Why would someone with that kind of tech ability bother cheating at chess? As the Ferengi say: “Where’s the profit?”
Well, fundamentally because it’s there. But there are also relatively large class prizes at stake. And there might be an underground market for the device once built.
Why do people cheat at online unrated blitz where both players use handles and nothing is at stake?
Also, I’m unconvinced that engineering this particular cheat would be that big of a challenge to someone technically adept, although being able to cloak the hacked device to a suspicious TD’s cursory exam might be harder.
I’m surprised you ask that after the “Cat in the Hat” and other tales of technoid larceny.
This is hilarious!!!
(1) I listen to music via headphones, especially on club night in a rated game so I can control the noise in all aspects.
(2) I now record my moves with something that is identical to an eNotate device,… an eNotate device.
(3) The Dell Axim x51 is 2005 technology, old technology. I currently use an Ipod Touch as my PDA keeping my schedule, contact information and other PDA things active. So this Dell Axim is used solely as a scorekeeping device. It would take quite a bit of work to come up with such an elaborate program to pass as eNotate, the program, and have an analysis engine that even broadcasts the moves, verbally, over an FM signal.
The eNotate is quite proprietary and has a distinctive screen at startup. The person seeking to fake this would need to do quite a bit of work, not enough to warrant winning a chess game against me in Peoria, Illinois.
Sure, I wouldn’t know, but I bet I could and would. If someone were doing this their behavior would be very strange. The program and/or PDA unit would also look different.
Recall the time when the fellow was caught a couple of years ago at the Chicago Open or the World Open or somewhere. Cheaters never prosper. We are playing chess after all and even the big prizes like $6000 aren’t worth the trouble of this type of elaborate cheating. It’s not as if anyone in this scene is trying to win big like in a casino.
As I said in an earlier post, some might be paranoid thinking someone could or would cheat like this. Can you show me anyone that has come up with this hacking, FM broadcasting, GM strength analyzing system yet? I bet not…
Just out of curosity how many large class prize events are there per year? Especially in your locality.
Obviously not – if I could show you one, this would be bigger news than some discussion in USCF forum thread.
But all the components seem to involve relatively mature technology. For a few bucks, you can buy little bluetooth devices to broadcast on FM. There are chess engines all over the place that play at least 2200 strength – I bought one for a few bucks on my Palm Centro. Duplicating the behavior of the eNotate UI couldn’t be all that hard, at least from the screen shots I’ve seen. Glue this stuff together with software and you’ve got it.
Would building something like this be cost effective? Probably not. Is it cost effective to write a virus? To tag a garbage can? Some technically adept kid might decide to do it just because.
If I were more of a gambling man, I’d be willing to wager that if I offered, say $5,000, as a cash prize, no questions asked, for the first one placed in my hot little hand, one would show up in a few months.
In this area, open top prizes would be less than problematic. But aren’t all the big class prize events national?
Let us say we accept your argument that such a device could be constructed easily and cheaply enough. Once the person came under the suspicion of cheating wouldn’t the visible devices like headphones, pda etc be the first things inspected? It seems to me that your argument is merely that because they can be used to cheat with they should be outlawed. But what about the senario of a hidden video camera (say in the clock or even planted in the room previously before the tournament) that transmits to an outside source views of the written scoresheet and then through a clever use of mirrors sends moves to the cheating player, should we then outlaw written scoresheets simply because they can be used to cheat with? But then we would have to outlaw the board itself because the hidden camera could focus on that. Oh yeah and Mirrors would need to be banned along with all reflective surfaces. Smoke, just in case of smoke signals should be banned. Wait a minute I think we are covered there, Smoking is already mostly banned.
Sure.
And a few years ago, you could have argued sarcastically that “wouldn’t a big stocking cap be the first thing inspected” or “wouldn’t a hearing aid be the first thing inspected”.
Devices that can’t withstand a reasonably casual inspection are only the first wave.
That’s not necessarily my argument, although I wouldn’t take serious issue with one who so argued.
My primary issue was with the claim that cheating with such a device would be easy to detect. As electronic devices proliferate, their illegitimate use will become harder to detect.
The Monroi device is proprietary hardware as I understand it. Now, we’re getting recording devices that are simply applications on general purpose devices. Much easier to hack.
There’s a continuum of technology available for cheating. The stuff you mention in jest is Rube Goldberg and unlikely to be effective or employed. But a fake hearing aid was used not that long ago. And it was detected only because the perp was dumb enough to have left the radio part number on the device.
Sorry, got carried away. My real point is twofold. I don’t believe we should punish the innocent people who wish to use new technology. And secondly by banning certain devices we tend to believe that the problem has been solved.
Sure. But we should also avoid becoming so enthused over the new technologies that we become blind to potential problems or nefarious uses.
It’s a sad commentary on human nature that the problem of cheating will probably never be solved. But we can, at least, try to make it less convenient.
Unless it is advertised in advance as a rules variation. That appears will happen for this one tournament. Don’t worry, you’re too old to play in it.
Michael Aigner
P.S. Leave your time delay clocks at home too, as analog clocks are officially preferred.
So a Scholastic tournament is run back in the OLD technology of at least 14 years ago. How sad this is.
Who’s going to show the kids how to set an analog clock?
Who’s going to teach the kids how to read an analog clock?
The old fashioned TD/organizer who can’t read or set a digital clock.
Most of the scholastic clubs around here have large collections of analog clocks. However, those kids who play exclusively scholastic tournaments (rated U1200) see very few digital clocks. As a result, the kids have far more trouble understanding all of the different options on digital clocks than how to read an analog clock.
Michael Aigner