Dumping games? Fixing results? Pocket Fritz? “Touch Move” takebacks? How do they all start?
A better comparison on the issue of cheating would be with other sports/games. The issues surrounding the scandal in Atlanta involve politics, school funding, and socioeconomic status. There are systemic problems in education that politicians have been unable or unwilling to address. Instead they sought “simple” expedient political solutions that played to their base, took credit for solving the problem, failed to provide adequate funding or oversight, and then walked away. I do not think that the conflation of what went on in Atlanta and the cheating that goes on in chess go together very well. Every discussion usually devolves into teacher and union bashing, blaming parents, blaming society, blaming you name your favorite political target rather than addressing the real problems and applying solutions that have a credible research basis.
If you want to compare cheating scandals, then look at what goes on among NCAA football schools, point shaving in basketball, steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, sports gambling, etc. Winning, being #1, making multi-million dollar salaries, big TV money, high stakes events, have accelerated in the sports world. Chess is a tiny slice in that world and it is no surprise that players, teams, and even federations would go to the edge and beyond to make money. Gaining a title or a high rating gives players a shot at making more money. I am not sure all federations would have been like France and suspended their players for cheating at an Olympiad; the prestige of a little country’s performance can lead to more sponsors and cash for federation coffers and for federation officials. Advances in technology make cheating more possible, cheaper, and ever elusive.
Note that chess is not referenced at all in the linked story.
I am guessing that Steve provided it as a point of reference to use when discussing cheating in chess.
And yet, there’s much cheating on the online sites, where no prize money is at stake and players use handles (which can be changed at will) rather than names. It’s almost like the act of cheating is itself the reward.,
The same can be said for many virus-creators, hackers who don’t actually cause damage, etc. They may consider the act a challenge to be surmounted.
There are also people who get a rush out of ruining somebody else’s day (kids who pull wings off flies or vandalize buildings are examples).
When I first got involved in organized Chess, I heard about cheating and was confused. How could you cheat at Chess, and why would you? Then of course I realized there was prize money at stake, and I thought then the answer was obvious. You cheated to win prize money. However, after a few years of anecdotes about Chess cheating, I think the cause is our culture of rating worship. When you put so much emphasis on a number, some people will be motivated to get a higher number, even if doing so doesn’t really have any benefit.
It’s quite silly, actually, but that doesn’t change anything. It’s so deeply ingrained in our culture that there’s nothing to be done about it.
Fortunately, the actual incidence of cheating is quite low. I have yet to run across any, personally.
In all the years I have directed I have had only two (yep, 2!) real cheating incidents. One was low tech and the other sorta between high and low tech.
At the HB Global there was a fellow that would go the restroom a lot. He was phoning his friend who was running a chess playing program (Fritz?). Another player actually caught him. When the TDs approached him he ran out the door.
The low tech incident is almost funny: A fellow that was trying to impress a female of the species stood behind her opponent with a Styrofoam coffee cup. The side of the cup that we all could see was just the white Styrofoam; however, the other side, facing our Casanova wanna be, contained the moves that he and his friends had analyzed as “best” for his lady fair. He would turn the cup around for the woman of his dreams to read when she needed some guidance. I still have the cup. I ejected both the player and her Romeo from the site.
It was quite a scene seeing Tim Just dive into the trash can and pull out the styrofoam coffee cup. It was even more of a scene when he ejected both players and we had to get security to boot the guy off the school campus where the event was held. That was the very first tournament I organized which funny enough was an Illinois Class Championships in December 2004.
It occurs in many cases because the means are still tolerated.
World Open 2012 Special Rules…
In round 3 or after, players with scores of 80% or over and their opponents may not use headphones, earphones, cell phones or go to a different floor of the hotel without Director permission.
What does this mean to some?
EX. (Assuming you play every round with someone who has the same score)
Round 1 and 2 - wins…100%
Round 3 lose…67%
Round 4 win…75%
Round 5 win…80%
Round 6 lose…67%
Round 7 win…71%
Round 8 win…75%
Round 9 win…N/A
Not Bad!! 7-Points, A winner in every section of the 2011 World Open.
The means to cheat were not allowed in rounds 3 and 6.
In 2006 I pointed this out at the Liberty Bell Open. Signs all over the room stated this.
It did not include part about round 3 or after. The picture in Chess Life online shows someone wearing a headphone.
The 80% rule is not the only means used to deter cheating at the World Open. Directors have a number of safeguards in place. And players often take it upon themselves to report questionable or downright suspicious behavior.
And simply banning headphone use is not a customer-friendly option, to put it mildly. It’s also not something you want to do unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Very good. Now, figure out exactly how much money 7 points won in each section. (Here’s a preview of what you will find if you do this research: as the sections go lower, so too does the applicable prize amount.)
Finally, figure out how much money it takes to enter the World Open. Even if a player shares a room 3 ways, splits travel expenses, and pays the earliest possible entry fee, when you throw in food and incidentals, that player is looking at a minimum of $500 spent.
In most sections of the World Open, 7 points would win you somewhere between $600 and $1000. So, to net maybe a few hundred bucks with this “strateegery”, a player would risk expulsion from USCF (and not winning a dime in the process).
In the Open, U2400 and U2200 sections, 7 points would win you more money. However, good luck with cheating in those sections.
The round 3 restriction was likely published as part of the pre-tournament publicity. So it doesn’t have to be posted at the site. CCA has (at least at those tournaments where I’ve worked) enforced the 80% rule.
Not sure why this matters, unless the player was subject to the 80% rule.
2011 World Open
Entry Fee $303
Under 2000
7.0 $832.50
7.0 $832.50
7.0 $1156.50
7.0 $1156.50
Under 1800
7.0 $1003.00
7.0 $1542.00
Under 1600
7.0 $642.67
7.0 $642.67
7.0 $642.67
7.0 $642.67
7.0 $642.67
7.0 $642.67
Under 1300
7.0 $980.00
7.0 $980.00
There are many players who commute to this tournament.
How many players have been expelled from the USCF or FIDE for cheating?
See-Top French Chess Players Suspended For Cheating.
I witnessed cheating in a free entry tournament where someone was kind enough to put up a few bucks for prizes. So it may not always be for the money aspect.
People will cheat because they can.
It should be posted and be made well aware that unethical behavior will not be tolerated and will be penalized.
I believe most players would approve.
I would welcome everyone being put on notice.
Doubt needs to be put in place.
I have witnessed many forms of cheating and find it unnerving.
In so many cases the cheating is allowed to slide.
As far as customer friendly goes…Think about when you bring a bottle of water to the airport to have it confiscated. You then have to pay $3.00 for another when you enter.
This is due to a few bad apples.
People have been caught with the electronics at tournaments, so beware!
Unfortunately, this is now life.
Were these cases of cheating? Would it bother you if you witnessed this or were a part of this?
Ex 1. 2010 USATE
Board 4 is taking a long time to move.
Board 3 insists they go outside to talk with Board 4’s clock running.
Board 4 refuses.
Board 3 gets his way and they walk out of the room.
Board 4 comes back and makes his move fairly quickly.
What did they talk about when questioned? What they were doing after the game.
Ex 2. 2006 NJ Open
Scholastic player is constantly leaving the board and the room.
It is noticed he is going out to the lobby of the hotel.
In the lobby are his parents and other parents.
I also noticed that many of the parents have open laptops with chess programs running on them.
Ex 3. 2010 Free entry, G/20 Double Round Robin
Final 2 games…One of the players to my left only needs 1/2 point
to win the section. These players play 3.5 moves and stop playing.
They are both resting their chins on the palms of their hands observing my game. Black’s clock has been running all this time.
After I win the game, my opponent now has no chance to win.
But that took about 16-17 min. The players to my left start playing
again and of course agree to a draw in a few moves.
Example 3 doesn’t bother me.
Example 1 could be completely innocent; perhaps they needed to get checked out of a room, or urgently arrange something else (moving the car from a time limited parking spot for example.) Should they have done it differently if it were innocent? Absolutely.
Example 2 not really a good situation - most scholastic tournaments I’ve been to make the point of not letting players leave the playing area except for a restricted bathroom area to prevent that circumstance. It should be pointed out to the TD.
I’ve also seen some very exaggerated complaints. I had a scholastic player who was very nervous at the beginning of games and would go to the bathroom frequently; sometimes this would generate concern. As a coach, I welcomed restricted washrooms because they removed allegations of cheating. Or there was the time one of our coaches was talking to the chief td of a tournament, and was accused of signaling players WHILE he was talking to the Chief TD.
So as a coach I like steps to decrease cheating possibilities. But I also dislike the idea of going overboard. Do we need to prevent mp3 players in low prize fund tournaments? I don’t think so. In fact, I’d rather keep my mp3 player in all events, and in higher prize fund events have it checked before the event and allow it to be randomly checked during the tournament (other than when I am in time pressure.)
What would “checking” entail in this context? Disguising a communication device as a simple mp3 player could become a whole new challenge for those who get a thrill from beating the system (or who are after the money).
No they don’t. There have still been allegations that teammates in entirely different sections timed their bathroom breaks so that they could discuss things in the players-only bathroom accessible only from the playing hall.
As an example of the extremes a very few parents go to, I’ve even had complaints about touch move violations “witnessed” from 20 tables away.
One example of actual cheating occurred when a player in the K-3 section of a school tournament went to the bathroom, made a side trip to the team room, and then came back to the board and (when his opponent wasn’t looking) put a bishop and knight back on the board that he had picked up from the team room. The coach pulled him for the season before the chief TD had a chance to eject him for the tournament.
well, maybe I should say “decreased” or “eliminated some”… It helped me anyway… 
Tim Just wrote:
I’ve been directly involved in a lot more than 2 just in the World Open. It’s amazing what large prizes will cause some players to do.
As a player:
1978 player offered me half his prize to resign final round drawn position
As a director:
2006 player submitted fake scoresheet claiming win
2006 sandbagger tried to resign after receiving draw offer
2007 player with 5 false forms of ID played in wrong section
2010 player intentionally posted win on pairing sheet after resigning
2010 sandbagger showed opponent how he could win and resigned
2011 player submitted fake scoresheet claiming win
I can also name probably at least another 20 or more cheating cases from memory I was involved in as a TD including some very lame attempts by children. Among the attempts are adding pieces, removing opponent’s pieces, making 2 moves in a row, prearranged results, intentional illegal moves, bribes, submitting false rating reports, lying about grade to play in easier section, lying about touch move, falsely claiming to be on move, receiving signals, parental help, reading chess books on the same opening, use of computers, adding time to the clock, and more.
The incident that inspired Steve to start this topic involved a player commenting directly on a move in his brother’s game in progress at the Empire City Open after Steve and I had made pre-round announcements every round warning against it.
I’ve believed for a long time that for every incompetent cheater caught, a whole bunch more get through.
And from his WWF days:
Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!—Jessie “the body” Ventura
Is cheating symptomatic in society? Consider what these pundits have to say:
In America, cheaters always prosper—Chris Bell
A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for—W.C. Fields
Never lie. Never cheat. Never steal. Never whine. Never complain. Never make excuses—John Wooden’s dad
I would prefer even to fail with honor than win by cheating. ¬ Sophocles,
496-406 B.C., Greek Tragic Dramatist
If, during a game (preferably immediately after I move) a TD wishes to listen to my headphones I wouldn’t have an issue with that.
I’ve heard your musical tastes in the past–no thanks on listening to them again.