Chess Fraud

Chess fraud could possibly have occurred around 600 A.D. e. ^[4] Presumably it caused deaths. So, according to legend, a quarrel over fraud led to the fact that King Knud the Great killed a Danish nobleman ^[5] .

Automatons

Unlike modern fraud methods, when players use the computing power of computers to make moves, in the 18th and 19th centuries the public was repeatedly deceived by people hidden in cars who made moves instead of machines. The first and most famous automatons with hoaxes were The Turk (1770), Ajeeb (1868), and Mephisto (1886).

Result Agreement

Over the years, countless accusations have been made of collusion between rivals. The agreement could relate to the intentional defeat of one player in order to allow another to fulfill the rules and get a chess title, or it could be a contractual draw , which improved the position of both in the tournament.

Researchers from the University of Washington in St. Louis said that Soviet chess players could agree on the results at world championships held from 1940 to 1964 ^{[6] [7]} . The study is about the agreed parties between them in batches with each other. It is believed that sometimes this has taken place, but there is disagreement about the effectiveness of such tactics. In 1962-1963 , this topic became the cause of scandals in the world of chess.

In 2011, Greg Shahad wrote that “pre-agreed results are extremely common even at the highest levels of the chess hierarchy. This statement is especially true for anyone ... There is a kind of code of silence on this subject at the highest levels ” ^[8] .

Violation of the rule “touched - go”

The chess rule “touched - go” says that the player whose turn it is to make a move must go down with a piece (a pawn here and hereafter also means a pawn ), which he touched, if he has where to go. Moreover, if the piece was moved to another cell and the player released it, having stopped holding it with his hand, the move should be recognized as done. If the player touched the opponent’s piece, he must take it if it can be taken. These rules are often difficult to observe, because only the opponent of the offender becomes a witness to their violation. However, their violation, however, is recognized as fraud ^[9] .

A famous incident of this kind occurred during a game between Milan Matulovic and Istvan Bilek at the Sousse Interzonal competitions in 1967 ^[10] . Matulovic made a losing move, but then returned the piece to its original place, saying “ J'adoube ” (“I correct” - a word that by the rules must be said before touching the pieces). His opponent complained to the referee, but he allowed the player to leave the actually converging piece in place, without forcing the player to make a move to it. After this incident, the nickname Zhadubovich ("J'adoubović") stuck to Matulovic ^[11] .

Using technology advances

Modern technology is used for fraud in chess in several ways. For the first time, a person received help from a computer while playing them as part of an experiment in Hamburg in August 1980 ^[12] . Players use chess programs and computers, especially when playing via the Internet, play on electronic platforms with themselves from different IP addresses , thereby achieving high ratings, and also use communication to receive tips and help during games face-to-face and tournaments. Subsequently, parties can be analyzed by specialists, and violators are caught ^[13] .

Known Incidents

• One of the earliest cases of technological chess fraud, which became known, occurred in 1993 at the World Open . An unlisted novice, who used headphones and took on the nickname “John von Neumann” (in honor of a famous scientist ), achieved suspiciously great success when playing with famous chess players. At the same time, in his pocket, he could see a device that made quiet, but distinct sounds in tense moments of the game. The organizers examined the newcomer and revealed that he was clueless in chess matters that he could not have known if he himself had played at the demonstrated level. The player was disqualified ^[14] .
• At the 2002 Lampertheim Open Tournament , an arbiter disqualified a player. Markus Keller explained what happened there:

  In the sixth round of games, the player came up to me and said that he suspected his opponent WS of L. in using outside help. He often went to the toilet, especially when it was his turn to walk. In earlier circles, he did the same, playing with other opponents. I followed WS and noticed that after going to the toilet he makes several quick moves. I followed him and did not hear any sounds from the booth. I peeked under the door and saw that the position of the player’s legs in the booth precluded his use of the toilet for its intended purpose. Therefore, I took the next booth, got on the toilet and looked through the wall. I saw that WS was standing in the booth, holding a laptop computer with the chess program turned on. To control her, he used a stylus . I immediately disqualified the player. He tried to argue that he was only checking mail, but refused to give me a computer for verification. I have witnesses, and we will ask the chess federation to deprive this person of the right to participate in tournaments.

• At the 2005 HB Global Chess Challenge in Minneapolis, Minnesota , the player was expelled for using a mobile phone to communicate with someone apparently in the same building. The use of cell phones in this tournament was expressly prohibited, and the organizers suspected him of receiving advice on how to walk from the outside. Six weeks later, the same player decided to participate in the World Open tournament and began to play successfully on it. The organizers, who already knew about the scandal in Minnesota, tried to remove it from the tournament, but, since previous violations were not fixed, they were forced to retreat when the player threatened to sue them ^[15] .
• At the Subroto Mukerjee memorial international rating chess tournament 2006, an Indian player was suspended for ten years for fraud ^[16] . A bluetooth chess computer was hidden in his cap ^{[17] [18]} . His accomplice was outside the building. The chess player was initially suspected of fraud when the organizers of the competition noticed strange fluctuations in his rating in the previous year and a half ^[18] . In 64 games, he scored more than 500 points, and opponents have repeatedly complained about him earlier ^[17] . As a result, representatives of the Indian Air Force searched the most productive players using a metal detector. The All India Chess Federation (AICF) examined the seized fixtures and imposed on a chess player named Umakan a 10-year ban to participate in tournaments ^[16] . Severe punishment caused some criticism and comparisons with other sports ^[19] . The organizers of the tournament, however, compared fraud with cheating on exams and claimed that what had happened was a signal to all players about the inadmissibility of this ^[19] .
• During the 2006 Philadelphia World Open , Steve Rosenberg was the leader. A victory would bring him $ 18,000. However, the tournament director exposed him using a wireless transmitter. The player was disqualified ^[20] .
• In the Dutch League 2C of 2007, during a game between Bergen op Zoom and AAS, the referee caught the captain of the AAS team (playing on board number 6) using a PDA. The player was suspended for three seasons ^[21] .
• During the Dubai Open 2008, an untitled player from Iran (rating 2288 at that time) was disqualified for receiving text messages with advice on how to walk while playing with Grandmaster Li Chao ^[22] . The game was broadcast on the Internet and it was announced that the participant’s friends watched it, helping him using a computer ^[22] .
• At the Norths Chess Club Centenary Year Under 1600 Tournament, a 14-year-old player was caught using a chess program (and a weak one). This was the first such event in Australia , which made a lot of noise in the local modest-sized chess community ^[23] .
• At the 39th Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk, three French players, all titled chess masters, were exposed in the use of a complex scheme, which according to the plan was supposed to allow them to receive prompts from a remote computer and transfer them to the final table through the system of conditional transfers “Consumer” - a player who directly played chess at that moment. No one else from the French team knew about the conspiracy ^{[24] [25]} .
• At the 2011 German Chess Championship, Christoph Natsidis used the chess program on his smartphone while playing with Sebastian Siebrecht. He admitted and was disqualified ^[26] .
• In 2012, at the Virginia Scholastic and Collegiate Championships, a player was caught using a chess program disguised as a program that was allowed to be used in a tournament. He was punished, the complaint was also sent to the ethics committee. Although the violator admitted to using the program only in this tournament, an analysis of its results suggests that he had previously resorted to its help ^[27] .
• In 2013, at the Cork Congress Chess Open, a 16-year-old player was caught using a smartphone. The opponent caught him on this, who had to knock the door of the toilet cubicle for this and pull the intruder out of it by force. As a result, both players were punished ^{[28] [29] [30]} .
• In April 2015, Georgian grandmaster Gayoz Nigalidze was removed from the Dubai Open Chess Tournament for using a chess program on a smartphone while in seclusion in the toilet ^[31] , then he was deprived of the status of grandmaster and was suspended for three years ^[32] .

Rating Manipulation

Manipulation with a rating is carried out by contractual games (described above as an independent way of fraud) or falsification of tournament results. The most popular type of such manipulations is called sandbagging (from the English sand bag - a sand bag ), in which a player intentionally loses in tournaments with a lower cash prize in order to lower his rating and fall into a lower category in a tournament with a big prize, which means a great chance of winning it. Sandbagging is difficult to recognize and prove, therefore FIDE takes some measures to reduce the effect of its use, introducing restrictions on rating fluctuations. The most striking example of sandbagging is the case of Alexandru Crisan, who falsified the results of tournaments to obtain the title of grandmaster. As a result, he took 33rd place in the FIDE ranking. The commission investigating these frauds recommended that Alexander be removed from the high rating and his title of grandmaster deprived of him, which, however, was never done ^{[33] [34]} .

Synchronous game

A player who does not know how to play chess can score 50% of points by playing on several boards and repeating the moves of his white-playing opponents against black and vice versa. In fact, his opponents are playing with each other. A synchronized game can “work” against any even number of opponents, provided that they play equally white and black. In some cases, it can be recognized as fraud. This technique was used in correspondence parties with Alexander Alekhin and Yefim Bogolyubov , which was exposed by themselves when the masters discussed strange parties with each other. The illusionist Derren Brown used this trick against 8 of the 9 leading British chess players in his television show ^[35] .

• Chess Fraud Proposals
• Evgeny Gleizerov urges chess players not to be jesters and slaves
• A history of cheating in chess (part 1 of 5)