Forget Steroids; In Chess The Cheating Is All About Computer Assists

from the doping-with-algorithms dept

Wed, Apr 11th 2007 6:27am — Mike Masnick

It's always fascinating to see the lengths that people will go to in order to win certain competitions. There's plenty of talk about performance enhancing drugs in sports like baseball and cycling -- though, there's a growing number who question how different some aspects of PEDs are compared to things like Lasik, which help your eyesight. However, in the chess world, the cheating is of a different nature: it's all about getting a leg up with support from a silicon brain. Last year there was a big fuss over a chess player who was caught with a bluetooth earpiece sewn into his cap that was used to relay to him recommended moves from a computer during tournaments -- but apparently, he's far from unique in this area. Numerous chess players are either suspected of, or have been caught, cheating. In one case, a player was suspected of cheating because 25 straight moves matched identically to those recommended by a popular chess playing software. Obviously, using such a computer is cheating and against the rules -- but in an age where people are growing up with the idea of Google as their backup brain, it's really not too surprising that some would find it perfectly natural to artificially augment their chess playing skills with some computer help.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

HI, 11 Apr 2007 @ 7:37am

HI
I hate this article... quit at writing because you suck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dont care, 11 Apr 2007 @ 7:39am

never will
stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 11 Apr 2007 @ 7:52am

But...
aren't most of those chess computers based on actual human players? Who is to say that he didn't learn those moves from constantly playing against chess computers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 7:52am

"stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life....."

"I hate this article... quit at writing because you suck"

Wow, those are some quality people. When I read those I pictured two drunk red necks sitting in folding lawn chairs in front of a run down trailer.

Anyway, back to the actual topic. The problem with cheating is that it some times is hard to define. Is it still cheating if the person wrote the program they are using? What if the ear piece just plays back notes they recorded? What if one of the kids is all hopped up on Ginkgo Biloba? It's really not clear what constitutes and advantage (which all competitors are looking for) and what constitutes cheating. That's where the organization sponsoring the event needs to step in and draw some lines and implement tests for cheating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew, 11 Apr 2007 @ 8:21am

Chess is a game of memorization
FTA: Eugene Varshavsky, a low-ranked player, was searched thoroughly before each game after he beat a strong grandmaster by playing 25 consecutive moves that matched those suggested by a computer program. "Searched thoroughly" and yet not discovered to be cheating. Most of the article repeats this theme. Maybe the "grandmaster" took his opponent too lightly and embarrassed he lashes out and blames it on cheating?
I'm not a real strong player, but anyone good at the game knows how to beat a machine. This article attempt to draw a line between kids using Google to take tests and using programs to 'cheat' at chess is very shaky.

It seems like more of an attempt to get us to click on the NY Time's web site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ob 1, 11 Apr 2007 @ 8:44am

Wow, is chess a big deal? is there going to be a chess player on a wheaties box? Ok lets go with this so people who play chess are like suppose to be uber smart so if they are smarter than the judges they wont get caught.. I say both players should use computers and whoever has the smartest toy wins. And if your toy gets a BSOD well you deserve your fate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dury1, 11 Apr 2007 @ 8:48am

Cheating!!!
I say if an athlete or whatever you might call a professional chess player uses anything outside of their own natural ability or mind is cheating.
I know there is a debate as to what merits natural ability as to over the counter meds, vitamins etc. as to how it might enhance a persons physical or mental ability.
But in regards to having a computer program tell you what your next move on a chess board should be is out and out cheating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:06am

Re: But...
Actually most of the younger generation of top chess players today trains on computers, so in any given game the majority of their moves will match what a strong computer program would pick (probably somewhere around 70%). But 25 consecutive computer moves is still very strong evidence of cheating. I doubt that anyone could produce 25 computer moves without cheating even if he was a top GM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carl Matiski, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:23am

Clear Rules on cheating
"Anyway, back to the actual topic. The problem with cheating is that it some times is hard to define. Is it still cheating if the person wrote the program they are using? What if the ear piece just plays back notes they recorded? What if one of the kids is all hopped up on Ginkgo Biloba?"
I think it is very clear what constitutes cheating in a chess match. Any electrical device should be restricted from being used during a match. If he is all hyped up on Ginkgo, so be it , it will not help any.
On the issue with the player that was searched, as long as they did not find anything on him then he is not guilty. Yes I agree that he may have learned those moves from playing against the computer. If you are good then you will beat those computer moves, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:30am

re: ob 1
chess is a big deal in some countries and even in some circles in the us. just because the media doesn't make a big deal, doesn't mean its not as important as any other sport.

and you can be great at chess, but have absolutely no common sense. so saying they should be able to outsmart the judges doesn't make much sense.

and you're saying they should use computers to help? i say in sports, you should be allowed to hire another guy to help you out. person with the biggest assistant wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:31am

Ummm
I thought there were no unique games inside the first 25 moves anymore. Every possible combination that makes sense has been played already, especially when you consider that within the first ten moves I have a text file that goes like a flow chart on reaction to the opponents opening moves. As long as I can remember it I play like Kasparov. If I cannot end the match inside ten moves I am hosed because that is all I have memorized so far. Works out to something like 300 permutations after the fifth move. Lots to memorize.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:53am

stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life.....

Ask any person who doesn't understand chess and you'll always get the same answer - "stoopid game."

definitely cheating btw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 12:47pm

Only so many moves...
This isn't football or basketball where the physical prowess of the players on the field have direct influence on the game.

There are only so many ways a game of chess can go and a dedicated player will take the time to learn as many as possible.

In football you need brains and brawn but in chess you only need brains and one working arm/hand.

If this chess player Eugene Varshavsky and Peyton Manning were in the same car accident who's career is in more danger?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 1:01pm

Bluetooth sewen into a hat...sophmoric attempt at cheating. If the guy was serious, he'd put a cell phone in his teeth.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com:80/cell-phone-implant.htm

This could really get interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 3:43pm

Re:
Cell phone in the teeth? That means we are only about 10 years away from codecs a la Metal Gear Solid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 4:12pm

Varshavsky case
I read, I think it was a Scientific American article but I'm too lazy to try and find it, that the difference between grandmasters and lower rated players was mainly from the fact that grandmasters have studied more games and recognize positions from their studies. It is not from looking more moves ahead. In fact, for the first 20 moves in most high rated games are played out from memory. In the case of Varshavsky, if he played repeatedly an 'offbeat' variation of an opening against a computer, it is conceivable that he could get an advantage over a grandmaster who had not played that particular opening much. And as chess is as much psychological as anything, a lower rated player taking an early advantage would probably fluster a grandmaster affecting his end game and resulting in the out of characteristic game.
As for the general problem of cheating, they should not allow anyone not playing the games in the room except for a ref. And they should use an EMP to knockout any communication devices. If a few people with pacemakers die, so be it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rEdEyEz, 11 Apr 2007 @ 6:28pm

chess by committee
I think it would be much more interesting if each player had their respective legislative branches of government vote on each subsequent chess move.

What a wonderful exercise in 'due process' it would be.

The eventual tournament winners could be proclaimed, "Masters of the Universe."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nematode, 9 Jul 2007 @ 6:16pm

Re: But...
No, computers play at a different level. The player was blatantly cheating, and for what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 3 Jun 2010 @ 1:44pm

Re: Chess is a game of memorization
The title is in error: I can link shoe-computer Varshavsky to Mets' steroids! Just a couple of degrees of separation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]