Cheating Allegations Lead to "Strip Search" of Chess Player

[dpak]

Secondly, there is no such thing as statistical proof of cheating.

Chess isn't only a number Game. And its very easy to analyze previous games styles of players and come up with games styles. The human element. Whats more likely? That an average chess master increased his IQ by 40 points and now beats grandmasters? or there's an elephant in the room? Chess is as old as civilization itself. we know every single way to play the game. All we do now is refine endings, openings and theories. And this mans predecessors didn't display this sort of jump in potential mid life (hell even the plasticity of the brain decreases as you get older i.e. the ability to learn new things)

Bobby Fischer made a huge leap in performance between when he was 12 and 13, so the Great Leap Forward cannot be ruled out. However, I accept that if it is not sustained thereafter then it is suspicious. However if we "know every single way to play" then this man could have added some of that knowledge to his own. If "all we do now is refine endings, openings and theories" then are we not getting to the stage when even weaker players can draw on this knowledge, in much the same way as, say, a move like Morphy's brilliant (in its day) queen sacrifice against Paulsen, would be considered a merely average or normal move today?

 

[dpak]

Let me explain. Game 2, look at it. He gets himself into a draw position after playing a game where he performed at roughly a 2600 level. Then, he makes a mistake no 2600 level GM would ever make. Clarifying that even further; there were no time constraints or issues here, he had 30 minutes for each move. Any GM, or player earning their norms and playing at 2600+ level of play would have looked at that position and realized Bd6 is an instant lose move. Yes, it looks logical but, is the worst move he could have possibly made. People performing at that level would never make that mistake. It's a gigantic blunder. Which puts paid to the lie of his performance being a completely human endeavour.

In my youth, I remember being told by my school chess captain that I was a strong player with the strongest mid-game play in the school (i.e. even stronger than he) but that I was weak in closed positions because I got impatient and played recklessly. (I was also weak in the endgame.) I did, later learn some mental strategies to improve my closed-position play. But the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

"a mistake no 2600 level GM would ever make?" Like Fischer's 29...Bxh2 in Game 2 of the World Championship in 1972? Let's face it, S~*% happens!

 

[tangoprime]

Could it be that, as a COMPUTER CHESS PROGRAMMER he may have devised a relatively easy (for him anyway) algorithm or some such to think somewhat like a computer?

I don't see why this is implausible.

I think its kind of disgusting that because egos he must be cheating because he can't possibly have improved to win a couple of games against GMs.

Or maybe he just had a string of good luck?

How about innocent until proven guilty? How about any physical evidence that he was cheating? No there isn't any?

I know it because it's "just a chess tournament" but imagine shit like this was pulled in a high profile sport? OMG this basketball player is so good he must be on drugs. Lets figure out a way to prove his on drugs, even though there isn't any real evidence that he is...

Much the same and would cause a fucking UPROAR.

Oh well, maybe i'm reading too much into it

Computer algorithms for chess rely on the ridiculously fast pace at which computers can search all possible moves and the likely series of moves that would follow. The human mind just isn't capable of that level of processing capability (at least at the focused levels required for something like chess). There are ways of measuring how much someone plays like a machine, and this guy has set off all the alarms for those measures.

The people running the tournament aren't saying he is guilty for sure, but his play style is suspicious. Yes the current evidence is only circumstantial, but that's why they're investigating the matter further before bringing out any formal accusations. You're right to say that the ego of some of the GMs has a hand in this, but if the investigation turns up nothing, then it won't matter anyway.

If a relatively unknown - typically slow - Olympic runner were to suddenly run a single race at record speeds, there would likely be an investigation too. The only difference is that an Olympic investigation would likely be kept more quiet than what we are seeing here.

But maybe... he can SEE the code, man.

(was going to photoshop in a chess board, but too lazy.)

 

[JonnWood]

Seriously people, do you not know anything about chess at all?

I think between the maker of that video and the suggestions in the artical Chess players have some wild imaginations when it comes to where people can put radio transmitters or willing to put them.

Its not just normal things like a hearing aid. Nope he had surgery(tooth filling/ under the skin). Or he had spy glasses that showed him what to do from 2km away(Despite him not using glasses).

I get that it highly unlikely that the guy did not cheat.

I just find it funny what people come up with some times

People have done crazier things for casinos.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19792_the-5-ballsiest-casino-cheats-all-time.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ways-people-cheat-in-casinos.html
http://listverse.com/2010/01/24/10-gamblers-who-beat-the-casino/

 

[Bad Jim]

the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

 

[dpak]

the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6, which was cited by electric method as specific proof that he was guided by a computer. Are you saying that this specific move could not have been the result of fatigue and a decline in mental alertness at that moment?

 

[electric method]

the question I ask you this: can one really generalize about a human player's strength in open and closed positions? My own experience tells me that it is possible for a HUMAN player to be strong in the former and weak in the latter - especially if one is suffering from that very human phenomenon known as fatigue. Does his blunder really imply computer assistance? Or is it an example of an all-too-human player, tired and under strain making a blunder whilst trying to force the issue in a closed position?

A human player will fail in closed positions for different reasons to a computer. Computers play badly in closed positions because closed positions require strategy rather than tactics. Computers have little understanding of strategy, while there are few opportunities for tactics. In such positions a grandmaster can slowly build up a decisive advantage while the computer just meanders around, never making any tactical mistakes but never dealing with the long term threat.

Humans, on the other hand, might get impatient and unwisely attempt to open the game up, or might get tired and make a blunder, but in both cases these are tactical errors that a computer will not make. Or the human might just be bad at strategy, but with a 2000+ rating he won't be so bad that he simply wanders aimlessly in a closed position like a computer. He'll just be relatively bad.

A half decent player should have long term goals. Computers don't. If computers agree with all his moves, the player doesn't have any long term goals either and he is probably using a computer.

I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6, which was cited by electric method as specific proof that he was guided by a computer. Are you saying that this specific move could not have been the result of fatigue and a decline in mental alertness at that moment?

The answer to your question is, well, no. The time controls for these games was 90/30, meaning 90 mins for each player plus a 30 second increment per move. Also, this is game 2 of the tournament and in game 1 he won quickly and pretty convicingly. If this were the old classical time contols maybe but, we are talking about endgame play from 2600+ players.

Simply put, there is only one move on the board that makes sense and, frankly, that move is very obvious (for a GM down to about 2200). The move white is threating is also very obvious... White's prior move is a two parter with the next move being one that threatens Nxd5. All black has to do draw this position is keep control of e6 and d6 with his king and protect the backwards pawn on d5. This is fairly simple to see and plan for. That he plays Bd6 instead of say, the obvious endgame move of Ke6, is very striking and is such a bad mistake one would expect to see it from a player sub 2100. Also, this type of endgame position is fairly common and any GM or 2600+ player would easily convert this position into a draw. The position, for all intents and purposes, plays itself.

In all honesty, one does not play at a GM level, nor earn GM norms with out a strong understanding of endgames. In otherwords, you are probably not going to find a player capable of 2600+ play or any GM with a weak understanding of endgames. Why? Endgames are where a large portion of games at the master level, and especially the GM level, are decided. If there is one "truism" about all GM's it is that they all can play and understand endgames strongly. Where GM's differ is in preference. Some prefer to play attacking chess, others prefer positional chess. This preference is expressed in the openings they play and in their middlegames. However, they all understand positional elements, tactical elements and how to plan properly as well as endgames. Such a gaping in hole in knowledge, like a lack of knowledge of endgames, would have long since been corrected or they would never be playing at that level. Upon review of his earlier games from 2012 it is obvious that he has a large gap in his knowledge of endgames that would preclude him from playing at a 2600 level.(not to mention serious deficencies in other areas of his game and general knowledge).

 

[Bad Jim]

I asked my question with particular reference to the move Bd6

You mean move 115 in [a href=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1703484]this game?[/a]

Actually, to be honest, that doesn't look like a computer blunder to me. It only takes a 12 ply search to find that it loses a pawn. I just entered that position into Winboard using the Fruit 2.1 engine and it reached a search depth of 20 ply in less than a second, rejecting Bd6 at 12 ply in favour of Ke6.

I'd say he made that blunder himself. Neither GM nor computer should miss it, but humans make silly mistakes occasionally, while computers never overlook material losses within their search depth.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

Bobby Fischer made a huge leap in performance between when he was 12 and 13, so the Great Leap Forward cannot be ruled out. However, I accept that if it is not sustained thereafter then it is suspicious. However if we "know every single way to play" then this man could have added some of that knowledge to his own. If "all we do now is refine endings, openings and theories" then are we not getting to the stage when even weaker players can draw on this knowledge, in much the same way as, say, a move like Morphy's brilliant (in its day) queen sacrifice against Paulsen, would be considered a merely average or normal move today?

Fischer was a chess prodigy and to his credit he was a child, I'm alluding to brain plasticity. When I say we know every way to play I'm referring to calculable moves easily done on a super computers. Obviously half of them are rubbish. Which brings me to Morphy's "sacrifice" which is technically accurate but a misnomer since he won strategically. Computers play tactics but are programmed for strategy. The ability innovate new chess theories is a genius level skill like your example of Fischer. Simply learning old games won't give you the edge. The grandmasters already know them and new chess players learn them to improve but that alone won't suffice. And that's my gripe, why so late in his career? I suppose time will tell if he caanot sustain his new "talent".