Cheating Hearts Redux

You may have noticed that the 2006 World Open thread has turned into an informative and interesting look into several cheating allegations made during the tournament. Many players who were there have posted and from what I can tell two players were ejected when they proved uncooperative with the investigation into the claims. (Transmitting devices were suspected.)

You can never absolutely prevent or prove or disprove cheating. What you can do is create a deterrent of sufficiently catastrophic kilotonnage to make it too much of a risk. But what's the point if you can't be 100% sure? Right now the organizers and tournament directors have a great deal of discretion to act because the penalties they can apply are relatively feeble. You get kicked out, basically. Increasing the penalty while still relying on great discretion is tricky.

For example, one idea I kicked around was having the players sign contracts prohibiting cheating, or making such language part of signing up. But prosecuting someone for fraud with less than 100% proof isn't going to work. Nor is banning them for a year or life or whatever. This is one of the reasons why, for purposes of exaggeration and not to start a discussion about it, the death penalty is so horrid. The greater the punishment the greater the certainty must be. The ultimate punishment requires omnescience. So, getting back to chess, we now have great discretion in applying weak penalties. Would you sign a contract that said a TD could ban you for life if he/she judged you were cheating? The alternative is developing a court system to handle these cases, or, with contracts, allowing them to be handled by the judicial system. Reasonable doubt, evidence, witnesses, etc. Of course this would change from state to state and create endless headaches, as well as a perfect job opportunity for lawyer/super-GM Gata Kamsky.

Using metal detectors, banning headgear, employing electronic countermeasures, none of these are practical options. (Remember the old anecdote about the player, after resigning, being asked by his opponent why he hadn't accepted a draw offer? He hadn't heard it because his hearing aid was off. Or something like that. Petrosian used to turn his down or off if conditions were noisy.) The good news is that the threat is stronger than the execution. Put some language into the rules that says that at the request of a TD and organizer a review panel can be convened and severe punishment meted out. Make sure everyone knows. Previous items on this topic here, here, and here.

Comments

>>You may have noticed that the 2006 World Open thread has turned into an informative and interesting look into several cheating allegations made during the tournament. <<

Yes, and then it turned into a less interesting forum for IMs bashing weakies and vice versa. :)

As I recall, someone was tossed from the US Amateur Team East this year -- a tourney with no cash prizes. So cheating isn't solely a result of big $$; some people will cheat for almost nothing!

I don't play in rich tourneys and if some poor dumb sap is pathetic enough to cheat me in a weeknight club game, well, I pity him more than I'm going to worry about the loss. (Although if I catch him at it, I'll happily throw him under the bus.) My greater worry is that some day I won't be allowed to get up from a rated game to go to the men's room. Those of us with bad nerves will wind up being locked out of tournament play because of the dingbats with pocket Fritz.
Posted by: Derek at July 7, 2006 10:38

Mig,

If you believe that (beyond reasonable doubt) banning someone for a year or (better yet) life is too harsh, what would you consider as "severe punishment meted out?"
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 7, 2006 11:03

"I can tell two players were ejected when they proved uncooperative with the investigation into the claims."

Unless Mig knows something that the rest of us don't, then this sentence is false. Varshavsky lost his hat but was allowed to continue playing.

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 7, 2006 11:43

Actually this is quite amusing to me. In the case of the world open, we have a guy who has the tournament of his life, and rather than congratulate him on some good games, we call him a cheater.

If he was 11 years old and playing the same moves, we'd call him a prodigy, with a "natural feel" for the game. Whether or not a person acts strangely (compared to the norm of chess players) is no indication for even an investigation into whether or not they're cheating. Only overt actions, such as looking at their Russian Coach for approval of moves (as happened at this years US game/15 championship), or if they are clearly leaving the board after every move or every other move to dissapear for 5 minutes.

What was most amusing to me was John Bartholemew's description of what happened. He was convinced the guy was cheating because he was staring intently at the board? Come now! Can Bartholemew just admit he played poorly and lost? No, he has to imply that somehow he was cheated out of the game. Please.
Posted by: Michael Parsons at July 7, 2006 11:47

Mike, you make some sense, but take care not to shade off into a ACLU-type position. After all, no one accused Jake Kleiman or Kazim Gulamali of cheating.

I too was amused by Bartholomew's assertion that he could tell Varshavsky was cheating by "looking into his eyes" (John's a good writer, his musings would be well placed in a novel, and I'm not being facetious here...). But note, Mike, that it wasn't just the eyes. The guy did disappear into a bathroom stall for a lengthy period, not once but twice, precisely when TDs were demanding to inspect his person.

And anyway, he (Varshavsky) wasn't even punished, since they found no device...a device he might well have had and gotten rid of.

Chessbase a couple years ago ran a humorous (but true) news item about an incident where someone was caught consulting Pocket Fritz in the bathroom. Chessbase's news item went on to give detailed (but tongue-in-cheek) advice, including photos and diagrams, about how to more effectively hide in a bathroom stall while a TD is trying to look inside and you're analyzing with pocket Fritz.

Those of us over 40 can well recall the life-saving uses of toilets to a suspect. ("Open up, it's the police!" Sound of water flushing....)

I can see it now: Ads for Fritz 10.0 will make prominent mention of the fact that it's compatible with devices small enough to be flushed down a toilet.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 7, 2006 12:19

Mr. Aigner is correct. Eugene Varshavsky was searched twice (before round 8 and before round 9). Nothing was found on him either time. Carol Jarecki made him play without his hat, but Varshavsky did play his last two games, and his results will stand. He is, however, likely to receive a CCA minimum rating of 2400-2500 after this tournament.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 7, 2006 12:21

Does anyone know if Steve Rosenberg has been banned from tournaments for life yet? I would be shocked if it didn't happen. Either way, I doubt he'll show his face at a tournament again. It would be too embarassing to suddenly go back to 1700 strength.
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 7, 2006 12:48

Gary,
I was one of Steve's victims at the Motor City Open. Maybe he's just a better player than you (and me). Have you ever considered that? Let it go.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 13:09

Derek said: Yes, and then it turned into a less interesting forum for IMs bashing weakies and vice versa. :)

I challenge you to quote where Ben 'bashed' us weakies. And David was only refering to those folks who were 'bashing' Finegold and his wife. Please prove me wrong.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 13:14

In response to Mr. Parsons:

You totally misinterpreted my original post.

I am not trying to deflect blame away from myself for my play against Varshavsky. I freely admitted that my technique was poor.

I have played a great deal of top-level tournament chess over the past five years and have gained a pretty good idea of how players behave during games. I have never before accused one of my opponents of cheating.

At the World Open, I spoke with over 20 masters in the Open section who shared my concern over Eugene Varshavsky’s behavior and results. When I returned home from the tournament, I saw that his play was being discussed on this site as well as the ICC. Do I not have a right to question the legitimacy of my opponent’s play when many others empathize with me?

So, Mr. Parsons, I ask you: were you at the World Open? Did you watch Eugene Varshavsky’s behavior during his games? Have you reviewed these games? Do you even wonder why a floored USCF master could play 25 Fritz moves in a row to beat a world-class GM like Smirin?

Perhaps you are willing to believe that Varshavsky. had “the tournament of his life.” I, and many others, are not so naive.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 7, 2006 13:38

It was very amusing to hear from people saying about Varshavsky's behaviour at the board. From their statements, one can easily deduce that he is innocent. There is no factual evidence, that he cheated. The only thing they have is his strange behaviour that made him a cheat.
I am especially amused to hear the story from John Bartholomew. So what if 20 masters shared your concern over Varshavsky. It means nothing. He just beat GM Smirin and I bet 200 masters in that hall will feel the same. But how does that feat can make him an instant cheat. He can be a strange person with eccentric qualities. But anyway tell me,what is your idea of a Chess player. He seems to look normal and play normal? He has to be on time and after every move look at the crowd? From the description you gave of this man's behaviour, it seems to me that this man seems to have great qualities. Accept that, He played the tournament of his life. It is very unfortunate story.
Posted by: Ryan at July 7, 2006 14:23

Gary,
"I was one of Steve's victims at the Motor City Open. Maybe he's just a better player than you (and me). Have you ever considered that? Let it go."

Have you ever considered that he was using a transmitter, since he was actually caught using one?
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 7, 2006 14:26

Ryan -

When you explain to me how it is possible for a floored USCF master to play 25 consecutive Fritz moves against a Grandmaster in one game while managing to drop a piece on move 10 the round before, I will give an actual response to your post.

Thanks.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 7, 2006 14:47

Did GM Smirnin ask to do post mortem with Varavesky? Or any of Varvesky's opponents for that matter.
Posted by: jed at July 7, 2006 15:05

>>I challenge you to quote where Ben 'bashed' us weakies. And David was only refering to those folks who were 'bashing' Finegold and his wife. Please prove me wrong. :) <--

was intended to convey that my comment was light-hearted, intended to be humorous.

I challenge you to provide a different interpretation of a smiley face :)
Posted by: Derek at July 7, 2006 15:10

Look at the results for the U1200 section and look up the top 3 sandbaggers. Their names are Xiahua Xu (he's beaten 1400s but lost recently to a 400?!?!?) Willianth Williams (This COWARD smelled really bad, had really long dirty fingernails and has beaten a 1500 but lost last month to a 300 and a 400) and Vanessa Diaz (last month over 1450, this month rated U1200).

Thats just plain pathetic. Thats like failing First grade intentionally three times so you can spell "CAT" perfectly on your spelling test.

LOSERS.
Posted by: Fair Player at July 7, 2006 18:10

I played in the 2001 World Open, Open section.
1-2377 Drew
2-2392 Lost
3-2331 Lost
4-1925 Drew
5-2292 Won
6-2264 Lost
7-2215 Won
8-2251 Drew
9-2259 Lost
Really, I just like chess, but I do not get to play often. I work all the time!!
Posted by: Morrowind at July 7, 2006 19:34

outrageous. unbelieveable.
Posted by: tommy at July 7, 2006 19:37

I was referring to the comment made by fair player not morrowind. sorry about that.
Posted by: tommy at July 7, 2006 19:38

Off Topic Question about the actual Games at the World Open:

Has anyone figured out what happened in the Stocek-Yusupov game in round 9? The final position was totally winning for Yusupov, and yet the result was a draw. I can only assume that the game score was incorrect. Can anyone confirm the situation in that game?
Posted by: Icepick at July 7, 2006 19:45

Varshavsky..a misunderstood eccentric? or sneaky cheater? I gave Varshavsky the benefit of the doubt until I read Bela's post about him using a hearing aid at the 2005 National open. Where was it at the 2006 tournament when I played him? Did his hearing suddenly improve along with his chess skill? Hearing aids are not toys. He seems to have replaced his hearing aid with a hat. Well, I'm now personally convinced he's not just a persecuted loner. By the way, John Bartholomew's description of Mr. V's eyes and eerie vibe gave me gooseflesh. If you haven't been up close to the guy you may not understand. John's not just being a sore loser..he's very perceptive and is not exaggerating. For the record my name is Phil Irwin. I'm not here to gossip. This is a serious problem and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 7, 2006 22:31

Lest we forget, it's only personal integrity that really matters. Re-read Plato's Republic.

"Frank Marshall won the U.S. chess championship in 1904, but did not accept the title because the current U.S. champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, did not compete.

In 1906, Pillsbury died and Marshall again refused the championship title until he won it in competition in 1909."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall]

Posted by: Dale Lichtblau at July 7, 2006 23:16

Although I said I would not post here again....well....it lasted one day! :)

This is just an informational post for Icepick who legitimately questions the result of the Yusupov game.

I read that BOTH flags were down, and the game was drawn for that reason. I also thought Yusupov was winning the last 20-30 moves of the game, and was doubly surprised it was drawn, as he seems to be winning in the final position. Both flags down is possible though, as when I left the tournament hall, they both had 10-15 minutes left.

Too bad for Yusupov, as he did well to get a winning position with black, and had he won, he could have got some good scratch.

Anonymous IM ;)
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 7, 2006 23:59

thanks Ben

that sounds like a pretty good explanation.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 00:47

As Fritz and co are the main weapons of the cheaters, they would be the best helpers of organizers to catch cheating. One might play strong moves maybe 10 or 15 in a row, but they would be different than the computer moves. After all as Kasparov said in the Botvinnik section of his book, there are various ways of executing successful plans or achieve success on board.

I'm a low expert and remember beating two titled players in a row in one day. I just reached to my peak, and was seeing everything so clear. Still, some of the moves were not the first or second choices of the machine as I analysed later.

We need well kept scoresheets, and one or two good chess software users with decent chess knowledge. It shouldn't be hard to find these for people like Goichberg I believe.
Posted by: Xchess at July 8, 2006 01:03

The guys who run the chess league based out of chessville claim they have a computerized system to detect cheaters with virtually 100% certainty. When I was playing,I wasn't so sure about it, but apparently every person they have called out later admitted it.

Maybe someone should talk to them about doing this in major tmts on a contract basis. Keith Hayward is the one I know of [Master in TX, and a computer geek:)]
Posted by: Dondo at July 8, 2006 02:14

Much has been written about how the last 25 moves of the Smirnin-Varshavsky match Fritz.

Have you looked at the game? Below I give brief comments about each of the last 25 moves for Black. No doubt what I consider "obvious" you may disagree with - but even so take a look. I am not using computers and am making rather superficial assessments, but I think reasonable ones. I am not claiming Varshavsky is a secret GM - I suspect he is an improving 2100+ player (maybe 2200's and climbing). He doesn't have a lot of experience (technical draw claims, even comfort in notation). Losing badly in the last two rounds could simply be consistent with being accused of cheating and searches - which clearly affected his concentration.

My point is that most of Varshavsky's moves are hardly a surprise, and often there is much less choice than you might think (assuming somewhat sensible choices of a 2100 player).

Smirin-Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2

Let's look at the last 25 moves:

33...Qxd4 (Black's previous move was 32...Qe7-a7, so this can hardly be a surprise.) 34. Nxd4 Be4 (I claim this is a fairly obvious move, but admit 34...Rc8 is also a strong candidate. Perhaps 34...Be4 avoids whatever 35.f5 might have to offer White. So while I am not surprised at the choice of 34...Be4, the argument is that "all" of these choices coincided with Fritz. Let's continue...) 35. g3 Re8 (The obvious move would be 35...Be7, but that runs into 36.Nc6 and the B pair disappears. Is there an alternative? I would think any expert is capable of finding that there is one with 35...Re8. Not hard to choose once you bother to look for it - and White forced the question on Black.) 36. Rc1 g5 (In my previous post I suggested this was a non-obvious move. Given the game's development - i.e. a focus on the pinned f-pawn, I now think this is a rather logical follow up. Note the moves follow the position created by the previous moves. Also notice there was only one other choice here of 36...Bd8 to avoid losing a piece) 37. f5 Rxe5 (A two-move combination which wins a pawn, allowed by White's previous move.) 38. gxh4 gxh4 (capturing an extra pawn) 39. Re2 Ree7 (A sensible move, but Black does has some choices here) 40. Rf2 Rc7 (Almost certain given Black's previous move) 41. Rcf1 Rf6 (Blockading the f-pawn, in light of White's previous move, is certainly a leading candidate) 42. Rf4 Rg7 (Looks like the obvious leading candiate to me) 43. R1f2 Kf7 (Note Black has pretty much maxed out his rook moves, and pawn moves don't make sense. Moving King to the center is something he can grasp - while avoiding a Ne6 fork. I'll even guess most experts will now get the few-move plan of marching the King to e5) 44. Rxh4 Ke7 (continuing with plan) 45. Rg4 Rgf7 (Note 45...Kd6?? allows 46.Rxd6, and 45...Rxg4 46.hxg4 allows White to protect the weak f-pawn - in fact 45...Rgf7 is the obvious move here) 46. Kg3 Bxf5 (taking the free pawn before White can play Kg3-f4) 47. Rgf4 Bd7 (The White N has to be kept out of c6 - this is the only B move which does this. This is not hard to see at all) 48. Re2+ Kd6 (Moving K to center - this seems an obvious move to me) 49. Rh4 Rg7+ (An obvious move to push White's King back) 50. Kh2 Rg5 (While I like this move, I can't call it so obvious. I would accept this is the kind of position experts might lose their way. Of course, they might find a right idea too) 51. Rd2 h5 (Given Black's previous move, this move is fairly obvious to free the other rook) 52. Re2 Rf1 (Clearly better than ...Rf7 or ...Rf8) 53. Rd2 Be8 (A few-move plan to reposition the Bd7. I'll admit that may not be obvious - though it should be.) 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ (54...Re5 is the only alternative. Trading is simpler and avoids White's rook becoming active. Both strong candidates, not exactly a surprise to choose to trade) 55. Kxg2 Rd1 (Aha! The "obvious" move would be 55...Rb1, and 55...Re1 heading to e4 would be another strong candidate. So for the first time a non-obvious move is passed up for quite likely a better one.) 56. Kf2 Rd3 (56...Rd2+ would be a serious candidate, but makes little sense since Black could have won the b2-pawn with an extra tempo with the previous ...Rb1. Given the previous move, this is consistent with taking aim at the Q-side pawns. When the Nd4 is ousted, both pawns will fall. On d3, the Rook prevents the White King from protecting the Nd4 while keeping an eye on it as well.) 57.Ke2 Bg6 (The only move which doesn't immediately lose material) 1-0

I think consideration of the choices Black actually had puts a very different perspective on the seemingly incredulous matching Fritz for 25 moves.

Sometimes high rated players don't play well. Even then, they usually find a way to get back in the game. Sometimes, the opponent's side is just too easy to play.

I think Michael Aigner (hope I am pronouncing that right) has it right - we may all be accused of cheating - if we dare try to improve or get a lucky break.

-ron kensek
Posted by: ron kensek at July 8, 2006 03:23

Thanks for the analysis, Ron, it seems that this Varshavsky guy didn't cheat afterall. All this accusation and witch hunting is ridiculous.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 06:25

I just had a thought.

maybe have a stated printed agreement ahead of time that anyone winning $1000 or more will have to submit all his game scores for computer analysis by the tournament director before checks are awarded. and that if there are too many matches to computer moves then no money will be awarded. of course some games will have to be double checked with the opponents for real large prizes. but those can be collected before the last round.

one might also have the top boards in all the sections running on Monroi. that way anyone ending with a 8.5 out of 9 in the class sections will have all or almost all the games recorded.

then have the computer expert who can detect cheating analyze the games 24/0 on his computers.

falsely accusing someone of cheating is very bad. we must not ruin someones reputation friviously. we need to have solid procedures in place. procedures that do not accuse someone of cheating but procedures that say we dont pay prize money if such as such occurs. eventually such procedures will be implemented. we should start now on writing up the procedures and practice so as to discover what works to protect the reputation of the players and protect the honesty and integrity of the tournaments.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 07:20

I decided to check the Bartholomew - Varshavsky game with Fritz 9, here's my findings:

[Event "3'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.07.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bartholomew"]
[Black "Varshavsky"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C69"]
[PlyCount "122"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8.
Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1
Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 (h5 is not even in the top 10. Fritz 9 suggests Ng6 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7
21. Bg3 Be3 (Be3 is the 5th strongest move according to Fritz 9. It is suggesting c6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 (Ne7 is third strongest move according to F9. It is suggesting g6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

27. Ng3 Rde8 (Rde8 is third strongest move according to F9. It is suggesting Be5, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

28. Kf1 Rhf8 29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7 33. Nce3 Rg8 (Rg8 is not even in the top 10. F9 suggests g5 and thinks the position is drawish)

34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40.
Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 (F9 thinks Rxe8 is stronger here, and thinks black is slightly ahead)

42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46.Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 (b6 is third strongest according to F9. It suggests Re2 and thinks the position is drawish)

50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5
53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 (Kc6 is third strongest according to F9. It suggests Bb1 and thinks black is almost a pawn up)

57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59.
Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

So looks like Varshavsky didn't cheat in this game either.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 08:14

I have not make a decision on the Varashevsky accusations yet. However after reading the above analysis of the game I am leaning more toward the view that there is no evidence here.

I want to comment on John Bartholomew's original posting that he felt varashevsky was cheating because he never looked away from the board.

It seems to me that if he sat there the entire game looking at the board it is very strong evidence that his mind was totally occupied with the game. that he was One with the Game. and he was in no way thinking about cheating. such evidence seems to me is very strong evidence that he was NOT cheating. and certainly if he was to win the game the best way is to concentrate on the game itself. even his opponent was preoccupied with what Varashevsky was doing instead of being occupied on the game. Varashevsky would not even know his opponent was not paying attention to the game because he was totally absorbed into the game. becoming One With the Game. the perfect way to win.

The only so called evidence and I mean ONLY is the following of fritz for many moves but that now seems to be easily dismissed from the analysis given here above by Ron Kensek. the wearing of a lucky hat does not seem to change things. nor his losing in the last 2 rounds.

I remember at the recent US Championships a lovely lady beat some grandmasters and everyone loved her. she then was not able to continue winning but ended well getting a norm. I am happy to say everyone said she was having the tournament of her life.

there were over 1300 people at the world open. I would hope there would be someone having the tournament of their life for at least the first 7 rounds.

as regards this accusation that someone lost a piece. Gata Kamsky at this years world open said that he accepted a fast draw in the last round because he almost dropped a rook in a previous game because he was tired and thought it better to take the draw then to take a chance on dropping a piece. he felt he was too tired for a long hard game. so if gata kamsky can say he almost dropped a rook I see the dropping of a knight by a class player as happening in every round of that tournament. it is what a lot of games are all about. this is not proof of cheating. but proof of being human.

I see only a lot of hysterical judgments by people who do not have appropriate policies in place. a tragedy that will continue to hurt players reputations until a good policy is written up and published for all players to read before the tournament. a policy that should not be focused on finding guilt but a policy of when checks will be paid and when checks will not be issued. and if necessarily, all players can sign the agreement before playing.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 08:23

Now Leto had a conclusion of NOT cheating.

I really believe that the TD needs to get game scores and analyze the game scores before any accusations are laid. accusations of cheating can carry on a person's reputation for the rest of their life. even if later proved false many people will still believe in the person's guilt. continuing to severely hurt his reputation and impact his life. those in power must be very super careful about accusations of guilt of cheating. better to focus on a policy that states when checks will be paid and when they will not be paid and forget about guilt.

guilt can be found over and above the policy when a person is really caught with lots of solid evidence.

Until then if I pay $400 to play in a tournament I dont expect to come home with my reputation ruined if I played honestly. and I dont expect my reputation to depend on the judgements of witch hunting people who have gone off the deep end of hysterical judgements. which is all too prevelent in today's society with the rush to judgements.
Posted by: tommy at July 8, 2006 08:32

Leto, matching moves is inherently problematic because we don't know the program and time control (assuming one was used). Varshavsky is said to have moved quicky after arriving very late, so a confederate may have been running a program at 5/5 for all we know.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 8, 2006 09:00

Hey Tommy,

With all due respect to you, I have never seen anyone sit and stare at a board as intently as Varshavsky did, whether it be an amateur player or a world class GM. I'm sorry, but the blunder against Kacheishvili is inexplicable, and I could play 50,000,000 1-min games and never make such a blunder. In fact, I doubt that anyone over 1500 would ever play that. Having said that, there is no proof and this is why the people who created these silicon geniuses all deserve to die. :) Technology....sigh.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 09:14

Also, I'd just like to say that Ben Finegold is absolutely dead wrong when he refers to the open section and how "top players" deserve all the money.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 09:16

Hikaru, wasn't it just a month or so ago when Aleksandrov played the horrible 18...Bc8?? losing immediately against Kramnik? I believe Aleksandrov was rated 2634 during that time.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 09:26

Former World Champion Boris Spassky lost his knight in the ninth move against Lieb in 1979:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1129050

World Class Grandmaster Bareev played the horrible 35...Ba7?? allowing a mate in one:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069122

Grandmaster Krasenkow played the horrendous 45...Qf3+?? losing his queen immediately:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1379791
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 09:38

A question - "With all due respect to you, I have never seen anyone sit and stare at a board as intently as Varshavsky did, whether it be an amateur player or a world class GM."

How does staring at the board facilitate cheating? I'm just wondering how the guy might have gotten the moves to his partner, if that is what he (allegedly) was doing - did he have a small camera on his lucky hat or something?
Posted by: Logan5 at July 8, 2006 09:41

I don't think that transmitting the moves would be as hard as most people think. The obvious choice for me, if I wanted to cheat, would be to use a wireless telegraph system. A small 3-way switch held, perhaps, in the heel of my shoe that I could tap out moves in international correspondence notation. No one would notice the slight movement by my foot and the response from my buddy could either come in audio or even in a vibrating receiver (hmmm... now where could I put that?!). In any case, the technology is low, the means is easy, and the motive is there. No proof, just a convenient framework to support all this suspicion.

Hikaru, thank you for standing up and saying that you are not looking for more of the fish's entry fees. Finegold has certainly done a bang-up job painting a different picture from the Open perspective.
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 10:21

I don't think that transmitting the moves would be as hard as most people think. The obvious choice for me, if I wanted to cheat, would be to use a wireless telegraph system. A small 3-way switch held, perhaps, in the heel of my shoe that I could tap out moves in international correspondence notation. No one would notice the slight movement by my foot and the response from my buddy could either come in audio or even in a vibrating receiver (hmmm... now where could I put that?!). In any case, the technology is low, the means is easy, and the motive is there. No proof, just a convenient framework to support all this suspicion.

Hikaru, thank you for standing up and saying that you are not looking for more of the fish's entry fees. Finegold has certainly done a bang-up job painting a different picture from the Open perspective.
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 10:22

Stendec, I find your 'tap your moves' idea ridiculous. Besides, what does staring at the board intently have to do with tapping your feet?

Could you explain to me how exactly would you foot tap the following move?: 38...Rhd8

Or how about the following move?: 29...Nge5
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 10:27

This is all very scary. I was hoping to make the trip to Chicago for the US Open (one of the few sites I can get to for less than a $400 round trip ticket!). Now, I'm not so sure. I've been an Expert for most of the past 10 years, and I'm 33, an age where it seems no longer legal to improve. If I make the mistake of actually doing well, I'll probably be subjected to showing up for games in my birthday suit to "prove" I wasn't cheating. (Hmm, maybe it's you guys who will be subjected to seeing my fat behind, heh heh).

Detecting cheating by evaluating concordance with computer-generated moves seems like a good idea. I play in the Online Chess League where that is used. It seems like a fairly good system, and yes, the majority of people "outed" later come to confess (including a team mate of mine ;-/). That said, I really doubt it has 100% sensitivity, and more importantly, doubt 100% specificity. In a litiginous society like ours, that is a major issue if it is used where big prizes are involved.

I suppose a major question that needs to be answered is how willing are we to (hopefuly rarely) falsely accuse someone of cheating to preserve the integrity of tournament chess. And what liberties are we willing to give up to allow the detection mechanisms to work? Since HB last year, I for one have stopped bringing my phone to the playing hall during play, and stopped listening to music during games. I guess metal detectors will be a possibility in our future, and who knows what's next. I am not saying these changes are necessarily bad, just an extra "cramping of one's style".

Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 10:41

Oh, and for the record (not that anyone cares), this World Open was the first in a very long time that I did not average coming 20 minutes late for the game. And in a good majority of my games, win or lose, I have 20-30 minutes more time left on my clock by the end of my game. Yes, I know you can't take the extra minutes to heaven (or to the bank) ...

Cheers
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 10:53

Just some thoughts on some issues, everyone...

Re big $$ as motivation for cheating: Of course a big incentive, but let's keep in mind that the ICC has many, many cheats and there is NOTHING to gain (other than ICC rating points; which are exclusive to the ICC). The lower range of the human condition is more sadly exposed when anonymity mixes with insecurity and low self-esteem...

One hit wonders: I recall a NY Open where then US Champ Lev Alburt lost to a 1900. He even had the class to annotate the game in Chess Life!
There is also the time (I believe in Linares 1982) World Champion Karpov lost a piece in 12 moves to Christiansen and resigned. I was witness to GM Dzinzihasvilli hanging his Q to an expert at the US Amateur team East a few years ago. These things happen, which is why we buy lottery tickets or enter big money opens...
Since I was not at this year's WO, I cannot comment on the specifics of those in question, but evidence should be +- in order for action to be taken.
Posted by: MRitter at July 8, 2006 11:02

Okey,

Thanks for your observations. You are always articulate and thoughtful.

My personal feeling has always been that computer move-matching isn't evidence of cheating. But I am keeping an open mind about this, because so many people seem to believe it's the magic bullet (including some people in power, and evidently, some strong players too -- and it's their opinions that should count most on this particular question since it involves technical chess knowledge).

Instead, my program emphasizes looking for physical evidence -- exactly what the World Open officials did in the Varshavsky and Rosenberg cases.

For details, please see: www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com. Also, for an influential TD's take on the same issues, check out: www.uschess.org/tds/tdcornerfeb06rs.pdf

Please note that, when I state (in the first link) that the HB rules are "a good starting point" for anti-cheating policies, I DON'T mean adopting all those rules lock, stock and barrel, and then adding onto that. I mean they are a starting basis for study of what should be kept and what shouldn't...because they were implemented in practice at a large tournament (successfully, I believe).
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 8, 2006 11:12

Just for the record,

I analysed the Smirin game and found black's moves, from move 11 on, to match Pocket Fritz' best moves 83% of the time.

First move match: 39/47

Second move match: 3/47

Nether 1st or 2nd move match: 5/47

Blacks moves therefore matched Fritz' first or second choice an incredible 89.3% of the time. Amazing.
Posted by: John J at July 8, 2006 11:16

"Grandmaster, don't you know that doubled pawns are bad?"

Micro transmitter-receiver set: $70
Tournament entry fee: $350.
A True-1400 telling off a 2650 FIDE grandmaster in a splayed-leg, self-revelatory fashion: Priceless.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 8, 2006 11:17

Hey, I am not saying that Varshavsky was cheating, but after he was "forced" to play his games without the lucky cap he was not focusing as intently on his game. He also started glaring at anyone who came and observed his game. Now he could be upset, but the very fact that I never saw him look up at anyone or anything during his previous games says something to me... I also heard that there was a previous incident with Varshavsky at the National Open (I think it was this tournament) this year.

All this really shows me is that it is extremely difficult to catch people whether they are or are not cheating. This kind of reminds me of the whole situation we have in regards to terrorism where many dangerous criminals are caught, but a lot of innocent civilians suffer the injustices of being accused at the same time.
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 8, 2006 12:02

- Thanks Jon for your kind words, and the links!

- Hikaru is spot on with his comments.

Ok, I guess I should get out and try to enjoy one of the 20 days of summer we have up here :)

Take care all.

Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 12:15

Some have said in the other thread (and this thread too it seems) that when Varshavsky was forced to play without his hat for the last two rounds, he lost both games. It should however be pointed out that in those two games he played against 41st finisher GM Evgeny Najer, and 45th finisher GM Magesh Panchanathan. It's not like he lost to complete patzers...As for him glaring around during these two games, sounds to me like he's pissed about the situation. How would you feel if you were having the tournament of your life and find out that people are accusing you of cheating?

Oh and I'm still waiting for an explanation on how someone can transmit the following moves using a 'foot tapper' device:
38...Rhd8
29...Nge5

Seeing as how Stendec claimed that it would be extremely easy to transmit moves via a foot tapper, I thought someone would have given some kind of explanation by now.

If Varshavsky was staring so intently at the board, as claimed by Hikaru Nakamura and other players, then he cannot be using a pocket fritz or similar device. How exactly then did the guy transmit his moves to his partner?
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 15:27

A) Varshavky's moves matched perfectly to Shredder, not Fritz. Shredder fortuitiously was the engine used to check him.

B) Robby Adamson, John Bartholomew, and Ilya Smirin deserve compensation for Mr Hat's antics. Not Joel Benjamin, MrHat on ICC, but the nefarious World Open Mr Hat. I would suggest Robby and John get together and agitate jointly on this one, maybe at the new and improved USCF website!

C) Was Varshavsky tanking/early blundering against Kacheishvili to throw people off the scent or was his accomplice not set up yet so early in the game?

D) Since Goichberg knew about Varshavsky from earlier antics at a prior event, the directors should have nipped this particular cheating "bud" very early on at the WO. Just rip his hat off when the guy shows up at his typical start-time of 20 minutes late. Is a punch to the nose warranted when the transmitter falls out? (Hypothetical inquiry). That's why Robby, John and Ilya should be handsomely compensated. The entire thing is outrageous.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 8, 2006 15:40

Leto:

Googling "international correspondence notation", the first link I find is:

http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Notation/numeric.html

You're not trying very hard, are you?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 8, 2006 16:11

The Varshavsky - Kacheishvili game was on the 6th round, just before his game against Smirin. How exactly anyone can claim the 6th round to be 'early in the game'?

So apparently the conspiracy theorists now say Shredder was used rather than Fritz. What version of Shredder did the TD use to claim this?

Let's see if his moves match perfectly with Shredder in the Bartholomew game. I gave each move up to two minutes of analysis time, if the moves matched perferfectly sooner than that I move on to next move:

[Event "3'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.07.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bartholomew"]
[Black "Varshavsky"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C69"]
[PlyCount "122"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8.
Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1
Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7
21. Bg3 Be3 (Be3 is the 4th strongest move according to Shredder 10. It is suggesting Ng6, and thinks white is almost a pawn up)

22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 27. Ng3 Rde8 (Rde8 is second strongest move according to S10. It is suggesting Bg6, and thinks white is slightly ahead)

28. Kf1 Rhf8 (Rhf8 is fifth strongest according to S10. It is suggesting Bf4 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7
33. Nce3 Rg8 (Rg8 is fourth strongest according to S10, it suggests Bd8 and thinks white is slightly ahead)

34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40.
Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46.Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5 53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 (Kc6 is third strongest according to S10. It suggests Bb1 and thinks black is almost two pawns up)

57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59.
Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

So in this game at least his moves don't match Shredder 10 perfectly. I'm interested in which version of Shredder 10 the TD used to determine that Varshavsky is a cheater.

Anonymous, what exactly are you showing me there with that link? I see nothing mentioned about foot tapping in that link.
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 16:30

In answer to Leto's question. My guess is a foot tapper could be used to transmit long algebraic notation e2 - e4, etc do the coordinates 1 tap for a, 2 tabs for b, 3 taps for c, etc then a pause, 1 tap for 1, 2 taps for 2, etc I remember watching doccumentries about teams of people using similar methods to try and cheat vegas casinos.
I don't think this type of cheating in a chess tournament makes a whole lot of sense. You can only win / steal a fixed amount, ie. the prize fund, you are limited to doing it pretty much once a year. It is a long tournament, so it takes about a week to acomplish this, you have to split the money with anyone who helps you, you pay taxes off the top, you have expenses like hotel, food, cheating equipment, success is not gaurenteed ie the position might get mixed up between the tournament game and the computer, or you run into someone who is also cheating, or your computer just gets beat, or you get caught. Seems like way too much time and effort for too little of reward. But I guess not everything people do makes sense.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 8, 2006 16:32

Rusty, that's interesting. So to transmit the move Rhe8, the guy would have to tap 8 times, pause, and then tap 8 times, pause, and then tap 5 times.

To transmit the move Ng6 to e5, he would have to tap 7 times, pause, tap 6 times, pause, tap 5 times, pause, and then tap 5 times.

Sounds like a very complex procedure! How come no one noticed any tapping? If tapping wasn't used to transmit the moves, what other method is there?
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 16:41

I certainly hope and expect that Goichberg and USCF will take specific action. I am not sure if the game score is available but in his quick loss to Kashiesvili, it went something like this - very bizarre for someone to play like this one round and then beat Smirin, with black, and match Shredder for 23 straight moves!

Varashavsky - Kashiesvili: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.Qe1 0-0 8.Be3 d5 losing a piece. He proceeded to demand the game be declared a draw - I have no idea why.

First of all, 6.Qe1 is a 1000 USCF player type move (this is not a Grand Prix where it makes sense); Second, 8. Be3 allowing d5 is probably a 1200 player type of mistake.

There is no question in my mind as well as to the other GM's who have looked at this situation. Varashavsky could not even play a real game once he was forced to take off his hat.

At World Open:
Varshavsky with the hat: 5-2
Varashavshy without the hat: 0-2

At North American Open:
Varashavsky with hearing aid: 4-0
Varashavsky without hearing aid: 0-2

Here is some good information according to Goichberg. When Varashavsky arrived to play his Round 8 game, he was headed into the tournament hall, wearing his hat and had just grabbed a scoresheet when Goichberg said he wanted to speak to him. At this point, Varshavsky said he would speak to Goichber but first needed to use the bathroom. So, he turned around from going into the tournament hall and went to the bathroom. He emerged from the bathroom and then was searched. Nothing was found.

Then later in the round, Varshavsky went to the bathroom again and locked himself in the stall for 30 minutes. In order to get Varshavsky removed from the stall, 2 security guards forced him out of the stall and he was searched again, but nothing was found.

In any event, this guy is not worth spending too much more time on. He will be dealt with accordingly, I hope, by CCA and USCF. I am just very sorry that something was not done sooner. Many individuals lost a lot of money in this tournament as well as all the other tournaments because of some highly questionable conduct.

I guess the thing that scares me the most is when some IM or GM does in fact cheat and wins some tournament, people will say, well he is IM or GM - he can play at that level. Well obviously thats possible, but even the best GM's dont even approach matching the frequency of how this guy matched Shredder 23 times in a row. I would bet Smirin doesnt match Shredder even 50% of the time.

Robby Adamson
Posted by: Robby Adamson at July 8, 2006 16:46

I don't think anyone made any claims that method was actually used, just that it is possible. I certainly never claimed that method was used, I wasn't even there.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 8, 2006 16:49

Robby, did you see Rob's analysis of the Smirin game? He said most moves were pretty much forced or obvious.

As for opening mistakes, even former world champions have done them in the past. For example take a look at a 1979 game in which Boris Spassky loses his knight in the ninth move, and goes on to lose the game in 22 moves:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1129050
Posted by: Leto at July 8, 2006 17:00

I've never been to the world open....Is it feasible that there was no "transmission" of moves made and the alleged cheaters had accomplices that watched the games, analyzed with a computer, and radioed moves back thru the earpiece? Maybe several accomplices? It seems to me that a running commentary from a strong player who is occasionally checking with the computer would produce the erratic matching patterns discussed above.

I've been reading all these cheating threads and I think this is a core issue. Exactly how was the earpiece used to cheat? Since Varshavsky stayed at the board for some long periods and made moves fairly quickly at times there are not many cheating scenarios that are feasible. We shouldn't make any accusations until we have outlined some kind of specific theories. Also...the idea that several other people could be involved but not implicated is particularly alarming. And whats with that grainy image on the grassy knoll? :) Seriously, the foot tapping device is the only specific cheating scenario I have read....how else could he have done it?
Posted by: wizardofoz at July 8, 2006 17:03

Leto,
If you read my post, you'd see that I recommended international correspondence notation. The "how" is something like Morse Code. Sorry, thought that part was obvious enough...
Posted by: stendec at July 8, 2006 19:17

Many wireless cameras could be concealed in a hat. Even relatively inexpensive ones can transmit wirelessly up to 100 meters. Moves would be received via an earpiece. My occupation requires me to work with private investigators frequently, and the technology readily available to anyone is remarkable. Don't have much time, but here's the first link I got from googling "micro cameras":

http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/pinholecameras.html
Posted by: shoveldog at July 8, 2006 19:42

Ahem... Of course Ben Finegold was right after all. He did not reply to the post James refers to. Let me quote the first sentence of Ben's post:

"Ok, ok... I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!"

This makes it very, very obvious about which post he was speaking. Except for our good friend James of course, who did not understand.

Let me help you out James: Ben was explaining that in Patzerjoe's sentence "Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold." the word "your" is not used properly.

So James, PLEASE... Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.

Posted by: Oscar at July 8, 2006 18:09
Dear Oscar, Thank you for correcting James! You beat me to the punch, thanx again. Kaliman

James, If you were a little more vigilant, you would realize that Finegold was replying to Patzer Joe and not john as you contend. Go back and check the times for yourself, thank you very much. Need I say more? Respectfully yours, Kaliman

James said,
When someone like Ben Finegold comes on here and displays his arrogance he deserves what he gets. Ben, when you show the arrogance to attempt to correct the grammar of someone on this forum you should at least make sure you are correct. Yesterday Ben replied to this post by John:
"yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife."
Posted by: john | July 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Ben immediately replied with this comment:
"First, it is spelled "you're" not your."
Let me correct Ben Finegold. The correct word is "your" and John was correct. The word you're is a contraction which stands for "you are". Saying..."....and so does you are wife" is incorrect. The word "your" shows possession such as "your" book or "your" car or "your" rating, etc.....
So PLEASE.....Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.
Posted by: James at July 8, 2006 15:34

Patzer joe said,
Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.
By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59

Finegold said,
I will go back to reading silly posts instead of posting them myself and arguing the gawking rabble.
Usually I can post for 3-4 days before getting fed up, but my patience is either less than it is used to be, or people here are even more annoying than before (as the mayor's aid said to Joe Quimby, "Dumber sir.")
Ok, back to reading the insulting posts instead of absorbing them! :)
BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:02

john said,
yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife.
Posted by: john at July 6, 2006 23:05

Finegold said,
Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!
First, it is spelled "you're" not your.
Top level Eurotrash??? lol....that is funny, but I am not sure why.
My book on the Smith-Morra was co-authored by Bob Ciaffone, and it generally gets good reviews, mainly due to the fact that it is all original analysis and most of it is quite good. I did none of the prose, just the analysis. The book was published in 2000, so there have been some errors found. We may come out with a second edition, not sure....that is really up to Bob.
I am surprised you did not like my book, yet you have all three of my DVD's? Most people told me they like the DVD's, but you are entitled to your opinion. Making them was fun anyways.
Ok, I am done......I know when I am not wanted! :)
BPF
PS Still fun to read the posts when people don't lambaste you to pieces!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:08
Posted by: Kaliman at July 8, 2006 19:47

I posted a version of this in another thread: apologies for the repeat. One may wish to take an independent look at the position after White's 58th on Bartholomew-Varshavsky before reading further...

.
.
.

In the Bartholomew-Varshavsky game, I'd argue that the tactical prophylactic 58...Rc7 is suspect. True, a strong human can quickly see that the "natural" 58....Kb5 allows 59.Nxc5 (even I, whose peak rating is not far away from Varshavsky's, might see this quickly OTB), but a strong human would also see 59...a5 as the NATURAL reply--this weakie sees it immediately. But would a human go one ply further, see 60.Na6!? on move 58, and evaluate it as White's best? I think not, even at GM level.

BTW, it looks like both moves win.
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 8, 2006 21:36

To Ben Finegold, thanks for the update on the Stocek-Yusupov game.
Posted by: Icepick at July 8, 2006 22:43

Leto wrote: "How come no one noticed any tapping?"

Are you serious? Have you ever even been to a chess tournament? Look under the tables during the middle of a round, and a good 70% of the players are bouncing their legs up and down.
Posted by: Icepick at July 8, 2006 22:49

A simple question:

Did any of the so called over achieving cheaters sit down with their opponents after the game to discuss and analyse? Not doing so isn't a crime of course but if they did in fact analyse with their opponent then that would be a strong indication to me that they were not cheating. To make excellent moves in a game is one thing but to demonstrate accurate vision of alternate moves/lines during analysis is quite another.
Posted by: Steve K at July 8, 2006 23:00

Amazing comments. Robby Adamson, a known cheat and an emotionally disturbed teenager who never grew up. Finegold--the guy who tried to "secure" his last norm in chicago and was not awarded a GM title. THESE people post things about cheating?
AY
Posted by: alex y at July 8, 2006 23:02

Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!

And that was said by a future (and now past) governor!

Anonymous IM BPF from Michigan

PS Hikaru, go to your room!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 23:20

The following appears as a "News item" on the USChessLive intro page. It concerns one of USCL's highest-ranking administrators, who uses the handle "Alrightnow" -- and who I was told, is Steve Rosenberg.

(For those not familiar, USChessLive is the server operated on behalf of the USCF, on which all USCF members get special free privileges.)

The day before this news item appeared -- Wednesday, July 5, i.e., the day after the World Open ended -- "Alrightnow"'s profile, games, and other records were deleted from the USChessLive server.

Here is the news item:

1830 (Thu, Jul 6) Re: Rumors

Fellow Chess Live members, please avoid spreading rumors and muckraking. Recently rumors have been going around about a former Chess Live staff member. To set the record straight, former Assistant Head Administrator and Co-Head Administrator alrightnow has VOLUNTARILY resigned all of his positions for personal reasons. We thank alrightnow for his numerous contributions to the server and look forward to continuing the good work that he has done for us all.

Posted by superpanda.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 8, 2006 23:39

It is relatively easy to cheat with a foot switch. Actually it would be called a toe switch. It is a device that fits in the shoe under the toes. In its simplest form it is a contact switch under the big toe that can be depressed by the big toe, sending a "signal" to someone with a receiver.

Full algebraic notation can be used by simply depressing the contact the right number of times. Shortcuts could also be used, for example if only on piece can reach the destination square there is no need to give the starting square.

A little more complicated would be 2 transmitters, one in each shoe. The left transmitter would be for the first 4 ranks or files, the 2nd transmitter (on a different frequency) would give the 5th through 8th ranks and files. This way the most "clicks" needed would be 4 instead of 8.

Example: 1. e4 would be (1 click right, 4 clicks left), (only 1 piece can reach e4)

2 Nf3 would be (3 clicks right, 1 click left) + (2 clicks right, 3 clicks left)

3 Bb5 would be (2 clicks left, 1 click right), (only 1 piece can reach b5)

A similiar idea (device hidden in shoe) has been used to beat the blackjack tables in Vegas.

The same code could be used in the toe tapping scenario.

But this all seems primative to methods readily available, such as a minature video camera hidden in a hat or jacket (so accomplice can see the board) coupled with a hearing aid receiver (or cell phone set on vibrate).

Or the accomplice being a master strength player, simply observing the game, then signalling the moves from a distance.

Sadly, it is relatively easy to cheat. From what I have read some of the methods clearly were not used (taking pocket fritz into the bathroom). But there are several other methods that could have been used.

If in fact a receiver was discovered on Rosenberg, that is pretty damning. The other case is much more circumstantial. I hope the TDs have had good legal advice on how to DQ cheaters without getting sued.
Posted by: superpatzer at July 9, 2006 00:25

Keep reminding us your a IM Ben. Its a shame your so arrogant.
Posted by: georgie at July 9, 2006 00:52

Speaking as a very ordinary player of no great importance I'd like to say something reading this entire thread reminds me why I am quite happy sticking to pickup chess with friends whatever happened to the old days when people played for the love of Chess itself a very ancient time you know when there wasn't all this greed,ego, bad sportsmanship, cheating with computers?! look over at the junior side of it the game it's not any better Chess Coaches and parents teaching their kids to kick their opponents in the crotch and shines under the table and use dirty tricks to win at all costs?!

That's not the Chess I know or want any part of.

Elizabeth.
Posted by: Elizabeth at July 9, 2006 01:12

????

What are you talking about??

Sincerely,

Anonymous 2002 World Open, 1994 US Open, and 2005 National Open Co-Champ.

PS See...I did not point out "your", "it's", "a" or your anonymity. :)

PPS Oops... IM also....almost forgot!

PPPS I also have a Speedy Rewards Card!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 01:15

Elizabeth,

You are absolutely correct. The World Open is the biggest tournament in the US every year, with nice prizes (and EFs). Most tournaments are casual and fun, and although 1200+ people play in the World Open every year, most USCF members never experience such as event. I tell all my Michigan homies to go to the World Open, just to watch, as it is a great experience....everyone I know who watches and does not play, has more fun than the players!

One of my favorite philosophers once said, "Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive." ....That Bugs Bunny was a helluva thinker.

Anonymous Human
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 01:24

Come on, folks ! Let us stop this mindless slander !!. The TDs have already taken action.

Let us have respect for titled players like Mr. Finegold for what they have accomplished.

Forget and Forgive !!! Spread Love !!!
Posted by: peach at July 9, 2006 01:34

I can see why there are very few titled players posting here...most end up getting attacked. Kinda sad IMO.

To those giving constructive input: thank you. To others, I suggest you google the term "ad hominem." You might learn something.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 9, 2006 02:13

I've been reading the cheating threads with great facination (although I havent played a tournament in 20 years). Both because the discussion is interesting, but you could also see this as "Arguing on the internet 1.0.1"

Ben says big $$$$ for lower rated players is an incentive for cheaters; and immediately 20 people screams that he's an arrogant bastard who wants all their money. To many people create new and unspoken meanings from relatively harmless opinions.

Ben could of course have worked alot harder on posting absolutely precise and relatively boring stuff, over three pages, but he should not have to. And well, it's a blog, and we like it that way...

Q
Posted by: Quely at July 9, 2006 06:12

To be fair to my detractors, the blog is a lot funnier and fun to read when people totally dis' everyone.....it just sucks when that someone is you... :)

Also, it should be "a lot" not "alot" ...a common error.

Anonymous grammar nazi
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 10:11

I didn't go to Philly and so I must rely on the same testimonies many give here but:

For anyone who has been playing chess for a long time, no matter the level or rating, the behavior described above leaves a lot of smoke in the air. This mix of coming late, wearing odd stuff, the strange time distribution, the uneven level etc etc.

If to give an extreme (and albeit exaggerated:))example: Pretend you are watching a 100 yard dash on tv. Lined up are 5 stars, all dressed in aerodynamic attire, and one goofy looking fella dressed in jeans and flip flops. The starter gun fires, and the 5 stars are running their hearts out, while the goofball just stands there for another 3 seconds. He then bursts out and finishes second. If I am alone in thinking that'd be odd, then I am a weirdo. No problem.

When I see people examine the erratic behavior and results, seeing one game where some guy losses a piece in 9 moves, and at the same event beats Smirin(!) and find that reasonable, I understand how OJ got free.

Lastly, slightly off topic: Why is it wrong for a titled player to sign with his title on a chess forum? If this was a science paper and someone who sign with his PhD, that would be quite normal. Just because titled players who play for a living don't earn what other professionals earn, doesn't make them any less of an authority.

Aviv Friedman
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 10:39

Segregate and/or sequester the top six boards of each section in an area with frequency scanners. This area would also have its own exclusive TD and private restroom. Participants would enter through a metal detector set to a low threshold and not leave until the completion of the game.
Posted by: Robert Blake at July 9, 2006 10:48

I am surprised that people want to lay blame and guilt. Personally I would feel better if we could prove that no one cheated.
Posted by: tommy at July 9, 2006 10:59

I like Robert Blakes comments above. He is talking about procedures to use to solve problems. He is not discussing guilt.

I might suggest more than the top 6 boards be in the room.

but if nature calls you have to go to the bathroom. you can not expect less in a 7 hour game.
Posted by: tommy at July 9, 2006 11:07

John B. and Aviv,

You have a point that some of the attacks directed against IM Finegold here were rather mindless. But more importantly, you are overlooking the critical fact that it was HE who "threw the first punch." Therefore he is getting what he deserves, in my opinion.

Mr. Finegold's very first post on the related thread ("World Open concludes", or something like that), led off with a gratuitiously hostile, and I daresay mindless, description of us class-players who pay his, and your, salaries. By "salaries", I refer not only to your Open section prize funds that we subsidize, but also your lesson fees, book and DVD royalties, etc.

Of course you provide value for the money we pay you. But how would your own (Ben, John and Aviv) private students or after-school-program chess students feel, if I were to somehow obtain their names and home addresses and send them a mass mailing that quoted Ben's comments about ALL non-professionals being "terrible chess players," who have "little ability" and "no great acumen at the game."

I also note that Mr. Finegold then went on to say he didn't see how our fees "subsidize" the Open section prizes. This showed that while he, and you, as titled players are entitled to some deference toward your opinions on over-the-board matters, when it comes to logic or the simplest mathematical reasoning ability, a chess IM or GM's "strength" can closer to 1000 than 2500.

Ben, John and Aviv, were you all BORN with 2500 ratings???? Weren't each of you patzers at one time? (N.B. Someone took me to task not long ago for a similar comment I made on USCF Forums, where I referred to "scholastic" members of USCF -- whose average rating is below 600 -- as "not real tournament players, but an accounting fraud" intended to artificially inflate USCF membership rolls.)

So, before saying things like "I can see why few titled players post here, because they'll get attacked," please take care to be aware of the FULL context.

I think it's also telling that Hikaru Nakamura -- himself a controversial figure in some quarters -- jumped right in and declared Finegold "absolutely dead wrong" to argue that all the money should go to the top section. Hikaru at least understands that we tournament entrants at the bottom and middle of the ratings pyramid are holding up, not ripping off, the ones on the top.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 11:25

I would like to know if Ben, Fluffy and any other titled players, who take issue with counter remarks to their opinion of amateur prizes, think that a fair and equitable solution would be to distribute the prize money in each section according to the number of paid players in each section as presented by anonymous "B player"?

I can't think of any fairer and appropriate answer than that. Also, the TD and staff would still garner the same percentage of compensation for their work and provision of a facility. Ben, Fluffy and any other titled player(s), the ball is in "your" court.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 9, 2006 12:59

Wow. Leave for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose!

John Bartholemew -

Hey man, I wasnt there, but living in Iowa I've played some real 'winners' in life. Ever heard of Dave Wolz? I dont accuse Dave of anything but being weird, and I never thought to accuse him of cheating if he plays a good game against a higher rated opponent.

Also, I havent played nearly as elite competition as you have. I am an A player (for life im afraid, but that's another topic)... But I have played in a couple of master strength round robin events and have taken points off of my fair share of masters. Now does this mean I could beat Smirin? No, probably not. But let's say that we played next weekend, and I beat you. Are you going to say, "he seems like a normal guy, and a normal 1800 player could beat me if he's having a great chess day?"... How about if I need to use the restroom during the game, and I am constipated. I'm just saying dude :-) It should not be out of the realm of possibilities that a lower rated player (especially what appears to be a rapidly improving 2100) beats a master, or even a world class player like Smirin. Sometimes it happens. It just never happens to me :-)

cheers!
Posted by: Mike Parsons at July 9, 2006 13:54

While chess players know for under $1000 you can have GM in a briefcase, they may not be aware for under $300 one can purchase all manners of hidden two-way communication devices. The good news is that there exist numerous equally low cost counter measures. Corporations and institutions dealing with sensitive info, e.g. law firms, have been dealing with similar issues for some time.
Posted by: Robert Blake at July 9, 2006 14:26

Jon Jacobs,

Sorry to nitpick, since I agree with most of you said, but you've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. You do NOT pay IM Finegold's salary by buying his books. You enter into an economic contract with a company which then pays him royalties, and such a transaction gives you NO moral sway over IM Finegold -- not on this board, nor anywhere else. Moreover, the "Hey, I pay your salary" argument is just petty, even when it is applicable. Would you ever consider making that statement in an argument with a fireman, policeman, or soldier? You'd have a better case, but I sincerely, sincerely hope you wouldn't be that small.

Furthermore, I would hope that if someone made good on your threat to send a mass e-mail to Finegold's students, the recipients would have the good sense to trash it immediately, as they would any other piece of junk mail.

Yours,
A Terrible Chess Player with No Real Acumen for the Game
Posted by: Mr. Paul Richard Ian Chester Kane, nitpicker extraordinaire at July 9, 2006 14:34

Jon Jacobs,

Sorry to nitpick, since I agree with most of you wrote, but you've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. You do NOT pay IM Finegold's salary by buying his books. You enter into an economic contract with a company which then pays him royalties, and such a transaction gives you NO moral sway over IM Finegold -- not on this board, nor anywhere else. Moreover, the "Hey, I pay your salary" argument is just petty, even when it is applicable. Would you ever consider making that statement in an argument with a fireman, policeman, or soldier? You'd have a better case (tax evasion having legal consequences and all), but I sincerely hope you wouldn't be that small.

Furthermore, I would hope that if someone made good on your threat to send a mass e-mail to Finegold's students, the recipients would have the good sense to trash it immediately, as they would any other piece of junk mail.
Posted by: Nemo at July 9, 2006 14:37

I beg to differ, especially about the "I pay your salary" argument in the more general case.

That is the sort of statement people constantly make, and have every right to make, when dissatisfied with the actions of a particular public official or public servant. I made that very argument, in those very words, just last weekend while driving home from the World Open, when a tollbooth attendant in Pennsylvania was rude in fielding my request for directions to a certain highway. (I pulled over after the tollboth, went into the office alongside, and filled out a complaint form about the man's behavior.)

You may feel it is "petty", and therefore presumably invalid. But that's just your opinion, which I suspect most people don't share.

As for the product buyer / royalty payment relationship that we average chess players bear to Mr. Finegold and other titled pros, you may be right that "paying his salary" is the wrong concept, from an economic analysis standpoint. But as you said, it's nitpicking.

The essence of my comment is that by paying for Mr. Finegold's books, lessons and lectures, we are showing our respect and admiration for his ability. If he repays us by expressing contempt for us, he does so at his (economic) peril.

That was also what I meant by my (hypothetical) threat to broadcast IM Finegold's expressions of contempt for us "terrible" players, to those other "terrible" patzers who take lessons from him in-person. You are entitled to your opinion that his students would merely shrug off such knowledge. But again, I think your opinion would be in the minority, and at least a few of Mr. Finegold's students would be offended, and perhaps feel personally slighted enough to reconsider their relationship with him, upon hearing HIS opinion of amateur players published on this blog.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 15:13

Elizabeth - Yes, we chess players, pro's and amateurs together, do form a dysfunctional family. But don't let that deter you from enjoying the fun of tournament play - both big and small. I couldn't tell from your post how long ago the "old" days were that you refer to? The 60's?, 70's? 80's? If you reflect on it, however, I'm sure you'll remember that it's ALWAYS been this way in the world of chess. And I for one don't mind if people rip apart my posts, and argue strongly for their opposing views. That's the value of Internet discussion groups - topics that used to be discussed behind closed doors, by a few who we're "in the know", now get bandied about in full daylight. Ultimately we all benefit by gaining a broader perspective on the issues. And I think we would all agree that the two issues being discussed on this thread are very important one's ... cheating, and earnings opportunities for strong chessplayers.
Posted by: RP at July 9, 2006 15:33

**That is the sort of statement people constantly make, when dissatisfied with the actions of a particular public official or public servant. I made that very argument, in those very words, just last weekend while driving home from the World Open, when a tollbooth attendant in Pennsylvania was rude in fielding my request for directions to a certain highway. (I pulled over after the tollboth, went into the office alongside, and filled out a complaint form about the man's behavior.)***

Jesus chill out man.. Go get laid or something...
Posted by: jdawgs at July 9, 2006 16:59

Jon Jacobs and others,

I didn't read other threads, just this one, so I saw what Ben said here and the (over)reactions. The age-old topic of huge entry fees and class prizes accepts good arguments from both sides of the discussion.

I can't argue with the concept of an organizer charging $400 bucks and awarding class players many thousands in prizes. OTOH, in many people's eyes it is somewhat of an anomaly. Normally in 'real life', one has to be proficient in a certain field in order to 'cash in' on it.

Over the years I have taught or coached in some capacity a large number of kids and adults. Some became (or were) very good, others did not. To me personally, the only issues of importance were the interest and the effort. So I don't understand this 'were you born a 2500 player' remark...

Ok, maybe one can argue about the way Ben presented it, but like in any field some people have talent and/or means to get better, and some not. There certainly isn't a shortage of fields I am not at all talented at - even though I tried. For example, my drawing style can only be defined as "infant-surrealism". It's the same with chess: I have taught professionals who were very successful in their fields, and yet couldn't progress beyond 1300 if their lives depended on it. They played a lot, bought books, took lessons... nada. So what?

Allow me to borrow the comment I gave my brother when he told me one of my nieces takes to chess and the other does not: 'you can live to be 100 and lead a very happy life without excelling at chess'.

I have NEVER THOUGHT that because I am a 2400 player, I am better than anyone (as a person), but with the average crowd chances are when I talk about chess, I know more than most. It's not bragging, it's a simple fact. In the chess world, it is amazing how: 1. Weak players talk like they are GM's and 2. People think because they buy a book by a certain GM, that he is indebted to them. 99.9% of the time when people take lessons/buy a book/DVD/whatever for their own benefit, not for charity.

When the titled players here described events and why they thought it looked unusual or suspicious, it wouldn't hurt to pause for some reflection. These people have the experience of many competitive events - often times against players from beginner to top GM to refer to, they can see and interpret the moves better than the average player, so please... don't be so quick to dismiss it and make noises as if they just said the earth was flat.
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 17:25

Aviv,

I am not sure how Ben and Hikaru become experts in the topic of cheating in chess. I don't think they are experts in detecting incidents of cheating. Ben certainly can hold an opinion that higher prize money for patzers leads to more cheating -- but that is just his opinion. Not something that came out of a research study.

Amecha
Posted by: Amecha at July 9, 2006 19:13

Varshavsky games were checked with Shredder Solid. The ICC Computer Cheat team was called in as consultants. The verdict was unanimous - clear cheating. The story gets worse. Varshavsky, to avoid suspicion, claimed he was sleeping in his car during the tournament and had no room. However, he was followed at 1130 pm and was observed disappearing into a room in the tourney hotel on the 16th floor where it can be surmised that at least one accomplice labored. In prior events, his hood outfits have led to camera suspicions as well as transmitter suspicions, and this is augmented by his fixed angle stare at the board. The WO outfit, with hat, could accomplish the same thing as the hood.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 9, 2006 19:28

Amecha,

If you care to scroll back up and see the reasons why some players thought the person in question was cheating, my advice is to not dismiss them so easily.

I am not calling anyone an expert or not (did Hikaru even opine on this issue at all?) I am saying that experience and chess ability counts for something at chess. Also see mark Ginsburg's latest post.
Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 22:04

Amecha,

If you care to scroll back up and see the reasons why some players thought the person in question was cheating, my advice is to not dismiss them so easily.

I am not calling anyone an expert or not (did Hikaru even opine on this issue at all?) I am saying that experience and chess ability counts for something at chess. Also see mark Ginsburg's latest post. The alarm bells are loud and clear, my opinion is formed, and your miles may vary.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 9, 2006 22:06

Aviv,

You need to be aware of the full context of the discussion, so if you're going to comment at all about what is basically a low-level flame war between IM Ben Finegold and a number of us amateurs, you should read the "World Open concludes" thread starting with his post about money prizes creating the cheating problem among amateurs. (When pressed, IM Finegold conceded later in the same thread that big money can induce players of his level to cheat too. In other words, he backed away from his initial implication that IMs like himself are "above" cheating, therefore morally superior to us riff-raff.)

As I said in my 11:25 comment on this thread, I agree that strong players' opinions concerning over-the-board matters deserve some deference. The class prize issue is not an over-the-board matter; and in fact, the quality of IM Finegold's arguments on that topic provide the best possible evidence that strong players can NOT think more clearly than weak players, about matters other than chess positions or technique; (in fact, the opposite might be true).

Moreover, regardless of the subject under discussion, it is neither good manners nor good business for a chess professional to dis his customers/fans the way Finegold did by the way he expressed his views about the prize structure on that other thread.

You say there are good arguments on both sides of the age-old topic of high entry fees and class prizes.

In fact there are NO good arguments against the present prize system -- at least, none that those of you who don't like large class prizes have ever cared to make.

You can talk yourself blue in the face, or type yourself blue in the fingers, but the ONLY "argument" that any pro, amateur or organizer could advance against large class prizes that would ever carry any weight is, to bring in an outside SPONSOR.

The pros, by definition, want to play for money. That money must come from somewhere. Right now a portion of it is coming from your (pros) own pockets, but a larger portion is coming from us "terrible players" who "have no talent for the game," etc. WE are the primary sponsors of multi-section chess tournaments. We would still be the sponsors even if all large tournaments were conducted as single-section (Open) events.

So if you want a piece of our money, you must give us an incentive to "buy in," as our poker-playing friends put it.

Now, some people have argued (I forget if it was on this thread or the related one) that running large chess tournaments might be an equally, or almost equally, profitable proposition if the prize structure was changed to remove the opportunity for us patzers to garner a sizable share of it.

Maybe so. Josh Gutman, an amateur who agrees with you pros on this question, proposed that last year. When I asked him when he planned to hold the First Josh Gutman Open to test out his theory, he replied that he was a college undergraduate and lacked the resources to test that or any other theory in the real world.

So it boils down to this: A handful of people, some of whom are 2400-2600 (or higher) as chess players, BUT ALL OF WHOM ARE 1100 AND BELOW AS BUSINESSMEN, seem to think you know better about what would and would not work from a business standpoint (i.e. structuring prize funds so as to maximize entry fee revenue and organizer's profit), than a man who though not quite your equal when it comes to playing chess, is at least 2800 (actually, probably much higher) as a chess businessman and organizer: Bill Goichberg.

As long as we amateurs are the tournament's main sponsors, it is obviously the height of hubris and stupidity for anyone -- least of all, someone whose main credential is their ability to move chess pieces well -- to claim they could successfully manage or even properly understand the economic aspect of tournament organizing. (Recall that Finegold said publicly that he couldn't understand how the amateur entry fees were subsidizing the Open section prizes -- something that takes little more than 9th grade math, if even that.)

You do have another alternative. If you don't want us to have any influence or economic claim over prize structures, find another source of funding for tournaments. The upper echelons of golf, tennis, and the other sports mentioned in this thread, have managed to do that; that is why THEIR pros are able to play in tournaments where they aren't merely gambling to redistribute their own entry fees OR amateurs' entry fees.

Those sports have external sponsors. Chess pros, and the chess politicians who are supposed to represent their interests, have never shown much inclination for that.

So if you want to free yourselves from the influence of us terrible players, that is what you have to do. Otherwise, you can keep complaining about the big class prizes next year, and the year after, and the decade after, and the century after, and it won't make a bit of difference.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 23:26

Jon J,

I am not here to defend Ben or his views. I was speaking of the overall belittling responses titled players get (for example those who replied to the cheating incident thread).

No offense, but since I never spoke in any negative manner of class players - nor do I think negatively of players based on their ratings, I am a bit amused at how you continuously making derogatory references (sarcastic or not). IMO it says more about you than about me or anyone else...

I actually did not express my own opinion on class prizes, but since you were so adamant in one direction I'll play devil's advocate (more for the sake of making the argument than necessarily it being my opinion).

Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient. That is an anomaly, as I said before. It is not absurd for some to find this ridiculous and wrong. There are also many residual problems with that phenomenon:

There hasn't been a year without stories of cheating. In my active years as a player and when visiting, I have witnessed plenty of these. From the latest one to the famous Von Neumann case several years ago. Players getting caught looking at opening books in the store (during a round), deal offers from potential prize winners (I was offered $1500 in 1992 to throw a game - I refused, and I was not alone), people getting advice from much higher rated players. Sandbaggers, of all ages and levels who are solid players year round and every summer manage to fit so comfortably and sneak in to try for an undeserving class prize, foreigners with high national ratings who enter lower rated sections and win them (sometimes they get caught, sometimes not). With my own eyes I saw a strong master from another country (someone I knew personally), playing in a lower section. Puzzled, I asked how he managed that miracle, and was answered he was playing under an assumed name... (Yes, I reported him to the TD). Contrastingly, at the no less well-attended US Amateur teams and individual (especially East), where there are no cash prizes, there is significantly much less cheating.

Parenthetically, you mentioned poker and buy-ins well ok then: how about having all tournaments with one open section, where GM's and unrateds compete for the same prizes, with the same starting conditions, like poker tournaments?

Two last comments:
1. Sadly, chess is not enough of a spectator sport to provide enough sponsorship for as many pros as golf or tennis do. I find this fact a shame (and I have never played chess for money btw), not some fact to happily flaunt.
2. Just because there is demand to Goichberg's supply of huge class prizes events, doesn't make it 'oh-so-lovely'. I can think of other markets where there is demand for something and someone who supplies it, and many wish it would have been different.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 01:48

Thanks to Jon Jacobs for sticking with this. There are a few relatively highly rated club players around my neck of the woods (San Diego) who grouse about class prizes.

Here is a simple explanation:

Each class prize gives members of said class an expected return on investment (ROI) (baseline would be 1 -- 1 dollar in entry fee should average 1 dollar return).

In a pool, let's say you have 4 classes, there should be a slight graduation of ROI:

- class B (ROI ~ .8)
- class A (ROI ~ .85)
- expert (ROI ~ .95)
- master (ROI ~ 1.1)

Some fees are taken for administration of course. As can clearly be seen, there is subsidy trickling upward for the top-players. This subsidy isn't so large as to dissuade lower class players from entering but isn't so small that the top players go hungry.

Make sense? I'm amazed that these IMs can't figure this out.

-Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:02

Thanks to Jon Jacobs for sticking with this. There are a few relatively highly rated club players around my neck of the woods (San Diego) who grouse about class prizes.

Here is a simple explanation:

Each class prize gives members of said class an expected return on investment (ROI) (baseline would be 1 -- 1 dollar in entry fee should average 1 dollar return).

In a pool, let's say you have 4 classes, there should be a slight graduation of ROI:

- class B (ROI ~ .8)
- class A (ROI ~ .85)
- expert (ROI ~ .95)
- master (ROI ~ 1.1)

Some fees are taken for administration of course. As can clearly be seen, there is subsidy trickling upward for the top-players. This subsidy isn't so large as to dissuade lower class players from entering but isn't so small that the top players go hungry.

Make sense? I'm amazed that these IMs can't figure this out.

-Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:03

Aviv,

Your comment:

Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient

Rings a bit hollow. Virtually any game that can "rate" people can be handicapped and folks that are successful in their handicap bracket will likely out-earn better players due to this. Golf, bridge, scrabble, squash, tennis and I'm sure many others follow this model at the club/amateur level. Any game that is funded by its player pool will be subject to this form of economics (pretty much anything non-professional). People want a chance to win.

Ever go to a golf tournament and notice that the best prizes are usually randomly drawn? People don't want to simply write a check to the top players, they want a chance at a prize (earned or no!).

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 02:17

While not much bothered by the comments, I would like to point out that being a lower class player does NOT mean that one is without talent. For every person who dedicates him or herself to chess and gains a title, there are dozens or more others who could have gained GM or IM titles if they had the time or inclination to dedicate themselves to it. I suspect that there are hundreds if not thousands of casual amateur players who are only A class or experts who could be IMs or even GMs if they were able to devote themselves to chess full-time. I am only a 2100 player, but I only get to participate in tournaments about once every three years, so I do feel I could have been an IM if I had the chance. I don't feel bad about this, as I chose the career path that I have instead of chess (plus I came to chess late at the age of 16). I merely point this out so that titled players can stop calling us amateurs 'talentless'. We may not be as good as they are, but we often have just as much talent for the game.
Posted by: knight_tour at July 10, 2006 02:42

I feel exactly the same as knight_tour. I reached low-expert status by age 16, but my tournament activity ended with h.s. graduation. My interest in the game did not lessen, but alternate forms of leisure and certainly more lucrative careers beckoned. The paucity of strong native players is precisely due to the enormous opportunity cost of playing chess in America. Is someone with a 150 IQ better off making 2500 FIDE and playing for chump change, or hitting Wall Street (if money is their objective), or becoming a scientist, wherein the avg IQ for Nobel laureates is 145?

Even 40 y.o. GM immigrants from the USSR are probably better off spending one-to-three years retraining themselves for another career, I bet.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 10, 2006 04:23

There is only one solution to stop all this cheating - make everyone play naked!
Posted by: sa at July 10, 2006 06:50

SA, I offer to host next year's Women's Championship.
Posted by: KCotreau at July 10, 2006 08:21

I hope someone who has read everything comes along and says. I am going to do something about this problem. I am going to go out and get corporate sponsorship for a tournament.

come on there must be someone here who knows someone in a corporation.

You know Poker is doing fairly well. Has anyone ever cheated at Poker. LOL. well how come poker is doing so well and chess is down in the pits. we have hired and pay for professionals to run the USCF now lets get some results for paying them our money. the USCF should have at least one person who is assigned to drum up corporate sponsorship. that is obviously super important. I can never remember a report out of uscf giving their progress and work on gaining corporate sponsorship. that corporate sponsorship like AF4C came from the people not from the top as far as I know. AF4C was not formed because USCF was knocking on their doors.

I want to ask. what doors has USCF knocked on in the past 50 years. I have to make it a long time so we might get some hits. at least I hope there are some hits in 50 years.
Posted by: tommy at July 10, 2006 08:51

I know nothing about this case, but I'll tell you this: if I saw someone who can play 7 Qe1 (to say nothing of 8 Be3)against Kacheishvili beat Smirin the next day without Smirin blundering horribly, I'd get very, very suspicious indeed. Some moves just tell you that a player is of a certain level, and that's one of them.
Posted by: rdh at July 10, 2006 08:58

Let's include singing, music and acting among fields that often over-reward the talentless.

"Chess is one of few (maybe the only?) fields where someone(s) who is truly not proficient can win more money than someone who is considerably more proficient".
Posted by: pix at July 10, 2006 09:38

About 7.Qe1: suppose a camera was the outbound interface, and suppose the (hypothetical) collaborator miskeyed ...e6 as the plausible ...e5. 7.Qe1 is not a top choice, but it keeps a White pull per Fritz.
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 10, 2006 10:24

Oops, I meant to say there might be perspective issues, especially when pawns are on central files.

Demand stereoscopic cameras!
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 10, 2006 10:27

Tommy, I am repulsed by the remarks of Ben Finegold and Aviv Friedman after reading the whole thread (after both initial posts) that I am completely turned-off to the idea of searching for corporate sponosorship.

Finding a sponsor shouldn't be too hard for most tournaments, sure as the prize structure increases to hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions it will be much more difficult, but for state championships and other events on par with those tournaments it shouldn't be too hard to find a company who would like to sponsor it.

An idea is if a company who makes a chess engine such as fritz or shredder wants to sponsor a tournament that all players who play in the tournament must sign a contract that if they win they must play a free game against the computer for publicity.

There are many ideas such as this that should and will attract sponsors to mid-size events, but with the arrogance and elitist attitudes shown by some here I don't know who from the chess community would be willing to set that up.

On a side note, I realize that Aviv was playing the Devil's advocate, but since he defended Ben Finegold without disclosing his own position I can only assume that he thinks similarly to his line of argument.

Anyway, I just want to thank all the masters including GM Hikaru Nakamura for taking the stance and saying "Ben Finegold is absolutely dead wrong when he refers to the open section and how 'top players deserve all the money.'" I would not mind contributing finacially to players who take this attitude and do not put themselves above the rest.

After all, even though some may devote their whole life to chess, it is just a game. And I find it refreshing when top players realize it is as such, and those are the people who I wouldn't mind subsidizing, and make me want to go out and find corporate sponsorship to help them out.
Posted by: shropshire at July 10, 2006 10:53

I think that Ben has completely forgotten that he was also a weak patzer once upon a time. Without these prizes, why would any average amateur player even play chess or devote time to it at all? Besides, if Ben really feels this way about prizes, why doesn't he just go into the skittles room and hustle some weaker players like I do on some occasions?

Although I do not know Aviv's position on this matter regarding prizes, there are many other sports and professions where the money is balanced out more equally. Also, Aviv, I guess you forgot about poker. After all, I could always beat a top card player, but yet a 1000 rated player could never beat Topalov.

Shropshire is absolutely right on this matter; chess is a game, and quite a few people fail to enjoy it for what it is and not what it could be.

It is also worth adding that in the past there has been substantial corporate sponsorship in the past, but these companies never get any return on their investment. I think it is also sad that a pioneer like Maurice Ashley who has been so selfless in trying to promote chess is left with nothing to show for it.

I suggest that Ben and Aviv amongst others go outside and get some fresh air. Enjoy life and live it with zest.

Thanks to everyone for their support over the years.

Adios,
Hikaru Nakamura

Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at July 10, 2006 11:12

Andrew and others,

It seems that no matter how clear I try to be in my posts, people either don't read them fully, or decide to interpret them their own way.

I am NOT SAYING that class players should sponsor the pros! I am arguing about class sectionals with huge ef and huge prizes. The San Diego formula is nice and irrelevant to what I said. I also don't refer to class players as talentless, I specifically used the terms 'truly not proficient' and 'considerably more proficient' (and mind you, the reference here is to tournament/competition).

My devil's advocate point was NOT to ban/eliminate competition of class players, it ONLY questioned the value and logic of class sectionals with the aforementioned high ef and prizes. If you guys think it doesn't breed cheating, then sorry, you live in another world.

In most places (all over Europe for example), amateurs play for trophies, books, small prizes with very low ef's. There's no cheating there btw... Oh and, chess there is no less popular.

There is no arrogance in thinking that a class player should not play for or win tens of thousands of dollars in a competition (especially one that is closed for others by a rating limit). Prizes, if there are such should go to the best, and that doesn't mean me either. You want to compete with the pros a la poker tourneys? give all a fair and even start and a shot for all at the same prizes.

I don't know anything about how it works with amateur golf or tennis. I assume there are competitions based on ability, but are there high ef, huge prize restricted competitions? I am curious.

Lastly for the last time and for the love of god, I will clarify and state:

1. I am not looking down at any chess players. Lord knows I can easily look high enough to see my own shortcomings first, and as a chess teacher I find it pleasing to help and enrich others who love the game.
2. I don't think of lower rated players as talentless, although like in any field (see American Idol:)), there are people who are not going to excel (did I mention my drawing abilities yet?)
3. The point that was made previously here, is that class competitions with huge prizes have a correlation to excess cheating. I agree with that, and sampled in my previous post.
4. As I said, class players need not sponsor the pros, and on the same token there is legitimacy to the devil's advocate argument that they shouldn't play for huge sums in restricted tournaments either. If there are prizes, they should go to anyone who can win them.

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 11:20

There are some things which are rather disturbing being posted on this blog. The first is the lack of accord given to "titled" or strong players. John Bartholomew for example must have played easily hundreds of events and to dismiss his point of view as being that of a sore loser is questionable. The thing is, that to reach a decent level in chess you have to accept that your loses are your own fault. This is why accusations of cheating are very rare at the highest level. The fact is some of those questioning him might be purely "online" players(no offense implied), who were not present at the event, nor have they played an event in 20 years. Let me just say that to play 23 moves, many of which are not even the best objectively, according to one particular engine in a row is beyond statistically improbable. That, combined with previous allegations and completely bizzare behavior give me no doubt that the guy was cheating. Note that it is not about the result... Kazim made a much a better result than Varshavsky, but it was clear to everyone that he was just playing well. I also want to respond to this idea that the open section deserves all of the money. Philosophically, I sympathize with this. How much did the GM's win for tying in the open section? Surely much less than any winner in a class section. Unfortunately this is what funds the tournaments and makes it profitable to the organizers. In addition, should some 1399 throws down $400 just to see it disappear into the hands of Hikaru Nakamura? The way I see it, chess tournaments without sponsorship are just organized gambling and Goichberg has the formula for this down pretty good. Now let me say the semi-offensive part of what I want to say(hopefully no one is still reading this thread or this far down in the musings of an idiot). "Top" American players often complain about how this or that is unfair and how difficult it is to make a living playing chess, but I see no reason why it should be possible to make a living playing chess(teaching chess is possibly a different story). For the very best one, could argue that they make a living because they bring joy to millions with their games. But everyone else? Why are they so priveleged? A 2500 player who is a "professional" is a "professional", primarily for his own pleasure. If this is the case, aren't the current conditions enough?
Posted by: Daniel Pomerleano at July 10, 2006 11:29

Hikaru is right on the money.
Posted by: Michael Parsons at July 10, 2006 11:54

It's pretty sad to see a player of ANY rating/strenght investing over US$1000.00 in the hopes of winning ten times that amount.

The truth is that the only one benefitting from this exploitation of the average chessplayer's disfunctional life is the tournament organizer (Goichberg, 90% of the time in the USA).

It is worth mentioning that the regular "sucker" falling for Goichberg's "offer" includes GM's and IM's. Because, even though some of them don't pay an entry fee (GM), they do incur significant traveling/lodging expenses for the tournament, not to mention the loss of income for the time spent playing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ON CHEATING:

The greatest danger is not in some crazy, stupid ass like this Varshavski guy. He is obviously too dumb to cheat successfully. The effective way to cheat would be in the Open Section, with a 2400+ player (or even a GM), who only needs computer assistance SOME OF THE TIME. Think about it: a GM/2400+ plays his pet lines in every game (something he can do easily for the first 15 moves) and then makes the occassional strategic trip away from the board - either to the bathroom or to "chat" with an accomplice. Six or seven "trips" per game (more or less trips needed according to how strong the cheater is or how complicated the game is) would be enough to have an excellent tournament without much chance of getting caught.

That's the real danger...
Posted by: tgg at July 10, 2006 12:02

tgg it's a grand once per year!
That is less then $3 a day!
And it is FUN FUN FUN to compete.
Are you a monk who does not drink or smoke or go to the movies or watch tv or gamble etc (I know you are on the internet)
there are a million ways to waste time and money and chess is one the best an least harmful.
Posted by: Bobby Blake at July 10, 2006 12:28

Hikaru,

Your comment touched the very essence of this issue. You said: "...Without these prizes, why would any average amateur player even play chess or devote time to it at all?"

Because it's a fun hobby and a challenging game that is an escape from the everyday? Because (and you know this well better than me) the more you study it and know about it, the more fun it is? Because in most hobbies you invest time, effort and money without even expecting to cash in on them - you do them for your own fun and enrichment?

I am not buying that these few big money events is what's keeping amateurs in the game. I am willing to claim that even 'rating' would place above that.

This obsession with winning big money prizes (and face it, it's a lotto when played fairly) leads to so much ugliness.

I already mentioned before some the cheating, but here is the latest: 2-3 days ago I was chatting with a chess-playing friend who pointed me to the USCF MSA section. He shows me how (not for the first time!) some youngsters who are rated in the 2200 level, go 0/4 in a local event against players rated up to 1000(!) points below them. All so their rating will go down for the then-upcoming world open...

Aviv
Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 12:34

Also it is fun to travel.
II would love to play the varied locals of Prague, Hasting Engalnd Havana Cuba.
I promised myself that next year I would play in open in the Netherlands during Corus and in the Jamaica.
Posted by: Bobby Blake at July 10, 2006 12:53

Aviv, you should report those people for sandbagging. The USCF office DOES investigate such complaints. I am virtually certain that Goichberg's CCA would do that as well, and would be quick to slap the suspects with a rating "floor" that would restrict them to playing in the Open section.

In fact it is cowardly and irresponsible for anyone to tout such allegations on a public blog merely to make a point, and not take it any further. If you know that the allegations hold water -- which would be the case if you actually viewed the suspicious records in the MSA -- then you have an obligation to directly bring that information to the attention of USCF authorities so they can investigate.

You of all people should know this, because you have often worked for the USCF as a Chess Life correspondent.

Please forgive my critical tone, if you already have done or are on the point of doing what I urged. If not, now you know what you must do.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 12:58

After going back and forth with Ben a few times about amateur prizes, I specifically asked him and Fluffy to comment upon "B players" suggestion that all monies stay in each section per paid player. No subsidizing of the open section, which Ben believes to be a reality anyway.(chuckle) No answer by either, all's quiet on the Ben and Fluffy front. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but it speaks volumes to me.

Currently, and at best, in this country, chess is a symbiotic relationship between professional and amateur. As amateurs, we pay entry fees that help to subsidize the top boards for their fine play. For that, we get to watch, enjoy, share and hopefully learn from their excellent play and if fortunate enough, win a decent amout of money to cover the large amount of expenses occurred.

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. It's nice to see that someome as talented as GM Nakamura thinks so. So... in my opinion, IM Fineberg has let the proverbial cat out-of-the-bag, and by that I mean, he thinks way too HIGHLY of himself.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 10, 2006 13:04

What tgg describes in the On cheating section happens in real life.
Posted by: peach at July 10, 2006 13:17

Aviv,

"The San Diego formula is nice and irrelevant to what I said"

It is not "a San Diego formula" but a numeric example of how class prizes "work". It seems that reasonably intelligent people don't understand this too well. It was not in response to your post(s) and its relevance is in regard to IMs Vigorito and Feingold. This thread started previously and you have not read things as carefully as you ought to have considering that you want to critique others' interpretation skills.

Your posts are reasonable and intelligent otherwise and I don't object to anything in particular -- save for what I already brought up. This barrage is almost all inspired by the two aforementioned IMs.

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 13:39

My apologies, my last post should have read IM Feingold not IM Feinberg. Freudian for my doctor whose name is Feinberg.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 10, 2006 14:31

Clarification on the ICC computer test of Varshavsky games:

The ICC computer cheating team conducted a blind test, not knowing the identity of any of the players. ICC was not proactive in the transaction.
Posted by: Mark Ginsburg at July 10, 2006 15:02

I just want to say that I like the way Jon Jacobs thinks thought the problems and the solutions. I will not say I agree with everything. but I do like the way he analyses the issues.

I also agree with Nakamura. I hope everyone listens closely to his views and gives them good consideration. I would love to see strong corporate sponsorship for chess. like golf. having weekly prizes of a million dollars so talented people like Nakamura and others could receive their just reward for their talents.

I would love to see the day when the winnings for top players like kamsky and nakamura will be higher than for golf players like tiger woods. who is also a nice person. I do not want to bring down golf winnings, I just want chess winnings to get up there also.

just think about it. even a race horse who is not a human. can win a million dollars for a 2 or 3 minute dash around the track. a couple of good races in one or two years and he is retired to a life of leasure and all the fine ladies his heart desires.

I do not think we must look to the makers of chess software for corporate sponsorship. we need to find it from the regular companies like coca cola and mac donalds Intel and IBM, etc.

who are the people putting up the big money for golf. they all can not be golf club companies.

let us look at european tournaments. it was said above that they have low entry fees, small prizes and are sponsored by corporations. so the TD gets paid by the corporation for organizing the tournament. here is the us it is different. and so why do we have these expensive tournaments. it is simple. it is the ONLY way for the TD to make big money. if the entry fee was $10 instead of $400 and we had 2000 players the total gross income would still only be $20,000. while 1300 at $400 is about $500,000 so to make a big chunk of money the TD must run a big money tournament.

But make no bones about it. the reason for the big money tournament is for the TD to make more money. not for the players to make more money.

Now lets look at the corporate sponsorship of AF4C. how much publicity did they get out of all the money they spent. well they had the chess people run things and guess what happened. the press releases never went out beyond the local area of san diego. in other words the chess people did not see to it that the corporation got what it paid for. publicity. so we are coming closer to killing another corporate sponsor because we are not professional in our approach.

so over the last year what has USCF done to help corporate sponsorship in usa. well it just about killed its only sponsor and has done nothing to find any one else.

all this intelligence. will someone please use some of it.
Posted by: tommy at July 10, 2006 15:13

I have strongly disagreed with Finegold's views on large class prizes and stated that in several posts. But I do agree that it is troublesome that earnings opportunities for top US based players are as limited as they are. I just don't believe that the best way to solve the problem is to begrudge class players the fun they derive from playing for big prizes ... especially since the amateur players are self-funding those prizes.

In fact, the existence of amateur chess players, who like the game enough to invest the amounts of money that they do is a GOOD thing, for amateurs and pro's alike.

It's a misnomer that sponsors pay for the sporting talent of players, in any sport. What they really pay for is the impact that displays of those skills have on others. Nike & other companies don't pay Tiger Woods ten's of millions of dollars because he can score low on the golf course. They pay him because of the large numbers of people who follow Tiger's exploits ... attending the tournaments that he plays in, buying the same brand of golf attire that he wears, using the same type of equipment, being influences by what he endorses, etc. Likewise, having a high chess rating, or an international title, doesn't carry with it any entitlements to earnings... not in the US anyway.

Golf pro's have become savvy enough to encourage participation in the game. Doing so enhances their economic success. I don't expect to hear Tiger say "It's a shame that all of those weak amateur players are allowed to play on the Pebble Beach golf course. Just because they can afford to pay the greens fees, dress well,and buy high end clubs, doesn't mean that they are anything other than terrible golfers. All that they are doing is taking away the valuable time slots that us pro's could use to play real golf."

It other words, professional chess players need to take responsibilty for creating an attractive "product" that will cultivate more fans, and through those fans, realize the sponsorship potential that we all believe exists.
Posted by: RP at July 10, 2006 15:37

Andrew first,

I used the phrasing 'San Diego formula' as what I thought would be an economical way of referring to it, that's all.

Forgive my absence of clairvoyance for not knowing that this thread started in another thread. How was I suppose to know it!? I just responded in the thread I was reading *shrug*.

My post spoke of the responses that titled players got and often get. I did not single out Ben Finegold (I was actually more puzzled by the off the cuff dismissal of the players who spoke of the specific cheating case).

John J,

Your last remark's pedagogical/lecturing tone is how I got into this thread in the first place. I spoke on two issues: the attitude towards titled players, and the cheating story from the WO (and the issue of megabuck class sectionals). I agreed with the statement that those money events bring out a lot of cheating, and brought up some examples from my own experiences (by no mean all the examples I have...)

When you to say it is cowardly and irresponsible to mention these when arguing the point I am arguing, you manage to stump me... Do you doubt that all these happened?

As for 'doing the right thing' well lets see... hmmm... I exposed the cheater who played under an assumed name, whom I knew personally, while at the tournament venue without fear for retaliation from that person. In another case, I caused a pretty big scene when I went to the TD and told her my opponent offered me $1500 to lose the game (well, the TD made the scene while we and others were at the boards:)). So, I'll let you conclude to your heart's content if I choose to do the right things or not.

Aviv

Posted by: Aviv Friedman at July 10, 2006 15:39

Whew! I read most of both threads.

Every entry fee / prize structure, in the absence of sponsorship, must survive the unforgiving crucible of the marketplace.

Given the status quo, I'm wondering "why" players have such solidarity with other players of similar rating. Or to put it another way, how often are the winners of large class prizes really typical of that class? How often does a typical class player win a large class prize? Non-typical prize winners might include cheaters, sandbaggers, and possibly even juniors. What really is the "ROI" for the typical class player in a big money tournament? One might make a graph with ROI on one axis, and size of the class prizes on another. My guess would be, after accounting for the amounts creamed off for open sections (but not the cost of food and hotel rooms), that as the size of the class prizes increases, the ROI of the typical class player decreases.

Maybe the class players would achieve a better ROI by grouping on some basis other than rating, at big money / big entry fee events.

Posted by: Jonathan Berry at July 10, 2006 16:00

Aviv,

No clairvoyance is required...Jon Jacobs wrote above (to you):

"You need to be aware of the full context of the discussion, so if you're going to comment at all about what is basically a low-level flame war between IM Ben Finegold and a number of us amateurs, you should read the 'World Open concludes' thread starting with his post about money prizes creating the cheating problem among amateurs."

I don't think that there is really much debate stemming from your comments.

-Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 10, 2006 16:30

In response to Hikaru Nakamura:

I picked the game up as a adult and my rating class is "Abysmal." I always play up, so I don't expect to ever win the rating section I play in. So why do I play tournaments? Because it's challenging, it's rewarding to reason my way out of a jam or into a win, it gets me to think about something other than work, it allows me to reconnect with players with whom I've developed a friendship over the years, and most of all, because it's fun! (Well, ok, the tournament I failed to win a single game wasn't loads of fun, but still). I can promise you that I do not care one whit about prize money. I don't mind paying the entry fee only to see it land in the hands of the top players. In fact, I am happy to do it. And I am willing to bet that I am not the only one out there with that attitude.

So without taking any position at the moment on whether class prizes are inherently "good" or "bad," please don't forget that there are people out there who like tournaments just for the fun of it, not for the money!
Posted by: cam at July 10, 2006 16:33

Aviv, I admit my language there was a bit inflammatory. What I was railing about was the possibility that you and/or your friend who showed you the sandbagging evidence you cited (the crosstables that showed multiple 2200 players going 0-4 against people rated 1200 and below to get under 2200 before the World Open), might have FAILED to notify the USCF office about what you saw.

Your citing such observations in a debate is fine, if factual; but if factual, then you also have/had a very real obligation to report them to the authorities.

The fact that you did report cheaters/bribers/sandbaggers in other situations when you came in direct contact with them is praiseworthy, but not terribly relevant to the instance at hand.

A couple months ago a co-signer of my anti-cheating petition brought an equally egregious sandbagging case to my attention, in a similar way. It involved a Chicago Expert who lost several games to children with 500 and 600 ratings in one or two events late last year, then proceeded to enter an Under-2000 section (National Open? North American Open?) and win a top prize.

When I examined that link and satisfied myself that it was indeed blatant sandbagging, I urged my ally to notify the authorities, in terms almost as stern as those I used on you.

I may have been remiss in not following up to make sure he did so and doing something myself if he hadn't. However, I DID soon see that the particular case was the subject of an extensive thread on the USCF Forums, which is read by many TDs -- so I figured it probably was coming to the attention of the right people.

(N.B., there was some discussion there of whether the TD of the kids' event where the low-life dumped his rating points, might deserve some sanction for submitting the tournament for rating without flagging the suspicious games. There also was some discussion about writing a computer program that could monitor rating reports on a tournament-by-tournament basis for patterns that suggest sandbagging. However, nothing like that is done at the moment. The USCF rating technician(s) are not in a position to double-check tournament reports on a routine basis -- but they do welcome tips about specific instances, which they will then look at.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 17:03

it seems to me to be a simple matter to run a computer program that looks for people dropping their rating before the world o