I will retort with a snide question, “How hard is it to set a chronos clock?”
Yes, blackberry still has a phone that runs it’s own software, also Windows has it’s own proprietary phone software. Additionally will they be reviewing the users phone calls? What if I call my friend with a GM title? Is that grounds for suspicion of cheating? I don’t think it’s as simple as merely looking for chess playing programs. If you’re going to look through a phone finding chess software is very low hanging fruit. You’d also need to look at their calls, their outgoing messages, their outgoing emails, pictures, videos, basically the whole phone AND that’s assuming they don’t hide things.
Additionally why stop there? Perhaps they have a soda can camera, or perhaps someone is putting hints and tips into their yogurt? What if three blackberries means take a draw you’re worse, or what if strawberry flavor means exchange on d5? The possibilities are limitless frankly.
I know a little something about organizing and directing tournaments at the local and state level. Implementing these rules would be WAY too much of a headache for volunteer TDs and small tournaments where the top prize is three figures or less. I don’t have fear that there will be a trickle-down policy change from CCA down to the local clubs. YMMV.
Is your position:
a) that CCA (or any other director/organization) should not be allowed to take additional precautions in preventing computer cheating that are not provided by the USCF rulebook; or
b) that CCA is allowed to take additional precautions, but they shouldn’t (or they are too intrusive); or
c) something else (don’t want to put words in your mouth)
This must have been m–a–n–y years ago since I can’t remember the last time spectators could go among the tables at a national scholastic. Often it is hard to get closer than five feet from the table closest to the spectator area.
That doesn’t stop accusations of signalling. I still think the the most bizarre such accusation is from back before there were chess computer programs when a sub-800 strength parent was accused of signalling moves from the balcony to a 1200+ strength kid 50 feet away, and when the TD pointed out that the kid lost the response was “he was signalled to lose to throw off suspicion”. That said, there have been a few cases of low-tech signalling over the years, generally with the players being adults.
These rules are highly unlikely to become standard for all USCF events.
CCA is not violating any USCF rule of which I am aware by making these electronic device rules standard at its tournaments. These rules are designed to deal with the large majority of potential issues regarding electronic cheating. They may undergo some revision as they receive real-world tests, just like most other new rules. The rules are a good proactive step. As has been pointed out in this thread, people already agree to CCA’s rules when entering its events - some of which have significant variance from standard USCF rules.
It should also be noted that CCA has been both searching players and immediately forfeiting suspicious players who refuse to be searched since at least the 2006 World Open. Electronic Device Policy Rule #10 simply codifies what has been done for the last eight years, and what players have been asking to have implemented in CCA events.
Again, the solution for those who don’t like it, is to either not play in CCA events, or contact Bill Goichberg. In the meantime, the Chicago Open is in less than three weeks, and the World Open is about five weeks after that. Perhaps it would be good to wait and see how these are applied in practice.
Wasn’t there an ADM last year or the year before (Camaratta?) to have TDs assume that any player who had a phone not completely turned off in the tournament area was cheating and should be forfeited? How did that ever turn out? I don’t recall having a vote on it. I believe that it has been suggested that if a player needs to use his phone for anything to do it in front of the TD.
Ideally I would like to see A and have it so that other precautions are not necessary because the measures are sufficient (VERY optimistic of course, probably impossible admittedly).
I believe the current rule changes are much too intrusive and will cause more problems than they solve.
That is my position.
I understand that organizers are well within their purview to currently adjust the rules for a variety of things cell phone usage being one of them. My main argument here is that I don’t believe this will address the larger problem which is cheating at tournament chess. I’m under the impression it’s fairly obvious to catch someone cheating who is using a cell phone; it’s those guys like Ivanov that we can’t seem to figure out. In all seriousness we should hire him as a consultant like the NSA hired former computer hackers to assist with defense.
Additionally if we refer back to the first part of my post (as we have become sidetracked with the legal nuances of contracts) my questions still haven’t been answered to my satisfaction.
Mainly:
Does the USCF have a cheating advisory committee?
Was there a recent event that prompted this rule change?
Once I was at a national tournament, I was talking to the Chief TD for about 15 minutes. While talking to him, a parent came up and complained that I was signaling a player!
Another time, I was a spectator at a local event in an “open area” space. One of my players was done and was looking for a familiar face in the crowd - I waved him toward me and a parent complained that I was signaling.
Starting shortly after these instances, I generally avoided going to the tournament hall at all during play in any K-8 events. I came to the conclusion that some people might conclude that a master was helping his players in illegitimate ways during the event - and I just didn’t need the hassle.
This is alarming. I don’t know if the GCF is a branch of the government, but as the USCF isn’t, there is no expectation of privacy. However, there is nothing insulating the USCF from frivolous lawsuits, and as we all know (some more than others) frivolous lawsuits totally without merit can have significant cost to the USCF.
Those ‘conditions of membership’ would likely never apply retroactively, so life members might never be subject to them. Whether courts would even enforce them is a separate matter, especially if they are perceived to be one-sided.
I can answer the first of these questions. The USCF Ethics Committee handles cheating allegations. The Code of Ethics may be found here: uschess.org/content/view/7538/189/
I may have mis-read it, but the lawsuit was not over the game forfeiture but rather over the 2-year ban that the GCF applied (repealed after four months).
