Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

• More cheating •

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • • More cheating •

    A sad sign of the times.

    ChessBase News | CHESS Magazine: Cheats are prospering
    Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

    An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

    My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

  • #2
    Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
    Cheats, not so disturbing. Here is what really disturbs me (in bold print)

    Recently at the Cork Open a player became suspicious when his opponent went to the toilet twenty time during his game. He followed him and climbed up to watch what was going on in the cubicle. When he saw his opponent checking moves with an Android he dragged him out to expose the cheating. In his editorial for CHESS Magazine Malcolm Pein writes about the rise of cheating in chess.
    (cited from aforementioned website)
    So we got to the point where we play private detectives in toilet areas.. there's a sad sign of the times...
    Have you read the Forum rules?

    Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
    Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
    Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
    Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
    Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
    Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
    Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
    --Red Dwarf

    Comment


    • #3
      What's even sadder, Perseus, is that the guy's suspicions were validated by his playing private detective. That's sadder, to me, than the guy getting pro-active and wilfully invading the other's privacy.

      Sometimes paranoids are right.

      How about rules of no more than one potty-break per linear hour. More than that, the game's forfeited. That might slow the trend towards universal cheating down a trifling amount. Diarrhea today? Well, shoulda got a doc's certificate before the game--bad luck, mate!

      Macrocosm/microcosm...if cheating is normalized in society, it's bound to become the norm in chess. It's a matter of celebrating the ends over the means, in a goal-driven society. Wrong-thinking, as this old buzzard sees it. One should always chose not to chouse at chess, methinks. Otherwise, chess will become a pale imitation of itself, a pantomime of its reality--dried husk containing nothing.

      It's all good, anyways--it'll lead to the bifurcation of chess I've long harped about as being inevitable just that much more quickly. Rock on!
      "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

      Comment


      • #4
        I hope they gave a cheater a chance to put on his pants.
        Cheating?
        Not new. Fischer accused the Soviets of cheating in someway.
        Waitzken in his book if I recall indicated cheating.
        Maybe someone should tell the cheaters the Cold War is over.
        Play with what is in your head, or in the case above your ***.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Malbase View Post
          Cheating?
          Not new.
          Surely isn't new, nothing under the sun is.

          But, was cheating at chess ever so "user-friendly" as now it is?

          The means of high-quality-results cheating are ridiculously available nowadays--we all know that.

          If one lacks goodwill, if one lacks the inner fortitude to avoid cheating, or if one discounts the fear of public-disgrace if caught, it's a "done-deal"--one cheats.

          The tools of cheating are easily had, require no risky collaboration with other conspirators, and can be privily accessed while enthroned in the solitude of a toilet cubicle.

          No one's the wiser, unless they're bold enough and angry enough to scale the cubicle's wall and see, as the guy in the example above was.

          (Desperate deeds for desperate times. Ordinary measures against cheating don't work, so invading privacy is resorted to. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do point out the existence of a SERIOUS problem that needs resolutely effective solution.)

          Small hand-held computer programs are about the ne plus ultra, the holy-grail, of temptation for those chess-vermin with a predisposition towards "end-justifies-means". Skulking in a toilet while cheating doesn't require the boldness of daylight-robbery, just the sneakiness of the petty-thief, a bit of previously induced web-surfing solipsism, a dash of innate narcissism, and you've got it...

          Pathetic and disgusting stuff.

          I guess that the punitive removal of hands of those caught cheating at chess might be more than a bit over the top, but Instantaneous Lifetime Playing-Ban might not be. Wanna cheat? You're not doing it in chess ever again, so go learn bowling--maybe you can figure out a way to cheat at that.
          Last edited by Celadonite; 05-22-2013, 02:30 PM.
          "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

          Comment


          • #6
            The most ironic accusation of cheating was when Kasparov accused a computer of getting help from a human.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Malbase View Post
              I hope they gave a cheater a chance to put on his pants.
              Cheating?
              Not new. Fischer accused the Soviets of cheating in someway.Waitzken in his book if I recall indicated cheating.
              Maybe someone should tell the cheaters the Cold War is over.
              Play with what is in your head, or in the case above your ***.
              I think this was a very different situation. Fischer accused the Soviets of taking easy draws against their teammates and then playing all out as a team against him. This was later confirmed by the Soviet players. FIDE changed the candidates cycle from a tournament to individual matches to answer Fischer's accusations. Computer help was non-existent in the mid-1960's.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, there is dishonesty in every facet of life, but this sort of thing just reminds me that technology hurts our game as much as it helps.

                Whether it be steroids, card counting, or answers written on our hands, nothing about cheating is new. But OTB chess cheating is growing in popularity--something I disdain.
                Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                Comment


                • #9
                  As a TD: I am not surprised in the least of this article. Only makes me more worried about adjusting for technology in tournaments.

                  As a person: I don't like to think that humans at their core cheat, but sometimes it seems like they continually prove me wrong.

                  As a man: I am a little disturbed at someone climbing a toilet stall. I laughed really hard and then I thought, "Wait, if I was in a toilet stall doing what I do, and someone walks in my senses heighten and butt cheek tighten, and I can literally detect where the person is almost." I can't imagine someone being so engulfed in even an android phone for analysis that they can't even tell when someone is in the room let a lone invading toilet stalls. As funny as it is, the cheat was either stupid, inexperienced, or the story has some fallacies in it.
                  I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

                  If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CookieMonster View Post
                    As a man: I am a little disturbed at someone climbing a toilet stall. I laughed really hard and then I thought, "Wait, if I was in a toilet stall doing what I do, and someone walks in my senses heighten and butt cheek tighten, and I can literally detect where the person is almost." I can't imagine someone being so engulfed in even an android phone for analysis that they can't even tell when someone is in the room let a lone invading toilet stalls. As funny as it is, the cheat was either stupid, inexperienced, or the story has some fallacies in it.
                    I was wondering about such things, too.

                    Assuming the story's accurate--it may not be!--the guy either has no "environmental awareness", i.e., no street-smarts

                    OR

                    He's amazingly proficient at self-defense, cool, competent, and consequently unconcerned--James Bond cold.

                    OR

                    fully-clothed, since his purpose was cheating and not "attending to business", he's fully engrossed in that purpose of cheating and factually unaware of surroundings.

                    There's also the question of the agility of the guy who scaled the divider--it might be that he's very cat-like and quiet by nature, capable of doing such a thing without drawing attention to the action--this may have factored in.

                    CMonster, as a TD, what are your ideas/feelings as to how electronic cheating should be dealt with, when the culprits are caught? What chessic legislation would you like to see enacted, to more effectively deal with electronic-cheating?
                    Last edited by Celadonite; 05-23-2013, 01:31 PM.
                    "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I know you asked cmonster, but I’ll chime in, anyhow.

                      For me, personally, cheating is the lowest form of just about anything. Of course, the situations will vastly differ from each other but in general, I think cheaters should be stripped of their membership affiliation and banned from tournament play--forever.

                      Yes, a low master using a program to cheat other masters out of a huge prize fund is a tad different than an eight year old who is just tired of his low rating, but you get my drift.

                      There is nothing, and I mean nothing cool or good about cheating. Not only does your rating inflate falsely, but other, HONEST players lose their hard earned points for NO reason. I can not and will not ever condone that.
                      Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                      An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                      My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
                        I know you asked cmonster, but I’ll chime in, anyhow.

                        For me, personally, cheating is the lowest form of just about anything. Of course, the situations will vastly differ from each other but in general, I think cheaters should be stripped of their membership affiliation and banned from tournament play--forever.

                        Yes, a low master using a program to cheat other masters out of a huge prize fund is a tad different than an eight year old who is just tired of his low rating, but you get my drift.

                        There is nothing, and I mean nothing cool or good about cheating. Not only does your rating inflate falsely, but other, HONEST players lose their hard earned points for NO reason. I can not and will not ever condone that.
                        If a person cheats that causes another player loses a big money prize (Anything over cost of entry fee) I believe legal remedies should be made available. Huge fine and jail should be part of the mix.

                        Regarding a player that loses a lot of rating points, that player could have run into a sandbagger. Sandbaggers do artificially lower their ratings. Bob Long noted at one of his opponents at one of the National Opens dropped a queen then resigned.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
                          I was wondering about such things, too.

                          Assuming the story's accurate--it may not be!--the guy either has no "environmental awareness", i.e., no street-smarts

                          OR

                          He's amazingly proficient at self-defense, cool, competent, and consequently unconcerned--James Bond cold.

                          OR

                          fully-clothed, since his purpose was cheating and not "attending to business", he's fully engrossed in that purpose of cheating and factually unaware of surroundings.

                          There's also the question of the agility of the guy who scaled the divider--it might be that he's very cat-like and quiet by nature, capable of doing such a thing without drawing attention to the action--this may have factored in.
                          At least I wasn't alone in this thought. I thought about the "Not doing his business" assisting in the ease of conscious to outside world, but then I thought.. "Wouldn't cheating also heighten awareness?" But then you also have the other factors you mentioned as well. So I guess we would have to interview the gentlemen under scrutinizing glares.

                          CMonster, as a TD, what are your ideas/feelings as to how electronic cheating should be dealt with, when the culprits are caught? What chessic legislation would you like to see enacted, to more effectively deal with electronic-cheating?
                          When they are caught: Fined, and banned for at least as long as they would have jail time. And I am in the mind of agreeing an infinite ban would be in order.

                          What I think should be done is see more attentiveness to the rules of electronic devices. For example:

                          1. There should be a list of people who use them. And this list should have a person to check on those people specifically for suspicious behavior.

                          2. There should be more attentive TD's. Believe it or not there is two major flaws in our system. 1. There is always more TD's in the TD room than in the playing floor. 2. The TD's on the floor are more focused on outbursts and display boards when they should be focused on problematic actions and suspicious behavior. Someone going to the restroom multiple times during a game without prior approval from the TD is a suspicious behavior.

                          Also

                          3. There is something to be said about checking pockets before leaving playing hall these days, and even observing the person enter and exit the areas properly if they are going to enforce said rules.

                          One example is: If you are caught leaving the playing hall in any form without confirmation with the TD you risk forfeiture. This is no where near enforced the way it should be. And a lot of people get away with this more than people know. Even going as far as the ultimate sin of going back to their room for a break for what ever reason. And going to your room is considered instant forfeiture and risk forfeit from the tournament.

                          4. People in general should be banned from using electronic devices in the playing hall, and possibly even in the reserved tournament area. Because I have heard of side cheating where people walk up to friends of family with a computer sitting on a table at the end of the way and asking whats up. Harder to do, but apparently been done.

                          5. When high stakes money is at hand policing the top 1/3 of the tournament harder at the last 2-3 rounds is probably a good idea. They "Mention" tighter rules, but never enforce them.

                          Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
                          I know you asked cmonster, but I’ll chime in, anyhow.

                          For me, personally, cheating is the lowest form of just about anything. Of course, the situations will vastly differ from each other but in general, I think cheaters should be stripped of their membership affiliation and banned from tournament play--forever.

                          Yes, a low master using a program to cheat other masters out of a huge prize fund is a tad different than an eight year old who is just tired of his low rating, but you get my drift.

                          There is nothing, and I mean nothing cool or good about cheating. Not only does your rating inflate falsely, but other, HONEST players lose their hard earned points for NO reason. I can not and will not ever condone that.
                          I would like to add here that there should be a distinction between cheating. Policing this kind of cheating is harder than policing the kind that is usual. And the usual is people "messing" with their electronic device. People need to be fully aware of the rules of messing with their device, including to defensive measures where if you believe your opponent is using this method, you can ask that he be restricted from using the device for the rest of the game.

                          I mention this because this is the most common form of cheating for children. They mess with their device when they are bored. (Even some adults do this.) And this is not policed enough.

                          Originally posted by zatoichi View Post
                          If a person cheats that causes another player loses a big money prize (Anything over cost of entry fee) I believe legal remedies should be made available. Huge fine and jail should be part of the mix.

                          Regarding a player that loses a lot of rating points, that player could have run into a sandbagger. Sandbaggers do artificially lower their ratings. Bob Long noted at one of his opponents at one of the National Opens dropped a queen then resigned.
                          This post both has points. I agree with the fine and jail time. The sandbagger issue is of course another issue even worthy of its own post.
                          I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

                          If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zatoichi View Post
                            If a person cheats that causes another player loses a big money prize (Anything over cost of entry fee) I believe legal remedies should be made available. Huge fine and jail should be part of the mix.

                            Regarding a player that loses a lot of rating points, that player could have run into a sandbagger. Sandbaggers do artificially lower their ratings. Bob Long noted at one of his opponents at one of the National Opens dropped a queen then resigned.
                            Dropping a queen and then resigning isn’t enough for a sandbagging case. At the NAO in what--2003?--a buddy and I took the redeye bus from San Bernardino to Vegas. The thing left at around midnight, and the plan was to sleep on the bus and then compete in the tournament the next day.

                            Welp, we didn’t sleep. I had an electronic chess game with me, and we ended up playing until the bus pulled into Vegas at 5:30am; as you can imagine, this wasn’t good for performance.

                            I don’t remember if it was game one, two, three, or what, but I know for a fact that I was beyond tired. I thought for probably twenty minutes on a move, and then placed my queen on a square it could be taken by an enemy pawn. After I hit the clock I saw what I’d done, but I thought that maybe, just maybe, it was such an outlandish move that my opponent wouldn’t notice.

                            His face crinkled up and he looked at me oddly. When he reached for the pawn I just stopped the clock smiled.

                            I wasn’t sandbagging, and I wasn’t terrible at chess. What I was, however, was exhausted beyond belief.

                            Take nothing at face value.
                            Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

                            An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

                            My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Skwerly View Post

                              I don’t remember if it was game one, two, three, or what, but I know for a fact that I was beyond tired. I thought for probably twenty minutes on a move, and then placed my queen on a square it could be taken by an enemy pawn. After I hit the clock I saw what I’d done, but I thought that maybe, just maybe, it was such an outlandish move that my opponent wouldn’t notice.

                              His face crinkled up and he looked at me oddly. When he reached for the pawn I just stopped the clock smiled.

                              I wasn’t sandbagging, and I wasn’t terrible at chess. What I was, however, was exhausted beyond belief.

                              Take nothing at face value.
                              I had a pleasant laugh at your story, as it brought to mind something similiar that happened to me, long ago, just prior to the Last Ice Age.

                              I was suffering a DEADLY head cold...fever, you name it...about out of my mind from the effects of this miserable cold. Bound to play, tho: duty calls!

                              Against all odds I was paired to play a guy who ALSO was suffering under the lash of a vicious head-cold.

                              It was like two drunk clowns trying to beat each other to death with sponge bats, just hilarious. I hung a Queen, as you did, he overlooked it...on and on it went, until we both--realizing the other guy was as sick as ourself--started giggling and snickering between coughs. Trying to keep the volume down, choking on our laughs--Comrades in Misery. I remember one particularly surreal moment when it seemed that everyone in the room sneezed in unison LOL I think there were ALOT of "sickies" there that day.

                              Finally I managed to get some traction against him, the tide was turning in my favor, and I AGAIN managed to hang my Queen. Total Three Stooges Moment. (I wasn't old enough then to lay it to "age"!)

                              This time he saw it, looked at me sympathetically, whispered "I gotta take it," I nodded knowingly, he took it and went on to win the game. We went out to coffee together later, and had a good laugh over our mutual cold-induced miseries and stayed in touch periodically for years--I might just give him a call this afternoon, thinking of it!

                              Anyways, you brought back this memory, which is hilarious in hindsight, thanks Skwerly!
                              "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X