Revisited: 15-minute broadcast delay

by Frederic Friedel
9/14/2022 – When the organisation of the 2022 Sinquefield Cup decided, after Round 3, to implement a fifteen-minute delay for the broadcast of moves, we felt some gratification. Hadn't we suggested exactly this to FIDE, seventeen years ago, as one possible measure to counteract cheating in chess? At least to make it more difficult? Not everybody was happy with the proposal and with its implementation in Saint Louis. What do you think?

ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024 ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024

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.


The idea was first proposed – at least by me – on October 17th, 2005. It was departure day after the FIDE World Championship tournament in San Luis. Towards the end of the event there had been suspicions, expressed by some of the players, that there may have been signalling going on during the event. FIDE officials were worried and discussing the matter in their board meetings.

I got into a long and intense conversation with FIDE Vice Presidents Zurab Azmaiparashvili and Israel Gelfer, and proposed a simple solution – one that was designed to make it harder for players to cheat during a top-level event. It involved delaying the live broadcast of moves over the Internet by fifteen minutes. The proposal was enthusiastically greeted by the two VPs, who asked me to write it up and submit it to the FIDE Presidential Board. This I did, on at least three separate occasions, over the years.

You can read about the contents of the proposal and it's genesis in this report. A full version of my formal submission is given in the links below.


Now, after sudden cheating allegations arose in Saint Louis, the organisers decided, after round three, to suddenly implement a 15-minute delay in the game broadcast on the Internet. I felt quite gratified to hear this. But a good friend, one who is normally very astute, and whose intelligence I deeply admire, reacted critically. He wrote:

Your solution to cheating at chess reminds me of a famous quote from a US General made during the Vietnam war, “In order to save the village (from the Vietcong) we must first destroy it.” Therefore we get a new Friedel directive, “In order to save chess from would be cheaters we should first destroy the enjoyment derived from broadcasting the games live.”

This left me stunned. Was the friend suggesting that the enjoyment of live chess was based entirely on seeing each move in the exact instance it was played? If I, sitting here in Hamburg, 7500 km from Saint Louis, realize the moves I see in the broadcast were actually executed fifteen minutes earlier, then that would destroy my enjoyment of the game? As it would for someone in Sydney, 14,000 km away? And destroy it for the rest of the 99.9% of the spectators watching the games. They are located all over the world and, like me, watch the game on the Internet?

Would that mean that with the 15-minute broadcast delay it would only be the people in Saint Louis, who were present in the playing rooms of the tournament venue, that would be really enjoying the games?

In any case, in my proposal to FIDE, described to FIDE seventeen years ago (and formally delivered soon after) I suggested we needed to take steps to address a looming problem. "These steps do not eliminate the problem completely," I said. "They just make it much harder to cheat." The measures I proposed, in summary, were:

  1. No electronic devices should be allowed in the playing hall at top-level tournaments. There must be clear penalties for transporting electronic devices, even if they are obviously not intended for illegal purposes.
  2. Seconds and associates of the competing player should not be allowed to be present in the playing hall; or they must be adequately sequestered from the players.
  3. Most importantly: the transmission of moves outside the playing hall must be delayed by a certain period of time (15 minutes for classical games).
  4. Rest rooms during matches are only arranged if both players agree to it. Common toilet facilities must be used.
  5. There must be serious, predefined penalties for players caught cheating.

The delay in the broadcast (3) was of considerable importance. It would be implemented by building a relay loop in the transmission of the moves from the boards to the outside world. Albert Vasser of DGT was able to implement this in a few days. The sensor boards could display the current board position locally inside the playing hall, but a delay module (software) would pass it on to the Internet after a given amount of time. The moves would appear in the broadcast at exactly the tempo in which they were played, just 15 minutes later. It would be hardly noticeable for the world-wide Internet audience.

Installing this mechanism means that any outside assistance to the players would be greatly hampered. Even if a cheater is equipped with a very sophisticated reception device, something that would even elude metal detectors, his accomplices have the problem of receiving the moves from the playing venue in time to analyse and pass their results on to the cheater.

At the time I was severely taken to task by a journalist of the magazine New in Chess. First of all he reminded me that the vast majority of players had no wish to cheat at all. And:

In any case any 'cure' should be avoided that is much worse than the disease. Such as the 15-minute delay of the transfer of the moves that once again was promoted on the ChessBase website. On the surface the idea doesn't sound that bad (the cheaters will not get the moves signalled in time, because their buddies lose precious minutes), but in fact it lacks all logic.

Mr. Friedel knows full well that the 15-minute delay only makes sense if you take substantial additional measures [all of which I had included–ff]. But if you apply all these extra measures (such as searching the players, blocking radio signals, not allowing anyone in or out of the hall while the round is in progress) there is no reason whatsoever why you should have a 15-minute delay in the first place! Why rob the people at home of that wonderful luxury of following the games in realtime?

Honestly, now that we have all watched six rounds of the Sinquefield Cup in Saint Louis with the 15-minute delay implemented, has it really ruined your enjoyment of the games? Did it fatally detract from the excitement you felt during the first three rounds, when the moves were displayed on your screen the exact moment they were played?

The 15-minute broadcast delay was most relevant in 2005, when I first proposed it. At the time, and in the following years, it was necessary to use a large desktop computer in order to see deeper than a player in his game. Typically, the computer assisting a player would be halfway around the world – and organisers would be delivering the moves of the opponent in real time to it. That is what the delay was meant to prevent. With it in place, the assistant would have to exit the playing hall after every move to relay it to the conspirators. That would be quite easy to spot.

Today the situation has changed somewhat. It is entirely possible that my smartwatch could play in Saint Louis and stand up to the world elite GMs there. It follows that a member of the audience who is wearing a watch could signal a player when an extraordinary chance, a brilliant move, is displayed. This could be seen with a glance at the watch. I have not actually tried following a game and seeing 3000+ engine analysis on a smartwatch. It may be pure speculation that this is feasible. But if it is not, let me assure you it will only take months or a year for it to become a very real possibility. 

So how will that influence chess, the game we all love. I asked a friend, who is an expert on electronic communication, to attend a top tournament, and a championship match. He snooped around, saw how people were screened at entry, how a glass screen prevented the players from seeing the audience. I also showed him that before the start of a round we had access to the stage, the restrooms of the players, the passages and the toilets. He was devastated. The report he filed for me after studying all conditions started with the statement: "What a pity, it was such a wonderful game!"

But all is not lost. Another friend, a security expert who worked for the US government, a chess enthusiast and a contact magician, has promised to give me a catalogue of the measures that should be taken today. They will not be as harsh as the following "solution":

When Andrew Paulsen was alive and staging a World Championship for FIDE, he consulted me. We decided that ultimately it would only be possible to rigorously prevent cheating by staging the match in a Faraday Cage, in a remote location, without spectators. Andrew actually started negotiating with the state of Bhutan to stage the championship in the Himalayas. He wanted to make it a pure Internet event. But that didn't materialize. So the match was held in the traditional way. It relied on scanning for metal on entry, but mainly on trust in the honesty of the players.


A history of cheating in chess (1)
Hardly a month goes by without some report of cheating in international chess tournaments. The problem has become acute, but it is not new. In 2001 Frederic Friedel contributed a paper to the book "Advances in Computer Chess 9". It traces the many forms of illicit manipulations in chess and, a decade later, appears disconcertingly topical and up-to-date. We reproduce the paper in five parts.

A history of cheating in chess (2)
Coaching players during the game is probably the most widespread form of cheating (rivaled only perhaps by bribery and the throwing of games). Although this practice began long before the advent of chess playing machines, computers have added a new and dramatic dimension to this method of cheating in chess. You will never guess: who were the pioneers of cheating with computers?

A history of cheating in chess (3)
In January 1999 the main topic of conversation amongst top players like Kasparov, Anand and others: who was the mysterious German chess amateur, rated below 2000, who had won a strong Open ahead of GMs and IMs, with wonderfully courageous attacking chess and a 2630 performance? How had he done it? Turns out it was with unconventional methods, as subsequent investigation uncovered.

A history of cheating in chess (4)
Las Palmas 1996: Garry Kasparov is agonizing over his 20th move against Vishy Anand. He calculates and calculates but cannot make a very tempting pawn push work. Immediately after the game he discovers, from his helpers, that it would have won the ultimately drawn position. The point that became clear to him: a single bit of information, given at the top level in chess, can decide a game.

A history of cheating in chess (5)     
A few weeks ago FIDE took first executive steps to combat the most serious threat that the game of chess currently faces: the secret use of computer assistance during the game. In a paper written fourteen years ago Frederic Friedel had first drawn attention to the dangers that are lurking. Here is the fifth and final section.

Editor-in-Chief emeritus of the ChessBase News page. Studied Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Hamburg and Oxford, graduating with a thesis on speech act theory and moral language. He started a university career but switched to science journalism, producing documentaries for German TV. In 1986 he co-founded ChessBase.


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 9/16/2022 03:57
@Frits Fritschy, I wasn't replying to the immediate post of adbennet below, which I didn't read, but a prior one.

@SunriseK , it's not so simple to look at before and after the 15 min delay in his performance because anyone would be severely psychologically affected. Even uninvolved players said they couldn't sleep, etc.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/16/2022 10:29
Cheating in top-level chess has been a problem, at least on the level of accusation for quite a while. San Luis 2005 and Elista 2006 spring to mind.
arzi arzi 9/16/2022 10:01
Frederic:"Athletics and Olympic sports have long practised rigorous doping controls, which include taking urine and blood samples in unannounced tests in their homes. "

Yes, and some countries support that doping and those same countries are banned from certain sports. If you have enough money and low moral you can do almost anything. It is not always about individuals but also nations. Money talks and bull shit walks.
Frederic Frederic 9/16/2022 09:35
We can be thankful that in chess a simple mechanism like delaying the broadcast to the world by fifteen minutes is fairly effective - resulting only in metaphysical objection by a small minority. And it is not intrusive. You know what happened in bicycle racing: 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. Lance Armstrong, for heaven's sake! The sponsors withdrew their support in horror, and TV channels stopped covering the events. Until proper checking for drugs was in place. Sponsors appreciated the fact that measures are being taken to keep the sport clean and free of suspicion.

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." After all, critics say, it is relatively infrequent that cheaters are caught. Athletics and Olympic sports have long practised rigorous doping controls, which include taking urine and blood samples in unannounced tests in their homes. Cyclists might be woken up with a doorbell ring in the early hours, and are asked to give urine and blood samples. The delivery of the former has to be monitored, to make sure the sample is not coming from a pouch with clean urine from a different person. Imagine that something like this was necessary in chess, and consider how unintrusive the 15-minute delay is by comparison.

BTW you do remember this cheating incident reported by The Hindu:
arzi arzi 9/16/2022 07:40
Delay or not delay, that is the question. Which one I would choose? No delay of course. If "no delay" -format then the playing room and outside world have to be isolated from each other, perfectly. How hard is that? Do we need the Faraday cage? Maybe not yet but when wearable electronic is getting better, smaller and smarter, perhaps then. All we have to do now is to prevent audio and visual information between playing room and the outside world. Before games start all electronic devices must be left out the room. Not a big and too costly task. There is no need to fear that the results will be revealed prematurely because it is a "live" broadcast. There are video cameras following the games and the players, live.

If it's a big tournament, like the Olympiad, then there shouldn't be any strangers near the tables watching the games and giving hints to the players. The chessboards used could be electronic, which send the moves to the network and through that for the spectators to watch. Simple.
shivasundar shivasundar 9/16/2022 06:45
I think there should be a half-hour delay; as the only solution to avoid all potential new and emerging technologies (ear implants?! brain implants?! anal bead chips with vibrators :-0?!!) Half-hour because most top-level GMs know theory upto 20-25 moves and blitz out moves for the first half hour.

However, there is a real *problem* with this approach. This will make chess *even less spectator friendly*! Now, we can arguably say that the normal public got a *feast* of a gala time when just seeing their heroes in the recent 44th Chess Olympiad in Chennai - and chess got a *huge* boost. Now, imagine if the delay was implemented. Then, the arbiters cannot allow any spectators to make eye-contact with players (after all, any spectator can go to the restroom - or a reasonably strong spectator can even provide analysis and suggest moves!)! What are we going to do THEN? Then ALL tournaments will be forced to implement one-way see-through glass screens like they do in classified Pentagon briefings to senators!

So, yeah... JUST when chess is becoming more popular and *accessible* for normal fans, I am not sure this will help the game any....
arzi arzi 9/16/2022 06:16
SunriseK:"I analyzed Niemann's performance, moves and results (before and after the 15 minute delay!) and yes, in my humble opinion he was cheating and receiving very sophisticated assistance, probably by a GM level player using a strong chess engine in centaur mode (not always). I will very soon try to post details of my analysis in the relevant page, if possible. "

As someone already said earlier, the bigger problem is caused by vague accusations without a single proof. If a person does not have any evidence of cheating, then he should keep his mouth shut until solid evidence is shown. Gossip hurts more than cheating itself. You get caught cheating, but the gossip never stops. So SunriseK, stop nonsense and give us solid proofs.
SunriseK SunriseK 9/16/2022 12:29
It's incredible to me that so many people are so delusional that they still believe in "real-time streaming"! Apart the fact that around 117 years ago a certain Albert Einstein demonstrated that absolute time doesn't exist and that, in general, time runs differently for any couple of two different observers, but also the conventional time is different for any two different people on Earth!
So, for this and other evident reasons, I cannot understand people who are against such simple, obvious and logical rule as to delay by n minutes the transmission of chess moves.
About chatters spoiling things, it's simple to avoid this: simply shut down chat stream or use websites without a chat (like I always do, also because I'm very annoyed by legions of patzers with SF posting silly comments online).
And the most important thing is that even if only one player is cheating in a tournament (especially of high level as Sinquefield Cup), he threats to completely disrupt our beloved game of chess; so every effort should be made to enforce any anti - cheating measure. Like someone already said, is the lesser evil (by far!). And in my opinion best way is to make high level players (at least) to play into a faraday's cage (in addition to all measures Frederic has already suggested).
Now with Niemann's case the problem has already reached highest level of tournaments, so the time is running short.
And btw: I analyzed Niemann's performance, moves and results (before and after the 15 minute delay!) and yes, in my humble opinion he was cheating and receiving very sophisticated assistance, probably by a GM level player using a strong chess engine in centaur mode (not always). I will very soon try to post details of my analysis in the relevant page, if possible. These are just my conjectures (but I spent much time to analyze and reach conclusions); of course I can't have any legal proof; nobody has that type of proof, otherwise he would have already been banned.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 9/16/2022 12:13
Thanks for your reaction - it hits the mark. After a few isolated cases, the chess world panicked. Without any serious investigation about the extent of the problem (as far as I am aware of), all kinds of anti-cheating measures were introduced. Now people can say: 'Why are there so little cheating cases? Because of these measures.' However, all these measures didn't take away the concern of chess players about cheating. On the contrary: here and in other places, people keep on fantasizing about how that invisible army of cheaters can evade these measures. An army that could well be a ghost army, as its existence was never proven.
A 15 minute delay in broadcasting is just a minor concern, although even that contributes to the general uneasiness about a possibly marginal problem. What about the aditional costs and work for tournament organisers? The fact that you could be bodily searched? And foremost: the chance that you get accused and the effect that can have on you, even when thorough proof is lacking? The accusations may be a bigger problem than the cheating itself.
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 11:09
@Frits Fritschy - I highlighted your quote not because I thought it was wrong, but because I agree it is a fundamental issue in the debate under way. And the Jacob woge quote is also fundamental. My discussion was not _endorsing_ paranoia, but simply pointing out what sort of anti-cheating measures are implied when we are talking about soothing paranoia.

Like you I am quite sure I have never been a victim of engine or human assistance in a serious game. However, all my recent serious (e.g. for real money) tournaments have had _some_ form of anti-cheating measures in place, for which I am glad. Any rigorous statistics on the extent of cheating would have to be correctly weighted for anti-cheating measures. It actually sounds like a hard problem to solve, which may be why nobody has done has produced statistics to date.
SoDesuKa SoDesuKa 9/15/2022 09:57
Of course, you are in the know, wink-wink. I'll defer to your excellent analysis.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 9/15/2022 09:34
I can't find anyone with this name in the FIDE rating list. Did you check my name?

Thank you for your link. At least I can read the full article now, which someone suggested I hadn't...
The thought that someone might be using computer assistance in games against me never crossed my mind. I reckon that the chance an opponent of mine makes use of Human assistance is far greater. But even that has happened only once in my over 50 years playing competitive chess - and the culprit would have been me, if I had followed the accidentally given advice.
All slightly normal or slightly adult chessplayers would have done the same. Apart from the online form (I'm afraid), chess is a game where you take pride in your mental capacities. There have been cases of computer-aided cheating, but in my opinion the perpetrators either had a severe personality problem, or were very young, or very desperate.
Your worries may be the result of the unsubstantiated lead 'computer aided cheating is possible so it must be everywhere'.
Please proof me wrong with statistics of proven cases in over the board chess. National federations should have figures.
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 09:12
"Or is it that the solution is already known, but is being held back by the Powers That Be (be they government or corporate), in the name of security or greed, who do not want the solution released to the general public?"
Yes, it must be that one. ;)
Zagliveri_chess Zagliveri_chess 9/15/2022 09:06
@Frederic: Thank you for the article and your investment in ameliorating cheating. I seldom comment but I do read your posts.

The measures proposed by you and others assume that cheating is only possible if it involves transmission of moves from a device near the venue and reception by the cheater player of move suggestions.

That is likely true for 99%+ of the cheaters. A player, however, supported by, say, the intelligence apparatus of a developed country can cheat without any information transmitted to her/him. For a while now there are implants with all sorts of capabilities undetectable by handheld scanners. Intelligence services use them extensively. I am afraid your US government references you cited are not particularly up to date with technological advancements. For those old enough to remember the 'Million dollar man/woman' serials, what used to be farfetched is now common practice. If your smart watch Frederic can play at 3k+, please note that a much smaller specialized implant with a hardcoded chess engine can play at 3.3k, be charged remotely, e.g. by the carrier laying on a special surface afterhours, and receive input from the cornea.

You and others may find that ridiculous in the sense that any player below 2.7k will have a miserable time explaining her/his wins against Magnus, Ding, Alireza, Ian, Fabi, etc. at post game interviews. Plus we all know that elite chess players are geniuses, not cheaters. Yet, when the stakes are particularly high (e.g. 1972 WC match) everything is on the table. And even playing the game in a sealed cave in the Himalayas may not prevent cheating. I am afraid you would need to use an MRI scan before each games and that, per late Tom Clancy's novels, will make you 'glow in the dark'. Aristotle wrote that technology (at 3 century BC) had undermined bravery. These days technology has undermined honesty.
SoDesuKa SoDesuKa 9/15/2022 09:03
What we need is instant cheat-detection. Not the current "state of the art", but something comparable in strength and speed to the best engines, one that can, like its chess playing brothers, defeat all humans. I'm waiting for that announcement by Chessbase (not dated April 1, and no joke) that they have partnered with Google to develop "Google Pawn", a realistic chess piece that could sit on the in-person table, between the two players, next to their clock, and would emit a little chirp when the white player was suspected of cheating, and two chirps if it was black. It would simply be an "early warning" device, enabling an arbiter to step in, so that the warning could be evaluated before continuing, just like modern cars warn the driver, or even apply the brakes, when the car in front suddenly slows down. A similar device would be marketed for the online community, with the chirps audible to both players. Why not? Where is the scientific evidence that this is NOT possible, and why? Is it really too complex to deliver an instant and and sure solution like this? Or is it that the solution is already known, but is being held back by the Powers That Be (be they government or corporate), in the name of security or greed, who do not want the solution released to the general public? Is it really beyond the power of computer technology to produce the Google Pawn? If so, why? Or, even more importantly, if it is possible, why is it not being implemented? I would love to see a multi-part article here on Chessbase that attempts to answer these and other related questions. Humans have developed computers that can now outplay any human. Why can those same humans not develop software to beat humans at cheating? "I have analyzed every game you ever played, human. I think you've cheated before, and that you are cheating right now, and here's why." -Hal 9000
e-mars e-mars 9/15/2022 05:22
When it comes to (chess) cheating I am for a zero tolerance approach: Hans has been caught twice (so in reality the cases could be even more) online and he admitted it. Online, OTB, it doesn't matter, a cheater will be always a cheater. There are several studies with statical evidence demonstrating criminals go back to their habit, so even if most of us may find difficult comparing a chess cheater to a "real" criminal, on the other end a full ban on chess competitions is not a life sentence or a death penalty, a banned chess player can do anything else still enjoying his freedom, probably picking up some other profession while still playing chess as a hobby: it doesn't sounds that harsh.
Sébastien Feller's 2 years and 9 months ban? It is nothing, a drop in the ocean. Hans? He should never be invited by any organiser, not even by the local school in the middle of nowhere.
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 04:56
I don't think it can be questioned that delayed transmission (15 minutes or whatever) is qualitatively different from real-time transmission. The only question is, does the viewer _care_? Some won't care at all, some will care a little bit, some will find their experience completely ruined. For one who doesn't care at all to say that it _should not_ affect the viewer's experience is a little off-putting.

My own view is real-time transmission is highly annoying, and 15-minute delay is even more annoying. At least if I were physically present in the room I could pass the waiting-time by observing the players' body language or whatever. But the truth is chess is more interesting to play than to spectate. So I prefer to wait until the game is over and replay the pgn in an offline GUI. Whenever ChessBase offers a live tournament page, I only look at the games that are completed, and ignore the ones that are still in progress.
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 9/15/2022 04:46
@adbennet, that person is a bot and scammer who didn't read the article but it was picked up by the mention of cheating and then the bot posts the message. That's why it does not make sense here.

I like the idea of a 15 min delay, but the spectators are a problem. Could there be a 2nd, monitored room, where they must wait for 15 minutes before leaving? Or make them all pay a fee to view the tournament so there is something at stake, and make them agree not to comment or transmit any moves for 15 minutes after they leave? Or make them register somehow, so an investigation can be conducted if information is getting out early?
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 03:57
Jacob woge wrote: "What is real problem?" Suspicious Minds.

Frits Fritschy wrote: "Before discussing how to solve the cheating problem, I would like to see a serious, bias-free investigation whether there is a serious cheating problem (in OTB chess, as some call it) and how big it really is. I haven't seen it yet."

These two ideas are related. Even if cheating is a problem only in the minds of the players, that doesn't mean we can ignore it.

Chess is difficult enough without having intruding thoughts that the opponent could _possibly_ be cheating. Once we have that thought, then we have to check it, look for evidence, etc. This distracts from the real chess thinking of "if I go here then they go there". It helps everyone if anti-cheating measures are automatic, meaning they don't require any vigilance on the part of organizers and players. Well, there is always _some_ vigilance required, for example the rules of the competition have to be enforced, but ideally anti-assistance measures should be handled in the same way as other infractions, as a background to the competition and not in the forefront of everybody's minds.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 9/15/2022 03:56
I remember that I once was watching football and I could hear each time about a minute earlier what would happen due to the sounds coming from a pub nearby. The emotions of the people in the pub after a miss/ goal changed the experience totally. In the end I and my friends decided to go the pub.

Chess-kibitzers won't make that much noise but you do have many trolls at online chess which just love it to spoil the experience if they can by sharing moves/ results earlier than you can see in the broadcast.
Frederic Frederic 9/15/2022 03:35
BTW you can do an experiment: watch a football (soccer) game simultaneously on terrestrial TV and on live Internet streaming. Here I have a minute and a half lag in the latter. That is why I always watch on terrestrial. Live Internet streaming completely ruins the game. </sarcasm>

@mc1483 "One-way mirrors, metal detectors, jamming devices and so on, all around and inside the stage could be enough, without need for personal searching, stripping or other stressful measures." -- Well, what do you think of this development?
arzi arzi 9/15/2022 12:55
There is only one option. Players are completely isolated from the outside world during the games. Before the games, players have gone through a so called "cheating" check. Even toilets have to be checked before and during matches. Spectators and commentators, on the other hand, can keep their devices on and send information about the games to the outside world in real time, because there is no delay. Players can not see out but spectators and commentators can see into the room. The room would be isolated from means of electronic or other communication.
mc1483 mc1483 9/15/2022 12:14
As Frederic pointed out, even the 15 minutes delay is an obsolete idea. It was a good one when the assistance could only be provided by means of desktop computers, but with smartphones first and smartwatches now there's nothing that can be done. You cannot strip naked hundreds of spectators.
What should be done is preventing the players from communicating with others. One-way mirrors, metal detectors, jamming devices and so on, all around and inside the stage could be enough, without need for personal searching, stripping or other stressful measures.
flachspieler flachspieler 9/15/2022 11:21
Over night it has become clear to me why I do not have any problem at all with a delay of 15 minutes. I am engaged in space missions, in particular in those to other planets, asteroids, and comets. There a delay of many minutes or some hours is very normal, due to the limitations of light speed for the transmission of data and photos.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/15/2022 09:55
Was the common toilet proposed before Elista 2006? That would have prevented the suspicion and scandal in the Kramnik-Topalov match.

"What we are advocating is that only the players, the arbiters and the fifty on-site spectators see the moves in real time."

That can only work if spectators have to wait for 15 minutes without watching the games before leaving, so they cannot notify the world of what they have seen but others not to prevent spoilers.

Carlsen did a lot of harm with the accusation indeed.
arzi arzi 9/15/2022 06:36
Doping in sports. It's here to stay in sports. Millions of euros/dollars have been invested in anti-doping equipments and drugs. The competition with better substances and revealing techniques is fierce. Prohibited substances in chess, is there a list of them? Phone, tablet, any computer-based technical device... What about chemical substances? Is there an existing list of prohibited substances in chess? Maybe not yet but will be.

Is a 15-minute delay in telecommunication connections a problem worth millions of euros/dollars? With a little money and effort, some kind of protection against fraud. Maybe the delay should be 30 minutes. Maybe the spectators and commentators who are on the spot watching the live game will have to be checked that their devices are closed and the results cannot be sent to the outside world before the end of the games? Is it a problem? For whom? There is cheating and there will be cheating in chess. Is it better not to try to prevent cheating? Delay is one good way to prevent cheating, a cheap way. Let´s try it first before stop using it for ever. Preventing communication between players and outsiders is a key. Preventing the disclosure of the final results in connection with the delay practice also requires some actions.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 9/15/2022 06:21
"What we are advocating is that only the players, the arbiters and the fifty on-site spectators see the moves in real time."

After a game is finished, reporters on-site are not waiting 15 minutes to share the result with the outside world. They tweet, update their facebook... and a few seconds later some follower spoils the 15 minute delay broadcast by publishing that info into the chat of that broadcast. I've encountered that several times which pretty much pushed me to stop watching such delayed broadcasts (and I assume many others).
Peter B Peter B 9/15/2022 06:00
As someone living in Australia, I find your friend's objections are laughable. I usually watch chess on several hours' delay. No information is coming from the playing hall, so why does the 15 minute delay matter?
Green22 Green22 9/15/2022 04:01
Magnus STILL needs to speak on why he left. He's the world champion act like one dude instead of the cryptic tweet! its clear by now I think on everyone's mind Hans did not cheat. Carlsen didn't play well so he stomps his feet and withdraws lol.. classy..
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 03:15
@Martha_lawson - Did you google cheat? We are not discussing that kind of cheating. Between the fake testimonial on the one hand, and the advocacy of hacking into a partner's devices and services on the other hand, wise chess players will be steering well clear.
Martha_lawson Martha_lawson 9/15/2022 02:45
This is tasty! Life has taught me that you can’t control someone’s loyalty. No matter how good you are to them it doesn’t mean that they will treat you the same way. I have been married to my wife for two years with no idea she was cheating. Suddenly I started noticing changes in behavior, I suspected something was wrong. So I confided in a friend who convinced and introduced me to a pro-tech guru. He was able to infiltrate into my wife mobile phone, text messages, Call logs, IG, browser history, deleted messages, Emails and WhatsApp . It seemed as though my life was spinning out of control getting to find out she has someone else. I filed for a divorce just could not continue with lies. If you feel you are been exploited in your marriage and you need proof, I suggest you hire hacksecrete@gmail .com  . He has been of great help to me and I believe he can be to you
Daniel Miller Daniel Miller 9/15/2022 01:01
I do not think Hans cheated, however, we need penalties for cheating to be much harsher than they are, regardless of the age of the offender. In my opinion, because he cheated at ages 12 and 16, he should be banned for life from all prize tournaments. I do not agree with his invitation to the Sinquefield Cup for this reason.
adbennet adbennet 9/15/2022 12:04
@Frits Fritschy - I found the correct link for article 2 by trial and error.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 9/14/2022 11:37
Before discussing how to solve the cheating problem, I would like to see a serious, bias-free investigation whether there is a serious cheating problem (in OTB chess, as some call it) and how big it really is. I haven't seen it yet.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 9/14/2022 11:27
“What is real problem?”

Suspicious Minds.

Remember the “yoghurt incidence” of 1978. You do not even have to cheat, but planting the worry in the opponent’s mind could make him tilt.

Some people are easier rattled than others, re. the legendary Vidmar-Nimzowitsch smoking tale.

I would have to be hard pressed, by carrot or by stick, to argue that a 15min delay should be a problem.
SKAcz SKAcz 9/14/2022 10:50
And what if Hans N. didnt use online data for cheating, then 15minutes will be bigger evil. Those who don't agree, either have issues with logic, or, for some reason, favor the potential cheater.
SKAcz SKAcz 9/14/2022 10:45
Yeah exactly, but what is lesser evil? What if Hans N. is not excellent cheater but really just played well, what we should then solve ? What is real problem, and is really some? In finale all get their moment in public outside chess, isnt it good for chess in final to have advertisement in media?
TommyCB TommyCB 9/14/2022 10:35
I remember a time when we had to wait weeks (usually months) to receive the moves....and Chess was still exciting!

A 15-minute delay in classical chess might still not be long enough at the very top level. In many games this covers a gap of only 1 or 2 moves. If you tell Magnus that 2 moves ago a specific move gave him a +3 advantage I think that would be quite beneficial, especially if he played that first move of the variation.
Alexandru27 Alexandru27 9/14/2022 09:08
Obviously a matter of accepting the lesser evil. Those who don't agree, either have issues of reality assessment, or, for some reason, favor the potential cheater.
SKAcz SKAcz 9/14/2022 08:42
If 15 minute solve it partially then we can improve system also partially to be much more better by some 'player is no cheater' rating which will be very low for new players but very high for very old known players who played a tons of no cheating games and this players can play without delayed stream and all fans can enjoy it including who likes bet online on games in real time. Imagine how big advantage will have betting offices if will have somebody on place who knows the future ...

So if Carlsen will play somebody who has big enough nocheater rating we can enjoy zero lag in live broadcast, but if some new risky player (what is everybody young or no playing among top players) = player with very low nocheater rating , then game will be secured in black box and both can play also naked, if middle nocheating rating then just delay can solve it prolly ...