well yes, it will become a new problem for the arbiters, and tournament directors. that there was cheating is highly likely when you see the video by Lilov on the Chessbase site. Bulgarian spy toys, like a micro-earphone which only a doctor can remove later. they could do scans, but also delaying the transmission of the game to internet with half an hour or so could be a solution.
other more radical solution would be to allow help by computers, a first step would be to allow participationg of computers in normal chess tournaments. human grandmasters then quickly will become second class players, like computers and their operators and bookmakers comparable to F1 racing and the grandmasters comparable with cyclist like eg. Armstrong..
but then i would recommend to abolish the Fide 50 move draw rule for computers to make the games, in particular endgame struggles more interesting. or some other changes, eg. remove the pawn on f3 to get rid of the white opening advantage, and openings books as well;
as it is now the computers are severely discriminated.
just some ideas
Ok, but if they wanted to hire you to make sure nothing like this happened again, (they wouldn't have the money to do it, but bear with me a moment) the first thing you would have to do is, if he was cheating, figure out how he did it. Because if you didn't know that, you couldn't stop it in the future. And as far as I know, no one has a clue how it was done- if in fact it was.
There are too many possible ways in which one can organize the cheating and one can always invent new things. Establishing how it is done can be just impossible if you approach the thing directly. The best thing you can do is trying to prevent it (one possible way could be with an equipment that prevents any electronic apparel to function in the chess table, for example) and to understand with little doubt if cheating happened or not with indirect methods; this will have also, indirectly, the benefit of making you understand how the cheating was done.
Let's take what happened in this case as an example: the organizers approached the problem directly, with a search. They did found nothing. However cheating was much probably done. Result: the guy did what he wanted and the organizers didn't either find how he did it. If instead they tried to prevent cheating in some way (there are many possible solutions) or instead of searching the guy they would have tried to understand if he was cheating in an indirect way (as for example making him explain the moves or analyzing the previous game vs. the current ones as others have done etc.) they would have immediately discovered if something was odd and this would have even make them understand how the guy did it (the guy, with the back to the wall could even tell it himself).[/quote]
As there are many ways to cheat it is quite difficult to go catch it. If the players make the complaint and you actuate indirectly, perhaps the opponents feel even worse, as it seems you are doing nothing.
Anyway, we should remember the way it was used in the french scandal in the Oympiad: Internet -> Analyze at home -> send SMS (now wassup) to a watcher -> transmite the move to the player via prestablished signals (even just depending where you locate e.g.)
So delaying the relay of the moves on Internet still could be circunvented by a live watcher: it is unsound to delay also the moves to the live audience.
It is very difficult the labour of the arbiters and organizers..[/quote]