Slashdot Mirror


Top French Chess Players Suspended For Cheating

cf18 writes "The French chess federation has suspended three top players for violating sporting ethics at a chess olympiad in Siberia last September. The allegation claims while the first member was playing, a second member would watch the game via internet, use software to find the best move, and send it to the third member via SMS. The third member would then sit himself at a particular table in the competition hall. Each table represented an agreed square on the chess board."

38 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Hand gestures by denshao2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would have been much easier and less obvious than changing seats for every move.

    1. Re:Hand gestures by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You wouldn't need a whole lot of signals. It could very easily be as simple as "yes or no" signals. At this level of play you are far beyond "wondering which piece to move where." Problems are much more likely to present themselves in terms of "does this line lead to some tactical trouble that I don't see?" Chess has some pretty weird aspects that stem from its simplicity.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Hand gestures by IorDMUX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Warning! Parent is worse than a Goatse Troll!

      It's a Rebecca Black Troll!

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    3. Re:Hand gestures by More_Cowbell · · Score: 3, Informative
      Possibly, but it's not like it was how they were caught, so does it matter?
      From TFA:

      The alleged strategy was discovered by French chess federation Vice President Joanna Pomian, who spotted a text message on the mobile phone of one of the three players while the French team was involved in a game.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    4. Re:Hand gestures by davester666 · · Score: 2

      That's why I stick to checkers. It's too complicated for me to have any problem playing it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Hand gestures by SmilingBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were even dumber. The Independent wrote:

      The alleged manipulations came to light because Mr Marzolo did not have a mobile telephone of his own. As a result of financial problems he had been barred by all mobile companies. His telephone had been loaned to him by another senior player for whom he once worked, Joanna Pomian, the vice president of the federation.

      During the championship, she accidentally discovered a message from Mr Hauchard in Russia which read: "Hurry up and send the moves." She checked the records of the line and found Mr Marzolo had sent 180 messages to the other accused men during the competition. Most consisted of telephone numbers.

    6. Re:Hand gestures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Article is wrong. The modus operands was as follow:

      Player plays
      Moves are transmitted via the net for everyone to follow the games of the Olympiad
      Guy in France enter move in chess engine
      Guy in France send SMS to the captain of the french team
      Captain of the French team *stands* behind a specific pair of players (ie: enters the room, look at game from player 3, then game of player 7, means Feller, the cheater, have to move to the square c7)

      Cheat was discovered because the phone is owned by the vice-president of the federation who discovers the SMS later (I am simplifying a bit, but that is the spirit)

  2. Not like other sports. by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 3, Funny

    My first thought, how would steroids help in chess? Guess chess isn't like other sports.

    1. Re:Not like other sports. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Substance abusing chess players typically do Ritalin. Or not so long ago, nicotine. Neither one is banned by FIDE.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Not like other sports. by snspdaarf · · Score: 3

      So, I guess you really should let the Wookie win?

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  3. Re:naughty naughty by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've obviously never played MMORPG. :)

    People will PAY EXTRA to cheat depriving themselves of any glory in accomplishment... for the empty bragging rights that come with having something you didn't earn, and which has no inherent real world value.

    But they still do it in droves.

  4. Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My understanding was that Chess, while significantly less intractable than some games, was still something that you needed a fairly serious computer to play well fast enough to be tournament legal.

    Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought, or were these guys sufficiently low-level players that some quite ordinary software was deemed sufficiently likely to be better? I'd assume that you wouldn't take the risk of being caught cheating unless you were fairly confident that it would boost your odds of winnning, which would imply a belief that you were substantially worse than whatever software they had access to.

    1. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by gman003 · · Score: 2

      World-class players usually have a Elo rating around 2000-2500. Rybka (first one I checked) on a quad-core machine is usually rated about 3000 or so. Given that info, I would say it's pretty much plausible that a computer can beat any human player.

    2. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The question 'are computers better at chess than humans' is as meaningful as 'are submarines better at swimming than humans'

    3. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Deep Blue vs Gary Kasparov was 15 years ago. The state of the art has increased considerably. Plus, computing power has increased even more - Deep Blue was 11 gigaflops, which can be matched by a high-end gaming desktop.

    4. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by JMZero · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK - you're either fantastically stupid or you're just pretending not to understand him (which is also fantastically stupid). Obviously he didn't mean a chain of moves 1,000,000 moves long. He meant the computers consider millions of individual moves. Which they do. Some of those moves might be 10 moves away, the bulk of them will be much closer. And you, despite obviously doing some Googling, apparently haven't given up on the idea that consulting a database is in any way the prime technique a computer chess program uses (beyond the opening).

      All in all, this article has had some of the stupidest, most depressing Slashdot comments I've ever seen. It's like reading the comments on a Youtube video.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    5. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I would be fascinated to know whether there is a difference, and how large a difference, between how well people can identify computer players and how well they think that they can...

      Given the amount of game-studying undertaken by people sufficiently advanced in chess to actually have an opinion, it'd be pretty tricky to blind such a test properly; but I just have to wonder whether a 'weird computer move I can't understand' would be described in completely different terms by somebody who thinks that there is a human making it.

    6. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by Surt · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can't compare a grandmaster that has a fabulous direct knowledge of 5000-15.000 games to a database that has every important game since the invention of notation in them. My own database at this moment holds over 15 million games, That is far beyond what any human is capable of.

      Wait, so you're an AI that has learned to troll slashdot about chess?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by Jappus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't 'see' the position, they have to do math to get it. Having said that, I do use the computer to practice and analyse my games.

      And, pray tell, what do you think the brain does when it "sees" a position? There's no such thing as insight raining down from the heavens like manna. Even your brain needs to first realize how the board looks, then cross-reference that with that else it has seen in the times past and then choose an appropriate action it deems worthwhile.

      The approach to steps 2 and 3 may be slightly different, as the human brain most likely uses more heuristics, but in the end, both computers and brains follow the same logic ... and have to follow the same logic.

      There is no such thing as a free thought, to abuse a popular saying.

    8. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by jamesh · · Score: 2

      They don't 'see' the position, they have to do math to get it

      Which is different to what's going on in the depths of your mind how? The brain may not crunch numbers exactly how a computer does, but it still comes up with an output based on its inputs.

      I get that playing chess against a computer is different to playing against another person, but I don't think it's about the math.

    9. Re:Is chess solved, or were these guys midlevel? by Raenex · · Score: 2

      You miss the point. There were GM players at the early tournaments, and the guys who won them played computers and either drew or lost. At later tournaments Rybka dominated among the computers, so it as at least as strong as the earlier ones that won or drew against very good players.

      So your claim that a 2000-2100 player would beat Rybka at Fischer Random is just more bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about, as you've demonstrated over and over again. I'm not replying to you any more.

  5. Nice stunt by kju · · Score: 2

    While I despise such cheating in general, I still have to say that this is a nice stunt. I like the coding through seating step.

  6. Spotted by their own federation by camcorder · · Score: 2

    According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.

    It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.

  7. Re:How would that work ... by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

    A Grand Master is among us. *bows*

    --
    which is totally what she said
  8. Re:Computers are better than humans? by cf18 · · Score: 3, Informative
    After submitting the story I found a more detail story from The Independent.

    It mention the chess program used is called "Firebird". From google there are many reference for it in various chess forums as an open source chess engine but I can't find an official page in English.

  9. Re:PATHETIC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, parkour is just a fancy form of running away.

  10. Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail by Raenex · · Score: 2

    Keep my fine sport(!) chess, safe from those people.

    Typical sports envy. Chess is not a sport. It's a board game.

  11. Re:wow..... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    You don't play competitive, do you?

    Competitive, professional "sport" is not about sport at all. It's about money.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail by Raenex · · Score: 2

    It's not whether you are taking it serious or not, it's that the word "sport", in common usage, applies to physical activity.

    When chess fans use it, they are just trying to latch on to the popularity and good connotations of the term. Some English-speaking players have taken to calling these intellectual games "mind sports", which is just stupid.

  13. Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail by Raenex · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's not a need for a new word because "game" accurately describes what it is. There are other qualifiers like "tournament chess", "professional chess", "competitive chess", etc. that serve the same purpose without the bogus appeal to sports.

  14. Top chess players are douchebags by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I enjoy a good game of chess myself, on occasion. However, at the top level, chess is populated almost entirely by gigantic douchebags. I'm not surprised cheating went on. Look at some of Bobby Fischer's early matches. And hey, Kasparov isn't above cheating, either. His opponent didn't say anything because she knew he'd use his reputation to destroy her and anything she said.

    "An interesting example of taking back moves at the highest level of OTB chess occurred recently at the elite 1994 Linares super tournament. It's claimed that there is video tape showing that PCA World Champion Garry Kasparov, while playing Judit Polgar, moved a knight to a square which would have cost him the exchange. Apparently, even though he had released the piece, he picked it up again and moved it to another square and went on to win the game." Link to more.

    Bobby Fischer, the greatest American player ever, idolized Hitler and hated Jewish people, and cheered 9/11 on his radio show. Sample quote: "This is a wonderful day. Fuck the United States. Cry, you crybabies! Whine, you bastards! Now your time is coming." Don't think he was alone in the chess world, either, he had a lot of friends: as Gudmundur G. ThÃrarinsson, the man who arranged the famous "Cold War" match against Spassky in Iceland, said at Fischer's funeral, "In the fullness of time, history will judge the United States harshly for its treatment of Robert James Fischer."

    I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s.
    "Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by Confusador · · Score: 2

      Could you give the source for that last quotation? It sums up more eloquently than I ever could the reasons I stopped playing.

    2. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2

      We have the most advanced science in the world but our society hash't changed much has it?

      Said the guy typing away on a surface made of synthetic polymer and sending bleeps and bloops to millions of other humans on the other side of the globe, facilitated by bugs flying around the earth that absorb and repeat those bleeps and bloops, all in the blink of an eye.

    3. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Science isn't in itself any more noble than chess. We have the most advanced science in the world but our society hash't changed much has it?

      Well, it did got rid of smallpox. And polio. And famine. And backbreaking farm work. And cities get clean drinking water and their waste is purified before being released.

      But apart from medicine, plentiful food, clean water, warm houses, comfortable clothes, fast transportation, long-distance communication, contraceptives, weather forecasts, food preservation, insect repellants, electric light, sunglasses, robots, tractors, waste disposal, fire, wheel and beer... what has science ever done for us?

      It disturbs me that Monty Python seems to be such an accurate portrayal of the world.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by ultranova · · Score: 2

      And now we are dealing with over population,

      We don't have overpopulation, we are well within the carrying capacity of this world. And with population growth leveling off everywhere, we'll also stay within it.

      starvation,

      As I said, famine has been ended in industrialized countries. It still occurs in developing ones like it did here, and for the same reason: their technology - applied science - hasn't gotten good enough yet.

      war,

      War has been with us as long as there has been humans, and likely before, judging by how chimpansees act. It has nothing to do with science.

      HIV,

      What does HIV have to do with science, apart from science keeping the victims alive and non-contagious while looking for a cure?

      pollution

      Compare the pollution now and, say, a century ago. Why are the skies clear now? Because science came up with more efficient processes and waste treatment.

      and a lot of other problems.

      Well, some people still seem to think that "ignorance is strength", but perhaps advancing psychology can help with that.

      So while science solved one problem it created many other bigger problems in it's place. It's like cutting the head off a hydra. Until science is used to actually solve the problem of human nature, it's not going to really work to progress us forward.

      You'll be happy to know, then, that work is being done here all the time: psychology, mass psychology, social engineering, political theory, and if you want to be generous enough to count them as sciences even philosophy and theology are working on it all the time. They have also accomplished some rather smashing successes - unless of course you wish to argue that living as a land-slave under a feudal lord with first-night rights to your wife is better than a modern democratic republic?

      Oh, and the very reason you have time to think about "human nature" is that science has progressed to the point where you don't spend it all looking for something to eat.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      "Where cultural progress is genuinely successful and ills are cured, this progress is seldom received with enthusiasm. Instead, they are taken for granted and attention focuses on those ills that remain."
      -- Odo Marquard, Philosopher

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Top chess players are douchebags by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Oh really?
      I'm pretty sure you're a troll but I'll play anyway. If you think:
      -Living your entire life in servitude
      -Having to work while sick because there is no such "sick time" (which would probably kill you even though simple rest would have helped)
      -Turning to prayer to solve every problem you can't understand (which is basically all of them)
      -Knowledge being sequestered by the wealthy simply because books were hard to make
      -and everyone was too busy dealing with their own food, illness and wild animals to even learn to read anyway

      was somehow more conducive to solving the world's problems than the way things are now, you are quite naive. Before technology the only time you knew of a famine, flood, or disease was when it was happening to you, and then you died before you could do anything about it. Science and technology allows people to study these problems without having the pressure of not dying from them, and their study can be used to help future generations continue the work.
      Starvation? People would starve to death all the time, and no one would ever know about it.
      Overpopulation is a myth, stop perpetuating it. This planet is huge and has plenty of farmland, the problem is entirely in distribution, and lack of incentive to improve it, and people spreading out to occupy said farmland rather than living in compact residential towers.
      HIV? People would just die without even knowing what happened. It would be chalked up to a bad cold. Worse, no one would know they had it and it would have killed most of us off by now, because things like condoms wouldn't have been invented, nor would word have gotten out to be careful about it. Science didn't cause it but it did save us (as a race) from it.
      Pollution - the only one you're right about. That is a technology+human nature problem, but honestly you cannot say that it's negative effects outweigh the benefits to the majority of humans [yet]. Simply put, would you say your quality of life is better when you have to use 5-10 candles to light up a room, accidentally knock them over and burn your bedroom to ash, then had to worry about rebuilding your home?
      Anti-slavery? Before science and technology shook people's belief in weird gods, slavery was all there was!
      Human rights defense? Before our current level of societal evolution, if you had a human rights complaint, your head would be detached from its body in short order. The fact that that is not the case in most of the world is a sign of progress.

      The point made somewhere up the chain here, if everyone with a brain used that brain to play chess, we'd all be really good at chess, but none of the above would have changed, with no hope of it ever changing.

      Not to say that the 1500s quote is correct, an all work and no play society would probably solve every problem in short order, while entirely missing the joys of life.

      As for your final thought, it's simply a meaningless cliche not worthy of addressing. If all you feel like using technology for is bitching about how useless technology is, than please do us all a favor and stop using it. The rest of us will actually be using the tools given us to solve our problems, like we've been doing since the beginning of time.

  15. Re:If you're taking a game that serously, you fail by Impeesa · · Score: 2