Cheating in chess

[BaronOfHell]

Isn't the definition of professionalism that it allows for a person to make a living?

[Lord Torath]

Weighing in on professional sports, I used to think it served no purpose. But then I realized it's not really any different than the movie/TV industry. I *don't* think public money should be going for it, though. I don't really think the movie industry should get public money either.

But then I think about small-time film makers that can draw attention to social problems with films they couldn't afford to make without grants. Should those be taken away? How about funding for neighborhood sports programs?

It gets complicated, and I think we may be drifting into topics forbidden on the forum. So I'll end my comments here.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Isn't the definition of professionalism that it allows for a person to make a living?

No. Often people use "profession" as a synonym of "vocation", but that's not the only, or original meaning.

In the strictest sense it means that there is some kind of legally enforced standard (doctors, lawyers, military, et cetra).

In the next loosest sense it means there's some significant standard enforced by custom or professional associations. For example, a professional writer has developer certain skills and education. J.K Rowling was a professional was she was still living on welfare. Conversely, somebody barely literate writing a book about the celebrity sex cult they escaped isn't a professional writer.

[pendell]

Weighing in on professional sports, I used to think it served no purpose.

The purpose of professional sports is gambling, of course. Name me any professional sport, of which horse racing is only the most obvious , there's bound to be any number of legal bookies and under-the-table betting pools , all for people who are hoping for a lucky break. From the Black Sox of 1919 to the Dowd Report of 1989, gambling has been inextricably linked with professional sports. Why else is there so much money in it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ionathus]

The purpose of professional sports is gambling, of course. Name me any professional sport, of which horse racing is only the most obvious , there's bound to be any number of legal bookies and under-the-table betting pools , all for people who are hoping for a lucky break. From the Black Sox of 1919 to the Dowd Report of 1989, gambling has been inextricably linked with professional sports. Why else is there so much money in it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

...people like watching it?

Sports aren't really my thing but I would think it's obvious from the packed stadiums and sponsorship deals that sports are a big deal to the general public, who will spend lots of money to watch competition in something they like and understand. Gambling does seem to be a factor, based on the inconclusive stats I looked up just now, but calling it "the purpose" of professional sports seems like way overselling it.

[Kornaki]

The purpose of professional sports is gambling, of course. Name me any professional sport, of which horse racing is only the most obvious , there's bound to be any number of legal bookies and under-the-table betting pools , all for people who are hoping for a lucky break. From the Black Sox of 1919 to the Dowd Report of 1989, gambling has been inextricably linked with professional sports. Why else is there so much money in it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

You can also gamble on who will be the next president of the United States.

People just like to gamble on stuff. It doesn't mean the underlying content doesn't serve any other purpose.

[pendell]

You can also gamble on who will be the next president of the United States.

People just like to gamble on stuff. It doesn't mean the underlying content doesn't serve any other purpose.

True. I think I overstated the case; I must have been grumpy the other day. Sorry.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bohandas]

Or just have all future chess championships inside Faraday cages. It'll be like cage fighting for the less physically gifted.

or with a jammer running

The purpose of professional sports is gambling, of course. Name me any professional sport, of which horse racing is only the most obvious , there's bound to be any number of legal bookies and under-the-table betting pools , all for people who are hoping for a lucky break. From the Black Sox of 1919 to the Dowd Report of 1989, gambling has been inextricably linked with professional sports. Why else is there so much money in it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I always thought they were just a primitive and benighted precursor of Let's Play videos

[Smoutwortel]

If this becomes a big enough issue, I expect the event organizers will just look for the device's signal.

Or play in faraday cages.

[137beth]

That time has long past. Garry Kasparov lost to Deep Blue February 10th, 1996. 26 years ago. All grand masters use computers now to help themselves, but they still have to memorize 10-20 perfect moves out of thousand of options in thousands of positions.

Okay, yeah, you're probably right. In 2014ish, there was a public match between the then-current version of Stockfish (which at the time was somewhere between the first and third strongest engine depending on time controls and hardware) and a human GM with access to a five-year-old version of Rybka (the strongest engine from 2006-2010). Stockfish won, but the human+Rybka team did better than either could have alone. There was some commentary at the time that if a human GM practiced with that particular version of Rybka, they might have been able to win, as well as speculation that a human+Stockfish team could beat Stockfish without a human.

However, that was 8 years ago. CCRL estimates that the current stable Stockfish is about 300 elo points stronger than Stockfish 5 from 2014. CCRL only compares software, but hardware has also improved in the last eight years.

Also, when Kasparov proposed "centaur chess" (human+computer teams) in 1997, he argued that alpha-beta pruning chess engines were weaker than humans at long-term strategy, but they made up for it with superior tactics. Centaur chess was supposed to combine the strategy of a human GM with the tactics of a chess engine. However, in 2019-2021, all the top engines switched from alpha-beta pruning to using neural networks and MCTS, which erases the advantage humans had.

So that brings us back to pure computer-vs-computer chess tournaments like TCEC.

[Quizatzhaderac]

or with a jammer running

Jammers are illegal, at least in America. Also probably elsewhere as well since they also block calls for emergency services.

Or play in faraday cages.

That works as a technical solution, but it makes the venue setup much more complicated, and worsens the presentation of the event.

[halfeye]

There's more drama:

https://games.slashdot.org/story/22/...h-hans-niemann

[gomipile]

There's more drama:

https://games.slashdot.org/story/22/...h-hans-niemann

Nothing I've seen in this saga has made me feel any sympathy for Carlsen. At this point, even if Niemann did cheat or take advantage of strategy leaks, he still has the(separate) moral high ground on his outward behavior so far.

[Radar]

Jammers are illegal, at least in America. Also probably elsewhere as well since they also block calls for emergency services.
That works as a technical solution, but it makes the venue setup much more complicated, and worsens the presentation of the event.

Airport-style security scans at the entrance would suffice I think. Not that much trouble in setting this up and no problem with blocking emergency calls.

[Wintermoot]

Airport-style security scans at the entrance would suffice I think. Not that much trouble in setting this up and no problem with blocking emergency calls.

I walk right through airport security with my hearing aids in every time I travel. They don't see them, they don't flinch. I can't imagine any tool necessary to facilitate the cheating would be larger or more scannable than standard hearing aids.

[Radar]

I walk right through airport security with my hearing aids in every time I travel. They don't see them, they don't flinch. I can't imagine any tool necessary to facilitate the cheating would be larger or more scannable than standard hearing aids.

Those scanners are surely able to see it as well as a coin in your pocket. They simply have software that recognizes hearing aid and does not make a fuss about it - many people have those (or some implants) and the delays it would create if the gates would sound alarm every time would be counterproductive. If they could not pick up objects of that size, they would be fairly useless. There are probably also other methods to do this including simple metal detectors as anything with an antenna needs metal - any kind of electric motor more so.

[halfeye]

Those scanners are surely able to see it as well as a coin in your pocket. They simply have software that recognizes hearing aid and does not make a fuss about it - many people have those (or some implants) and the delays it would create if the gates would sound alarm every time would be counterproductive. If they could not pick up objects of that size, they would be fairly useless. There are probably also other methods to do this including simple metal detectors as anything with an antenna needs metal - any kind of electric motor more so.

Cheating using a modified hearing aid would be quite possible if those were ignored.

[gomipile]

Cheating using a modified hearing aid would be quite possible if those were ignored.

Since a high profile chess event like this has only two competitors, very thorough and focused inspections should be possible.

Also, radio frequency spectrum analyzers exist. Monitoring the RF spectrum for peaks that aren't part of the venue's normal background spectrum should be straightforward. It is one more thing to worry about, though, and not cheap to set up properly. But it's doable.

[Bohandas]

{Scrubbed}

[halfeye]

Since a high profile chess event like this has only two competitors, very thorough and focused inspections should be possible.

Also, radio frequency spectrum analyzers exist. Monitoring the RF spectrum for peaks that aren't part of the venue's normal background spectrum should be straightforward. It is one more thing to worry about, though, and not cheap to set up properly. But it's doable.

They aren't tournaments?

[Chronos]

Quoth Radar:

If they could not pick up objects of that size, they would be fairly useless.

Indeed. They can't pick up objects of that size, and they are in fact fairly useless.

[Liquor Box]

The purpose of professional sports is gambling, of course. Name me any professional sport, of which horse racing is only the most obvious , there's bound to be any number of legal bookies and under-the-table betting pools , all for people who are hoping for a lucky break. From the Black Sox of 1919 to the Dowd Report of 1989, gambling has been inextricably linked with professional sports. Why else is there so much money in it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

In my home country sports gambling (except on horse and hound racing) used to be illegal, and was seldomly practiced, but we still had professional sports. So gambling is certainly not the only purpose.

Weighing in on professional sports, I used to think it served no purpose. But then I realized it's not really any different than the movie/TV industry. I *don't* think public money should be going for it, though. I don't really think the movie industry should get public money either.

But then I think about small-time film makers that can draw attention to social problems with films they couldn't afford to make without grants. Should those be taken away? How about funding for neighborhood sports programs?

It gets complicated, and I think we may be drifting into topics forbidden on the forum. So I'll end my comments here.

As you say, pro sports is analogous to movies and entertainment in these regards. Also analogous to other sorts of artistic endeavour from paintings to documentary making etc). People get entertainment from it, and the amount they spend on it suggests they value that entertainment very highly.

[Peelee]

In my home country sports gambling (except on horse and hound racing) used to be illegal, and was seldomly practiced, but we still had professional sports. So gambling is certainly not the only purpose.

While I agree with your post overall, a minor quibble about this section: it doesn't show that gambling is not the only purpose, but rather that legal gambling is not the only purpose.

[Liquor Box]

While I agree with your post overall, a minor quibble about this section: it doesn't show that gambling is not the only purpose, but rather that legal gambling is not the only purpose.

BY saying "and was seldomly practiced" I was intending to convey that I don't think there was much illegal gambling on it either. There was surely occasions of friends watching a game having a small bet on the outcome, but I don't think we ever had illegal bookies where people could gamble on games, like some countries have.

[halfeye]

There is now a lawsuit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63338375

[Keltest]

There is now a lawsuit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63338375

Does this mean theres more evidence than just one person's word against another?

[Radar]

Does this mean theres more evidence than just one person's word against another?

There is a lengthy report by chess.com, but it is more of a conjecture than a solid proof. Thus the lawsuit is by Niemann against Carlsen and chess.com.

[Peelee]

There is a lengthy report by chess.com, but it is more of a conjecture than a solid proof. Thus the lawsuit is by Niemann against Carlsen and chess.com.

I don't know if I'd say conjecture, chess.com has decent evidence. It's a civil suit, which means preponderance of evidence wins, and it's not difficult to say it's more likely than not that Niemann cheated in the online games chess.com claims.

[Radar]

I don't know if I'd say conjecture, chess.com has decent evidence. It's a civil suit, which means preponderance of evidence wins, and it's not difficult to say it's more likely than not that Niemann cheated in the online games chess.com claims.

Very solid data to assume cheating but that is not the same as a proof of cheating. I am not versed enough in English to say, where the word "evidence" lies between conjecture and proof but maybe it is appropriate here.

What they have might be enough to win the civil suit against them but might not be enough for any kind of legal action against Niemann in FIDE or whichever organization that typically handles such matters.

All in all, there is a problem of how to ensure fair play in chess when it is so easy to consult a superior chess engine.

[Peelee]

Very solid data to assume cheating but that is not the same as a proof of cheating. I am not versed enough in English to say, where the word "evidence" lies between conjecture and proof but maybe it is appropriate here.

What they have might be enough to win the civil suit against them but might not be enough for any kind of legal action against Niemann in FIDE or whichever organization that typically handles such matters.

All in all, there is a problem of how to ensure fair play in chess when it is so easy to consult a superior chess engine.

I never said proof, I said evidence.

Evidence, in every legal system I know of, is anything that points to a particular conclusion. Me stating "I am a cow" is evidence that I am a cow. You stating "you have two legs, no udder, and are speaking English" is evidence that I am not a cow. Your evidence is stronger evidence than my evidence.

Chess.com has evidence that he cheated in hundreds of online games. Part of this evidence is accuracy, which I understand is a term of art in chess. Part of this evidence is that he has admitted to cheating prior to this. A civil suit relies on preponderance of evidence - that means that a judge or jury only needs to think one side is 51% more likely to be true than the other side. More likely than not, that's the threshold.

The evidence against Neimann, to my understanding, is an abundance of thoroughly vetted and science-backed mathematics and his own admission of doing exactly what he is being accused of previously (which, it is important to note, involves dishonesty. Credibility is very important in legal cases, and this hurts his credibility right off the bat).

Tbe evidence against Carlson and chess.com, to my understanding, is Neumann saying "nuh uh."