" days were that you refer to? The 60's?, 70's? 80's? If you reflect on it, however, I'm sure you'll remember that it's ALWAYS been this way in the world of chess. And I for one don't mind if people rip apart my posts, and argue strongly for their opposing views. That's the value of Internet discussion groups - topics that used to be discussed behind closed doors, by a few who we're "in the know", now get bandied about in full daylight. Ultimately we all benefit by gaining a broader perspective on the issues. And I think we would all agree that the two issues being discussed on this thread are very important one's ... cheating, and earnings opportunities for strong chessplayers.
Posted by: RP at July 9, 2006 15:33

**That is the sort of statement people constantly make, when dissatisfied with the actions of a particular public official or public servant. I made that very argument, in those very words, just last weekend while driving home from the World Open, when a tollbooth attendant in Pennsylvania was rude in fielding my request for directions to a certain highway. (I pulled over after the tollboth, went into the office alongside, and filled out a complaint form about the man's behavior.)***

Jesus chill out man.. Go get laid or something...
Posted by: jdawgs at July 9, 2006 16:59

Jon Jacobs and others,

I didn't read other threads, just this one, so I saw what Ben said here and the (over)reactions. The age-old topic of huge entry fees and class prizes accepts good arguments from both sides of the discussion.

I can't argue with the concept of an organizer charging $400 bucks and awarding class players many thousands in prizes. OTOH, in many people's eyes it is somewhat of an anomaly. Normally in 'real life', one has to be proficient in a certain field in order to 'cash in' on it.

Over the years I have taught or coached in some capacity a large number of kids and adults. Some became (or were) very good, others did not. To me personally, the only issues of importance were the interest and the effort. So I don't understand this 'were you born a 2500 player' remark...

Ok, maybe one can argue about the way Ben presented it, but like in any field some people have talent and/or means to get better, and some not. There certainly isn't a shortage of fields I am not at all talented at - even though I tried. For example, my drawing style can only be defined as "infant-surrealism". It's the same with chess: I have taught professionals who were very successful in their fields, and yet couldn't progress beyond 1300 if their lives depended on it. They played a lot, bought books, took lessons... nada. So what?

Allow me to borrow the comment I gave my brother when he told me one of my nieces takes to chess and the other does not: 'you can live to be 100 and lead a very happy life without excelling at chess'.

I have NEVER THOUGHT that because I am a 2400 player, I am better than anyone (as a person), but with the average crowd chances are when I talk about chess, I know more than most. It's not bragging, it's a simple fact. In the chess world, it is amazing how: 1. Weak players talk like they are GM's and 2. People think because they buy a book by a certain GM, that he is indebted to them. 99.9% of the time when people take lessons/buy a book/DVD/whatever for their own benefit, not for charity.

When the titled players here described events and why they thought it looked unusual or suspicious, it wouldn't hurt to pause for some reflection. These people have the experience of many competitive events - often times against players from beginner to top GM to refer to, they can see and interpret the moves better than the average player, so please... don't be so quick to dismiss it and make noises as if they just said the earth was flat.
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 17:25

Aviv,

I am not sure how Ben and Hikaru become experts in the topic of cheating in chess. I don't think they are experts in detecting incidents of cheating. Ben certainly can hold an opinion that higher prize money for patzers leads to more cheating -- but that is just his opinion. Not something that came out of a research study.

Amecha
Posted by: Amecha at July 9, 2006 19:13

Varshavsky games were checked with Shredder Solid. The ICC Computer Cheat team was called in as consultants. The verdict was unanimous - clear cheating. The story gets worse. Varshavsky, to avoid suspicion, claimed he was sleeping in his car during the tournament and had no room. However, he was followed at 1130 pm and was observed disappearing into a room in the tourney hotel on the 16th floor where it can be surmised that at least one accomplice labored. In prior events, his hood outfits have led to camera suspicions as well as transmitter suspicions, and this is augmented by his fixed angle stare at the board. The WO outfit, with hat, could accomplish the same thing as the hood.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 9, 2006 19:28

Amecha,

If you care to scroll back up and see the reasons why some players thought the person in question was cheating, my advice is to not dismiss them so easily.

I am not calling anyone an expert or not (did Hikaru even opine on this issue at all?) I am saying that experience and chess ability counts for something at chess. Also see mark Ginsburg's latest post.
Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 22:04

Amecha,

If you care to scroll back up and see the reasons why some players thought the person in question was cheating, my advice is to not dismiss them so easily.

I am not calling anyone an expert or not (did Hikaru even opine on this issue at all?) I am saying that experience and chess ability counts for something at chess. Also see mark Ginsburg's latest post. The alarm bells are loud and clear, my opinion is formed, and your miles may vary.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 22:06

Aviv,

You need to be aware of the full context of the discussion, so if you're going to comment at all about what is basically a low-level flame war between IM Ben Finegold and a number of us amateurs, you should read the "World Open concludes" thread starting with his post about money prizes creating the cheating problem among amateurs. (When pressed, IM Finegold conceded later in the same thread that big money can induce players of his level to cheat too. In other words, he backed away from his initial implication that IMs like himself are "above" cheating, therefore morally superior to us riff-raff.)

As I said in my 11:25 comment on this thread, I agree that strong players' opinions concerning over-the-board matters deserve some deference. The class prize issue is not an over-the-board matter; and in fact, the quality of IM Finegold's arguments on that topic provide the best possible evidence that strong players can NOT think more clearly than weak players, about matters other than chess positions or technique; (in fact, the opposite might be true).

Moreover, regardless of the subject under discussion, it is neither good manners nor good business for a chess professional to dis his customers/fans the way Finegold did by the way he expressed his views about the prize structure on that other thread.

You say there are good arguments on both sides of the age-old topic of high entry fees and class prizes.

In fact there are NO good arguments against the present prize system -- at least, none that those of you who don't like large class prizes have ever cared to make.

You can talk yourself blue in the face, or type yourself blue in the fingers, but the ONLY "argument" that any pro, amateur or organizer could advance against large class prizes that would ever carry any weight is, to bring in an outside SPONSOR.

The pros, by definition, want to play for money. That money must come from somewhere. Right now a portion of it is coming from your (pros) own pockets, but a larger portion is coming from us "terrible players" who "have no talent for the game," etc. WE are the primary sponsors of multi-section chess tournaments. We would still be the sponsors even if all large tournaments were conducted as single-section (Open) events.

So if you want a piece of our money, you must give us an incentive to "buy in," as our poker-playing friends put it.

Now, some people have argued (I forget if it was on this thread or the related one) that running large chess tournaments might be an equally, or almost equally, profitable proposition if the prize structure was changed to remove the opportunity for us patzers to garner a sizable share of it.

Maybe so. Josh Gutman, an amateur who agrees with you pros on this question, proposed that last year. When I asked him when he planned to hold the First Josh Gutman Open to test out his theory, he replied that he was a college undergraduate and lacked the resources to test that or any other theory in the real world.

So it boils down to this: A handful of people, some of whom are 2400-2600 (or higher) as chess players, BUT ALL OF WHOM ARE 1100 AND BELOW AS BUSINESSMEN, seem to think you know better about what would and would not work from a business standpoint (i.e. structuring prize funds so as to maximize entry fee revenue and organizer's profit), than a man who though not quite your equal when it comes to playing chess, is at least 2800 (actually, probably much higher) as a chess businessman and organizer: Bill Goichberg.

As long as we amateurs are the tournament's main sponsors, it is obviously the height of hubris and stupidity for anyone -- least of all, someone whose main credential is their ability to move chess pieces well -- to claim they could successfully manage or even properly understand the economic aspect of tournament organizing. (Recall that Finegold said publicly that he couldn't understand how the amateur entry fees were subsidizing the Open section prizes -- something that takes little more than 9th grade math, if even that.)

You do have another alternative. If you don't want us to have any influence or economic claim over prize structures, find another source of funding for tournaments. The upper echelons of golf, tennis, and the other sports mentioned in this thread, have managed to do that; that is why THEIR pros are able to play in tournaments where they aren't merely gambling to redistribute their own entry fees OR amateurs' entry fees.

Those sports have external sponsors. Chess pros, and the chess politicians who are supposed to represent their interests, have never shown much inclination for that.

So if you want to free yourselves from the influence of us terrible players, that is what you have to do. Otherwise, you can keep complaining about the big class prizes next year, and the year after, and the decade after, and the century after, and it won't make a bit of difference.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 23:26

Jon J,

I am not here to defend Ben or his views. I was speaking of the overall belittling responses titled players get (for example those who replied to the cheating incident thread).

No offense, but since I never spoke in any negative manner of class players - nor do I think negatively of players based on their ratings, I am a bit amused at how you continuously making derogatory references (sarcastic or not). IMO it says more about you than about me or anyone else...

I actually did not express my own opinion on class prizes, but since you were so adamant in one direction I'll play devil's advocate (more for the sake of making the argument than necessarily it being my opinion).

Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient. That is an anomaly, as I said before. It is not absurd for some to find this ridiculous and wrong. There are also many residual problems with that phenomenon:

There hasn't been a year without stories of cheating. In my active years as a player and when visiting, I have witnessed plenty of these. From the latest one to the famous Von Neumann case several years ago. Players getting caught looking at opening books in the store (during a round), deal offers from potential prize winners (I was offered $1500 in 1992 to throw a game - I refused, and I was not alone), people getting advice from much higher rated players. Sandbaggers, of all ages and levels who are solid players year round and every summer manage to fit so comfortably and sneak in to try for an undeserving class prize, foreigners with high national ratings who enter lower rated sections and win them (sometimes they get caught, sometimes not). With my own eyes I saw a strong master from another country (someone I knew personally), playing in a lower section. Puzzled, I asked how he managed that miracle, and was answered he was playing under an assumed name... (Yes, I reported him to the TD). Contrastingly, at the no less well-attended US Amateur teams and individual (especially East), where there are no cash prizes, there is significantly much less cheating.

Parenthetically, you mentioned poker and buy-ins well ok then: how about having all tournaments with one open section, where GM's and unrateds compete for the same prizes, with the same starting conditions, like poker tournaments?

Two last comments:
1. Sadly, chess is not enough of a spectator sport to provide enough sponsorship for as many pros as golf or tennis do. I find this fact a shame (and I have never played chess for money btw), not some fact to happily flaunt.
2. Just because there is demand to Goichberg's supply of huge class prizes events, doesn't make it 'oh-so-lovely'. I can think of other markets where there is demand for something and someone who supplies it, and many wish it would have been different.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 01:48

Thanks to Jon Jacobs for sticking with this. There are a few relatively highly rated club players around my neck of the woods (San Diego) who grouse about class prizes.

Here is a simple explanation:

Each class prize gives members of said class an expected return on investment (ROI) (baseline would be 1 -- 1 dollar in entry fee should average 1 dollar return).

In a pool, let's say you have 4 classes, there should be a slight graduation of ROI:

- class B (ROI ~ .8)
- class A (ROI ~ .85)
- expert (ROI ~ .95)
- master (ROI ~ 1.1)

Some fees are taken for administration of course. As can clearly be seen, there is subsidy trickling upward for the top-players. This subsidy isn't so large as to dissuade lower class players from entering but isn't so small that the top players go hungry.

Make sense? I'm amazed that these IMs can't figure this out.

-Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:02

Thanks to Jon Jacobs for sticking with this. There are a few relatively highly rated club players around my neck of the woods (San Diego) who grouse about class prizes.

Here is a simple explanation:

Each class prize gives members of said class an expected return on investment (ROI) (baseline would be 1 -- 1 dollar in entry fee should average 1 dollar return).

In a pool, let's say you have 4 classes, there should be a slight graduation of ROI:

- class B (ROI ~ .8)
- class A (ROI ~ .85)
- expert (ROI ~ .95)
- master (ROI ~ 1.1)

Some fees are taken for administration of course. As can clearly be seen, there is subsidy trickling upward for the top-players. This subsidy isn't so large as to dissuade lower class players from entering but isn't so small that the top players go hungry.

Make sense? I'm amazed that these IMs can't figure this out.

-Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:03

Aviv,

Your comment:

Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient

Rings a bit hollow. Virtually any game that can "rate" people can be handicapped and folks that are successful in their handicap bracket will likely out-earn better players due to this. Golf, bridge, scrabble, squash, tennis and I'm sure many others follow this model at the club/amateur level. Any game that is funded by its player pool will be subject to this form of economics (pretty much anything non-professional). People want a chance to win.

Ever go to a golf tournament and notice that the best prizes are usually randomly drawn? People don't want to simply write a check to the top players, they want a chance at a prize (earned or no!).

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:17

While not much bothered by the comments, I would like to point out that being a lower class player does NOT mean that one is without talent. For every person who dedicates him or herself to chess and gains a title, there are dozens or more others who could have gained GM or IM titles if they had the time or inclination to dedicate themselves to it. I suspect that there are hundreds if not thousands of casual amateur players who are only A class or experts who could be IMs or even GMs if they were able to devote themselves to chess full-time. I am only a 2100 player, but I only get to participate in tournaments about once every three years, so I do feel I could have been an IM if I had the chance. I don't feel bad about this, as I chose the career path that I have instead of chess (plus I came to chess late at the age of 16). I merely point this out so that titled players can stop calling us amateurs 'talentless'. We may not be as good as they are, but we often have just as much talent for the game.
Posted by: knight_tour at July 10, 2006 02:42

I feel exactly the same as knight_tour. I reached low-expert status by age 16, but my tournament activity ended with h.s. graduation. My interest in the game did not lessen, but alternate forms of leisure and certainly more lucrative careers beckoned. The paucity of strong native players is precisely due to the enormous opportunity cost of playing chess in America. Is someone with a 150 IQ better off making 2500 FIDE and playing for chump change, or hitting Wall Street (if money is their objective), or becoming a scientist, wherein the avg IQ for Nobel laureates is 145?

Even 40 y.o. GM immigrants from the USSR are probably better off spending one-to-three years retraining themselves for another career, I bet.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 10, 2006 04:23

There is only one solution to stop all this cheating - make everyone play naked!
Posted by: sa at July 10, 2006 06:50

SA, I offer to host next year's Women's Championship.
Posted by: KCotreau at July 10, 2006 08:21

I hope someone who has read everything comes along and says. I am going to do something about this problem. I am going to go out and get corporate sponsorship for a tournament.

come on there must be someone here who knows someone in a corporation.

You know Poker is doing fairly well. Has anyone ever cheated at Poker. LOL. well how come poker is doing so well and chess is down in the pits. we have hired and pay for professionals to run the USCF now lets get some results for paying them our money. the USCF should have at least one person who is assigned to drum up corporate sponsorship. that is obviously super important. I can never remember a report out of uscf giving their progress and work on gaining corporate sponsorship. that corporate sponsorship like AF4C came from the people not from the top as far as I know. AF4C was not formed because USCF was knocking on their doors.

I want to ask. what doors has USCF knocked on in the past 50 years. I have to make it a long time so we might get some hits. at least I hope there are some hits in 50 years.
Posted by: tommy at July 10, 2006 08:51

I know nothing about this case, but I'll tell you this: if I saw someone who can play 7 Qe1 (to say nothing of 8 Be3)against Kacheishvili beat Smirin the next day without Smirin blundering horribly, I'd get very, very suspicious indeed. Some moves just tell you that a player is of a certain level, and that's one of them.
Posted by: rdh at July 10, 2006 08:58

Let's include singing, music and acting among fields that often over-reward the talentless.

"Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient".
Posted by: pix at July 10, 2006 09:38

About 7.Qe1: suppose a camera was the outbound interface, and suppose the (hypothetical) collaborator miskeyed ...e6 as the plausible ...e5. 7.Qe1 is not a top choice, but it keeps a White pull per Fritz.
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 10, 2006 10:24

Oops, I meant to say there might be perspective issues, especially when pawns are on central files.

Demand stereoscopic cameras!
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 10, 2006 10:27

Tommy, I am repulsed by the remarks of Ben Finegold and Aviv Friedman after reading the whole thread (after both initial posts) that I am completely turned-off to the idea of searching for corporate sponosorship.

Finding a sponsor shouldn't be too hard for most tournaments, sure as the prize structure increases to hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions it will be much more difficult, but for state championships and other events on par with those tournaments it shouldn't be too hard to find a company who would like to sponsor it.

An idea is if a company who makes a chess engine such as fritz or shredder wants to sponsor a tournament that all players who play in the tournament must sign a contract that if they win they must play a free game against the computer for publicity.

There are many ideas such as this that should and will attract sponsors to mid-size events, but with the arrogance and elitist attitudes shown by some here I don't know who from the chess community would be willing to set that up.

On a side note, I realize that Aviv was playing the Devil's advocate, but since he defended Ben Finegold without disclosing his own position I can only assume that he thinks similarly to his line of argument.

Anyway, I just want to thank all the masters including GM Hikaru Nakamura for taking the stance and saying "Ben Finegold is absolutely dead wrong when he refers to the open section and how 'top players deserve all the money.'" I would not mind contributing finacially to players who take this attitude and do not put themselves above the rest.

After all, even though some may devote their whole life to chess, it is just a game. And I find it refreshing when top players realize it is as such, and those are the people who I wouldn't mind subsidizing, and make me want to go out and find corporate sponsorship to help them out.
Posted by: shropshire at July 10, 2006 10:53

I think that Ben has completely forgotten that he was also a weak patzer once upon a time. Without these prizes, why would any average amateur player even play chess or devote time to it at all? Besides, if Ben really feels this way about prizes, why doesn't he just go into the skittles room and hustle some weaker players like I do on some occasions?

Although I do not know Aviv's position on this matter regarding prizes, there are many other sports and professions where the money is balanced out more equally. Also, Aviv, I guess you forgot about poker. After all, I could always beat a top card player, but yet a 1000 rated player could never beat Topalov.

Shropshire is absolutely right on this matter; chess is a game, and quite a few people fail to enjoy it for what it is and not what it could be.

It is also worth adding that in the past there has been substantial corporate sponsorship in the past, but these companies never get any return on their investment. I think it is also sad that a pioneer like Maurice Ashley who has been so selfless in trying to promote chess is left with nothing to show for it.

I suggest that Ben and Aviv amongst others go outside and get some fresh air. Enjoy life and live it with zest.

Thanks to everyone for their support over the years.

Adios,
Hikaru Nakamura

Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 10, 2006 11:12

Andrew and others,

It seems that no matter how clear I try to be in my posts, people either don't read them fully, or decide to interpret them their own way.

I am NOT SAYING that class players should sponsor the pros! I am arguing about class sectionals with huge ef and huge prizes. The San Diego formula is nice and irrelevant to what I said. I also don't refer to class players as talentless, I specifically used the terms 'truly not proficient' and 'considerably more proficient' (and mind you, the reference here is to tournament/competition).

My devil's advocate point was NOT to ban/eliminate competition of class players, it ONLY questioned the value and logic of class sectionals with the aforementioned high ef and prizes. If you guys think it doesn't breed cheating, then sorry, you live in another world.

In most places (all over Europe for example), amateurs play for trophies, books, small prizes with very low ef's. There's no cheating there btw... Oh and, chess there is no less popular.

There is no arrogance in thinking that a class player should not play for or win tens of thousands of dollars in a competition (especially one that is closed for others by a rating limit). Prizes, if there are such should go to the best, and that doesn't mean me either. You want to compete with the pros a la poker tourneys? give all a fair and even start and a shot for all at the same prizes.

I don't know anything about how it works with amateur golf or tennis. I assume there are competitions based on ability, but are there high ef, huge prize restricted competitions? I am curious.

Lastly for the last time and for the love of god, I will clarify and state:

1. I am not looking down at any chess players. Lord knows I can easily look high enough to see my own shortcomings first, and as a chess teacher I find it pleasing to help and enrich others who love the game.
2. I don't think of lower rated players as talentless, although like in any field (see American Idol:)), there are people who are not going to excel (did I mention my drawing abilities yet?)
3. The point that was made previously here, is that class competitions with huge prizes have a correlation to excess cheating. I agree with that, and sampled in my previous post.
4. As I said, class players need not sponsor the pros, and on the same token there is legitimacy to the devil's advocate argument that they shouldn't play for huge sums in restricted tournaments either. If there are prizes, they should go to anyone who can win them.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 11:20

There are some things which are rather disturbing being posted on this blog. The first is the lack of accord given to "titled" or strong players. John Bartholomew for example must have played easily hundreds of events and to dismiss his point of view as being that of a sore loser is questionable. The thing is, that to reach a decent level in chess you have to accept that your loses are your own fault. This is why accusations of cheating are very rare at the highest level. The fact is some of those questioning him might be purely "online" players(no offense implied), who were not present at the event, nor have they played an event in 20 years. Let me just say that to play 23 moves, many of which are not even the best objectively, according to one particular engine in a row is beyond statistically improbable. That, combined with previous allegations and completely bizzare behavior give me no doubt that the guy was cheating. Note that it is not about the result... Kazim made a much a better result than Varshavsky, but it was clear to everyone that he was just playing well. I also want to respond to this idea that the open section deserves all of the money. Philosophically, I sympathize with this. How much did the GM's win for tying in the open section? Surely much less than any winner in a class section. Unfortunately this is what funds the tournaments and makes it profitable to the organizers. In addition, should some 1399 throws down $400 just to see it disappear into the hands of Hikaru Nakamura? The way I see it, chess tournaments without sponsorship are just organized gambling and Goichberg has the formula for this down pretty good. Now let me say the semi-offensive part of what I want to say(hopefully no one is still reading this thread or this far down in the musings of an idiot). "Top" American players often complain about how this or that is unfair and how difficult it is to make a living playing chess, but I see no reason why it should be possible to make a living playing chess(teaching chess is possibly a different story). For the very best one, could argue that they make a living because they bring joy to millions with their games. But everyone else? Why are they so priveleged? A 2500 player who is a "professional" is a "professional", primarily for his own pleasure. If this is the case, aren't the current conditions enough?
Posted by: Daniel Pomerleano at July 10, 2006 11:29

Hikaru is right on the money.
Posted by: Michael Parsons at July 10, 2006 11:54

It's pretty sad to see a player of ANY rating/strenght investing over US$1000.00 in the hopes of winning ten times that amount.

The truth is that the only one benefitting from this exploitation of the average chessplayer's disfunctional life is the tournament organizer (Goichberg, 90% of the time in the USA).

It is worth mentioning that the regular "sucker" falling for Goichberg's "offer" includes GM's and IM's. Because, even though some of them don't pay an entry fee (GM), they do incur significant traveling/lodging expenses for the tournament, not to mention the loss of income for the time spent playing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ON CHEATING:

The greatest danger is not in some crazy, stupid ass like this Varshavski guy. He is obviously too dumb to cheat successfully. The effective way to cheat would be in the Open Section, with a 2400+ player (or even a GM), who only needs computer assistance SOME OF THE TIME. Think about it: a GM/2400+ plays his pet lines in every game (something he can do easily for the first 15 moves) and then makes the occassional strategic trip away from the board - either to the bathroom or to "chat" with an accomplice. Six or seven "trips" per game (more or less trips needed according to how strong the cheater is or how complicated the game is) would be enough to have an excellent tournament without much chance of getting caught.

That's the real danger...
Posted by: tgg at July 10, 2006 12:02

tgg it's a grand once per year!
That is less then $3 a day!
And it is FUN FUN FUN to compete.
Are you a monk who does not drink or smoke or go to the movies or watch tv or gamble etc (I know you are on the internet)
there are a million ways to waste time and money and chess is one the best an least harmful.
Posted by: Bobby Blake at July 10, 2006 12:28

Hikaru,

Your comment touched the very essence of this issue. You said: "...Without these prizes, why would any average amateur player even play chess or devote time to it at all?"

Because it's a fun hobby and a challenging game that is an escape from the everyday? Because (and you know this well better than me) the more you study it and know about it, the more fun it is? Because in most hobbies you invest time, effort and money without even expecting to cash in on them - you do them for your own fun and enrichment?

I am not buying that these few big money events is what's keeping amateurs in the game. I am willing to claim that even 'rating' would place above that.

This obsession with winning big money prizes (and face it, it's a lotto when played fairly) leads to so much ugliness.

I already mentioned before some the cheating, but here is the latest: 2-3 days ago I was chatting with a chess-playing friend who pointed me to the USCF MSA section. He shows me how (not for the first time!) some youngsters who are rated in the 2200 level, go 0/4 in a local event against players rated up to 1000(!) points below them. All so their rating will go down for the then-upcoming world open...

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 12:34

Also it is fun to travel.
II would love to play the varied locals of Prague, Hasting Engalnd Havana Cuba.
I promised myself that next year I would play in open in the Netherlands during Corus and in the Jamaica.
Posted by: Bobby Blake at July 10, 2006 12:53

Aviv, you should report those people for sandbagging. The USCF office DOES investigate such complaints. I am virtually certain that Goichberg's CCA would do that as well, and would be quick to slap the suspects with a rating "floor" that would restrict them to playing in the Open section.

In fact it is cowardly and irresponsible for anyone to tout such allegations on a public blog merely to make a point, and not take it any further. If you know that the allegations hold water -- which would be the case if you actually viewed the suspicious records in the MSA -- then you have an obligation to directly bring that information to the attention of USCF authorities so they can investigate.

You of all people should know this, because you have often worked for the USCF as a Chess Life correspondent.

Please forgive my critical tone, if you already have done or are on the point of doing what I urged. If not, now you know what you must do.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 12:58

After going back and forth with Ben a few times about amateur prizes, I specifically asked him and Fluffy to comment upon "B players" suggestion that all monies stay in each section per paid player. No subsidizing of the open section, which Ben believes to be a reality anyway.(chuckle) No answer by either, all's quiet on the Ben and Fluffy front. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but it speaks volumes to me.

Currently, and at best, in this country, chess is a symbiotic relationship between professional and amateur. As amateurs, we pay entry fees that help to subsidize the top boards for their fine play. For that, we get to watch, enjoy, share and hopefully learn from their excellent play and if fortunate enough, win a decent amout of money to cover the large amount of expenses occurred.

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. It's nice to see that someome as talented as GM Nakamura thinks so. So... in my opinion, IM Fineberg has let the proverbial cat out-of-the-bag, and by that I mean, he thinks way too HIGHLY of himself.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 10, 2006 13:04

What tgg describes in the On cheating section happens in real life.
Posted by: peach at July 10, 2006 13:17

Aviv,

"The San Diego formula is nice and irrelevant to what I said"

It is not "a San Diego formula" but a numeric example of how class prizes "work". It seems that reasonably intelligent people don't understand this too well. It was not in response to your post(s) and its relevance is in regard to IMs Vigorito and Feingold. This thread started previously and you have not read things as carefully as you ought to have considering that you want to critique others' interpretation skills.

Your posts are reasonable and intelligent otherwise and I don't object to anything in particular -- save for what I already brought up. This barrage is almost all inspired by the two aforementioned IMs.

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 13:39

My apologies, my last post should have read IM Feingold not IM Feinberg. Freudian for my doctor whose name is Feinberg.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 10, 2006 14:31

Clarification on the ICC computer test of Varshavsky games:

The ICC computer cheating team conducted a blind test, not knowing the identity of any of the players. ICC was not proactive in the transaction.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 10, 2006 15:02

I just want to say that I like the way Jon Jacobs thinks thought the problems and the solutions. I will not say I agree with everything. but I do like the way he analyses the issues.

I also agree with Nakamura. I hope everyone listens closely to his views and gives them good consideration. I would love to see strong corporate sponsorship for chess. like golf. having weekly prizes of a million dollars so talented people like Nakamura and others could receive their just reward for their talents.

I would love to see the day when the winnings for top players like kamsky and nakamura will be higher than for golf players like tiger woods. who is also a nice person. I do not want to bring down golf winnings, I just want chess winnings to get up there also.

just think about it. even a race horse who is not a human. can win a million dollars for a 2 or 3 minute dash around the track. a couple of good races in one or two years and he is retired to a life of leasure and all the fine ladies his heart desires.

I do not think we must look to the makers of chess software for corporate sponsorship. we need to find it from the regular companies like coca cola and mac donalds Intel and IBM, etc.

who are the people putting up the big money for golf. they all can not be golf club companies.

let us look at european tournaments. it was said above that they have low entry fees, small prizes and are sponsored by corporations. so the TD gets paid by the corporation for organizing the tournament. here is the us it is different. and so why do we have these expensive tournaments. it is simple. it is the ONLY way for the TD to make big money. if the entry fee was $10 instead of $400 and we had 2000 players the total gross income would still only be $20,000. while 1300 at $400 is about $500,000 so to make a big chunk of money the TD must run a big money tournament.

But make no bones about it. the reason for the big money tournament is for the TD to make more money. not for the players to make more money.

Now lets look at the corporate sponsorship of AF4C. how much publicity did they get out of all the money they spent. well they had the chess people run things and guess what happened. the press releases never went out beyond the local area of san diego. in other words the chess people did not see to it that the corporation got what it paid for. publicity. so we are coming closer to killing another corporate sponsor because we are not professional in our approach.

so over the last year what has USCF done to help corporate sponsorship in usa. well it just about killed its only sponsor and has done nothing to find any one else.

all this intelligence. will someone please use some of it.
Posted by: tommy at July 10, 2006 15:13

I have strongly disagreed with Finegold's views on large class prizes and stated that in several posts. But I do agree that it is troublesome that earnings opportunities for top US based players are as limited as they are. I just don't believe that the best way to solve the problem is to begrudge class players the fun they derive from playing for big prizes ... especially since the amateur players are self-funding those prizes.

In fact, the existence of amateur chess players, who like the game enough to invest the amounts of money that they do is a GOOD thing, for amateurs and pro's alike.

It's a misnomer that sponsors pay for the sporting talent of players, in any sport. What they really pay for is the impact that displays of those skills have on others. Nike & other companies don't pay Tiger Woods ten's of millions of dollars because he can score low on the golf course. They pay him because of the large numbers of people who follow Tiger's exploits ... attending the tournaments that he plays in, buying the same brand of golf attire that he wears, using the same type of equipment, being influences by what he endorses, etc. Likewise, having a high chess rating, or an international title, doesn't carry with it any entitlements to earnings... not in the US anyway.

Golf pro's have become savvy enough to encourage participation in the game. Doing so enhances their economic success. I don't expect to hear Tiger say "It's a shame that all of those weak amateur players are allowed to play on the Pebble Beach golf course. Just because they can afford to pay the greens fees, dress well,and buy high end clubs, doesn't mean that they are anything other than terrible golfers. All that they are doing is taking away the valuable time slots that us pro's could use to play real golf."

It other words, professional chess players need to take responsibilty for creating an attractive "product" that will cultivate more fans, and through those fans, realize the sponsorship potential that we all believe exists.
Posted by: RP at July 10, 2006 15:37

Andrew first,

I used the phrasing 'San Diego formula' as what I thought would be an economical way of referring to it, that's all.

Forgive my absence of clairvoyance for not knowing that this thread started in another thread. How was I suppose to know it!? I just responded in the thread I was reading *shrug*.

My post spoke of the responses that titled players got and often get. I did not single out Ben Finegold (I was actually more puzzled by the off the cuff dismissal of the players who spoke of the specific cheating case).

John J,

Your last remark's pedagogical/lecturing tone is how I got into this thread in the first place. I spoke on two issues: the attitude towards titled players, and the cheating story from the WO (and the issue of megabuck class sectionals). I agreed with the statement that those money events bring out a lot of cheating, and brought up some examples from my own experiences (by no mean all the examples I have...)

When you to say it is cowardly and irresponsible to mention these when arguing the point I am arguing, you manage to stump me... Do you doubt that all these happened?

As for 'doing the right thing' well lets see... hmmm... I exposed the cheater who played under an assumed name, whom I knew personally, while at the tournament venue without fear for retaliation from that person. In another case, I caused a pretty big scene when I went to the TD and told her my opponent offered me $1500 to lose the game (well, the TD made the scene while we and others were at the boards:)). So, I'll let you conclude to your heart's content if I choose to do the right things or not.

Aviv

Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 15:39

Whew! I read most of both threads.

Every entry fee / prize structure, in the absence of sponsorship, must survive the unforgiving crucible of the marketplace.

Given the status quo, I'm wondering "why" players have such solidarity with other players of similar rating. Or to put it another way, how often are the winners of large class prizes really typical of that class? How often does a typical class player win a large class prize? Non-typical prize winners might include cheaters, sandbaggers, and possibly even juniors. What really is the "ROI" for the typical class player in a big money tournament? One might make a graph with ROI on one axis, and size of the class prizes on another. My guess would be, after accounting for the amounts creamed off for open sections (but not the cost of food and hotel rooms), that as the size of the class prizes increases, the ROI of the typical class player decreases.

Maybe the class players would achieve a better ROI by grouping on some basis other than rating, at big money / big entry fee events.

Posted by: Jonathan Berry at July 10, 2006 16:00

Aviv,

No clairvoyance is required...Jon Jacobs wrote above (to you):

"You need to be aware of the full context of the discussion, so if you're going to comment at all about what is basically a low-level flame war between IM Ben Finegold and a number of us amateurs, you should read the 'World Open concludes' thread starting with his post about money prizes creating the cheating problem among amateurs."

I don't think that there is really much debate stemming from your comments.

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 16:30

In response to Hikaru Nakamura:

I picked the game up as a adult and my rating class is "Abysmal." I always play up, so I don't expect to ever win the rating section I play in. So why do I play tournaments? Because it's challenging, it's rewarding to reason my way out of a jam or into a win, it gets me to think about something other than work, it allows me to reconnect with players with whom I've developed a friendship over the years, and most of all, because it's fun! (Well, ok, the tournament I failed to win a single game wasn't loads of fun, but still). I can promise you that I do not care one whit about prize money. I don't mind paying the entry fee only to see it land in the hands of the top players. In fact, I am happy to do it. And I am willing to bet that I am not the only one out there with that attitude.

So without taking any position at the moment on whether class prizes are inherently "good" or "bad," please don't forget that there are people out there who like tournaments just for the fun of it, not for the money!
Posted by: cam at July 10, 2006 16:33

Aviv, I admit my language there was a bit inflammatory. What I was railing about was the possibility that you and/or your friend who showed you the sandbagging evidence you cited (the crosstables that showed multiple 2200 players going 0-4 against people rated 1200 and below to get under 2200 before the World Open), might have FAILED to notify the USCF office about what you saw.

Your citing such observations in a debate is fine, if factual; but if factual, then you also have/had a very real obligation to report them to the authorities.

The fact that you did report cheaters/bribers/sandbaggers in other situations when you came in direct contact with them is praiseworthy, but not terribly relevant to the instance at hand.

A couple months ago a co-signer of my anti-cheating petition brought an equally egregious sandbagging case to my attention, in a similar way. It involved a Chicago Expert who lost several games to children with 500 and 600 ratings in one or two events late last year, then proceeded to enter an Under-2000 section (National Open? North American Open?) and win a top prize.

When I examined that link and satisfied myself that it was indeed blatant sandbagging, I urged my ally to notify the authorities, in terms almost as stern as those I used on you.

I may have been remiss in not following up to make sure he did so and doing something myself if he hadn't. However, I DID soon see that the particular case was the subject of an extensive thread on the USCF Forums, which is read by many TDs -- so I figured it probably was coming to the attention of the right people.

(N.B., there was some discussion there of whether the TD of the kids' event where the low-life dumped his rating points, might deserve some sanction for submitting the tournament for rating without flagging the suspicious games. There also was some discussion about writing a computer program that could monitor rating reports on a tournament-by-tournament basis for patterns that suggest sandbagging. However, nothing like that is done at the moment. The USCF rating technician(s) are not in a position to double-check tournament reports on a routine basis -- but they do welcome tips about specific instances, which they will then look at.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 17:03

it seems to me to be a simple matter to run a computer program that looks for people dropping their rating before the world open. I would think that either CCA or USCF would run such a simple program.

all the ratings and their history are on the uscf data base.

another big problem is that the uscf should take social security numbers. a person can have a high rating then drop out of chess and then later join back up and they start out all over. now the person can go for a low rating and enter the world open in a low class compared to their skill level.
Posted by: tommy at July 10, 2006 17:36

Cam,

You misunderstand me, or else I just didn't make myself clear enough. Of course chess is challenging, and quite a bit of work. However, it always helps to have some incentives and rewards for playing well. And cam, I totally agree with you in regards to chess. I enjoyed chess more when I was an expert/master player.

To be honest, I seriously doubt top level chess will last more than 10 years. I think that the whole computer age will render chess obsolete.

I find it curious that the person who started this whole debate has suddenly disappeared.

Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 10, 2006 17:48

Hikaru

I respect you for being honest about the topics discussed in this thread. Very rare to see a chess pro stating what he honestly believes to be the truth.

I'm also glad you can keep the perspective on what chess can really produce in the near future. It's particularly important for a young person like you to be objective when it comes to chess as a "profession". Life is too short and too valuable to be wasted working for nothing...

Good luck to you!
Posted by: tgg at July 10, 2006 18:10

Why is everyone so obsessed with sandbagging when there are much more serious problems. There is a relatively large opportunity cost to sandbagging for only the possibility of potential gain(again it is not that frequent that these brilliant 2050 stars win the 2000 section or what have you. A much more likely winner is someone on his way up than someone who hit a wall and has to move down....) and if someone doesn't do it in a ridiculous fashion (500 or 600 rated opponents) than it is impossible to catch. (Take someone who is reasonably strong who for whatever reason starts off poorly at World Open 1.5/3 or 2/4). He decides this is not my event I'll just lose out and give myself some breathing room for the next year. What about a guy who plays quads and just happens to go .5/3 twice in a row. The point is, I could easily wrangle my way into a under section without anyone suspecting a thing. But I won't(at least not intentionally, although it will probably happen anyway). Morality is not even the issue. I know that I am not going to get anything objectively because I am not good enough to make it a smart decision because I am on my way down. But, when you are on your way up, I don't think sandbagging even comes into your head. Sandbagging is only such a popular problem because it is one we think we can control....
Posted by: DP at July 10, 2006 18:14

Hikaru,

Fischer expressed a similar statement some years back about chess and computers. I didn't want to believe it then, but(unfortunately)that opinion is becoming more and more feasible each year that passes. I guess he was ahead of his time about that also. My hope is that it will take sometime longer.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 10, 2006 18:16

Hikaru -

Thanks so much for responding. My point was simply that, at my level (at least for me), the "incentives and rewards" for playing "well" are not financial in nature. And that I don't mind funding the prize money for professional players.

As for enjoying the game, in the roller coaster world of the lowest echelon of chess, where you're up a piece one minute, down a piece the next, back up a few minutes later, all the while muddling through in a state of utter confusion, what's not to love? It's like a thriller - you never know what is going to happen next! :)

Cheers.

Posted by: cam at July 10, 2006 20:35

Maybe I'm just dim, but I'm not sure what you (chesstraveler and Hikaru) mean by "the computer age will render chess obsolete."

Is it pessimism about the possibility of ever conquering cheating, now that the best computers can convincingly beat even the very best humans head-to-head?

If so, don't be so dour; technology works both ways.

It's been decades since I've followed or played bridge, but from what I read, I understand it's still going strong at the top levels, even though both high-tech and low-tech cheating clearly presents far bigger potential problems for them than for our game (because any concealed communication between partners in bridge, even once during a hand, would confer a major advantage). They found ways to beat it. So we can too, given sufficient attention and resources.

Maybe the price to avert tomorrow's forms of cheating will be too high? Perhaps. The future of physical sports doesn't look bright, if ever-more-intrusive biological monitoring lies in store. (It seems like another major, all-encompassing doping scandal just about erupts every day: now it's cycling.)

Then again, perhaps a technological workaround will be found for that, too: non-intrusive, remote sensors that will give automatic instant digital readouts of a long list of blood components and chemicals of anyone who walks by? Cold comfort for you Bush-bashers out there. (Incidentally, the typical Bush-basher's attitude -- at least as presented on this blog -- strikes me as not all that different from the view expressed on the Kasparov thread by the aptly named der Strudel. He sees everything as a Jewish plot; the Bush-bashers see everything as a Bush plot.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 21:29

In prior events, his hood outfits have led to camera suspicions as well as transmitter suspicions, and this is augmented by his fixed angle stare at the board. The WO outfit, with hat, could accomplish the same thing as the hood.

This seems like a lot to hide under a baseball cap. What about a power source, I don't believe a reciever is a small thing to hide, especially on that can recieve a signal through multiple floors of a downtown Philly hotel. This seems more of an operation for Tom cruise and his Mission Impossible team. Of course I don't know if Mr Varshavsky cheated or not but if he was caught I am sure they would not let him continue his last round game.

Glenn
Posted by: Glenn at July 11, 2006 00:26

I don't remember anyone mentioning U.S. politics or Bush before on this thread Mr. Jacobs. But thank you for inventing a reason to insert your political views, maybee everyone else will do the same. What better place for it than a chess blog!. BTW, any luck on getting that toll booth operator fired, or you still working on that?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 11, 2006 00:51

Peace...

Cam, I think that Hikaru's point has a veiled relevance here with regard to the relationship between professionals and amateurs. Ostensibly, all professionals were once amateurs, and so the question must not be what inspires people to play chess, but rather what would ever consider someone to pursue it as a profession (since people are so keen on creating a niche for professional players in this country). People do choose professions out of love for them, but at every turn, financial considerations inform these decisions. In this regard, amateurs are likely to pursue chess as a profession only if they are gaining some return from it or have such a surplus of money that they can afford to make nothing from the pursuit and still aspire toward world-class levels.

For those who do not have aspirations to become GMs (such as myself), chess does hold intrinsic joy, but all of that instrinsic joy is not going to convince me to pay $400 to enter a tournament. There MUST be an incentive for people to play these tournaments or they will not show up in large numbers. For the money I put out to go to that tournament, I at least need to give myself a chance to do something; I imagine that the same perspective is held by a large number of fellow amateurs. Yes, we will still play in smaller events if the larger ones disappear, but amateurs won't spend the money that they do on lessons, software, etc., because such expenses lose their appeal when they are no longer viewed as investments. In short, chess in the U.S. suffers if the large tournaments are no more, because the sport itself is not strongly-rooted enough in this country for it to survive solely because some people love it.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 11, 2006 08:21

>Yes, we will still play in smaller events if the larger ones disappear, but amateurs won't spend the money that they do on lessons, software, etc., because such expenses lose their appeal when they are no longer viewed as investments.

I find that an extraordinary suggestion. Why would an amateur want training for any other reason than love of the game? I can't believe people take lessons because they hope to get lucky at the World Open - do they? Apart from anything else, what's the point if there's the same prize money in every section - you get better, you move up a section; what good does that do you?
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 08:43

In fact, this whole debate is quite extraordinary from a European perspective. I can't think of any European tournaments where a player of 1400 rating could possibly win ten grand or anything like it. No-one here seems to miss the possibility much, but over there it sounds like it's part of the Bill of Rights. It would be interesting to see a similar tournament organised here. I strongly suspect it would be a massive commercial failure: I just don't think there's enough amateurs out there who are willing to punt 400 dollars on the idea.

On the other hand, it never ceases to amaze me how many lower-rated players resent stronger players taking the money. 25 years ago it was possible to make a living on the UK weekend circuit, largely because the lower-rated sections had very modest prizes. This was a big factor in the explosion of strength that UK chess had at that time. Now it's completely impossible, with the results we see at the Olympiad (and only the fact that we still have Short, who is a hangover from that time, and happen to have Adams, keeps us from sinking much further). The reason for this is precisely this attitude that the weak should have the same chance to win prizes as the strong. It's fine, of course, provided that you don't mind your country underachieving in chess internationally and ultimately there being no chess professionals, which may or may not matter.
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 09:02

To RDH - I'm interested in understanding how the tournaments that you mention in the UK are financed. Where does the money for the prize funds come from? Are you saying that amateurs in the UK would pay UK 217 (roughly $400) to enter a chess tournament that only offered minimal prizes in the class sections?
Posted by: RP at July 11, 2006 09:22

There are no open tournaments in Europe with entry fees higher then 20$, I think. And there are no tournaments with big prizes in the class sections. The whole idea seems strange to me. It's like gambling, not chess.
Posted by: marc at July 11, 2006 09:45

OK, I should wrote higher than 100$.
Posted by: marc at July 11, 2006 09:50

"I don't remember anyone mentioning U.S. politics or Bush before on this thread Mr. Jacobs. But thank you for inventing a reason to insert your political views, maybee everyone else will do the same. What better place for it than a chess blog!. BTW, any luck on getting that toll booth operator fired, or you still working on that?"
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 11, 2006 00:51 FYI:
"We've alerted the NSA to Mr X, an America-hater. His hard drive has been searched, imaged, and permanently cached by the Total Information Awareness system. His communications and computing activities is monitored 24/7/365 henceforth. Further expressions of opposition to our New World Order and we may rendition him, or electronically pinpoint his location and scramble an F-16 for a surgical strike, under the Bush Doctrine "you are either with us, or annihilated by us"."
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 04:28
Posted by: ep2005100 at July 11, 2006 09:52

Tournaments seem to be completely different in the US and in Europe. The most expensive tournament I've ever played in was the Klaus-Junge-Open in Hamburg (Germany) 2005. Entry fee was 80 Euro because I didn't even had an Elo before that tournament. The prize fund for the complete tournament was 15,000 Euro which is of course ridiculous when compared with the World Open. Only the ten top boards were getting some money: 1. 3,000 2. 2,500 3. 2,000 4. 1,500 5. 1,000 6. 600 7. 400 8. 300 9. 200 10. 100. Players who didn't come from Hamburg or nearby often lived with some chess friends during the tournament. This is usually the case here. A club mate hosted GM Vladimir Baklan for example. I like it this way. 80 Euro didn't hurt too much and I have no problem that the money went only to the top players. I guess nine rounds in nine days would be a problem in the US because there aren't many people (amateurs with a job) willing to take 5 days off for a chess tournament.
Posted by: supergrobi at July 11, 2006 10:03

rdh, marc, and supergobi:

Although I've never played chess in Europe, I have looked at the announcements for some of the many chess "festivals" that go on there, and my impression of the economics is somewhat different from yours.

I DID notice at least a couple of such festivals were structured in the form of 3 or 4 sections. The lowest section was either Open, or was limited to people with FIDE ratings below a certain ceiling. I think that was the case for Morelia this year (yeah I know Mexico isn't in Europe, but since the Morelia event was paired with Linares, I'm counting it anyway). I recall prizes in those bottom sections were substantial, although much less than this year's World Open.

But the really important point is, even if the bottom section was CALLED an "Open" and was technically open to all, it would attract very few professional-strength players -- thereby leaving it for the amateurs to duke it out for whatever prizes it offered -- JUST LIKE IN AMERICA.

Why? Because the OTHER, HIGHER-rated sections, were CLOSED, presumably invitational events. The top one might be called (formally or informally) a "GM" section, the second-highest might be called the "IM" section. I further assume that those restricted, professional-oriented sections had SPONSORED/DONATED prize funds.

If that is true, then the economics of the European events are completely different from the US ones, and rdh's comparison is misleading. If in fact the pros had their own, invitational events to play in, with (presumably) sponsored prize funds, then there would be no need for them to siphon off entry fee money from the amateur-dominated public or "Open" section. That in turn would make it economically feasible for the amateurs to pay low entry fees and play for relatively low prizes, by US standards -- without depriving the overall event of the funding needed to draw in the professionals.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 11, 2006 11:00

What about a power source?

Some sort of bio-battery, à la The Matrix? A brain is a terrible thing to waste...
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 11, 2006 12:41

I was wondering why the directors of the U2000 section at World Open added 0.5 points to everyone who has faced the alleged cheater (Steve Rosenberg) in the first eight rounds. While, it was definitely appropriate to grant a win to his opponent in round 9 (Chris Sevilla), since that game has not concluded, wasn't it going too far to correct the results of already finished games in the prior rounds? Is there some USCF rule about that? One of the reasons why such an adjustment does not look appropriate is that players who had points added after the end of the tournament have benefited from the easier pairings over the course of the tournament. As a result, myself and 2 other people who got 7.5 points have received $3344.34 instead of $4658.19 we would receive if no point additions were administered. A lot of the people with 7.0 and 6.5 points have also suffered. I would appreciate if one of the tournament directors could share their rationale for the decision they made.
Posted by: Mikhail Sher at July 11, 2006 13:03

Mikhail, you should pose that question to the CCA staff directly (try emailing them at their Web site), and/or post your question on USCF Forums. Even though a self-identified World Open TD (Boyd Reed) posted on one of the World Open threads here, this blog nevertheless seems hardly the right venue to try and get your question answered, especially since you aren't merely asking in the abstract but have a personal interest in the matter.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 11, 2006 13:52

It's not rocket science, surely? If some guy scored 7/8 and lost to a guy with a wire, he's entitled to feel he was cheated out of his chance to score 8/9 and perhaps win the big money. He's also entitled to feel that he's got a case that once the guy's disqualified all his games should be scored as a loss; that's what would surely happen in an all-play-all. I realise he's had easier pairings, but still and all once you're conceding a zero-point bye in a big Swiss like this your expected take goes down drastically. It doesn't seem to me an absurd compromise to score that game as a draw.
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 14:21

In reply to RP: no, I'm not saying that at all. I just don't think the appetite exists to shell out entry fees of 400 dollars (£250 or so?) in the hope of winning a big grading prize. A typical weekender here involves an entry fee of £25 or so and a first prize of £200. I just don't think there's a market for these big-money events, though I could be wrong, of course. Certainly as far as I know no-one has ever tried to run one.
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 14:24

In reply to Jon Jacobs:

I don't know anything about Morelia, but the typical European model for an international open features free entry for GM/IM (and possibly some appearance money for one or two GMs), a bit of local sponsorship, a sliding entry fee (the weaker the more you pay) up to 100 euros or so, and a prize fund of maybe 5 or 6000 euros, basically going to the top finishers with grading prizes of perhaps 250 euros.

It is common to have such an event alongside invitational events (Linares does), and I suspect Morelia was like this. It is also common to have a sub-event where there are fairly low entry fees and prizes and perhaps a rating ceiling. To what extent these subsidise the main event I don't know; presumably it varies.

Of course there are bigger-money events (Gibraltar for instance, or the Isle of Man), which have sponsors.

There are many smaller local tournaments in (eg)France and Spain. I don't know how they work but I do know that a Spanish GM can make a living just playing a lot of these and not writing or teaaching.

In the UK the staple diet is a 5 or 6 round weekender. In 1980 these would be split into say six sections of 200 or so people eadch for the largest one (Islington's Christmas event). The first prize in the Open would typically be four times or so the prizes in the ratings-limited events. It was possible to make a precarious living on this circuit: one or two GMs emerged almost entirely from it - most famously Mark Hebden - and many others needed the money from it to keep them playing before they became GMs (basically any English GM before about 1990). Nowadays these events draw much smaller fields particularly in the open section, and typically the prizes are the same in each section or perhaps a little bigger in the open. The prizes are about the same as they were in 1980, thus in real terms perhaps one-third to one-quarter, and the entry fees about double. It is no longer remotely possible to make a living at them. On the whole these events are run by enthusiasts for the love of the game rather than for a living.

There are a few professional organisers who run very small scale quickplay events which typically are on the model some advocate here. These regularly cut back the prize in the top group for shortage of entries so that it is smaller than in any other group. I've had this happen a few times and it always strikes me as a curious spectacle. I'm not bothered; I earn my living outside chess and I don't play these events for the money, but it seems odd to me not to run the whole thing as a single event and give the money to the winner with a small grading prize to lower-rated players who exceed their expectations. This is naturally driving stronger players away and if I was a weak player it'd drive me away too: when I was lower-rated the point of going to tournaments was that I might get a game with someone stronger. But I'm sure the organisers know where their bread is buttered. I've also seen semi-pros cheating pretty flagrantly in these events for a half-share of thirty quid.

In reply to the World Open problem, though, surely it's an elementary precaution to say no hats or coats on the top ten boards and no hearing aids that haven't been cleared with the organisers, isn't it? We already get defaulted when our mobile phones go off. Who legitimately needs a hat indoors in mid-summer in the USA? The only time I played in the World Open what I needed was a dispensation to allow me to play naked in an ice-bath.
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 14:43

In reply to Jon Jacobs:

I don't know anything about Morelia, but the typical European model for an international open features free entry for GM/IM (and possibly some appearance money for one or two GMs), a bit of local sponsorship, a sliding entry fee (the weaker the more you pay) up to 100 euros or so, and a prize fund of maybe 5 or 6000 euros, basically going to the top finishers with grading prizes of perhaps 250 euros.

It is common to have such an event alongside invitational events (Linares does), and I suspect Morelia was like this. It is also common to have a sub-event where there are fairly low entry fees and prizes and perhaps a rating ceiling. To what extent these subsidise the main event I don't know; presumably it varies.

Of course there are bigger-money events (Gibraltar for instance, or the Isle of Man), which have sponsors.

There are many smaller local tournaments in (eg)France and Spain. I don't know how they work but I do know that a Spanish GM can make a living just playing a lot of these and not writing or teaaching.

In the UK the staple diet is a 5 or 6 round weekender. In 1980 these would be split into say six sections of 200 or so people eadch for the largest one (Islington's Christmas event). The first prize in the Open would typically be four times or so the prizes in the ratings-limited events. It was possible to make a precarious living on this circuit: one or two GMs emerged almost entirely from it - most famously Mark Hebden - and many others needed the money from it to keep them playing before they became GMs (basically any English GM before about 1990). Nowadays these events draw much smaller fields particularly in the open section, and typically the prizes are the same in each section or perhaps a little bigger in the open. The prizes are about the same as they were in 1980, thus in real terms perhaps one-third to one-quarter, and the entry fees about double. It is no longer remotely possible to make a living at them. On the whole these events are run by enthusiasts for the love of the game rather than for a living.

There are a few professional organisers who run very small scale quickplay events which typically are on the model some advocate here. These regularly cut back the prize in the top group for shortage of entries so that it is smaller than in any other group. I've had this happen a few times and it always strikes me as a curious spectacle. I'm not bothered; I earn my living outside chess and I don't play these events for the money, but it seems odd to me not to run the whole thing as a single event and give the money to the winner with a small grading prize to lower-rated players who exceed their expectations. This is naturally driving stronger players away and if I was a weak player it'd drive me away too: when I was lower-rated the point of going to tournaments was that I might get a game with someone stronger. But I'm sure the organisers know where their bread is buttered. I've also seen semi-pros cheating pretty flagrantly in these events for a half-share of thirty quid.

In reply to the World Open problem, though, surely it's an elementary precaution to say no hats or coats on the top ten boards and no hearing aids that haven't been cleared with the organisers, isn't it? We already get defaulted when our mobile phones go off. Who legitimately needs a hat indoors in mid-summer in the USA? The only time I played in the World Open what I needed was a dispensation to allow me to play naked in an ice-bath.
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 14:43

rdh: "Who legitimately needs a hat indoors in mid-summer in the USA?"

I sometimes wear one to conceal my unwashed hair!
Posted by: Puzzled Pawn at July 11, 2006 14:57

To RDH -- Thanks for the explanation of how the UK tournaments are structured. An additional question - Does the 4NCL create significant earnings opportunities for professionals? The perception I have is that quite a few GM/IM level players can enjoy a predictable, although not extravagant, stream of income if they can get signed on to one of the teams for a season. Are the teams sponsored by local (or national) businesses? Cities & Towns? A professional team league does not exist in the US. Eurpoe seems to have several .. 4NCL, Bundesliga, etc.
Posted by: RP at July 11, 2006 17:47

The 4NCL is nothing like as secure an income as the Bundesliga or perhaps the French leagues (or quite possibly other European leagues; I am no expert). Most teams in the top division have some degree of sponsorship - the obvious exception is Barbican, which is made up of titled players with jobs outside the game - and use a professional or two. But I think we're talking a couple of hundred quid a weekend or so (plus expenses) for your average 2500 GM; nothing to retire on exactly. Not that I'm any expert, but whatever it is it's nothing much. And the number of teams paying comes and goes - often the money comes from individuals who have been successful in business and want to give something back to the game. There have until recently been a couple of super-teams who are staffed mainly by 2600+ GMs, at least for their matches against each other, but one of these has just ceased to pay and reverted to the Barbican model.

I'm surprised the US has never had a national league, or indeed any talk of one. I know it's a big place, but there are aeroplanes, or indeed at a pinch telegraph matches. I would have thought it could be done and would have some potential for drawing sponsors in - get a bit of regionalism going. The 4NCL is the best thing about British chess (apart perhaps from the superb Isle of Man tournament).
Posted by: rdh at July 11, 2006 18:46

The US DID have a national league, on at least two occasions during the past 40 years.

The first was in the late 1970s, with moves relayed by telephone -- hence my memory of it being referred to as the "Telephone league." Many of the nation's top players took part, with teams representing major U.S. cities. (I represented Boston in one or two matches.)

Another go-round was done just a year or two ago, put together by IM Greg Shahade after the first New York Masters series (the weekly Tuesday night G-30 tournaments), which he also organized, came to an end. This time the Internet was the medium, naturally. The league was described as a success, but seemed to get little or no attention outside the chess world, and I don't even think it got much coverage within the chess world beyond the local level in cities that had teams. I guess it isn't around any more.

So far as I know, no one was paid for playing in either incarnation.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 11, 2006 22:20

US Chess League

http://www.uschessleague.com
Posted by: peach at July 11, 2006 22:37

I believe the league is in fact still around. At least on the Washington Chess Federation website there were posts a couple months ago about them getting a team in the league. Why you can't even find out about it on the USCF web site or in Chess Life is, of course, a mystery.
Posted by: Mulfish at July 11, 2006 22:46

Peace...

To Mikhail Sher: The USCF rule is that a person who is caught cheating is booted from the tournament and all who lost to him or her are awarded a .5 point bye, while all who drew are awarded a 1-point bye. I understand your dismay at losing some money, but there is nothing unjust about the decision, because you could not POSSIBLY have been more aggrieved than those who lost to a guy who was cheating. Basically, that money was never yours in the first place, because the tournament standings were altered by way of indescretion.

In addition, it is a very false premise that they automatically got easier pairings because they lost to Rosenberg, because you must realize that swiss systems simply do not work this way. It is entirely possible to play someone even stronger (legitimately) in the very next round. For example, I lost a winning game in Rd. 7 in the U2200, and my reward was a game in Rd. 8 with one of the players who came into the event with an unofficial that was over 2200. Note that swiss pairings are designed to give higher-rated players the chance to recover after bad games, so a lower-rated player who lost to Rosenberg had little likelihood of playing easier competition in the subsequent round.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 12, 2006 09:58

To John Jacobs - Yes, I am aware of the USCL. Greg Shahade, as always, has demonstrated great leadership and creativity in organizing it.

But the players don't get paid, which is why I made the statement that we don't have a league in the US like the leagues based in Europe.

My position has been that the big prize swisses are not the "problem" with professional chess in the US. The problem is the lack of true professional events, an example being the kind of paid leagues which exist in Europe. As RDH indicated, some of the sponsors of those league teams are affluent chess enthusiasts, whose only motivation is their love of the game. Refering back to my earlier post, those are exactly the kind of potential sponsors who are among the hundreds of amateurs who play in big money US swisses, like the WO. Hmmmm ... how much would it cost to "own" a chess team? It's probably much more affordable than even a minor league baseball team.
Posted by: RP at July 12, 2006 11:21

RP,

I liked your toughts on sponsorship (including some non-obvious areas to look for it) mentioned in your earlier comment.

You may be aware that the woman who posts as "Duif" (it's her maiden name) has written in great detail along complementary lines -- basically stressing the need for flexibility in the search for sponsors. As you said, they needn't necessarily be big corporations. Duif suggested various small businesses like the local pizzeria might be sold on making a small contribution to (partially) sponsor the town high school champion's trip to the National scholastic championships (and display a poster of said local kid in the pizzeria).

I've said before that the existence of visible sponsorship -- from whatever source, and in amounts that might not allow a GM "to retire on" but are clearly of value to anyone personally involved (a value summarily dismissed by Internet mosquitoes like tgg and gg and Stern, who don't play chess but haunt these pages out of some compulsion to convince themselves that chess isn't worth serious attention by players of any level) -- is a major difference between the European and U.S. chess scenes.

That said, at least some organizers in the U.S. DO tap the source(s) you refer to. For instance, the New York Masters series at the Marshall Chess Club is partly funded by private, usually anonymous, donations. Prize funds in that particular series always exceed the entry fees received, with such private donations making up the difference (in amounts that vary from one event to the next). I believe that St. John's University in Queens, where Frank Brady (founding editor of Chess Life) is a department chairman, is a regular donor -- the series since its return early this year has been re-named, "The St. John's Masters". But various individuals donate regularly to that series as well.

Let's count the minutes before the chess-haters I exposed, who feel threatened by the idea of sponsorship, show up hear and post that I'm making this up.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 12, 2006 11:44

Hey Maliq,
Thanks a lot for the info. I just did not know before that there was an existing USCF rule covering the situation when a cheater gets booted, so I thought that was a spur of the moment decision. Now, I know that USCF rules for such a situation have been followed. Btw, see you around in U2200 :-)
Posted by: Mikhail Sher at July 12, 2006 16:14

Peace...

Always glad to share info, Mikhail. I don't know how often you will see me in U2200 sections, because I have a lot to handle right now, but may the contest be a worthy one on both of our parts if we do meet over the board. Give my greetings to Miron!

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 12, 2006 22:51

We should have contractual obligations in these rules. It can't be the discretion of a TD. The contract should provide penalties for cheating such as fines of 150% of the prize fund.

Cheating can be defined however you want in the contract. Including running to the bathroom when a TD asks to talk to you. Make it clear up front that you shouldn't wait till the last second for your potty break becasue if a TD approaches you about possible cheating and you run to the bathroom you will have a big penalty.

It shoudl be enforced in courts. Mig you do not need to prove fraud you just need to prove breach of contract. What constitutes a breacch of contract can be defined however you want in the contract itself.

Yes have metal detectors and any other sort of prevention of cheating you can. For everyone who says they won't play becasue they wanted to bring in thier head set or "lucky hat" you will have 2 others who are glad they are not playing against a computer.

Yes use the courts and enforce the rules. No BS committees or arbitrary TDs. Discretion often equals arbitrary rulings. People at these tournaments are adults we we can use an the adult system of our courts to resolve these disputes.

Sand bagging can be avoided if you just say no one who ever had over 100 points more then the rating section can play in that section.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 14, 2006 10:16

Are contracts really needed? Casinos can ask people to leave for almost any reason, including being too proficient of a blackjack player. Has anyone ever sued a chess organizer for being kicked out of an amateur tournament/section? In fact, might having players sign contracts have the unintended consequence of imposing more legal obligations on the organizer?

The idea of excluding those whose ratings have ever exceeded the section top by 100 points is a great idea. I suspect that some organizers are ok with "light" sandbagging, since it draws a few more entries, but isn't blatant enough to upset the valid section participants.
Posted by: RP at July 14, 2006 12:52

RP
Thanks for the comments. The reason a contract is important is so that you can enforce tougher penalties. Asking someone to leave the tournament is hardly any deterent. Look at the calculation if I get away with cheating I win $10k, But if I get caught I'm asked to leave. Oh bummer.

From my standpoint - I'm a patzer who likes to go to these big tournaments for a variety of reasons including but not limitted to knowing if I have a great run I may win some real cash- I don't think asking them to leave is sufficient.

The other reason to have it in the contract is because Fraud probably doesn't apply and it usually requires stricter proof under the law. (althoguh laws vary from state to state) Fraud under the law deals making false statemnts not cheating at chess. There are no states that specifically outlaw cheating at chess as far as I know.

In a contract you can include all sorts of things.

Take this "lucky hat" example. The contract could say that you can be interupted during your game so that you can be searched for cheating devises. By signing you agree to said searches and if you breach you pay 150% of the top prize in your section. You can spell it out that you will be considered in breach of the contract if you do not *immediately* submit to the requested search. If you leave for the washroom or for any reason leave before you allow the search you will be in breach of contract.

Ok lets just assume this provision was in the contract. We would not need to prove the fellow with the "lucky hat" actually cheated. We would just need to prove he left for the washroom before they could inspect his hat.(becasue that in itself would be defined as a breach under the contract) Of course there would be a room of hundreds of people who would have saw this occur so it would be an easy case to prove.

Now the wording etc would have to be given thought etc. But certainly it can be done. And needs to be done.

Now as to whether people would find this too draconian: I'm not sure. I can only speak for myself. I would be in favor of these stricter provisions. Organizers aren't going to search people unless there is some decent grounds as that would discourage people from coming.

As for me I will never play in one of these big money tournaments again if the only downside to cheating is you are "asked to leave." Moreover if when a suspected cheater is questioned he can then say "oh yeah, right, Ill be right back let me go flush the evidence." That is a joke. You might as well say "Cheaters come here! Win big money if you get away with it and lose nothing but your entrance fee if you don't"

Organizers have to balance the number of players who really would not show if there were strict rules on cheating versus those who don't go because the rules are a laughable and not really enforced. Count me in the latter.

Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 14, 2006 13:52

How about a stricter dress code:

*no headwear, no in-ear devices
*short sleeves
*sandals, no socks
*hands to be on the table at all times

* all visits to washroom to be registered with the TD

Plus
*no spectators
*not permitted to speak at all in any language
*lots of monitoring cameras

*Have to score at least 50% against a player hired by the TD in 3 blitz games to get a prize over $1,000 (the player is at the level of the class section being contested).
Posted by: pix at July 14, 2006 14:06

Peace...

Some ideas presented by pix and niceforkinmove show promise, while others are either impossible or impractical:

a) Disallowing participation by anyone who was ever 100 points over a section is clearly flawed, because people can and do lose points legitimately over the course of time. Note how many players who were once 2200 are now barely scrapping by as 2000s, and then ask why a 200 point drop from 2200 to 2000 should be any less likely than a drop from 2300 to 2100. Goichberg's approach of having a cut-off point for when a player may have been 100 points above a section is best, although probably without the relatively mild measure of simply limiting the amount of money they can earn in the section. (The rule initially barred anyone who was +100 over the section in the last year or so from playing that section, then suddenly changed so that they could only earn X-thousands of dollars.)

b) The dress code is just absurd, being that many professional players wear suits and the like to major events. Sandals without socks?! Short sleeves only?! Please, these measures not only are ridiculous, but they don't even safeguard against anything. Unless a signal can get to someone's ears, or people can learn to hear through their feet, then such ideas are clearly over-kill.

c) In-ear devices are necessary for some players, needless to say. I would revise this one to say that in-ear devices need to be cleared by the TD after presenting of some medical documentation of need. Beyond this, I am entirely in favor of banning in-ear devices, including CD players and iPods. (When I used to coach scholastic chess, I actually barred my players from wearing them, because I felt that they were both a distraction and a viable cause for suspicion.) Headwear such as hats need not be banned, because if one can get messages relayed from a hat to one's ears audibly without use of a transmitter in the ear, then such a signal MUST be loud enough to be detected by others.

d) No spectators -- again, absurd. Good luck selling that one to a sport that is constantly trying to appeal to the masses. There may well be a stronger code that prohibits interaction with spectators, but to have no spectators at all is just senseless.

e) Visits to the restroom being registered with a TD can work for closed tournaments, and would ideally work in open tournaments, but I am loathe to champion the overwhelming of TDs with restroom request after restroom request when so many other things need to be tended to. (Registering visits only makes sense if TDs are keeping track of how often a person goes to the restroom, and this is just a great waste of time for TDs in most cases.)

f) Monitoring cameras are technically a good idea; if you are willing to pay for the technology, I am sure Goichberg would be willing to consider it. Otherwise, it is not gonna happen.

g) I would envision protests from people who are not permitted to speak at all during contests except to offer a draw or somesuch, but this idea is defensible and reasonable.

h) Blitz with a randomly-selected player in order to earn prize money is clearly foolishness. The reasons for objecting are so obvious that I need not even speak to them.

i) Contracts in which players caught cheating are legally liable for a penalty of 150% of the entry fee -- SIMPLY BRILLIANT! This may be the best idea that I have heard yet, as it makes cheating much more risky and also can defray part of the additional prize-money cost to the organizer if the standings are altered due to the disqualification of a player.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 14, 2006 16:42

Maliq that list was clearly lighthearted, it is foolishness to pick so seriously point by point.

In brainstorming, the idea is to come out with suggestions, no matter how outlandish. Brainstormimg often fails because there is one naysayer sitting in the corner saying:

"impossible impractical clearly flawed just absurd ridiculous clearly over-kill absurd just senseless great waste of time clearly foolishness"

The most creative new products and the most creative new research need people to challenge the conventional from different points of view.

And yes, people have used devices in their shoes to input moves to Fritz.

And some people like to wear suits, so that can't be challenged? Give them sports uniforms.

Your own suggestion - penalty of 150% of the entry fee - you neatly call SIMPLY BRILLIANT. The actual suggestion was 150% of the top prize.

Posted by: pix at July 15, 2006 02:34

Peace...

Pix, I stated that some ideas showed promise, while others were dead in the water; I see no reason for you to get so riled up over being told that some of your ideas are not so hot. (FYI, I never made a single suggestion, let alone one that I called brilliant; CLEARLY, I was referring to niceforkinmove's suggestion, even if I misread his post.)

Second, NO, your list was not clearly lighthearted. Rather, it was clearly serious, and now you try to backtrack because you realize that some of your suggestions are either outlandish or sensible yet impossible to implement.

Finally, it is always important to have some "naysayer" critiquing ideas, because otherwise ideas that are "impossible, impractical, clearly flawed, just absurd, ridiculous, clearly overkill, absurd, just senseless, great waste of time, clearly foolishness" would actually have a chance of being passed haphazardly, with all of the evident resultant problems manifesting themselves later on in a predictable manner. If you don't want these terms attached to your ideas, then don't forward ideas that are worthy of them. Either you are brainstorming or you are proposing lighthearted ideas; surely, you cannot claim to be doing both simultaneously.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 15, 2006 13:35

Maliq - if you ever brainstormed anything you'd know there is a lot of joking around. So clearly it is sheer foolishness to claim that one cannot brainstorm and propose ideas lightheartedly at one and the same moment.

I suggest you consider losing your ridiculously condescending tone when speaking of or to proposers of ideas that you so quickly and foolishly dismiss, and stop acting like your view alone dictates what may be feasible for the future of chess. After all your dismissal of the shoe problem and the suit problem were clearly ignorant.
Posted by: pix at July 15, 2006 14:06

I am stunned at how far the pendulum has swung. I don't know whether to laugh or cry; whether to applaud or worry that things (both cheating itself and the efforts to stamp it out) might soon spiral out of control.

Last November, when I first advocated a series of modifications to tournament culture designed to make it harder to cheat, and lined up some high-profile names to publicly back my proposals, the typical response (both on Dirt and other blogs) went something like: "This guy Jacobs is a Bush stooge who wants to turn chess tournaments into Guantanamo Bay!"

Now, people are advocating measures that go well beyond anything I proposed (i.e., Niceforkinmove). Over on the USCF Forums, prominent TDs are debating with USCF Ethics Committee members about whether the present disciplinary system actually encourages, rather than discourages, cheating. One award-winning national TD who 6 months ago was giving me the cold shoulder -- he'd make snide remarks whenever stiffer anti-cheating measures were discussed with me in earshot -- is now directing snide remarks at defenders of the present tournament culture.

Last night a Marshall Chess Club official approached me about putting together a panel discussion there about the cheating issue. If it goes forward, the panel probably will include a lawyer, a big-time TD, a USCF policymaker, an active Grandmaster, an active amateur, and a wireless communications / surveillance / security expert.

Tellingly, the few who show up here to defend cheaters now are being grossly outnumbered and shouted down this time around -- unlike last year when Josh Gutman's view seemed to win out. (Gutman argued that TDs cannot and should not punish suspected cheating unless they have evidence comparable to what is needed to convict a person for murder. For instance, he repeatedly argued here that the 2005 HB Global cheater was probably innocent, when TDs had repeatedly caught the guy making cell-phone calls during his games -- expressly prohibited by the tournament's published rules -- and the guy ended up fleeing out the loading dock when confronted for the final time.)

In that context, I want to stick up for the guys that defended Steve Rosenberg. Character evidence IS relevant (although of course I'd give more weight to physical evidence, which sounds pretty convincing in this case). And as far as posting and analyzing Rosenberg's games from previous tournaments, that was quite relevant too, because as I recall one or more people here had asserted that his having won his last few class tournaments prior to the World Open meant that he must have cheated in those events too, which buttressed their belief that he cheated at the World Open. Now I don't want to turn this forum into a court, but it's the old "rebuttal witness" concept.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 15, 2006 14:50

Jon

I hope you assist in that conference and that some ideas come out of it. Certainly some things have to be done.

Of course cheating is at the heart of it. but I think the solution is better to have contacts and breaking of the contracts as the defining criteria. that way simple items can be against the contract and infractions can be dealt with according the contrace. clean and simple.

such things as hearing aids. one does not have to prove cheating but if the person is wearing a hearing aid the result is in the contract.

I also like the idea of 150% of the top prize as a punishment for certain severe infractions. that alone should stop a lot of attempts.

Frank H
Posted by: Frank H at July 15, 2006 16:08

I am glad to hear you made headway Jon. Its really just a matter of expectations for the players to get used to it. Its not like the searches would have to be that intrusive. You just have to check the persons head - around his ears. I would say no one in the hall with hearing aids. No one is supposed to talk anyway.

It is important for the fines be they 150% of top prrize or whatever that they have reasons why that amount of damages are reasonable. Something like a little recital explaining the harms to both parites and how the damages, though severe, can be difficult to calculate.

I'm glad to hear your contract way. As you find new problems you can always amend the contract. Of course, include the provision that whoever breaches the contract has to pay attorney fees of the other. :)

I really think the bigger issue is in the pro ranks. The amounts a top 15 or so could stand to gain in 1 year of cheating is staggering compared to if they stayed in just the top 15. Compare what Svidler, Bacrot or Grischuck makes to what Kramnik, Topalov or soon Aronian makes. Could a bit of cheating make the difference? Thats were we really have to be on guard for our sports sake. (Well we have to be on guard everywhere but, the economic analysis there is really a no brainer for the unethical.)
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 15, 2006 22:01

Peace...

Pix, my dismissal of the shoe and suit issue is based on the grounds that what you suggest will NEVER happen. I am not saying that you are an idiot; I am saying that your idea is evidently flawed and not feasible. Mandating that everybody wear short-sleeve shirts and sandals to play in tournaments is outrageous, and you know it. There are just some measures which are HIGHLY impractical, and mandating that everyone dress like a beach-goer in order to participate in an event is one such action.

Now, pix, I brainstorm all the time, and there is clearly a difference between brainstorming (in which one tosses around ideas that are thought as potentially feasible and then test the pros and cons of the ideas) and lighthearted commenting (in which one says things that are meant to be taken in jest and never really considered viable). Either you were jesting with your ideas or intended for them to be taken seriously; do not now pretend that you were doing both. It is perfectly fine to have ideas that are flawed and then build from there; it is not fine to pretend that you did not mean for them to be taken literally in an attempt to save face.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 15, 2006 23:25

Jeez Maliq you are a pompous old bore no matter your chronological age.

People are cheating and nothing practical so far is being done.

You want naysaying? Try penalizing someone with no money 150% of $10,000, and getting the standard of proof necessary to enforce that in court.

Posted by: pix at July 16, 2006 02:36

It's good that everyone here is thinking about concrete changes to avert cheating, but I must agree that some of the ideas being tossed around here are impractical, to say the least.

Fining players (as opposed to simply withholding prize money and/or appearance fees from miscreants) is one idea that seems plainly impractical. I'm saying that in the professional context. Organized top-level chess isn't the NBA; unlike in pro sports, top GMs aren't on anyone's payroll. So unless each player also paid the tournament organizer a deposit up-front (yeah, right), the organizer would lack a practical means of making violators pay fines -- contract or no contract. To enforce a contract provision against cheating, the organizer would have to go to court ... IN HOW MANY COUNTRIES??? 10? 15? 50? I thought our common goal as chess fans was to brainstorm ways to channel more money to top players -- not attorneys.

To be sure, there IS one authority that could impose fines on top players who cheated, and would probably have sufficient clout to make them pay up without the prohibitive cost of suing them. I'm talking about FIDE. 'Nuf said.

As for the amateur tournament context, which is the main focus of this particular thread, and is all I am interested in, the idea of having the tournament organizer collect fines from misbehaving players is so obviously ridiculous, I don't even know what to say about it.

Like it or not, in the amateur context we have to face the reality that the only means we'll ever have to punish cheaters are the two arenas that are already available (available in principle, if not in practice). This is probably true for the professional context as well. The two arenas are:

1) chess-related penalties such as forfeiture, expulsion, and/or exclusion from future tournaments;

2) criminal charges, for cases where the cheating was clearly deliberate and the evidence is sufficiently strong.

While civil lawsuits against cheaters also are theoretically possible, I think they will never be a practical avenue for organizers or aggrieved players (those who were cheated) to recover damages from cheaters. The reasons should be obvious: the amounts won in even the largest amateur events (i.e. World Open) always will be too small to cover legal costs. And even if a court were to award punitive damages, the prudent assumption should be that the cheater will have few assets, so the award wouldn't be collectible anyway.

I do agree that tougher anti-cheating enforcement and stronger penalties are needed -- especially for egregious cases where there is strong evidence that cheating occurred, the cheating was repeated, premeditated and systematic, and the stakes were high.

That is why, in my anti-cheating petition and elsewhere, I favor the kind of monitoring efforts designed to produce two forms of evidence that I assume would be of greatest interest to prosecutors: physical evidence (devices found in a cheater's possession), and independent eyewitnesses, especially tournament officials, who might personally catch a cheater consulting pocket Fritz or discussing moves with an accomplice.

Again, pursuing criminal sanctions would be practical only for the most egregious cases, where there was a lot at stake and the evidence was very strong. I think organizers of big-money events at least, should gear up to do just that when the occasion arises.

What do I mean by "gear up?" Convincing a public prosecutor to file charges against a chess cheater becomes a realistic possibility only after the organizer of the tournament has established a friendly relationship with the local prosecutor well before the tournament -- so that each party (TD and prosecutor) would be sufficiently familiar with the other's business environment and requirements, that meaningful cooperation would be possible.

Yes, I realize that a chess organizer would have a bit of a selling job to do in the first place, to convince a prosecutor that charging a chess cheater is something he should ever care about, no matter what the circumstances.

Perhaps the organizer of the Kryptonite Open being held in Metropolis next February should approach the mayor of Metropolis the preceding September, talk about how 1,200 people will be coming from all over the world to play chess in Metropolis, and will stay for 5 to 7 days in the Hotel Metropolis and other nearby hotels, and each will spend an average of $xyz per day, and how much that all will contribute to the local economy. Then, get a mayor's aide to accompany him to meet with the prosecutor.

Again, all this represents spade work, that would have to be done far BEFORE the tournament -- NOT at the point when a cheating incident has occurred and the organizer has an immediate need for law-enforcement to get involved.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 16, 2006 12:37

Peace...

Pix, first of all, the suggestion wasn't mine, so I don't know why you insist on continuing to tie it back to me.

Second, it is rather easy to enforce in court, actually, being that the idea of contract-signing was attached to forkin's proposal. Quite simply, violation of terms of the contract yield this penalty, which the signing party has clearly agreed to by virtue of placing his or her John Hancock on the document. All one needs to establish is whether or not terms of the contract were violated, and then a judgement can be levied against the offending party for whatever amount he or she agreed to be penalyzed; there is nothing so difficult about it.

FYI, judges don't give a damn about whether the person has money or not; poor people have judgements levied against them all the time by credit bureaus, etc. You speak as though this is unprecedented in our society. If there is any objection to this idea, it should be over whether the penalty is so high that people will refuse to play rather than whether a judgement can be levied for breach of a contract that the participant signs. At any rate, this idea is a much better jump-off point than proving one's merit in 3 blitz games against some random opponent.

Geez, pix, you are quite a whiny and indignant old bag, regardless of your chronological age! ;-)

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 16, 2006 12:38

"People are cheating and nothing practical so far is being done."

When the higher players are caught there should be very stiff penalties fide should change the rules and think about revoking their title for life and erase their rating if they have busted too many times to send a clear message that cheating in rated tournaments has a very expensive price.

Elizabeth.

Posted by: Elizabeth at July 16, 2006 13:12

Jon

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Let me address some of your concerns and Ideas.

I think the contract is the only real way. The contract coudl require what state the suit would be brought in and what law would govern. Now if a person lives in another country we may still have the, possibly insurmountable, task of chasing them there. But jsut becasue an idea won't work in *all* cases that doesn't mean its not a good idea. Most players in these tournaments live in the US and a judgment in one state is given "full faith and credit" in all 50.

When you look at your alternatives they are not good either.

#1) banned form tournaments? Ok no more rating. I'm sorry but that is a yawner. Pay me $10k and Ill never play another rated game in my life no problem.

#2) criminal charges? This has numerous problems. First of all I am not aware of any criminal law in any state that makes cheating at chess - or any other board game for that matter - criminal. I can't say I ever researched it but I would be surprised if cheating at chess was a criminal offense. So what criminal law are you talkign about?

Asking the mayor to enact a local ordinance making cheating at chess a criminal offense seems a bit further fetched than simply having a contract with participants and organizer. Especially when we ask that it become criminal conduct to go to the bathroom before addressing a TDs concerns about yoru hat.

These concerns strike me as a private civil matter between the players. Cheating at chess is not really a public concern. Not anymore than cheating at monopoly or other board games is of sufficinet public interest to be criminalized.

The other problem is even if you get a mayor to criminalize all the actions you want to prevent you must prove those actions beyond a reasonable doubt. You make your burden of proof problem harder not easier.

In contract law you jsut have to prove the breach of contract by a "preponderance of the evidence." In other words at the end of the day the judge or jury beleives more likely than not the breach occured. With contract spelled out in black and white and atournament hall full of witnessesthsi woudl be quite easy.

I am not talkign about "punative" damages. I'm talking about liquidated damages. You generally can't get punative damages in a breach of contract case. Talk to your lawyer about this distinction.

The attorneys fees provision may help the organizer recover them. But lets assume yoru worse case. Say they never collect due to bankruptsy or whatever reason. That cost of pursuing cheaters is up to the organizers. Is it worth having a lawyer agressively pursue cheaters on the rare cases when it happens?

Well that depends on how many people out there are like me. I won't play in any more of these events because they are too far to milktoast on the cheaters. As more and more events occur that show cheaters aren't really punished at these events the numbers of likeminded people may grow. That is thier own economic decision. I think aggressively going after cheaters is in thier economic decision but that is not my call to make.

There is nothing wrong or impractical about drawing up contracts and suing people when they breach them. It happens all the time. If it wasn't an effective way to prevent breaches of contract it woudln't be done so often in business. Don't get intimidated by the idea. Its really quite a simple solution.

In any event good luck at your meeting.

Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 14:21

Maliq, the idea is tied to you in perpetuity because you foolishly called it SIMPLY BRILLIANT. I think Jon Jacobs' recent post should tone your naive enthusiasm a little.

As for playing a few blitz games to prove, for example, that some unknown who beat a string of GMs really knows any chess, maybe its not a bad addition to the TD repertoire.

But Maliq, how do you have time to post, if you "brainstorm all the time"?
Posted by: pix at July 16, 2006 14:22

Since my name came up..."the woman who posts as Duif" is Duif. ;) And it's not my maiden name, in the sense of a last name or family name. (My father is not Mr. Duif.) Duif is my middle name, and is the name my friends call me.

Regarding sponsorship, over the last 18 months I have come to the same conclusion that GM Nakamura and Anna Zatonskih have expressed--for the most part, US chessplayers as individuals don't want to do the things necessary to promote and secure individual sponsorship. For those individuals, such as GM Susan Polgar, who do pursue it, sponsorship is clearly possible. But I no longer think it's a business model that will work in the US, simply because most players aren't open to it.

regards,
duif
Posted by: Duif at July 16, 2006 15:06

Since Duif has shown her face, I will deviate from my own usual practice and will instead try to emulate her, by being patient and respectful when refuting someone else's idea (in this case, Niceforkinmove's latest post about enforcing contracts for amateurs).

First of all, there is no need whatever for any special legislation to outlaw chess cheating, in any jurisdiction. If money is involved, then winning money under false pretenses falls under existing laws in every state, that deal with fraud and/or grand larceny. There is no law that specifically refers to knocking on people's doors telling them you are collecting donations for the American Cancer Society, and then simply keeping all the money you collect, is there? Nevertheless, that is quite simply punishable as criminal fraud, just like using illegitimate, deceptive means to grab a chess tournament prize would be.

Whether public authorities would wish to prosecute such a crime is another matter entirely. My earlier comment suggested an approach that chess organizers might try in an effort to convince prosecutors it would be in their best interest to do so, if the opportunity arose.

Yes, the burden of proof in a criminal case is high (for the prosecution). So this route would not be a routine remedy against cheating, but more of a "set an example" or "send a message" type of thing -- so that prospective cheaters would see that in the worst case at least, they might face serious consequences. And as I said, organizers would consider going this route only for cases where they were confident the evidence was strong enough to support it.

The upside of criminal prosecution is, unlike in a private lawsuit, the government rather than the organizer would bear virtually all the costs of prosecuting the cheater. Moreover, if the organizer was motivated to file a lawsuit (i.e., if he knew the cheater had substantial assets), having a public record of a criminal case -- especially if it resulted in a conviction or plea-bargain -- would represent a treasure-trove of evidence that could then be used in the civil case.

As for making the players sign contracts: Even though there is money at stake for a tiny minority of players, amateur chess tournaments are a leisure activity for the players, not a business. Yes, businesses routinely sue one another for breach of contract, but so what? No one who enters a chess tournament expects to open themself up to financial liability.

It's true that in some leisure activities, people are required to sign waivers (you won't sue the skydiving company if your parachute fails to open, or the ski resort if you ski into a tree, etc.). Sometimes those documents even state that certain behavior is against the law and you understand that you will be prosecuted if you do it (i.e., at a ski resort, transferring your lift pass to a friend).

I don't see a parallel with chess tournaments. Again, I think very few amateur chess players would be willing to sign a contract that would make them liable for specific financial damages if they broke tournament rules (too many bathroom trips, too many cell phone calls, etc.).

Even if getting people to sign such contracts as a condition of playing in the Under-1600 section proved not to be a problem, collecting damages from a violator would be hardly as easy as you indicate. The organizer would face legal expenses, a judge could still rule the contract was invalid, and even if damages were awarded, that doesn't mean they'd be able to collect on the judgment. All in all, the whole idea -- even for pros, but 100 times more so for amateurs -- seems completely misplaced in an industry that needs to continue doing its best to steer clear of costly legal battles, not actively court them.

I do see a positive side of Niceforkinmove's proposals: I think it would help to have detailed written rules about specific behaviors that aren't allowed and will be punished (by forfeiture, ejection, denial of prizes won, referral to USCF Ethics Committee, and the like). I think such rules should be posted prominently around the tournament site, and published on the Internet far in advance of the tournament -- just as was done with the HB Global Chess Challenge. But I think it would be silly and counterproductive to make such rules into an explicit contract that players must sign, or that they make any mention of financial damages.

I believe that, even in the absence of published rules of conduct, TDs already have full legal authority to: 1) investigate cases of potential cheating, ask suspects to submit to searches, and impose forfeiture or other chess-related penalties if cheating is found or if the suspect refuses to cooperate; and 2) pursue criminal or civil fraud charges in cheating cases where the evidence is strong enough.

Still, I think that having detailed, published rules of conduct would further strengthen TDs' hand in such situations, as well as helping players avoid confusion and ambiguity since everything would be spelled out in black and white.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 16, 2006 16:30

Jon

I don't mean this in a rude way but I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Criminal laws are very strictly defined. Its not like you look at them and say yeah thats pretty dishonest therefore its fraud or larceny.

Lets look at fraud. Fraud is usually defined as a knowingly making a false statement of fact to induce conduct and which does induce the intended conduct to someones detriment.

a great example woudl be your person falsely sayign they are collecting for the American cancer society. That is fraud. There are false stateements of fact.

But what false statement was made when someone shows up with a transister in thier hat? What false statement is made when some gets advise from a neaby master on what move to make? There is none. It is cheating at chess. Its not fraud. No false statements are involved. The laws can vary from state to state but you are going to have a very tough case.

Grand larceny? Again you need to look at the very specific law involved and see if it could fit. I'm not sure I can find one. Adding money to cheating at the board game doesn't really add anything to make it criminal as far as I know.

There are big cases then there are simple cases. If the contract is written well this is a simple collection case. Collecting $15k, based on a contract breach witnessed by a conference center full of people is not a big case.

Talk to the Lawyer you meet about about these issues. If he cares he will help you understand.
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 17:37

Jon
I also don't know what you mean by getting fined for going to the bathroom too often or using a cell phone. The nice thing about contracts is you can use common sense in writing the dos and don'ts. You can have any conditions you want.
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 18:54

Niceforkinmove,

OK, I will check with an attorney the next chance I get.

Chess organizers do seem to believe it's criminal, even though they have held back from ever pressing charges. For instance, at the World Open a well-known organizer/chess politician told me a story about an ethics proceeding many years ago against a player who was caught either paying or accepting a bribe for a final-round thrown game which I presume secured a substantial prize.

The suspect was defiant, and at one point challenged the board saying, "Show me where in the Official Rules of Chess it says you're not allowed to pay for a result?"

In response, a board member thundered back, in an accent dripping with patrician, New England indignation, "It might not be addressed in the Official Rules of Chess, but I'm sure it is addressed in the criminal statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia!"

At this, the suspect turned white as a sheet (so I was told), and cooperated through the rest of the proceeding.

Now, I know it's wrong to appeal to common sense when discussing legal matters, but I'll do it anyway. Under the concept of fraud you just described, it sounds like it would be a crime for someone to show up for an Under-1400 section if they were really an 1800. I'm not talking about sandbagging, but a hypothetical case of someone playing in an Under-1400 under an assumed name, who had an 1800 rating under their real name. They would be making a clearly false statement about their rating in order to enter an event they were not qualified to enter -- thereby luring the organizer into the self-destructive conduct of letting the impostor walk away with a big chunk of prize money. Hard to accept the idea that would qualify as fraud, while out-and-out cheating wouldn't.

As for collecting on a judgment for breach of contract, I was referring to practical difficulties, not legal ones. Good luck finding the cheater, finding his assets if any, etc. I don't think that is the sort of responsibility that organizers would or should want to take on, as their part of the battle against cheating.

The contract idea strikes me as eminently impractical. The possibility that my own ideas about criminal sanctions might be legally untenable, doesn't change that.

I will bear that possibility in mind going forward, and will run my scenario past attorneys at every opportunity. You are the first person to raise this particular objection in the 8 months or so since the anti-cheating petition was made public. One prospective signatory did show the petition to an attorney, who as far as I know, raised no objection to the reference to criminal sanctions (she convinced him to refrain from signing it, on entirely different grounds).

If you are right, then I acknowledge it would create a significant gap in the anti-cheating program set forth in the petition. (The threat of meaningful punishment of cheaters being key to deterrence.) Some alternative form of tough punishment might then have to be worked out. I don't think the answer lies with making amateur players sign contracts that make them financially liable for rule infractions as a condition of competing -- simply because I don't think anyone would.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 16, 2006 19:07

Jon

I think in the case you just gave of a person stating they were under 1400 when they weren't that is a better case for fraud because you have a "false statement" But most ways of cheating miss that key element.

The big disadvantage of relying on criminal laws is they can and do vary from state to state. Having a contract means you can define what is a breach and what needs to be done to qualify as a breach of contract. The variation from state to state will be negligible. Courts in all 50 states read the plain text of the contract to decide the case. If the contract is worded well there won't be ambiguous or vague terms that could be interepretted differently.

Making sure there is no cheating is indeed the obligation of the organizers. I paid a high entrance fee to play in these large tournaments. That was my obligation.

So far it seems to me that organizers are nto living up to thier obligation. I'm not blaming the TD that handled the lucky hat incident as that was a tough call to make at the time. But in the future if someone suspected of cheating is asked to have his hat inspected can say - oh yeah let me go potty first and have the TD wait outside while he disposes of the evidence and then shrugs, well thats not sufficient. So I will not continue to play in thier expensive tournaments.

HB had clear rules about cell phone use. It was made plain to all participants. Yet someone kept violating the rules. I don't remember the exact decision but it was milktoast. As a result I decided I woudln't play in those tournaments anymore. In one of my games I was in time trouble and blundered. A friend of my opponent made a sound like I hear on ICC from time to time. I still won the game and I don't think my opponent picked up on the blunder.(I don't remember I just remember the guy makign the sound and me giving him a look that told him I was going to beat the pee out of him if he opened his trap again) I do not think this was intentional but I can't be sure. But that really sucks and what was I supposed to do?

There seems to be an assumption that the players would object to having these measures to ensure there is no cheating. I think thats wrong. I think most players would welcome stricter anti-cheating measures. But this is just speculation on my part. Personally I think the rules are way to soft for me to put up that amount of money again.

BTW I am not sure but, I think the guy bluffed about bribery in Virginia. Hey whatever works. :)
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 21:49

Oh and as to difficulty with collections. That is not that hard. There are collection lawyers. They charge reasonabel fees - sometimes a percent of what is recovered and chase after people for judgements. There are many ways of getting money from people legally. Don't assume all cheaters are on the verge of bankruptcy either.
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 21:51

Oh and as to difficulty with collections. That is not that hard. There are collection lawyers. They charge reasonabel fees - sometimes a percent of what is recovered and chase after people for judgements. There are many ways of getting money from people legally. Don't assume all cheaters are on the verge of bankruptcy either.
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 16, 2006 21:52

Niceforkinmove,

I agree with your diagnosis of tournament culture. Just about all big organizers historically have been way too soft on cheating, making little or no effort to detect it, and doing little or nothing to punish cheaters even when by chance they happen to catch one. In fact your first couple of posts on the subject on this thread express a mind-set pretty much identical to that which permeates the petition linked to my name.

You mentioned laxity at the HB. I was there and I heard similar complaints from several people. HB published wonderful rules, spelled out in great detail, to head off both cheating and sandbagging. AND they had a veritable army of TDs to watch the playing area to make sure the rules were observed. But when push came to shove, the TDs only warned violators, even when the violation was repeated, instead of forfeiting them as the published rules said they would.

Now, however, in the wake of this year's World Open incidents, I see that historic pattern of laxity melting away before my very eyes. As we speak, I'm convinced that standard practice among TDs AND PLAYERS is changing. Henceforth everyone will be on the lookout for earpieces, hats, other types of communication devices, suspicious bathroom trips, and all types of odd behavior that might indicate someone is cheating. (Still, I fear that advancing technology might soon make all visual scrutiny of suspects useless. But in that case, neither contracts nor criminal penalties would help, since you've got to CATCH a cheater before you can punish him or her; the problem then becomes detection rather than the ability to punish.)

I'd like to see this newly vigilant attitude institutionalized, in the form of published rules for the next few big money tournaments. I don't know if that's about to happen or not. The chances of it happening probably would be greater if enough Dirt readers who play rated chess make a point of asking the chief TD or organizer about formally banning electronic devices and/or publishing rules about headgear, at each tournament you play in.

When I launched the petition I also felt as you do about the need for trade-offs: I was entirely willing to give up my right to talk during my games, or make or receive phone calls, even my expectation of privacy in the bathroom, in return for increased confidence that the top prize(s) in my section would not get stolen by a cheater. I assumed that a critical mass, if not an outright majority, of my fellow players must feel the same way.

I WAS MISTAKEN, then. In the months after the petition appeared, it became clear that most amateur players 1) did not feel personally threatened by cheating, and 2) assigned far greater value to their right to talk to a friend during games, than I did. Since relatively few tournament players wanted to move things in the direction I was advocating, it wasn't in organizers' interest at that time to devote more resources to enforcement. That may be changing right now.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 16, 2006 23:18

Why can't Chess just piggyback off of the existing gaming laws already in place that prohibit electronic aids etc. Why reinvent the wheel? Or maybe the CCA organizer might not want to reduce his profit margin by utilizing a casino's existing security measures?
Has anyone heard about the accomplice of Rosenberg?
Posted by: unCommon Sense at July 17, 2006 13:31

Jon
I think there is a difference between a tournament game played for a $10 entrance fee for a prize of $50 and the larger tourneaments. No I don't want to have my local director to be obligated to fine me if I exchange some words during a quad. In small tournaments liberal and soft rules are best.

I'm only talking about tournaments were the entrance fee is over a certain amount of money. Were you talkign with players in these large tournaments about rules for these large tournaments or jsut players and tournaments in general?

Moreover I would like privacy in the bathroom no matter where I play. I own't have any TDs named Tito following me to the bathroom. If you don't let people bring electronics into the hall or the reserved bathrooms then there should be no problem. Don't you think?

If cheaing devices become so sophisticated they cant be caught then of course the big money tournament will become extinct. I'm not sure how this is possible though.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 17, 2006 14:24

Uncommonsense, you may be right. I do not know if there are any laws about that for casinos.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 17, 2006 14:25

Niceforkinmove,

Yes, my advocacy is aimed solely at tournaments with large class prizes. I would neither want nor expect stepped-up monitoring at the typical tournament; only those where there is substantial money at stake. (Incidentally, I know that cheating is just as serious a potential problem for closed GM tournaments and Open sections. But I decided to let the pros tackle it through their own organizations such as ACP -- because I foresaw that trying to advocate for both amateurs and pros at the same time on an issue that touched on prize money, would inevitably expose fault lines like what showed up in the Ben Finegold threads here.)

Don't get me wrong: TDs should be every bit as tough on cheaters they happen to catch at smaller events. But of course I wouldn't want TDs at low-fee / low-prize events to turn the playing hall upside down with dress codes, no-talking rules or other extreme measures that might be justified to avert cheating at "money" events.

Even though my main fear is that organized criminals will enter big tournaments as a "team" and plan their attack far ahead of time, the bit-time cheaters we've seen to date actually did start small. The guy who got caught at the HB last year before winning $5,800 at last year's World Open, was long known to local TDs in New Jersey as being half of a chronic father-son cheating team. I played the guy once in a rinky-dink 3-round event with a $90 first prize, and he made a cell-phone call on just about every move. (I don't think he received moves in my game, but he may well have been GIVING moves to his son, who I saw come over to our board a few times during our game.)

I don't have a good answer to the bathroom problem.

HB said there would be TDs monitoring the bathrooms, but my guess is they were thinking about discouaging face-to-face conversations (old-fashioned low-tech cheating, where a 2000-player takes a look at his buddy's game in the Under-1600 section, then they stroll to the bathroom together and the weaker friend gets the skinny while in there), or maybe a laptop coming out of a knapsack. I doubt they anticipated the type of situation that seems to loom ever larger now, where an official would have to actually look inside a toilet stall (or at least, prevent a suspect from entering the stall) in order to detect or prevent evidence getting flushed down the drain.

I'd like to see these issues get hashed out among some formal body of experts, including experienced big-time TDs, and wireless-technology experts, and probably a lawyer and an active player or two. Such a group could produce a report that might become widely accepted as "best practice" for how to deal with many of these knotty questions.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 17, 2006 16:15

I'm not so sure abotu the experts. Totally depends who you pick. Experienced TDs are probably deciding the rules now. So they may jsut say stick to status quo.

Active palyers? Well theres thousands. Lawyers? Yes I do think they can help. Waht is or isn't illegal and get a decent contract drawn up so cheaters don't continue to walk away after they get caught.

I would suggest we stop callign the prohibited actions "cheating" Talkign on the cell phone during the game is probably not cheating. However if someone does this it should be a breach of contract jsut like he or she was cheating.

I'm nto saying if a phone accidentally rings during a game like Ponomariov. Although that should be discouraged as well. I do think it woudl be easy to cheat just by having some master watching your game call your cell phone everytime your opponent blunders material. I suppose vibrate mode could work this way. For this and other reasons (such as they now have sochess software for phones) it seems no cell phones should be allowed in the playing area.

I think it can be done. Its jsut a question of will. I think the cheating has to sort of sink in before players stop signing up for these events. If organizers don't start ramping up the protection I don't think we will have anymore large EF tourneys in another 10 years or so.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 17, 2006 16:57

I'm not so sure abotu the experts. Totally depends who you pick. Experienced TDs are probably deciding the rules now. So they may jsut say stick to status quo.

Active palyers? Well theres thousands. Lawyers? Yes I do think they can help. Waht is or isn't illegal and get a decent contract drawn up so cheaters don't continue to walk away after they get caught.

I would suggest we stop callign the prohibited actions "cheating" Talkign on the cell phone during the game is probably not cheating. However if someone does this it should be a breach of contract jsut like he or she was cheating.

I'm nto saying if a phone accidentally rings during a game like Ponomariov. Although that should be discouraged as well. I do think it woudl be easy to cheat just by having some master watching your game call your cell phone everytime your opponent blunders material. I suppose vibrate mode could work this way. For this and other reasons (such as they now have sochess software for phones) it seems no cell phones should be allowed in the playing area.

I think it can be done. Its jsut a question of will. I think the cheating has to sort of sink in before players stop signing up for these events. If organizers don't start ramping up the protection I don't think we will have anymore large EF tourneys in another 10 years or so.
Posted by: Niceforkinmove at July 17, 2006 16:58

Since I see my name came up in two of Jon Jacob's posts, I felt it relevant to first defend myself then give my point of view. Firstly Jon, I never claimed that the HB Global Cheater was "probably innocent", I will in fact say he was probably guilty, but if you would like to impose strict penalties then you need actual evidence. I agree if he broke the rules of the tournament he can be kicked out of the event, but there is a difference between kicked out of the event and fined $20,000 in that the second would need to be defended in a court of law.
I also take notice to your repeated mention to me as an amateur. I completely agree I do not approach playing chess as a career, in that sense I am an amateur, I have also been playing for less than 4 years, in that sense I am also an amateur, but I am also an improving player who will likely within a year's time be over 2200 USCF with continued future aspirations to improve.

You and I differ on how prevalent cheating is. You seem to think every tournament has many people looking to cheat, but I think this is an occurance limited if not entirely exclusive to big money events and only a rare subset of individuals.

We do have some pre-supposition that prize fund (P) is proportional to Entries (E). (I will also be using (EF) for entry fee and (CP) for total prizes in the B class section). This does not seem to be the case in scholastic tournaments, but I will even dismiss this and merely argue with some figures:
(Note: I will also ignore tournaments for which people primarily do not travel far).
(Additional Note: I noticed that it makes sense to use the Early entry fee since this is what I believe the majority of players use to enter, so i will use the last entry fee before the on-site fee. I am also only counting full-paid entries so for some tournaments class E and Unrated do not count towards the total.)
2005 National Open: P=$55,000* EF=$129 E=577 CP=$6,025 CP/EF=46.7
2006 National Open: P=$100,000* EF=$159 E=654 CP=$15,600 CP/EF=98.1

Unfortunately the data for other events was a little more time-consuming to gather than I expected, but if I have time later this week, I'll give it a shot. Anyways, it seems clear that the increased prize fund did not increase ao attendence proportional to the increased cost in this case. The appel factor I tried to measure in this case was not proportional although I recognized it is flawed in that it does not include travel expenses, but the truth is short of outright winning a class prize there is no significant profit to be made at this event for those that need to travel far and stay in a hotel.

So I would like to consider one possibility that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Is it possible that Monroi potentially assists cheaters? A traditional cheater working with an accomplice would need 2-way communication, it seems Monroi provides 1-way of this to simplify any tricky methods.

Here is also a logical reason that an upward trend of prizefund makes the most sense:
As a general trend (not absolute) those that have been playing longer are also those that are generally the stronger players. Hence more prizes for stronger players encourages a longer commitment to chess and a longer commitment to tournaments. I think this case would fail if the average player made money playing chess, but I don't think there are many (if even more than a few) FMs that can even claim a lifetime profit from PLAYING chess (this excludes coaching), but these players still show a continued commitment to the game.

Jon, I personally admire your ability to exagerrate truthful statements into outright lies. You would probably make a great fascist dictator to rule the masses through propoganda.
Your claim:
(Gutman argued that TDs cannot and should not punish suspected cheating unless they have evidence comparable to what is needed to convict a person for murder. For instance, he repeatedly argued here that the 2005 HB Global cheater was probably innocent, when TDs had repeatedly caught the guy making cell-phone calls during his games -- expressly prohibited by the tournament's published rules -- and the guy ended up fleeing out the loading dock when confronted for the final time.)
1) I did not say he was probably innocent, I said that there was not enough evidence to claim he was unquestionably guilty.
2) The HB Global cheater was not repeatedly caught making cell-phone calls during his games (at least not that I was aware of), but instead making repeated trips to the bathroom.
3) Fleeing the scene I admit is enough to suspect guilt, but I don't think it's unquestionable to further investigate claims.

I agree that there should be better ways to deal with cheaters who are caught, but I disagree that we need to have a totalitarian view on the issue. I think that the weight of the privelage/right you take away from the player needs to be weighed against the potential gain from a cheater. I also think awareness of self-monitoring needs to be increased. That is if a player hears two other players talking about what he thinks is one of their games in progress they should tell the TD after which judging the incident shall either remove the players from the tournament or give both their first and last warning. The potential for two weak players talking about their game to get a real edge is small hence the penalty does not need to be as strict as someone caught talking about their game in progress on a cell phone or using pocket fritz. It's clear that at some point you are willing to protect personal liberty to the point where it affects attendence at tournaments (i.e. you are not suggesting players must come to tournaments in tights so as not be able to hide contraband {that's one image I don't want in my head}).

Also I'm a little worried about this computer detection of cheating, it seems a little shaky to me. Consider this: An Expert spends a lot of time doing opening analysis with the computer and wins with his preparation not having to make any real moves on his own, a rare, but very real occurrance. Would this program detect cheating in this case? If so, the viability of this process is limited (there are of course some games where it is clear the game was not home-prep). This is however what I would consider a reasonable method to detect cheating. My suggestion:
Maybe in cases where the games seem suspicious the players be required to discuss their choices (and maybe a few of the moves they didn't choose) in a post mortem with a GM present. This is of course not foolproof, but I think if people are listening to your reasoning it will be clear in many cases of actual cheaters that they recieved assistance.
This is actually similar to the methods used to investigate claims of cheating at the university I recently graduated from (Caltech) as far as I know. One of the things they ask of you (of presumably many things) is to explain how you came to your conclusions and a little bit about your thought process.
Now Jon Jacobs, if you would increase your truthiness (thanks Colbert) level, maybe you can improve the validity of your points, but if you're going to distort the truth then they're not particularly meaningful.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 17, 2006 17:37

Josh,

I agree with most everything you just said, except for your unfair characterization of how I described positions you took on this blog last year when the HB incident and my anti-cheating petition were debated.

To wit:

1) By definition, penalizing someone beyond forfeiture or other chess-related penalties, requires that the evidence of actual cheating (not just rule-breaking, such as talking on the phone) be strong enough to meet some external standards as defined by statutes or court rulings.

I've always said that cases referred for criminal prosecution would have to be "the most egregious", and the evidence there would of course have to be rock-solid (since a public prosecutor would have to be confident he could prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt").

I have never called for giving TDs or organizers the authority to impose fines on players caught cheating (other than, of course, withholding prize money from a cheater). For an in-depth discussion of that idea, see my above debate with Niceforkinmove, who does advocate such a step.

2) Absolutely no disrespect for your playing strength or commitment to the game, was meant by referring to you as an "amateur." I also regularly refer to myself as an amateur, which in this context I define as the opposite of "professional". I define "professional" as someone strong enough to potentially make a living from chess, whether they actually do make a living or not. In practice, I consider that to mean anyone who holds an IM or GM title, plus those few FM's or un-titled (more precisely, pre-titled) players who are clearly IM strength or above - obvious examples being Emory Tate and Dmytro Kedyk.

So, an amateur is simply anyone who is less than IM strength.

I realize the term can have pejorative connotations. For that reason, when publishing books and articles I plan to avoid the word "amateur," in favor of some less-clean but in my view more precise phrase such as: "serious non-professional competitor."

I've refrained from doing that here, because for 2 or 3 anonymous cowards (you know who you are) who haunt Dirt in search of someone to fling it at, my showing that kind of respect for players who love chess for its own sake would be like waving red in front of a bull.

3) I have never said I think cheating is widespread. In fact, I have consistently said just the opposite. Premeditated, technology-assisted cheating (whether computers or wireless audio receivers) thus far has been very rare, and even traditional low-tech forms of cheating (consulting a friend about your game in progress) are far from rampant.

While I don't agree that actual cheating occurs exclusively in "money" events, that is just a quibble, since my reform proposals are meant to apply only to "money" events. I don't want to turn the garden-variety Thursday-night or weekend Swiss or scholastic tournament "into Guantanamo Bay," as you once characterized my proposal.

As I've often explained, my sense of urgency to do something about cheating stems not from HISTORICAL experience -- what already has or is currently happening -- but from a strong sense that major, well-planned, money-motivated cheating is HIGHLY LIKELY to happen at some future time ... with devastating consequences for attendance at future public tournaments.

4) Your feelings about using computer engines to detect cheating dovetail with mine.

I, too, have always been skeptical about the idea that if 60% or 80% or whatever of a player's moves in a particular game match an engine's choices, that means he must have cheated.

But I'm trying to keep an open mind on this question, because
a) A growing number of chess authorities seem to believe in it;
b) Many strong players seem to accept the idea -- and this is just the type of technical question on which I would assign a high weight to the consensus opinion among strong players; and
c) I see a lack of cost-effective and legally sound alternatives. My own proposals emphasize catching and prosecuting cheaters through physical evidence and independent eye-witnesses. But advancing technology may well end up foiling my entire approach by making cheating-devices impossible to detect by any means -- even if other objections to my approach (cost, and inconvenience to honest players) are overcome.

5) I agree there is a need for more "self-monitoring" -- that is, all players (and spectators too) standing ready to report possible cheating by others if they happen to witness it.

OK, that's where we agree. Now here is where we disagree.

In my view, the Mirtchouk case at last year's HB tournament was so clear-cut that it might actually meet the criminal-case standard of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". I think that standard would be met if authorities did indeed catch the accomplice (Carol Jarecki said so in her Dirt posting, but details of that part are sketchy), and if authorities had managed to confiscate Mirtchouk's cell phone which would have shown when he made his calls, and maybe even to whom. (I don't think the authorities got hold of the phone, since Mirtchouk fled out the loading dock.)

My recollection of the Dirt threads I read last year about the HB incident, is that a number of people kept coming up with reasons we should not assume Mirtchouk's guilt. You, as I recall, were the most frequent and the most consistent among those people.

Since Daily Dirt is not a court of law, and Mirtchouk faced NO PENALTY OF ANY KIND that could have come out of the "deliberations" conducted here, it seems to me that the only reason for questioning Mirtchouk's guilt is that one believed he was innocent.

I don't think anyone in those particular threads was demanding he be charged with a crime. And since you just stated above that penalties imposed on him (beyond being kicked out of the tournament) would have to be "defended in a court of law", you must be referring to civil court. As we all know, in civil court one or the other party prevails through "a preponderance of evidence" -- i.e., by establishing a 51% or greater probability that they are right. None of this "reasonable doubt" crap that would apply in a criminal trial.

So what was being debated last year, when you kept asserting that he might not have cheated in the face of all the evidence that he did, was simply whether it WAS LIKLIER THAN NOT, that he did, or did not cheat.

Therefore I think you are the one rewriting history now, when you argue that you never meant to assert he was probably innocent.

Moreover, while I agree that prosecuting a cheater in court demands a high standard of proof, I feel that purely chess-related punishments, up to and including lifetime bans from rated tournament play, do not require such a high burden. Instead, I favor designing disciplinary procedures that would give cheating suspects just the minimum amount of rights that would be needed to assure that tournament organizers or the USCF could not be successfully sued by someone who was punished for cheating.

I think this is a key area where you and I differ.

Finally, concerning what you called my "totalitarian" measures: you yourself will gain in credibility if you work toward purging your language of gratuitous political references. Painting everything you see in terminology that suggests a Bush plot / CIA plot / concentration camp, might win you fans on some corners of the Internet including Daily Dirt. But in most of the real world (which by the way includes most of the Internet), it will only make you a butt of other people's jokes -- a fact you might want to consider carefully as you approach college graduation and the workaday world.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 17, 2006 19:35

If we use uscf or some other non court related body to ban someone for cheating we run the risk of a libel/slander suit if the evidence isn't good enough for a court.

If we sue for breach of contract and don't bring up "cheating" we avoid that entirley. No allegations of "cheating" need to be made. Moreover if we prevail in court obciously the thruth is a defense and we soudl have res judicata that what we alleged was true.

Again I will say the best alternative is contract law. This is true for more reasons than I care to type. When are you meeting with a lawyer.

Moreover if I was ever accused of anything that woudl prevent me form ever playign anbother rated game I woudl want the protectiosn of a real court. Not some kangaroo uscf court.
Posted by: niceforkinmove at July 17, 2006 22:20

Jon Jacobs,
I just got around to reading your post, clearly we have some things we disagree on. I'll try to talk about some of these things later, but as for anti-cheating measures, I think I proposed an interesting solution and I think it might be worthwhile to talk about as a serious possibility. It's certainly not foolproof, but then I don't think any system really is, this one is fairly non-invasive. The rule would be something like:

In the event that there is reasonable suspicion that a player may have recieved outside help during a game then the player may be asked to give a post-mortem discussion of his game to which a strong player or multiple strong players chosen by the TD shall be present to observe. If these players still believe outside help was recieved then the TD shall impose penalties on the player ranging from (.. to ..).

I think it is a nice complement to a reasonable monitoring of players actions as in cases of uncertainty this has the ability to confirm or reject the suspicion.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 19, 2006 12:26

Jon Jacobs,
I just got around to reading your post, clearly we have some things we disagree on. I'll try to talk about some of these things later, but as for anti-cheating measures, I think I proposed an interesting solution and I think it might be worthwhile to talk about as a serious possibility. It's certainly not foolproof, but then I don't think any system really is, this one is fairly non-invasive. The rule would be something like:

In the event that there is reasonable suspicion that a player may have recieved outside help during a game then the player may be asked to give a post-mortem discussion of his game to which a strong player or multiple strong players chosen by the TD shall be present to observe. If these players still believe outside help was recieved then the TD shall impose penalties on the player ranging from (.. to ..).

I think it is a nice complement to a reasonable monitoring of players actions as in cases of uncertainty this has the ability to confirm or reject the suspicion.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 19, 2006 12:26

Josh,

Sounds like your suggestion is worth considering. I'm sure practical objections could be raised to it, too, but as you note, it has the advantages of being relatively non-invasive, and seems inexpensive from the economic standpoint. I've always felt more comfortable with human scrutiny of suspect games/moves, as opposed to primarily computer scrutiny (i.e. checking moves against an engine's choices), and your idea certainly does that.

FYI, here's an update of how my own views have evolved since I launching the petition and explained the thinking behind it.

1) I now fear that technology may soon make cheating devices impossible to detect through visual inspection. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me it's ALREADY possible to have an audio transmitter/receiver printed on a person's fingernail, disguised as a nail-polish design...and not with CIA technology, but by commercially available methods, for less than the price of a full-featured cell-phone.

If that's the way things are going, then my whole concept of monitoring playing halls with the goal of locating and seizing Physical Evidence of cheating (and/or enabling tournament officials to serve as independent eyewitnesses of illicit device use), will be rendered obsolete.

On the USCF Forums, Steve Immitt, a Goichberg associate/protege who was officially anointed USCF's "TD of the Year" for 2005, posted a comment saying he was convinced that the advance of cheating-technology will put big tournaments out of business within a few years from now. (I asked Steve if he was either preparing a new career for himself, or getting ready to dump what I've called the Goichberg Model of tournament economics; he didn't reply.)

What I found especially interesting is that just 6 months ago, I felt that Mr. Immitt was pooh-poohing the need for reforms to better combat cheating. I guess this year's World Open opened his eyes (along with many other people's).

2) Early response to the petition convinced me that most players feel more protective of their freedom and privacy rights during tournament games than I do -- or than I thought THEY would. Solutions of the kind I proposed, that significantly alter the traditional atmosphere of tournaments, obviously will never be implemented unless a critical mass of average players (customers) want them.

I have no problem giving up talking and phone use during my tournament games, especially if money is at stake; so I assumed most other mature individuals would feel the same. I dismissed the privacy-violation and inconvenience-to-honest-players complaints that cropped up here and on Dennis M's blog, partly because of the political nonsense that accompanied some of them.

But then I started hearing similar objections from chess people I personally identify with to a degree, such as Sunil Weeramantry, and Nick Conticello, and Dan Heisman. Each of them said a talking ban would make tournaments less enjoyable for them. So I concluded that the chess-playing public wasn't ready for such reforms yet, and I backed off advocating them.

Now, the World Open incidents this year clearly have created a new sense of urgency to address cheating among both players and TDs, and the topic is on the front burner again. But I remain aware that, even if demand for stronger anti-cheating measures is higher now than before, the cultural "price" of the imposing kind of behavioral limits suggested in my petition is higher than I first thought (in the sense that players in general are more put off by the restrictions than I assumed they would be; and that fact doesn't change even if cheating is now seen as a greater threat than it was previously).

3) Niceforkinmove on this thread has cast doubt on whether even egregious, proven cheating -- a player winning money by deliberately receiving artificial help from a computer or a fellow human -- is legally a crime under the fraud or grand larceny laws in most states. Although Niceforkinmove didn't claim to be a lawyer, he gave enough detail that I got the feeling he knew what he was talking about. (see his interchange with me earlier in this thread)

This is a question I'll have to run past a lawyer at some point, because if Niceforkinmove is right, it knocks out one important plank in my overall program: the use of criminal charges as the ultimate "big stick" or deterrent that can be used against the worst cheaters who get caught "with the goods" (i.e., where the evidence of actual cheating is very strong).
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 19, 2006 13:55

I think I generally share the sentiment that you mentioned a few players would find tournaments less enjoyable if talking were not allowed. I tend to agree with this. Even in my short time playing chess I've made friends from all over the country and when I see them at a big event it's nice to be able to say hello and catch up a little bit. I think that many players go to big events understanding it would be nice if they win money, but if they don't that's perfectly fine with them as well. I don't know what the overall proportion of players in this range are, but I have certainly encountered more than a few of them myself.

I think while talking at a chess tournament is a potential way for people to cheat, its far more exposed and I think much less effective. Electronic forms of cheating are obviously much more serious and especially with Monroi being used on top boards in many events, it really only requires one-way communication to enable cheaters to recieve moves. I think the problem we face here is that if cheating is percieved (i.e. whether or not it actually is) as rampant throughout tournaments then the big tournaments will suffer, but most players are not so dedicated to chess that if going to a chess tournament becomes going through the routine of going through security at an airport they will simply stop going to tournaments which is why I think it's important to make tournaments an enjoyable experience and try to keep most of the inconvinience to players who are cheating as to not deter honest players from participating. If talking about games was hugely affecting the results of these tournaments (which I guess it could be, but it doesn't seem that way) then I think limiting/stopping it might be a valid path, but for now it seems that the major issue is electronic ways of cheating and hence these are the ways that need to be addressed.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 19, 2006 15:59

I'm sorry for the repeated post, I read the FAQ on your site, I'm a little concerned with one item in your FAQ. I think in general while I disagree with some points, you at least provide an argument to back up your view. There is one point however:

"Q: Are big money prizes for amateurs the main cause of the cheating problem, and should they be eliminated in favor of smaller class and class-section prizes?

A: No, and no."

Where you don't provide any argument. I don't know if it's big money prizes for amateurs specifically, but big money prizes are primarily responsible for the incentive to cheat. I think as long as the financial incentives to cheat are small (i.e. the cost of cheating is more expensive than the potential gain) there will be almost no cheating. For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
In the world open, half of the players with 0/8 will cheat, but there was no reason to believe other players were cheating. I don't think this would alter the incentives to play in the world open and I think the same players would likely play.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 19, 2006 16:20

Josh,

That particular item you cited from the zoomshare petition site (the FAQ relating to class prizes) is there to make clear the group's stand on an issue that pops up only near the end of the petition. Because it is likely a "frequently asked" kind of question, I felt it was important to let people know where we stood on that, without their necessarily having to read all the way through the petition to find out.

In fact, the question is so important that that is why I refrained from providing any argumentation within the FAQ section. The utterly straitforward answer "No, and no", stands out; following it up with reasons would only dilute the message.

Also I was overdosed about the prize-fund issue: at the point when I overhauled the Web site, just a little over a week ago, I was still intensely involved in two very lengthy debates here that both dealt with whether amateurs (that's me and you) deserve any respect -- in a moral, economic, or chess-dedication sense.

One of those debates, which revolved mainly around whether amateurs have any right to compete for sizable money prizes at all, turned into a flame-war between me (with several supporters) versus IM Ben Finegold.

The other debate, which dealt with whether amateur-level players have any right to be paid as chess teachers or writers when there are so many under-employed GMs and IMs around, turned into a flamewar between me (again with a few allies) and an anonymous titled player who used the handle, "b". Grandmaster "b" was supported by a (non-titled) female who used the handle "amandaw".

You should read those threads, I'm sure you'll find them interesting and may get a few laughs. (You also might end up re-thinking your position about prizes for amateurs being a bad idea, when you see who it forces you into bed with: IM Finegold, who when discussing things that don't happen on a chessboard at least, unabashedly reveals himself to have the intellectual capacity of a jar of pond water.)

FYI, the argument with Finegold pretty much encapsulates the real argument against trying to fight cheating by changing the prize-fund structure: He, and you, and everyone else who advocates that, has always ducked the question of where the funds for decent prizes to attract titled, professional players will come from, if you slash the entry fee revenue pool generated by class-level players. Where is the new source of golden eggs that will replace the one you're proposing to kill? I presume the pros' prizes would be subsidized by a sponsor, if they could no longer be subsidized by excess fee revenue coming from the lower sections. (Finegold said he didn't see there is such a subsidy -- which led me and just about everyone else taking part in those threads to conclude he is mentally challenged.)

This point actually is stated within the zoomshare petition, in a single sentence near the end. It says that reducing class prizes and entry fees would result in smaller prizes for the pros, which presumably is the opposite of what everyone wants. I made the case in greater detail on one of these recent Dirt threads. Try "World Open Concludes".
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 19, 2006 17:10

The specific wording is:
"Q: Are big money prizes for amateurs the main cause of the cheating problem, and should they be eliminated in favor of smaller class and class-section prizes?

A: No, and no."

I don't think this is an accurate answer since big money prizes are obviously the incentive for cheating they have significant cause towards the problem. However, it is still okay to answer no to the second question as you can believe they're the cause of the problem without believing the solution is to eliminate the cause.

It could have been worded.
"Q: Big money prizes for amateurs provide incentive for cheating, should they be eliminated in favor of smaller class and class-section prizes?

A: No, ... (shpiel about class entries contributing towards professional players and general desire of players to play in big money events)
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 19, 2006 18:52

Josh,

I'm going to stick with using that particular question and answer to state my stance, rather than argue the case for it.

Here is how it is worded in the actual Petition (page 3 of the site):

"Some have suggested that large class prizes are part of the problem, and should be scaled back or eliminated. We believe that such proposals are unrealistic. Without the lure of big class prizes, tournaments would attract far fewer entries, which means more risk for the organizer who foots the bill, and ironically, smaller prizes for even the pros, since amateurs’ entry fees make up the bulk of overall prize funds at non-invitational events."

Post your comment in the "Comments" portion of the zoomshare site, if you like. (It is page 2, I think: to get to it, click on the word "Comments" in the left column of the home page. Each word or phrase in that column is actually a link to one of the site's pages.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 19, 2006 19:12

"Let's write rules for the sake of the organizer who foots the bill".
I have been playing in the USCF for nearly thirty years and I have seen how organizers have put their own personal greed above all else. Their rulemaking has produced a product that has been optimized towards their needs, and not the players nor chess itself. Excellence needs to be rewarded, otherwise cheating and sandbagging will get even worse. I now overhear new players whom state emphatically that their low rating must be preserved so that they can maximize winning money in the Goichberg extravaganzas.
Goichberg is chess, write all rules for his sake and benefit. He pays nearly everyone in some manner, and if you dare run another event - like an obsessed stalker - he will prop-up yet another CCA competing event. USCF=CHESS=CCA=GOICHBERG
What's YOUR MALFUNCTION PRIVATE?
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Obviously the USCF has long been for sale with each debacle of malfeasance topped by each successive incompetant. How do they maintain their nonprofit status?
The IRS must really be a joke.
Come on Sheeple- keep playing in the big money events, and don't forget to buy your LOTTO tickets.
Posted by: unCommon Sense at July 20, 2006 00:13

Jon Jacobs: "FYI, the argument with Finegold pretty much encapsulates the real argument against trying to fight cheating by changing the prize-fund structure: He, and you, and everyone else who advocates that, has always ducked the question of where the funds for decent prizes to attract titled, professional players will come from, if you slash the entry fee revenue pool generated by class-level players. Where is the new source of golden eggs that will replace the one you're proposing to kill? I presume the pros' prizes would be subsidized by a sponsor, if they could no longer be subsidized by excess fee revenue coming from the lower sections."

I think what you and others of your ilk fail to recognize that it's Goichberg, not class players, who subsidizes the Open Section in CCA events.

The World Open isn't really a single tournament but rather seven separate tournaments. Any player knows, before they enter, what the entry fee and prize structure is for all of the separate events, which one can choose to enter or choose not to.

Goichberg doesn't have to offer generous prizes to Open Section participants: he could pocket the money instead, and it would have no effect on the prize structures offered in the other sections.

It's true that Goichberg *could* decide not to offer generous Open Section prizes, and maybe he *could* also be convinced to lower entry fees (or offer better prizes) for the "Under" sections. But the "deal" he offers is his decision, not yours. Your only decision as a player is whether you agree to play in the format he offers.

IM Finegold's opinion, which I share, is that large prizes encourage cheating.

He also opines, as do I, that it's ridiculous for patzer tournaments to offer Big Money prizes.

You don't have to agree. But people don't have to pout like they're the ones who put food on his table because they participate in a CCA section that has a less generous prize structure than another section. You make a deal with Goichberg when you enter a CCA tournament, and it has nothing to do with the deal he enters into with players in a different section. It's Goichberg that butters the GMs' bread, not you!

No one disputes that if revenues from the "Under" sections of a CCA event started to dry-up Goichberg might not offer as generous prizes in the Open Section. It would occur to anybody. But so what? How does that invalidate the idea of reducing Big Money prizes in the "Under" sections as a means of reducing the incentive to cheat in the "Under" sections?

Whether there are funds available for a generous Open Section prize fund has nothing to do with cheating in the "Under" sections-- so what question is there to "duck"? Are we talking about cheating or the fairness of CCA events?

I get the impression from IM Finegold's posts that he would play in the World Open regardless of the prizes. Certainly his wife elects to play in the Open Section, where I assume she pays full entry fee but has NO realistic chance of winning a prize.
Posted by: Puzzled Pawn at July 20, 2006 17:21

Puzzled Pawn,

I'm not the one "pouting" about the prize distribution -- Finegold and you are. Go back and read Finegold's posts, and my earlier ones, on the thread where the argument broke out (might have been this one, way high up).

I AM COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF KEEPING the current prize structure. I never said the lower sections aren't generous enough, or that the Open section is TOO generous. You seem to be putting words in my mouth.

Finegold, and you, complain that the current system is too generous to people in the "Under" sections. So it is YOU who "pout", not me.

You do seem to go further than Finegold in one respect: A close reading of your comment shows a clear implication that big prizes motivate cheating ONLY in those "Under" sections.

For instance, you refer to "the idea of reducing Big Money prizes in the 'Under' sections as a means of reducing the incentive to cheat in the 'Under' sections".

And you go on to ask: "Whether there are funds available for a generous Open Section prize fund has nothing to do with cheating in the 'Under' sections - so what question is there to 'duck'? Are we talking about cheating or the fairness of CCA events?"

What about the even bigger prizes in the Open section motivating people to cheat there?

Again, I'm not calling for reducing those prizes. I just want to point out that although IMs and GMs play chess better than us patzers, they're no more honest than us. Even Finegold admitted that: when challenged, he backed away from his initial implication that only weak players are tempted to cheat to win big money.

So unless you believe that weak players ARE less moral than IMs and GMs, you aren't being entirely consistent in suggesting that only the "Under" section prizes cause cheating.

Finally, and most important, you are being disingenuous (or else economically ignorant) when you claim the various sections are all independent of each other, from a financial standpoint.

Although I never asked Goichberg about this, I think it's fairly obvious that he doesn't see it that way; he views each tournament as a whole, and arranges the entire prize structure so as to maximize turnout (and profit) across the entire event. Certainly that's the view accepted by just about everyone who has posted here -- including my opponents such as unCommonSense, whose comment immediately precedes yours.

Having the "Under" sections subsidize the Open section to some degree, fits into that Goichberg strategy (as others have pointed out) because having a nice complement of GMs and IMs around presumably helps boost turnout in the class sections by making the tournament experience more appealing to them.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 20, 2006 18:06

Americans are weird to pay big entry fees to subsidize the open section, then play in separate rating sections. Surely the point of having IM's and GM's around in a Swiss is that you might actually get to play one (usually in round 1 or 2).

A 'nice complement' of titled players around makes the tournament experience more appealing even if you will never play them?

I support the European model - Open Swiss, usually one section (sometimes an over-2000 and an under-2000). Low entry fee, no prize money expectations for 'amateurs'. Decent prizes for IM/GM who win. No profit at all for the organizers.
Posted by: gg at July 21, 2006 04:18

Aside from the possibility of playing a titled player there's always the pleasures of watching them lock horns. Lots of us weak players enjoy that.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 21, 2006 06:33

Wasn't Varshavsky doing his hat trick in the Open section? Doesn't that mean that large prizes can induce cheating in *ANY* section, including the Open? And doesn't that mean that if *ANYONE*--GM, IM, or patzer--is going to make significant $$ in any section, that tournament organizers are going to have to deal with cheating?
Posted by: Chris Falter at July 21, 2006 13:45

I feel like titled players are better behaved (e.g. less likely to cheat with exceptions) because they have devoted more to the game and in order to reach that level, you have to have a certain responsibility losing. In addition, they have higher self-esteem as far as chess goes and so don't really need to cheat as an ego trip.
Posted by: DP at July 21, 2006 15:06

DP, that's a very good point. They've done studies where they lower or raise someone's self-esteem and then present them with opportunities to cheat and someone with lower self-esteem is much more likely to cheat in general than someone with higher self-esteem.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at July 21, 2006 17:38

Bigger prizes will create a bigger incentive to cheat, regargless of the strength of the players. I am unaware of a direct correlation between chess ratings and integrity level. The corolary to DP's statement is that titled players have a greater incentive to cheat, because as professionals or semi-professionals, they have more pressure to make each tournament "pay-off", whereas for amateur players, it's just a recreational event. I believe that this statement is just as false as DP's.

And as far as changing the prize fund structure -- ain't gonna happen! At least not as long as the amateur players feel that they are getting what they pay for ... a well run, honest tournament; the dream of winning a big prize, and for some the reality; 7 - 9 intense games against players close to their own strength; the chance to re-connect with their chess friends; and the opportunity to see top players up close. It's a formula that has worked for 20+ years.
Posted by: RP at July 21, 2006 18:24

Bigger prizes will create a bigger incentive to cheat, regargless of the strength of the players. I am unaware of a direct correlation between chess ratings and integrity level. The corolary to DP's statement is that titled players have a greater incentive to cheat, because as professionals or semi-professionals, they have more pressure to make each tournament "pay-off", whereas for amateur players, it's just a recreational event. I believe that this statement is just as false as DP's.

Regarding Joshua's statement about the correlation between self-esteem and cheating, I believe that is true. But are you implying that lower rated chess players have lower self-esteem??

And as far as changing the prize fund structure -- ain't gonna happen! At least not as long as the amateur players feel that they are getting what they pay for ... a well run, honest tournament; the dream of winning a big prize, and for some the reality; 7 - 9 intense games against players close to their own strength; the chance to re-connect with their chess friends; and the opportunity to see top players up close. It's a formula that has worked for 20+ years.
Posted by: RP at July 21, 2006 18:28

Keep in mind that Steve Rosenberg was more than likely cheating during his 19 game streak in Michigan. The tournaments were the Michigan Open, the Motor City Open, and Class class championships. I don't know the top prize for the motor city, but the other two have a top prize of $300 or less.
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 22, 2006 00:05