M ANSARI wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:05 pm
I was thinking of something much more sophisticated. Someone with funds and motivation and electronic expertise (or knows someone with electronic expertise).
Given this level of resourcing, something barely visible (or unnoticeable) planted in the room before the competition started, with two capabilities:
1. camera to watch the moves, bypassing the 15 minute delay before the moves are published
2. highly directional light that only the dishonest player will be able to see to send information to them
There is plenty of precedence for devices being planted in rooms prior to an event, and IMO a well resourced organisation could build such a system. The motivation would probably be to milk betting markets, or a rich parent being willing to do anything for their child to succeed (there is precedence for that as well!).
Once again, I'm not accusing anybody of anything.
Human chess is partly about tactics and strategy, but mostly about memory
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:05 pmI was thinking of something much more sophisticated. Someone with funds and motivation and electronic expertise (or knows someone with electronic expertise).
How about... build a chess computer into each of the game tables that will be used, and build a tiny gadget into each chess piece to enable the computer to know where each piece is?
The enabling technology I'm thinking of is the locator tags used on packages in some warehouses that allows the system to work out where everything is.
Probably not as easy as my last suggestion, but possible IMO.
Human chess is partly about tactics and strategy, but mostly about memory
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:05 pm The chessboard is only 64 squares and so you can very easily reduce the identification of which square to which. Or maybe just one square needs to be identified and a piece.
A GM would not need to know "which square to which", and "which piece and square".
Just a square is all that it takes. Square number 42, and that would click.
That said, I highly doubt if Niemenn is involved in this over the top scheme to dupe the world level contenders. Unless we have a solid evidence, it's all glib. The case seems to have been closed, and he was playing on par with other top players post these drama (despite being a 2600+).
Yo Swami! Good to see you again. I find it pretty unlikely too, Hans is also a very strong blitz player, just how he’ld manage to handle the supposed cheating hardware interface AND have his own chess thinking AND decode the buzzes from the interface AND handle punching out blitz moves is perhaps a question our self-appointed internet police sleuths can answer.
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 5:05 pm The chessboard is only 64 squares and so you can very easily reduce the identification of which square to which. Or maybe just one square needs to be identified and a piece.
A GM would not need to know "which square to which", and "which piece and square".
Just a square is all that it takes. Square number 42, and that would click.
That said, I highly doubt if Niemenn is involved in this over the top scheme to dupe the world level contenders. Unless we have a solid evidence, it's all glib. The case seems to have been closed, and he was playing on par with other top players post these drama (despite being a 2600+).
Yo Swami! Good to see you again. I find it pretty unlikely too, Hans is also a very strong blitz player, just how he’ld manage to handle the supposed cheating hardware interface AND have his own chess thinking AND decode the buzzes from the interface AND handle punching out blitz moves is perhaps a question our self-appointed internet police sleuths can answer.
Hi Chris, it's been a long time. Thanks, and good to know you're active in computer chess.
Yes, what's more, Niemman has signed up for many upcoming tournaments including the one where he will be facing Carlsen again. He doesn't give any indication of being opportunistic, nor fear, neither apprehension of disappointment over possible expectations on performance and still plays at that level in subsequent tournaments post this allegation, even finishing ahead of some of the elite players such as Levon Aronian for example.
Nobody is suggesting that Hans used any of the methods mentioned but it is more to see if the current protocols ensure a clean tournament and this really has nothing to do with him here. Actually designing a system that would work for blitz (I think they are using 5m plus 10s increment) would be interesting although several magnitudes more difficult. I know that online some people have even been caught cheating in 1 0 bullet games but OTB bltz would be a tough nut to crack. But even small snippets of information like ... other side just made a huge blunder ... d5 push is a huge advantage ... exchange bishop for Knight for a huge advantage ... exchange queens for huge advantage ... there is a forced mate starting with queen sac ... for a strong player just this added information is probably worth at least 100 or more ELO points. I think people need to forget about the idea that a player needs to cheat every single move and use play by play move from an engine. We are talking about someone who is at least 2600 ELO and wants to become World Champion. At 2600 ELO this person probably has already very good technique and can win won games quite regularly against any other human. Plus being able to get prepared lines in a huge database on call any time must also be worth a lot of ELO. My guess is that even a 2500 ELO player (of which there are thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands) with an oncall opening database and help with a few moves in a game ... he would be invincible against any human!
Chessbase posted an interesting article with links to many other articles regarding different measures that were suggested. There is a funny one where they wanted to have all games player in the Himalayas under a Faraday cage
I can foresee a large number of problems, but it would be good to have a "chess cheating" competition, in which the winner is the player whose moves are closest to those recommended by the computer.
Better yet, have "white hat" cheaters entering actual chess tournaments - though an obvious problem with this would be realigning the results after the white hat declared himself.
Human chess is partly about tactics and strategy, but mostly about memory
M ANSARI wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:29 am
Chessbase posted an interesting article with links to many other articles regarding different measures that were suggested. There is a funny one where they wanted to have all games player in the Himalayas under a Faraday cage
towforce wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 2:13 pm
I can foresee a large number of problems, but it would be good to have a "chess cheating" competition, in which the winner is the player whose moves are closest to those recommended by the computer.
Better yet, have "white hat" cheaters entering actual chess tournaments - though an obvious problem with this would be realigning the results after the white hat declared himself.
A white hat competition would only work if the players had no idea someone was using engine help. I play SF Level 6 and Level 7 a lot on Lichess and I can tell you that when I play those levels (which are about 1000 ELO+ points lower than max) I play completely differently to when I play humans. Humans you can easily trick as time becomes a factor, but that is like banging your head on a concrete wall against computers. What I learned most playing engines is that when they throw a pawn or even a piece ... man ... they get massive counterplay. Even when it seems you can hold on to the material they always somehow manage to bamboozle you. I think if players knew they were playing against engines their play would be completely different. They would be trying to lock up the position and trying to limit tactical play.
under a Faraday cage 
