Anti-cheating: the fifteen minute broadcast delay

Anti-cheating: the fifteen minute broadcast delay

By Frederic Friedel

In the past six weeks we have received a great number of letters discussing our recent article Cheating in chess: the problem won't go away. We were preparing a feedback page when suddenly people started pointing us to an article that had appeared in the Dutch magazine New in Chess. It is to be found on page six in the latest issue and is unsigned – but the style and language point to one of the editors, easily the most opinionated chess journalist we know. Here is the relevant section:

Oh dear, one hardly knows where to start. Basically the author of the NiC article is vociferously rejecting a 15-minute broadcast delay because (1) it sends a signal to sponsors that “they are supporting a game of cheaters”; (2) it does not work and other measures make it superfluous; (3) it denies people watching games on the Internet "that wonderful luxury of following the games in realtime”; and (4) most importantly, it is highly inconvenient to the chess journalist who would be forced to walk all the way from the press room to the playing hall – often dozens of yards – if they want to find out the result of a game.

The problem

Perhaps we should start our reply with the assertion that we are dealing with a real problem. Suspicion is rife in the chess world, and this can be very damaging to the game. Not just that more and more players may be tempted to use – and indeed may already be using – illegal computer assistance (those who are caught and admit to their wrongdoing inevitably say "doesn't everyone do it?"). Even graver is the fact that not just the cheaters but everyone else is affected: soon nobody will believe a brilliant game. Recently we had the following conversation with a top GM: "Did you see the 2570 performance by the 13-year-old Indonesian girl?" we asked (WFM Medina Warda Aulia, rated 2035, had just scored 5.0/7 at the Telin Chess International Tournament in Jakarta). Our GM friend's reply: "So have you figured out which engine she was using?"

It is also a problem that will not go away, certainly not by hiding it from sponsors, which is what the author of the NiC article seems to advocate. You can ask cycle racers: there was a long-term effort by the athletes, organisers and in fact parts of the media to adopt a don't-ask-don't-tell policy with regard to doping. But of course in the end it all blew up, with sponsors discovering that a majority of racers were using forbidden performance-enhancing drugs. They withdrew their support in horror, and TV channels stopped covering the events. It is cynical to suggest that in chess we must hush things up, since implementing measures that would curb the problem might send a "signal to the sponsors that they were supporting a game of cheaters." Athletics and Olympic sports have long practised rigorous doping controls, which include taking urine and blood samples in unannounced tests. This has not caused the entire athletic circuit to collapse because sponsors felt they are “supporting a game of cheaters.” On the contrary, sponsors appreciate the fact that measures are being taken to keep the sport clean and free of suspicion.

“Let's not forget that the vast majority (you and I) has no wish to cheat at all,” says the author of the NiC article. Was anyone suggesting otherwise? Let us likewise not forget that a vast majority (you and I) has no wish to rob banks, steal cars, break into houses, hijack aircraft or commit acts of violence or terror. But this does not mean we can be lax about security.

Anti cheating measures

The NiC author aggressively rejects the 15-minute broadcast delay, but proposes instead to ban cell-phones, presumably to prevent players from making phone calls during the game. We thought that was already forbidden. In our formal proposal to FIDE we went a step further and included the following details in our list of ten urgent measures that need to be taken:

Screening the players, making them go through metal detectors, is currently being practiced in some tournaments (apparently without sending a "signal to the sponsors that they are supporting a game of cheaters"). But this is only a token measure and almost useless, as we explain below.

So what can we do? “Arbiters should be trained to be alert on signalling from the audience” says the NiC article. This is a truly stunning proposal. Is the author really suggesting we should pin responsibility for catching cheats or preventing signalling on the arbiters, who would be required to scan the audience during games for anyone tugging their ear or scratching their nose in a suspicious manner? Would any arbiter in the world be willing to take the responsibility of imposing a life-long ban on tournament players (including top GMs) on the basis of what they had observed? Even bringing it to the attention of authorities would open them to immediate costly litigation by the player involved. Ask arbiters whether they would be willing to accept the NiC proposal, ask the French Chess Federation what accusing a professional chess player of cheating entails, just from a legal point of view.

As an aside we would like to mention that arbiters, officials, even detectives are not the best experts when it comes to detecting signalling from the audience. They have almost no idea how these things are done. You need to consult stage magicians (as we have done), because they do it professionally and have developed considerable skills in that area. We will not elaborate further, since the methods are so devilishly clever it would only put ideas into the heads of dishonest players.

“Cheaters should be deterred by bans that would wreck their (professional) careers,” is another pat proposal by people who see the solution to everything in terms of punishment rather than prevention. It doesn’t work for embezzlers, bank robbers, car thieves or burglars, but it is supposed to work for chess, if we only ratchet up the penalty. Our own proposal to FIDE stated:

An immediate life-long ban for first-time offenders, which is what people usually demand, is excessively harsh and irresponsible. Would it apply to a boy or girl whose father gives them a thumbs-up during the game? A three-year ban for full and proven first-time cheating during a game is severe enough to act as deterrence.

Does the 15-minute delay work?

We claimed that the 15-minute delay was twice used at the Dortmund tournament and worked flawlessly. “Did it?” asks the NiC journalist. “We don't think so. In Dortmund the players were not frisked for any electronic devices and their seconds could walk in and out of the hall freely and signal whatever they might have wanted.”

First of all frisking players with metal detectors is, as we said in our proposal paper to FIDE, not a solution to the problem, it is just a token measure:

In Dortmund the spectators sit in a darkened theatre while the players are on an elevated, well-lit stage. Visual signalling is almost impossible. The same effect was achieved in the World Championship matches in Elista, Bonn and Sofia by using a glass wall or a gauze curtain. This does not rule out acoustic or electronic signalling, so cheating is still possible. However, what we are trying to do is make it harder for a team of cheats. If a helper (never a player’s second, of course – that would be too obvious) has to walk in and out of the playing hall after every move, to make calls on a cell-phone, this makes teamwork cheating – as allegedly took place in Khanty-Mansiysk) – more difficult and much easier to detect. We want to force the assistants to relay the moves themselves to the base station, instead of having them automatically delivered by the organisers of the event in real time. That is the entire point of the proposed broadcast delay.

The NiC article generally implies that the 15-minute delay can be circumvented and is thus pointless. But it was not our claim that it would be a 100% fool-proof measure. From the fact that locks can be picked and cars jump-started it does not follow that you might as well leave your house or car unlocked. With other (presumably more effective) measures in place at chess tournaments, says our critic, “there is no reason whatsoever why you should have a 15-minute delay in the first place!” Again: since cars have number plates and serial numbers engraved in their bodies (other measures), there is no reason whatsoever for locking them?

The disadvantages

The 15-minute delay of the broadcast, the NiC author claims, denies people watching games on the Internet "that wonderful luxury of following the games in realtime”. This is an entirely artificial, almost metaphysical, objection. Everyone in the world – except for the audience who have bought tickets and are sitting in the playing hall – is receiving the moves, at the original rate they were played, at the same time. A number of TV broadcasts do the same: for instance you do not see 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' live but with a strategic delay. Why? Because the show’s organisers do not want to provide the questions in real time to possible helpers in remote locations. They could google the answers in ten seconds, as one of our friends has shown, and then pass the information to someone in the audience, who in turn could signal the participant. Actually we should credit the Millionaire team with coming up with the time-delay anti-cheating idea.

It should be mentioned that in Dortmund there actually were complaints by some visitors to the Playchess server. “That spoils the fun completely,” said about four people on the first day. On the second day one person continued to object, and after that nobody remembered that it was being done at all. At the 2011 European Championship, at the insistence of a number of strong GMs, a delay was implemented in key rounds. There were exactly zero complaints – most Internet spectators did not even know it was happening.

On a personal note: The NiC journalist, who has covered dozens of events together with me, writes: “While reading [Mr. Friedel’s] plea you get the idea that he only has a vague idea of what a chess tournament looks like these days.” He knows that I have been to literally hundreds of tournaments, ranging from amateur championships (in which my son played) to all kinds of major international events, on four continents [memo to self: accept the invitation to the next Doeberl Cup in Canberra], as well as around a dozen World Championship matches, some of which I helped to organise. So our NiC friend can only mean that in spite of this I had somehow failed to comprehend how tournaments work. I accept that it is a possibility (I can be fairly dense on occasion), but it would follow that those who put me in charge of security during world championships have shown extremely bad judgement.

Finally I would like to mention that other misguided souls have shared my general concerns and enthusiastically endorsed my 15-minute broadcast delay plan. These include Garry Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand (who formally proposed it to FIDE), Vladimir Kramnik, and numerous other 2700+ players. Even the late Bobby Fischer, with whom I had many long phone conversations a couple of years before his death, was firmly in favour, although he was suspicious of allowing people to do “intrusive body scans” of players before important games. On the other hand, the 15-minute delay, he said, was a no-brainer.

In conclusion we would like to venture that the NiC article hit the spot in one respect: the title, “Lacking All Logic”, was perfectly apt, if we assume it refers to the piece that followed. In any case we are determined to continue our campaign for the delayed broadcast solution, which we think is the simplest and least intrusive way of tackling a very serious problem, one that is threatening the game. In recent weeks we have urged the President of the World Chess Federation, yet again, to take action, at least for major tournaments. Our NiC friend, on the other hand, will probably continue to pin his hopes on the incompetence of FIDE to implement the proposal, or anything at all. If it turns out that these hopes are justified, all honest grandmasters will simply have to give up their selfish demands for more protection and pay attention to the urgent needs of the handful of chess journalists lounging in the press room.

We know that we are going to receive many letters and opinions on this subject.
Please use the feedback link on the left of the page and give your submission the title “15 minute delay.”

Worth reading

• TechXav: High-tech Cheating in China’s University Entrance Exams (Scary!)
  Cheats at China’s university entrance examinations were told this year that they could be blacklisted for life, but hundreds still turned to technology, hoping to beat the system. Cheats – more than a hundred in some provinces – uncovered in last week’s annual exam had used devices smaller and more innocuous-looking than ever before, according to Chinese media.

• USA Today: Cheating goes high-tech with commonplace tools
  Hey, kids! You may have read recently about how prevalent cheating has become in school. Lots of gadgets are helping students like you get high scores on papers and tests — without all the trouble of actually learning anything! And you won't be alone. Why, some recent polls say that almost a third of students admit to cheating — the percentage jumps to more than 40% when you ask 16 and 17 year olds. And we know no one would lie to a pollster, right?

• 7 Hi-Tech Gadgets That Can Help You Cheat at Exams
  Cheaters seem to be everywhere these days in sports, in corporate boardrooms, and in the highest levels of government. Cheating is common also among students that's no big secret. Computer technology has made cheating so easy that it serves as a temptation for students who might otherwise toil honestly. High-tech cheating creates a vicious circle. As technology advances and students get better at using the latest devices, teachers and school officials find it harder to keep up with cheaters. The more that cheating goes uncaught, the freer students feel to do it.

ChessBase reports on a recent case

Copyright ChessBase