Kramnik takes polygraph test

by ChessBase
8/23/2024 – Vladimir Kramnik, known for his strong stance on fair play, took the test to address long-standing rumors and cheating allegations dating back to the 2006 World Chess Championship, as well as more recent accusations in online games. The test, conducted by Pinkerton, revealed “No Deception Indicated” on all key questions, including Kramnik’s role in the controversial “Toiletgate” scandal. Inspired by Kramnik’s example, World Chess is now introducing voluntary polygraph testing as an additional tool to combat cheating.

ChessBase 18 - Mega package ChessBase 18 - Mega package

It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.

More...

Kramnik Takes Polygraph Test, Catalyzing

New Anti-Cheating Measures in Chess

August 23, 2024 — London, UK

In a bold move to combat the growing scourge of cheating in chess, World Chess is introducing voluntary polygraph testing as a significant new tool in its anti-cheating arsenal. This initiative, to be added immediately to the list of anti-cheating measures for the Chess Arena (chessarena.com), the World Chess official gaming platform, follows a high-profile polygraph test taken by former World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik.

Background: The Catalyst for Change

The chess world has been fraught with cheating allegations, including $100 million lawsuits. One of the most vocal critics of cheating has been Vladimir Kramnik himself. Known for his advocacy for fair play, Kramnik recently participated in and won the “Clash of Blames” against José Martínez Alcántara, a match that highlighted the importance of addressing cheating in both online and over-the-board chess.

In a move to solidify his stance and offer an example in transparency, as well as address persistent rumours, dating back to the 2006 World Championship match against Veselin Topalov—often referred to as "Toiletgate"—Kramnik voluntarily took a polygraph test. The test, administered with the facilitation of Pinkerton, the famous detective agency, by a former Scotland Yard Detective Superintendent, sought to address three critical questions:

  1. Did Kramnik communicate in any way designed to assist him in cheating during the 2006 World Chess Championship against Topalov? (Answer: NO)
  2. Has Kramnik cheated in any online chess games or tournaments since June 2019? (Answer: NO)
  3. Has Kramnik ever been offered a bribe to deliberately lose a chess match since becoming a top 10 player? (Answer: YES)

The polygraph results were clear: Kramnik was found to be truthful on all accounts, with "No Deception Indicated."  This outcome not only reaffirms Kramnik's integrity but also underscores the effectiveness of polygraph testing as a tool to verify the truth.

See all 2006 ChessBase reports, and especially:

A New Era in Chess: World Chess's Initiative

Building on the credibility of Kramnik's polygraph results, World Chess is taking the unprecedented step of offering polygraph testing as an additional voluntary measure to combat cheating. This initiative is designed to be a last-resort option for players facing cheating accusations, allowing them to clear their names through a rigorous and transparent process.

To further enhance the integrity of the sport, World Chess is extending this opportunity to all top 100 players, who can voluntarily undergo the same polygraph test for free. The goal is to establish polygraph testing as a standard procedure within the chess community, similar to doping tests in other sports, thereby reinforcing trust and transparency at the highest levels of competition.

Ilya Merenzon, CEO of World Chess, emphasized the importance of this initiative: "Cheating allegations have cast a shadow over chess for too long. By introducing voluntary polygraph testing, we are taking a decisive step to protect the integrity of our beloved sport. This initiative not only supports honest players but also strengthens the public's trust in chess as a fair game."

World Chess will be working closely with FIDE and other major chess organizations and propose to integrate polygraph testing into their anti-cheating protocols, aiming to create a safer, fairer competitive environment for all players. 

“In high-stakes situations like the recent Carlsen-Niemann controversy, where resolutions remain elusive and speculation runs rampant, a reliable polygraph test—if mutually agreed upon by all parties—could decisively resolve the conflict. Such a measure would provide players, the public, and chess organizers with clear, definitive information, effectively ending any lingering doubts and putting the focus back on the game itself,” said Merenzon.

Rory Lamrock, Pinkerton Director: “Polygraphs, which track physiological responses to help detect deception are valuable tools often used by law enforcement, government and corporate security teams as part of an investigative strategy. They work alongside evidence, witness statements, and data analysis to ensure fairness and integrity. Using the polygraph as part of our strategy to promote fair play reinforces accountability and trust in both the players and match procedures, ensuring that world of chess maintains its commitment to fairness.”

Appendix: Questions and definitions used in the test:

On the 22nd of August 2024 the subject, Mr Vladimir KRAMNIK (V.K.) was administered a polygraph examination consisting of a series of polygraph charts in which relevant, comparison and control questions were used. The relevant questions asked of the examinee in the test are as set out below, with the respective answers given in bold:

QUESTION 1: During your ‘‘Playing Sessions’ in the World Chess Championship with 'Topalov’’ did you ‘communicate in any way’ with ‘anyone or anything’ in a manner ‘designed or intended’ to assist you in cheating? Yes / NO

QUESTION 2: Since the 1st of June 2019, during any ‘Online Chess Game or Tournaments’ did you ‘communicate in any way’ with ‘anyone or anything’ in a manner designed or intended to assist you in cheating? Yes / NO

QUESTION 3: Since you became a ‘Top 10 chess Player’ are you lying when you say an ‘Opposing Player’, or their ‘Official Representative’ offered you more than $10K to deliberately loose of a chess match? Yes / NO

The Examinee agreed that for the purposes of this Examination the term ‘Playing Sessions’ meant ‘the period of time when, in a game of Chess either player is permitted to move their pieces and when both players are acting under the instructions of the Arbiter(s). The Examinee agreed that for the purposes of this Examination the term ‘World Chess Championship with ‘TOPALOV’ ’ referred to the Chess World Championship match in 2006 played in Elista, Russia in which he played against Veselin Topalov.

The examinee agreed that for the purpose of this test the term ‘communicated in any way’ included face to face contact, use of any third party and use of any mailing/courier system and all forms of telephonic communication and any other electronic media formats of communication available, whether supported by the internet or not, and all associated applications.

The examinee agreed that for the purpose of this test that the term ‘Top 10 Chess Player’ meant an individual who is rated ‘within the ‘Top 10 Chess Players in the world’ by the International Chess Federation FIDE.

The examinee agreed that for the purpose of this test the term ‘Official representative’ includes members of an opponent’s team and includes their Manager, Trainer, Coach, and Sponsor.


Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

lajosarpad lajosarpad 8/26/2024 03:31
We all want cheating to be eradicated. We are only discussing the best method to do so. Lie detection via polygraph is unreliable in my view. The possibility of condemning a non-cheater as a cheater is greater harm than not detecting an actual cheater in my view. If someone played like, say a 2450 player and has an ELO of 1800, for example and there are suspicions on said person, then said person could try and solve realtime chess puzzles and explaining the solution. If the person performs at a level of at least 2300, then his name is cleared. If he performs like 1800, then there is still reason to be suspicious. Alternatively one could be asked to explain the most brilliant moves he made.
ianbolar ianbolar 8/26/2024 01:27
Some are out there, wondering on how to know if their partner has been cheating on them, I'd say, in this technology age, it's best to use the service of smart minds like Josh, who deals with helping in gaining access to smartphone remotely without physical access to it, with that, you can see if your partner has been cheating on you or not. Write him on DcipherBlaze, at G mail dot. Come
arzi arzi 8/25/2024 05:00
A sandbox is an environment intended for testing computer programs, where the program can be executed in such a way that it does not affect the operation of other software on the host machine. This kind of controlled environment should be used in online chess games. The environment and the player are monitored by the software and record the events during the game. The software could detect extra signals that are not part of the normal noise of the gaming environment. The software would also keep track of the player's eye movements and hand movements during the games. All suspicious activities could be investigated from the recordings. Would anyone want to take the risk of trying to cheat the system? The first time will be forgiven, maybe, but the follow-up will be more precise the next time and eventually the scam will be revealed. Perhaps even Kramnik would be happy with the system, maybe?
arzi arzi 8/25/2024 04:27
Frederic, you're absolutely right that we need tools to prevent cheating, but we can't settle for solutions that do more harm than good. In chess, doping corresponds to various chess engines, while in sports they correspond to various chemical performance-enhancing substances. However, lie detectors are not used in sports to detect cheating because they are too imprecise.

The current online problems in chess are due to the fact that competitions with money involved have not been thought through to the end. Players should be able to be monitored in these situations so that they do not get to use phones or computers to their advantage during the online game. Perhaps these "home connections" are too poorly monitored, in which case they should not be included in money competitions, unless the supervisor in the home connection game is someone from outside the competition. Maybe online games should be played at a club where players bring their own devices, but the connection and screen are controlled through the club?

In live broadcasts, it is not necessary to delay the connection, if the goal is only to annoy the viewers. It's easier to make them angry, as, for example, with the poor quality of broadcasts. To prevent fraud, delaying the connection is pointless. It is more important to think about preventing the use of machines, how to control it. This will also be resolved in games that are played physically in the same place. Preventing and finding "anus sensors" a la Elon Musk..
Frederic Frederic 8/25/2024 03:53
@arzi, @lajosarpad, it it not clear that I agree that using polygraphs is not the solution we are seeking for a very serious problem that threatens chess? It is FIDE and World Chess that are experimenting with it. And I do not think they intend to disqualify or ban a player for a negative result. The fact remains we need to find methods to prevent cheating. My proposal from 2005 to implement a 15-minute delay of live broadcasts (https://en.chessbase.com/post/revisited-15-minute-broadcast-delay) is being widely implemented -- but it has lost much of the effectivity it had twenty years ago. Today there is no need to set up powerful computers in remote places to find winning moves in real time. A Pixel Android watch could, I estimate, actually win a GM tournament. :-(
lajosarpad lajosarpad 8/25/2024 01:03
I side with Arzi here. Matters of honor, personal dignity should never be decided by a system that may destroy the honor and dignity of innocent people who fail a test. There are too kinds of mistakes: the first kind is that a guilty person may beat the system and get away with his crime. This is a serious problem, but 98% accuracy, that is, catching 98 of 100 guilty people is pretty good. The second kind of mistake is to consider an innocent person guilty. I consider this unacceptable, even if it may happen a single time. So, a system may be imperfect in catching a guilty person, but absolutely must be perfect in its blames, so it should be pretty damn 100% sure that the person it points towards with the finger is guilty indeed.
arzi arzi 8/25/2024 11:32
One lie detector company advertised its product e.g. as follows: "Our test results are 98% accurate."

So, if the system is used, for example, for a person who received a death sentence, then 2 out of 100 who received a death sentence would receive their verdict as innocent. Do you see what I mean, Frederic?

As long as the system is not completely foolproof, it should not be used in tasks where a person's whole life depends, such as e.g. livelihood, health, honor, freedom...

Lie detection is based on emotional reactions in a person. What if the person on the polygraph has an emotional "defect", they are either a sociopath or a psychopath, maybe both? Does this flaw make him guilty of the strange reactions to the lie-detection? The results may give the wrong answer to the searched question.
Frederic Frederic 8/25/2024 11:02
@e-mars: "It is sad to see that you and @Frederic are still somoehow attached to such an obsolete and unreliable tool depicting a hard to die (Eastern-) German stereotype" -- I linked to an article where my position on polygraphs and lie detection is clearly stated. https://frederic-38110.medium.com/pants-on-fire-ai-detector-5719a6477e51 . And what is "a hard to die (Eastern-) German stereotype"?

The polygraph test on Kramnik was conducted by FIDE/World Chess because they are contemplating using it as a method to fight cheating. Whether that will be feasible (I estimate that a single test can cost €1000) remains to be seen. Additionally whether it would have any effect on the problem we are confronted with.
arzi arzi 8/24/2024 11:06
So what was the outcome of this "Clash of Blames"?

Was it a SCAM or NOT? Did José Martínez Alcántara (JMA) cheat in chess? Fact or fiction?

Kramnik has claimed that José Martínez Alcántara has cheated in his online games and is not really that strong at chess. This requires Kramnik's answer. If JMA is really that strong and hasn't cheated even if he lost the match, then Kramnik should also publicly apologize for his false claim. If he is of the opinion that JMA is a fraud, then present the evidence.
arzi arzi 8/24/2024 10:35
All kinds of lie detection tests should be disabled, because it is impossible to verify their 100% correct operation. If there is even a little uncertainty in the operation of such a tester, then its use is useless, but harmful. Is e.g. Kramnik ready to put his life on the line, due to the operation of some unknown device. What if the device has a manufacturing defect or a software error? Maybe there was a bug in the system that Kramnik tested, where his possible lies would never have been revealed anyway or he was just lucky.

Everyone can think about whether they would like to fly on a passenger plane, the correct operation of which there is no information. Would you also take your children on such a plane ... because you got the flights cheap?
arzi arzi 8/24/2024 10:11
It's a bit unclear to me what the point and end result of this nonsense was? Did José Martínez Alcántara's real chess skills convince Kramnik and other doubters? Is it possible that this same kind of rubbish can continue from Kramnik or Carlsen in the future, maybe towards another player, eg Niemann? False accusations should also be held accountable. The punishment for a false accusation should be so severe that no one would have to experience something like this in the future. However, the fact that the computer control in chess has been bad does not give the right to make wild, baseless accusations. In the case of Niemann, the consequences of false accusations have been such that it has been difficult for him to get invitations to big money tournaments, even if he was suitable for them in terms of playing strength.
BKnight2003 BKnight2003 8/24/2024 06:48
Am I missing something, or did miss in the past? Isn't anybody shocked that Kramnik has been (or at least is claiming to have been) offered a bribe to deliberately lose a chess match??
crispyambulance crispyambulance 8/24/2024 06:28
What a terrible article...written under Chessbase authorship but almost a PR event for Kramnik and Pinkerton....was there any opposing view to the Kramnik party line. If Vlad is happy to go down this route maybe one of the questions he should have answered is " If Martinez ( or any other opponents you wish to accuse in the future "pass" this same test will you take back all accusations against him or them? If he doesn't believe in this as a 100% accurate test then why are you giving this absurd publicity stunt oxygen? Really disappointed you got sucked into this Frederic 😕.... editorial independence above friendships
notebook03 notebook03 8/24/2024 02:29
What's the significance of the date in question 2? Why not cover everything and say something along the lines of 'Have you ever cheated while playing online chess?'

Suspicious? Interesting? There's only one way to find out. Begin the procedure!
e-mars e-mars 8/24/2024 01:42
@PhishMaster btw, the polygraph test is not even considered proof in court. It can only be considered circumstantial evidence and it is incredibly biased by the operator. That of Kramnik was obviously a "marketing" move. He knew it was easy to pass the test. It is sad to see that you and @Frederic are still somoehow attached to such an obsolete and unreliable tool depicting a hard to die (Eastern-) German stereotype
Davidx1 Davidx1 8/24/2024 01:01
If I am a former World Champion and I beat Kaspatov in a match, maybe I am better than Martínez even if I lose with him.
But as Lasker said, you eat with money, not with honor.
I'll tell you the truth, I believe it: I'm not crazy as hell.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 8/24/2024 12:05
@martinmoore sure. Yet, casting suspicion on someone should always be paired with convincing evidence.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 8/24/2024 12:01
Voluntary polygraph tests could become obligatory. While combating cheating in chess is more than welcome, I do think that cheaters can learn how to beat the polygraph, so if someone is cheating over the board and does so professionally, without leaving traces of his cheating, then the same person can also learn how to beat the polygraph. So there will be cheaters who are not caught as well as non-cheaters who will be blamed for the cheating they did not commit due to being nervous during the test and therefore failing it.

In my opinion it is better to measure the performance of a player who for some reason is suspicious and then have him/her to solve chess problems in rapid succession as a test and measure his performance of solving those positions. If he performs around or above the level he performed during the tournament, then his name will be cleared.
martinmoore martinmoore 8/24/2024 11:44
NO-ONE should be above suspicion including Kramnik himself.
Frederic Frederic 8/24/2024 10:23
Incidentally I have written about and made a proposal (to Intel and Deep Mind) on a possible new technique for lie detection: "A pants-on-fire AI lie detector?" https://frederic-38110.medium.com/pants-on-fire-ai-detector-5719a6477e51
Frederic Frederic 8/24/2024 10:09
@PhishMaster: thanks the description of your experience with polygraphs. In my book, Schachgeschichten, I described my relationship with Kramnik, which has always been very friendly and convivial -- even though I supported two of his rivals for the World Championship. The 2008 match between Anand and Kramnik was staged in Bonn, Germany. I was clearly in Anand’s camp. This is what I wrote:

"At the time the subject of computer assistance during games had become acute, and I was deeply worried about it, in general. During his games against Anand I saw that Vladimir could, on his way to the restroom, walk past his computer adviser, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, the author of one of the top chess playing programs, Shredder. Stefan was operating a computer to provide live coverage of the event, and it would be trivially easy for him to signal moves. I became quite paranoid.

In a key game I asked a member of Anand’s team to make a note of every time Vladimir walked past Stefan, and which move he played after that. But all my theoretical suspicions were allayed, for all time, when Kramnik actually lost the game. I realized then that if there was one thing he would never do, under any circumstance, it would be to cheat in chess. Nothing could ever induce him to be that dishonest."

Afterwards SMK told me that even discussing the possibility of computer assistance with Vladimir was out of the question. "I would have been immediately fired."
RHMLuck RHMLuck 8/24/2024 05:57
If I were José Martínez Alcántara I would be disturbed by the comment, "Kramnik recently participated in and won the “Clash of Blames” against José Martínez Alcántara, a match that highlighted the importance of addressing cheating in both online and over-the-board chess", as it leaves the impression that Kramnik's victory proved Alcántara had cheated before, even though it took till the very last game of the match to out point him.
PhishMaster PhishMaster 8/24/2024 04:10
"It is well known that the polygraph test is just unreliable."

For most people, that is simply not true. Yes, there are people, who are trained to beat them, but they are very few; and the average person cannot. That assumes the tester knows what he is doing. It is nothing like on television.

I had one while in the service. Before it began, we went over every question. every question was phrased so the answer was "no", just like in the Kramnik polygraph above. If you had done something, it was phrased as such: "Other than the three times you smoked marijuana in high school, have you ever done anything that would cause you to lose your security clearance?" "No". All the questions were given in the same order, so there were no surprises. And lastly, all the questions were asked three times...three polygraphs.

Most cannot beat them.
e-mars e-mars 8/23/2024 09:27
It is well known that the polygraph test is just unreliable. Having said that, the fact someone would think Kramnik cheated is just bonkers. Also, if there was someone cheating around the same time, that someone was Topalov (with the help of his manager and their secret "signal code").
1