The March issue of “Vanity Fair” magazine contains an article about recent cheating scandals in professional Contract Bridge. Turns out that cheating via various forms of signaling has been much more prevalent in that game than previously believed. It was uncovered in various ways but mainly by reviewing videos of the play combined with analyzing the records of hands played (the red flag was playing a card that by all logic shouldn’t have worked, but did). The signals, as you might expect, were very subtle.
Reading this, I thought of how EASY it would be at most chess tournaments for a spectator to pass signals to a competitor. We’ve focused on how a PLAYER could hide electronic devices on his/her person, but how does one check each and every spectator wandering around, maybe not even looking at the conspirator’s board while passing signals. Getting computer aided advice a few times a game would be an enormous advantage.
IIRC, Topolov’s manager, Danilov, was accused of this about ten years ago. I think it was Nigel Short who led the accusations based on behavior at a tournament in South America. If my facts are inaccurate, I’ll certainly correct them.
Easy to state solution :
Prior to the round the playing area (including nearby washrooms) is locked down and swept for all electronic devices.
All players and spectators have to go through a locker, divest themselves of all clothes and possessions, undergo a body cavity search, and wear tournament-issued robes before entering the playing area. Any external devices for players would need to be individually accepted after review (can’t have a blanket approval for hearing aids because of the potential for a phonito, can’t have a blanket approval for glasses because of google glasses, etc.). When searching for metal or electronic devices special attention may need to be given to people in wheelchairs, babies in strollers, people with artificial joints, people with cochlear implants or pacemakers, etc.
Not only would that be a considerable deterrence to electronic cheating, it would also make it easier on the TDs since there would be a smaller number of players willing to undergo the security measures and able to afford the entry fees once they are raised to a level that can pay for all of that security.
Right. So the easy to state answer is we’re helpless because if we do anything it might cut attendance.
Meanwhile, they are planning to do away with actual cards at bridge (so card placement can’t convey info), they already have screens so the players can’t see each other, etc. One big difference: the bridge cheats find ways to get info to their partner while the chess cheats find ways to get info to/from a computer.
The fact that a spectator can wander in and out of the playing venue to consult a computer gives the chess cheat some advantages. First, wanding won’t find anything. Second, the confederate doesn’t have to be very good at chess (in the old days, the cheat would require a strong player’s assistance). Third, the long thinks enabled by tournament time controls could enable several off-site consultations per game, not as convenient as every move, perhaps, but enough for a big edge.
So, one thing we could do is ban spectators from the playing hall.
Mike, do the security measures you say they have in bridge exist only in the top level tournaments, or would you say them used in something analogous to a weekend swiss?
Speaking as an ACBL Junior Master (which is even less impressive than it sounds):
Screens are standard at later rounds of national title events and at high level international events.
I have never seen one actually used in a local or regional event.
One difference between bridge and chess is that prize money is almost unheard of at all but the highest levels of bridge. Top players are compensated through teaching or playing as hired partners.
Your answer to Mulfish’s question seems very reasonable – all I know about tournament bridge is what I read in the Vanity Fair article.
Although nothing like hired partners exists in chess, certainly compensation through teaching is vastly more significant than prize money for all but the very top players. I’m unaware of any studies showing the relationship between the hourly rate one can command and one’s Elo, but, intuitively, I’d suspect a pretty close correlation.
If there’s under-the-radar cheating going on, I’d suspect this to be its motivation: boost results enough to get more out of the students (and their parents), without drawing undue attention. Weekend Swiss events with relatively modest prizes might be a suitable venue for this.
While this is all speculation, I have to believe the showboating fools caught thus far are only the tip of the iceberg. Instant transformation from 2100 to knocking off GMs will put you under the spotlight. Going from 2100 to 2400 over a couple years probably won’t.
I am still impressed by the low-tech cheating at the 2010 olympiad. A player (Sebastian Feller) on the French team was receiving moves from a confederate. The moves were communicated by having a spectator apparently wandering the hall but pausing at certain points. As the olympiad is a four-board team tournament, there were four games (eight chairs) at a table. The “spectator” would appear to be watching a match at a table visible to Feller, stopping behind a specific chair to indicate a file and then again to indicate a rank. (Given a destination square, if there is any ambiguity, a high level player should easily know which piece to move to that square.) The cheating was only caught because someone left a cell phone lying around in the open showing text messages with the moves to relay.
:
Any external devices for players would need to be individually accepted after review (can’t have a blanket approval for hearing aids because of the potential for a phonito, can’t have a blanket approval for glasses because of google glasses, etc.). 
When searching for metal or electronic devices special attention may need to be given to people in wheelchairs, babies in strollers, people with artificial joints, people with cochlear implants or pacemakers, etc.
and able to afford the entry fees once they are raised to a level that can pay for all of that security. 
