One of the worst chess inventions, in my view, is the e-recorder. Truly a solution to a problem that never existed, it would be more apt to call it the problem to a solution. Where before players had the horrific burden of having to write their moves on a sheet of paper, now they tap them in on expensive hand-held computers. Some of these units, like those sold as "MonRoi" devices, are dedicated and do nothing else. In theory, they cannot be used to help a player cheat, as the unit's chip is programmed for the sole task of recording the moves. I'm sure that no one could ever defeat that system, say, by opening the unit and putting in a iPod chip or something like that. Nah, that could never happen.
The good news for aspiring cheats is that there's no need to go through all that trouble, as there are e-notating apps for handheld devices. How convenient! This would seem to be a boon to cheaters everywhere...but not so fast. The app is designed so that once it's running, it's "impossible" to switch to another program, like a chess engine. Wow, I am SO relieved to hear that. Governments manage to hack into other governments' national security computers, hackers breach the systems of some of the world's biggest companies and steal the private data of millions of people, but glory be to the heavens: there's just no way to hack e-notation programs! Its designers must be among the greatest geniuses of all time!! (Alternatively, those who believe such claims are among the most naive individuals of all time. I'll allow my readers to decide which possibility is likelier.)
Speaking of geniuses, it would be nice if the ones working at the US Chess Federation would prohibit MonRoi devices and other e-notating devices, but as they have a motive (i.e. $$$) to keep them in use, it probably won't happen unless the scandals mount or someone they deem important (i.e. someone responsible for bringing in even more $$$) makes a big enough stink. Another asinine policy is allowing headphones. In addition to the possibility that the device they're plugged into can receive information from an outside source, there's the problem of "internal" cheating as well. As I've mentioned before, someone could at the very least record tracks on an MP3 player which supply all the needed opening theory. For instance, let's take an "album" on the Ruy Lopez: track 1 gives minor third move alternatives for Black; track 2 has the Schliemann, track 3 the Berlin, etc. These can be given regular musical titles, in case someone takes a quick look at the screen, and could be interspersed with real music. And this is just a trivially simple idea. I'm sure clever, industrious cheaters can think of far subtler ways to use an electronic device.
But back to the e-notation app. There's already a story where it was used to cheat (HT: hylen), or at the very least where the player pretended to use it but only ran engine software instead. The perpetrator claims he only cheated in the one game where he was caught, a claim no one but his mother believes, among those interviewed in the story. Nevertheless, in his last few events prior to the one where he had been caught, his results had been exceptional - way over anything he had done in the past - and he made a decent chunk of change (by the standards of club tournaments, at least). Of course he deserves some punishment (though I hope he doesn't get a lifetime ban, especially as he's only 16), but the most obvious, simplest and most effective solution is to get rid of the devices. For the marginal convenience of making it easier to get one's game scores into one's computer after the game (because gosh, mousing in the moves could take upwards of two minutes for a long game), these devices create new opportunities to cheat and make monitoring the danger much more difficult.
Will the USCF change its policy? I wish I had faith to believe that they would eschew MonRoi's advertising dollars and ban the use of e-notators in tournament play, and the use of MP3 players as well, but I don't. So the bottom line is that cheaters have a green light; they just need to be careful.
Monday, March 25, 2013 at 10:33PM
Cheating's Not So Bad?
In the opening words of an old song, "There are worse things I could do...", and that certainly applies to cheating in a chess game. Nevertheless, Arne Moll's argument over on ChessVibes (HT: Brian Karen) that cheating a la Falko Bindrich (allegedly) really isn't so bad seems a bit strained. His reasoning goes roughly like this:
1. Practically everyone cheats sometime, and is thus a "cheat".
2. This happens in tournament chess too on a very regular basis as well, when players chat about their games with friends and colleagues - a practically he admits to participating in as well.
3. So Bindrich's (alleged) cheating (i.e. consulting a chess engine on a smartphone during visits to the toilet) really isn't so bad; in fact, Moll claims not to be sure that " this would be any worse than discussing the position with friends or colleagues".
Moll doesn't mean that cheating isn't wrong and shouldn't be discouraged - he says both. But he does downplay it - it seems more of a peccadillo than a "mortal sin" against the game, in his telling, and he is more concerned with the civil liberties aspect of searching players and/or taking their phones in advance, and with compassion for people like Bindrich.
Some of what he says is surely right, and we should all beware of Phariseeism and have compassion on those who have gone morally amiss - especially when they are repentant. And point 1 above is surely true as well, as both research and a modicum of honest introspection will prove in spades. (Though one may argue about the application of labelling someone a "cheat". But let's waive that and move on to more interesting worries.)
But points 2 and 3 in the argument above are simply incredible, in the sense of being unbelievable. That's a little quick though. The second premise is ambiguous between two interpretations. On one interpretation, it's true or at least plausible, but useless. On the other interpretation it helps his argument, but is very highly implausible. (At least I hope it is!)
It's true that many players will discuss their games with their friends, and it's also true that they shouldn't do this. But what sort of "discussion" is taking place? I've had (lower-rated) friends ask how my game is going, and on occasion I might say "I think I'm doing well" or "I'm not sure!" or "it's looking tough". I've probably even said things like "I plan to do [such-and-such], and then the game should be over". But that's the end of the discussion - I don't solicit advice from them, and if they started to volunteer it I would shush them immediately. Nor will I give my friends any advice during their games.
I've seen these kinds of conversations a lot in my experience, and while they may be against the letter of the law they're pretty innocuous. There's no comparison with what Bindrich allegedly did! He wasn't consulting with Pocket Fritz to get a bit of friendly moral support; he was looking for information. So this doesn't help his argument a bit.
What he would need to make the argument go is full-fledged interpersonal cheating: "Hey Arne, did you consider the following variation....?" That would give his argument wings alright, but that kind of discussion, that kind of cheating, is rare - at least I hope it is. I hope those aren't the sorts of discussions Moll has been engaging in with his friends. At any rate, most of us would find that sort of act reprehensible in the tournament context. There are worse things one can do, but not as a chess player!
Finally, even if we give him premise 2, which we shouldn't, even then I think the final step fails (though as a matter of degree, not of kind). If I ask a fellow master what he thinks about my position, I'm going to get a snap judgment from a peer who is distracted by his own game. Consulting with a smartphone's engine will give me the advice of a stronger and altogether undistracted player who can spend several minutes calculating the position with all its might. My fellow master might give me a moment's insight, but he might just as easily miss the boat. (All the more so if I'm a 2000 asking a fellow 2000, a 1600 asking a fellow 1600, etc.) But the engine will give me concrete information I can use, information that's far likelier to be accurate.
In conclusion: of course Bindrich didn't kill anybody and we should take civil liberties into account. (Though putting it this way may be inapt: it's not as if there's a universal right to play in chess tournaments guaranteed by God, the natural law or even the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights.) But that doesn't mean that what Bindrich is alleged to have done is trivial, or just slightly past trivial. Even aside from questions of competitive honor, it's potentially a matter of theft: there can be hundreds, even thousands of dollars at stake in tournament chess. In the real world that sort of thing can land one in jail. (At least unless one has the good fortune to be in government. Then it's called "taxation".) Why isn't it a big deal here, too?