The event had a total prize fund of $358,000, and the two players were accused of
surreptitiously receiving assistance from computers. One, who was one of the
lowest-ranked players in the main tournament, was confronted after he had beaten
a string of much stronger players. He fled to a bathroom stall, where he spent
45 minutes. After that no communications device was found, but the player was
watched carefully during the rest of the tournament. He lost the rest of his
games quickly. GM Larry Christiansen later ran the moves of one of the games,
a black win against GM Ilia Smirin, rated 2659, through the program Shredder
and found that the last 25 moves matched those played by the program.
The second case involved a player named Steve Rosenberg, who was playing in
a lower section and was leading before the final round. A victory would have
been worth about $18,000. He was confronted by a tournament director and found
to be using a wireless transmitter and receiver called a "Phonito".
He was disqualified from the event. In our
report we drew information from an article that had appeared in the New
York Times and the International Herald Tribune. It turns out
that some of the details reported there were not completely accurate. The tournament
director who detected the cheating, Michael Atkins of Virginia, sent us the
following description of the events.
Your article was not completely accurate, because it got some of its
information from the New York Times article, which posted an inaccurate
chain of events. I was the chief TD of the U-2000 section, I took the
device from the player, investigated it, and forfeited him.
Before I describe the situation I would like to note that in Steve
Rosenberg's previous three tournaments in the US he had scored 18-0 in
class sections. Either he had made dramatic progress or, more likely,
he had perfected his cheating technique. Naturally I can't swear
to that, but who goes 18-0 in three tournaments, especially at the erratic
class level?
The actual and correct sequence at the World Open in Philadelphia was
as follows:
-
Rosenberg's last round opponent asked me about the large headphones
he had been wearing all through the tournament. I explained to him
that under the rules of the tournament he could ask Rosenberg to
play without them. He asked and Rosenberg complied.
-
Shortly after they started playing, Rosenberg went to the bathroom,
where several players reported hearing "whirring" noises
coming out of the bathroom stall he was in. I didn't personally hear
them, but decided to investigate. Once Rosenberg had left the stall
and had had the chance to change or remove whatever made the whirring
noises, I didn't see the point to a physical search.
-
Shortly after that I asked to speak with him. I had already spoken
to him earlier in the tournament, as players were complaining that
he was cheating somehow. So he knew who I was, the section chief
of the Under 2000 section he was playing in. I told him that he was
under suspicion of cheating, and that he should not go to the bathroom
without a director for the rest of the game. I also asked him what
was in his ears. He said a hearing aid. I had no reason to suspect
anything different, so the game continued.
-
I went back to watch the game several times in the next couple hours.
Each time I observed Rosenberg playing with his hands tightly clutched
over his ears, making a move and then quickly bringing his hands
back over his ears. Whenever I was around, he looked nervous, shot
nervous glances off to the side, in order to see where I was, and
was sweating. His opponent told me after the game that Rosenberg's
play had greatly improved after coming back from the initial bathroom
trip, that he had been "floundering" in the opening until
that trip.
-
Several hours later, and several complaints later, I asked him to
step away from the game and asked him again what was in his ear,
and I would like to see it. He said it was a hearing aid and quickly
put the device into his pocket. I insisted several more times that
I needed to see the device. He fished around in his pocket, then
slowly and reluctantly revealed the item. I knew what the color of
the device was that I saw him put into his pocket, and I took it.
I told him to continue the game.
-
I started studying the device. It looked nothing like any hearing
aid I had ever seen. It had a name and a website on it, but not a
serial number (as stated in the NYT and your article). I investigated
the name and website, and discovered what it was. I showed this to
another director and to Mr. Goichberg. The device was a Phonito,
manufactured by a company called Phonak. It is described on the page's
headlines as "Phonito Wireless Earphones by Phonak – Wireless
Miniature Communication Receivers". I also showed the device
to International Arbiter Carol Jarecki, who had complained of something
in Rosenberg's ears. She too said she had never seen a hearing aid
like this either.
-
I went to get Mr. Rosenberg and brought him to the office. I asked
him again what the device was and he said a hearing aid. I opened
the laptop and showed him the web page which described it as a wireless
miniature VHF receiving device. He still claimed it was a hearing
aid. He stated he had a prescription for a hearing aid, but didn't
have that with him. He claimed to be hard of hearing, but had no
answer when asked why someone would attempt to limit noise with a
headphone and then increase sound with a hearing aid. During the
process I had input from six other very experienced directors.
-
The device is usually coupled with a signal booster that is worn
around the neck, and Mr. Rosenberg refused to remove the bulky
sweater he was wearing. I forfeited him for cheating and turned the
decision over to Mr. Goichberg, who upheld it. Mr. Rosenberg remained
generally calm during this whole process, stating that it was a hearing
aid and if we were going to forfeit him to let him have the device
back so he could start his long ride home.
Michael Atkins,
National tournament director and
chief TD of the U-2000 section of the World Open 2006
|
Atkins adds that the matter has been submitted to the US Chess Federation
Ethics Committee as a formal complaint. He wonders if we will eventually have
to do what airports in the US are doing, and run everyone though metal detectors
and x-ray machines prior to entering the tournament hall. Or use systems that
block cell phone and other wireless transmissions.
We also received a message from one of Rosenberg's opponents:
I played Steve Rosenberg in the first round of
the World Open. After hearing about the New York Times article concerning
the cheating scandal I analyzed my game with Fritz9. The game was 29
moves long. On move one (d4) was the choice #2 in the opening book (e4 being
#1). On move 3, Rosenberg chose the #2 choice also (but, of course, GMs
frequently choose variations).
But now get this: every other move of the game was a #1 choice of Fritz!
I have analyzed games by World Champions and haven't ever seen that before!
Rosenberg was clearly making computer moves! On move 20, oddly, he made
what initially appears to be one of the worst moves possible (#36 out
of 43 choices). But if you let Fritz think for 3-4 minutes, it too becomes
a #1 choice! Here's the game:
Steve Rosenberg (1974) - Mike Henebry (1892) [A31]
World Open (1), 30.06.2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6
gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Qd2 Be7 11.Nd5 Be6 12.0-0-0 Bxd5 13.cxd5 Na5 14.g3 Rc8+
15.Kb1 b5 16.Bh3 b4 17.Qxb4 Rb8 18.Qa4+ Kf8 19.Bxf5 e4 20.Ka1 Bf6 21.Rd2
Qb6 22.Rb1 Qc5 23.Rc2 Qb6 24.Qxe4 Qxf2 25.e3 Rxb2 26.Rbxb2 Qe1+ 27.Nb1
Nb3+ 28.axb3 Qa5+ 29.Qa4 1-0. [Click
to replay]
You might want to retrieve the games from Rosenberg's other World Open
victims. If they also turn out to be #1 choices by Fritz then I think
you only have three possible explanations: that Fritz should be rated
1974, like Rosenberg; or that Rosenberg should be rated higher than any
previous World Champion; or that he was cheating. Even the O.J. Simpson's
jury shouldn't have much trouble figuring this one out!
Mike Henebry
of Cypress, CA, USA.
|