How do you cheat in chess?

[Super_D]

While perusing this article (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040716_283.html) about Bobby Fischer being caught in Japan, this caught my eye.

Fischer, now 61 years old, became grandmaster at age 15. He announced that he had abandoned chess in 1996 and launched a new version, "Fischerandom," a computerized shuffler that randomly distributes chess pieces on the back row of the chess board at the start of each game.

Fischer claimed it would bring the fun back into the game and rid it of cheats.


I know the basic rules of chess but I'm no expert so I'm curious about the "cheats". Any chess aficianados out there? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

[Tim Partlett]

The only cheating accusations I remember from Fischer was of the Russians, whom he accused of arranging games so that their best grandmasters would win without effort, therefore reaching the finals having played fewer gruelling games than poor old Fischer had to.

[DrCrypt]

That's a fascinating solution, actually, from one of the world's most paranoid, Anti-Semitic wackjobs (http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/).

[McBain]

Fischer is a shithead. Great Chess player, but an all-around shithead.

[Silverlight]

I find it amusing that this paranoid nut comes up with a method of eliminating cheating that has no relation at all to the actual cheating he's accused the Russians of.

As for chess cheating:

First, human games.

Assuming that the opponent and judges have a pulse, you can't cheat the rules of chess. Even if the judges were on your side, every game is recorded outright and published, so basically the entire room would have to be lined up against the opponent and would all have to have the same story on what actually happened during the game. You could do other things though:

1. Find loopholes in the rules governing the clock, so that you can get more time to think.
2. Find a way to communicate with the outside world, so that you can get input from another person or (more likely) a computer analyzing the same game.
3. Find a way to game the tournament rules so that you're more likely to advance.

Obviously all of this becomes much easier with a sympathetic, or outright bought, referee.

If you're playing chess remotely, and the game isn't timed, then obviously you can cheat by getting help from another human or a computer. The same applies to any form of Internet chess game, except that you can set up the chess-playing program to directly take over your game for you.

There have apparently been serious allegations of cheating in many computer chess tournaments - that is, computer programs playing chess against each other. If the tournament is arranged so that a human is between the chess program and the board, then that human can do a lot of things to muck up the game, at least in terms of it being a fair fight between two programs.

[Mark Asher]

The only thing I can think of is that a lot of players follow scripted sets of moves up to a point, so maybe he's thinking that the randomizing will discourage that.

[Timemaster Tim]

The only thing I can think of is that a lot of players follow scripted sets of moves up to a point, so maybe he's thinking that the randomizing will discourage that.

But that's not really cheating. It's the chess equivalent of a tank rush. I can't see the study of opening positions being something thought of as cheating.

[Anaxagoras]

You can also "cheat", sort of, in a computer vs. human match up. At least, you used to be able to. (I don't know if it still applies.)

Each human has a particular playing style, so when a chess-playing computer is set up, it can be specifically geared to beat a certain play style. Thus, when True Blue beat Kasparov, there were allegations that True Blue had been specifically programmed to beat Kasparov. The articles I read on this made a pretty strong case that True Blue had, in fact, been set up this way. In other words, if True Blue had fought most other grandmasters, it would have lost. And if it had been programmed to beat your "average" grandmaster (whatever that means) then Kasparov would have won.

Anyways, I don't know if this model still applies. The whole True Blue vs. Kasparov thing happened a long time ago (10 years ago? 15?) so computers may have advanced to the point where they can beat any grandmaster.

[MikeOberly]

The computer was actually called 'Deep Blue'.It was common knowledge that the programming team 'prepared' Deep Blue specifically for Kasparov's style,but that's certainly not cheating--after all,Kasparov was gearing his play to take advantage of the computer's weaknesses,too.Fischer has accused Kasparov and many other current players of playing a bunch of pre-arranged games,even in the world championship matches,which is what he means by calling them cheaters.Kasparov is also Jewish (as is Fischer himself) ,so that increases Fischer's antipathy.

Chess software has progressed to the point that the strongest programs can beat just about anybody at fast time controls,and they can at least hold their own at slower time controls with even top grandmasters.

Fischer is a non-entity in the current chess world,since he never plays anymore.He's always been a schmuck from a political angle,but he's particularly pathetic now,since his anti-semitic garbage is all he has left to give to the world.Even so,I don't agree with his arrest,given what little I know of it.Fischer deserves no publicity,yet he'll always get it because there are many people who seem to worship him and apologize for him,regardless of what outrages he commits.

[Jon R.]

The only thing I can think of is that a lot of players follow scripted sets of moves up to a point, so maybe he's thinking that the randomizing will discourage that.

But that's not really cheating. It's the chess equivalent of a tank rush. I can't see the study of opening positions being something thought of as cheating.

Well, he's nuts. So maybe straight chess=cheating the same way Jews=Hellspawn. Or maybe it was the reporter taking a little too much liberty.

A little more about his idea. (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1102235&lastnode_id=668164)

[Anaxagoras]

The computer was actually called 'Deep Blue'.
Whoops.


It was common knowledge that the programming team 'prepared' Deep Blue specifically for Kasparov's style,but that's certainly not cheating--after all,Kasparov was gearing his play to take advantage of the computer's weaknesses,too.
Double whoops.


Chess software has progressed to the point that the strongest programs can beat just about anybody at fast time controls,and they can at least hold their own at slower time controls with even top grandmasters.

Thanks for providing more accurate information. My memory was a little hazy on the whole thing... I haven't played chess or read chess-related articles for over 6 years.

[MikeOberly]

Thanks for providing more accurate information. My memory was a little hazy on the whole thing... I haven't played chess or read chess-related articles for over 6 years.

No problem.The most recent Computer Chess World Championship was just completed.If anyone's interested,the official website is here (http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/games/).

This recent Fischer arrest for the dubious charge of playing a match in Yugoslavia seems ridiculous to me,and another indication of the current administration's misplaced priorities.And I write this even though I have absolute contempt for the current era Fischer.He should be left to fade away with as little publicity as possible.

[Enidigm]

Its funny ive read many critiques of RTS games by hardcore players that contain the same complaints. A debate between adaptabilty/randomness as the best indicator of skill, vs. pure execution (the hotkey whores). Many elite players prefered Age of Empires 1, for example, because they felt that its randomness best brought out the ability of players to adapt on the fly, whereas in Age of Kings, where everyone starts with the exact same resources, they complained it rewarded copycat strategies and constrained their creativity.

[McBain]

As I recall, the deal with Deep Blue was that it had several software crashes during the matches, and Kasparov claimed that the programmers "tweaked" things while they were getting it running again. Normally I'd dismiss such talk as that of a sore loser, but I have enough respect for Kasparov (both as a player and a person) to consider the possibility that it might actually be true.

As for human cheating, there are a few things you can do, particularly with the clock. I recall one guy whose clock was "broken" in such a way that pressing one of the buttons wouldn't actually switch time unless it was pressed just right. I had to complain to the tournament supervisors about it. In retrospect, I should have just kicked his ass. :(

[Silverlight]

This recent Fischer arrest for the dubious charge of playing a match in Yugoslavia seems ridiculous to me,and another indication of the current administration's misplaced priorities.And I write this even though I have absolute contempt for the current era Fischer.He should be left to fade away with as little publicity as possible.
Eh. Don't overestimate the importance of this event. I seriously doubt anyone in a political position cared enough to give this five minutes of thought. For a short time I don't think anyone was even sure if Japan would bother extraditing him - he's been believed to be there for years, and the only reason he got stopped this time was because he had an invalid passport.

I do agree that Fischer needs to have as little publicity as possible, and preferably just sort of disappear again.

Its funny ive read many critiques of RTS games by hardcore players that contain the same complaints. A debate between adaptabilty/randomness as the best indicator of skill, vs. pure execution (the hotkey whores). Many elite players prefered Age of Empires 1, for example, because they felt that its randomness best brought out the ability of players to adapt on the fly, whereas in Age of Kings, where everyone starts with the exact same resources, they complained it rewarded copycat strategies and constrained their creativity.

They aren't really related. RTS games are much more "linear" in the sense that tactical moves are much more directly related to their results. The typical RTS doesn't have an equivalent to the kind of surprise combination that often leads to checkmate in the mid-game, for example.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

That's a fascinating solution, actually, from one of the world's most paranoid, Anti-Semitic wackjobs (http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/).

cuckoo, cuckoo

[Fussbett]

"I don't play the old chess anymore. You know... The old chess is dead. It's been played out."

"I follow the old chess, I follow all the pre-arranged matches."

"At the highest level, it's all pre-arranged, move by move, no doubt about it."

"Let me explain something about pre-arranged chess. In chess we have something called 'problems'... Which is, let's say like Kyle [name?]. He'll create a very beautiful endgame position, right? White to play and win, or black to play and draw, or whatever. It's a problem, and it's very interesting, and you can learn a lot. And I have no objection to that. It's made up though! See, the position may never have occurred in a real game. See, you have the same thing now in chess. Where you have very interesting, beautiful games, pre-arranged games, being created. By very intelligent players, who are very good chess players, working with computers, working in teams, they create very beautiful games. And these games are very interesting and you can learn a lot. And I have no objection to people creating the games, but they must say this is a pre-arranged game. They must not claim that this theater, these games that they are playing which have been pre-arranged move by move, are real games and that they're finding the moves over the board. This is my objection."

"I've learned so much from these pre-arranged matches and these cooked up notes, they're wonderful! But they're fake. They're a fraud."

http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/bobby_d/F_20_1.MP3

So it's not really about "cheating" at all.

[MikeOberly]

The problem with Fischer's paranoid rantings is that he demands that players prove the games are legit--how exactly are they supposed to do that?I can just as easily proclaim that all of Fischer's games in the candidates matches and the title match in '72 were all pre-arranged,and demand that he prove otherwise.

Fischer is a crackpot,and always has been,but at least he used to be able to function in a civilized way in the real world.He's totally consumed by paranoid delusions nowadays,and more interested in anti-semitic/racist listerature than chess.

[Lunch of Kong]

As for human cheating, there are a few things you can do(

Haven't you guys watched the x-files? The best way to cheat at chess is to use your uber powers of mind-reading to learn what move your opponent is going to make.

[Bullhajj]

As for human cheating, there are a few things you can do(

Haven't you guys watched the x-files? The best way to cheat at chess is to use your uber powers of mind-reading to learn what move your opponent is going to make.

Dude, Mission Impossible did this much more effectively with a rubber face mask, makeup, and an ear mike back in the 70s.

[Andrew Mayer]

As for human cheating, there are a few things you can do(

Haven't you guys watched the x-files? The best way to cheat at chess is to use your uber powers of mind-reading to learn what move your opponent is going to make.

Dude, Mission Impossible did this much more effectively with a rubber face mask, makeup, and an ear mike back in the 70s.

X-Files guy vs. Mission Impossible guy... I'd pay to see that match.

[russellmz00]

one of the funniest things i saw was when the computer moved his rook pawn up two spaces as the first move: the ai was playing mind games with the kasparov.

[Kevin J Baird]

Bobby Fischer feels that the rules that govern who the best chess player is are skewed to favor the Russians. Basically there are these rules that state that a player must play a certain number of games, at certain locations, and the judges get to make descions regarding play style, time, and the like. This is why Fischer originally quit the game (Besides being a lunatic) was that he basically wanted to dictate the rules and the judges wouldn't agree.

He's still wanted by the FBI for playing a game in Yugoslavia during the Tito dictatorship and has lived in the Philipines ever since. Supposedly he plays chess online under a variety of different aliases.

K

[Mike Hussey]

He's still wanted by the FBI for playing a game in Yugoslavia during the Tito dictatorship and has lived in the Philipines ever since. Supposedly he plays chess online under a variety of different aliases.

K

Actually it was for playing in Serbia under Milosovic's rule during UN sanctions against that country. I don't think visiting the old Yugoslavia in Tito's time was illegal even in the US.

As for cheating at chess, the British master William Hartston wrote an entire book on it. The main form of cheating is communicating with outside advisers or crib sheets on variations in openings, both banned by the rules of tournament chess. Although Hartston also recommends the classic move P-KR3.75 , which allows the player to claim he actually meant P-KR3 or P-KR4 at a later time (P-KR3.5, as Hartston points out is too obvious and might result in the question 'What square is that pawn supposed to be on?')

The book 'How to Cheat at Chess' appears to be out of print, but the sequel 'Soft Pawn' is available at Amazon

[Kevin J Baird]

You are correct it was not Tito. My bad...

But it wasn't Milosovic either. Fischer played in Budva which is in Montenegro, not Serbia. The politics of Yugoslavia are really complicated, especially at this time, but basically Serbia and Montenegro were officially recognized as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 2003. Yugoslavia has always had an acting President, and each province/state has a President as well. In 1992 Stjepan Mesic was the President of Yugoslavia before civil war broke out. He was the last President of the Communist Yugoslavia. Momir Bulatovic was the President of Montenegro in October of 1992 when Fischer was there. The acting President of Yugoslavia as a nation was Dobrica Cosic. Milosevic wasn't actually the Yugoslavian President until 1997, but he was President of Serbia from 89 until 97. So anyway, Fischer was in Montenegro, which was considered part of Yugoslavia but outside the power of Milosevic. (Although the sanctions were against Yugoslavia as a country, it was the Serbian government that was supplying arms to the Bosnian forces that caused it.)

Regardless, I hope Court-TV has Bobby Fischer's court trial on, it should be a real treat.

K

[Sean Tudor]

whereas in Age of Kings, where everyone starts with the exact same resources, they complained it rewarded copycat strategies and constrained their creativity.

This is one of the reasons why I avoid playing RTS games online. A good online RTS player seems to have a photo memory and is able to manage multiple tasks simultaneously. You're basically playing a human machine and there seems to be very little creativity in an RTS "power" game. I personally have little interest in playing power games that last 5-10 minutes.

As for Fischer - what a sad little man. Are all the top ranking chessmasters as eccentric/mad as this ?

[Gorath]

Some more cheat options in tournament play:

-both players agree on a result
Trivial examples are obvious. Here´s a more tricky one. Both players -typically from the same country- have chances for 1st prize if they win the penultimate round in an open. I´ve read an article a few weeks ago in which the author claimed that in all(!) examined opens in the aforementioned constellation, if professionals from former Soviet states were involved, the player with the black pieces won the game because he was likely to have the white pieces in the last round.

-corrupt referee
This doesn´t happen IMHO. According to my experience the average no. of critical decisions to be made by a referee per tournament is less than 1.

-one player cheats
a) book (notebook, PDA, phone) + toilet = cheating
b) Ear microphone + helper in another room using Fritz
There was a case in 1998 in which a very average amateur (-> it´s unlikely he can beat one GM, even if hell freezes over) played like a top 50 GM in an open. In one of the later rounds he announced a mate in 8 (!) against a GM. "Announcing a mate" is considered arrogant nowadays, and 8 only half-forced moves is a lot. Now imagine the GM´s reaction when an amateur did this to him. It took him minutes to find the mate, although he knew what to look for.
It later turned out this guy had bought surveillance equipment. Most of his games in this open were reproducable with Fritz 5.32.

-official order
a) This is what Bobby Fischer meant. In some candidates tournaments for the WCh he played most games between Russians ended in short draws. Due to some weird rule it was common one had to play all 5 or so Russian players in a row. Now imagine what the result was if all Russians conserved energy against each other and the western players had to play 5 long games in 5 days against them, plus a number of adjourned games (after 40 moves in 5 hours) on the free day.
All title challengers up to Fischer in 1972 came from Russia.
b) (Rumor!)
In the tournament for the world champion title after WW2 the Estonian GM Paul Keres -arguably the world´s dominating tournament player from the mid 30s to mid 60s- was let know that Botvinnik was the government´s prefered choice. Since Keres had played a few tournaments in Germany during the war (which shouldn´t be overinterpreted, chess was not part of propaganda) and his escape to Scandinavia failed he decided it´s more healthy for him to win the title another time. He became 2nd in the candidates tournament 3 times in a row but never got a title shot.
Of course there´s no proof. Botvinnik was one of the world´s best players, and he played the best chess in this tournament.

[Mike Hussey]

As for Fischer - what a sad little man. Are all the top ranking chessmasters as eccentric/mad as this ?

A quick glance at the history of World Champions seems to suggest that the answer is 'yes'.

Fischer's anti-semitism appears to be based on the fact that a lot of the top Russian players were Jewish and he imagined some vast Jewish-Communist conspiracy to deprive him of the WC. In actual fact the Russian Jewish players were regarded with extreme suspicion by the Soviet authorities.

[MikeOberly]

As for Fischer - what a sad little man. Are all the top ranking chessmasters as eccentric/mad as this ?

A quick glance at the history of World Champions seems to suggest that the answer is 'yes'.


Well,I'll grant you Morphy,and Steinitz at the end of his life,although Morphy was quite normal during his short playing career,and probably the most universally liked and admired of all the champions.Lasker was an intellectual and a gentleman,Capablanca was a well liked gentleman who was also a playboy,Alekhine was an opportunist throughout his life,but was considered quite charming even so,Euwe was admired by most who knew him throughout his life,he was a highly intelligent man with many interests and talents,Botvinnik had an engineer's mind,and was not abnormal at all in any respect that I know of,Smyslov was an ordinary man,quiet and unassuming,Tal more flamboyant,with a fine sense of humor,Petrosian also an everyman who came from a poor family,Spassky another everday sportsman,who loves a variety of athletics,and is/was exceptional at many of them besides chess,Fischer is well known as a borderline nutjob,who,nevertheless is highly intelligent,while Karpov and Kasparov are clearly normal,with normal virtues and vices.There are a few who never became world champions who clearly had some sort of madness,usually most obvious later in life--Rubinstein is a prime example.

I don't think great chess players are any nuttier on average than great painters or engineers or florists.

[Jon R.]

Spacebar. Seriously.

[MikeOberly]

Spacebar. Seriously.

I used one sentence,because that was the the way I wished to express it.Seriously,though,the spacebar jokes are always a riot!

[Jon R.]

I wasn't talking about the huge sentence and it's not a joke. You need to use the fucking spacebar after punctuation.