Congrats on the excellent performance against some top players. That is truly impressive, and I'm sorry that the fair play screening soured the experience. Asking to see Task Manager seems particularly intrusive, and I can't imagine how it would help them catch someone determined to cheat. I have no doubt it affected your play in the rest of the tournament; I notice the psychological effect of rude opponents on my play all the time, and it sucks. (One recently pulled his phone out at the board and started typing....)
In higher ed, we saw a huge uptick in cheating with remote learning. It's incredibly demoralizing to realize that the only thing preventing many from cheating is how hard it is, especially since it gets easier all the time. I refused to join the arms race of every circumventable tech "solution" that locked down browers, filmed students, and invaded their privacy. Still, I caught students who posted entire final exams online and paid for homework. The problem is vast, but whatever benefit the draconian measures provide are outweighed by the negative effect on honest actors. In the end, we only catch the most blatant instances anyway, rewarding the smarter cheaters and punishing the honest flukes (can't help but notice the parallel in your 5% odds and the arbitrary cutoff for a significant P-value...)
We need to draw a line somewhere because we'll never fully control it, and rethink how to move forward in a society where both cheating and surveilance are increasingly normalized and easier all the time. Stricter measures mean more false positives, so should really be warranted in their effectiveness. I also don't envy Chess.com's position, and it may be an impossible task, but they have resources, and it's pretty disappointing if what you experienced is representative of their approach.
I've really enjoyed your posts on this topic, and I thought your take on the Niemann fiasco was refreshingly balanced. You give an important perspective on the negative effects of these policies. It's too bad they decided not to create that fair play position; you'd have been great.
I am very impressed by chess.com about how quick and serious they are about cheating. Last couple of weeks I got refunding of ratingpoints practically daily often of games played just hours earlier.
However that also means there are a lot of cheaters as I don't think those are false positives.
First of all congratulations on the win against Hikaru! Second, I have to say I think it is complete bs that they required you to join a zoom call and do what they told you to do, all in the middle of a game! Cheating in online tournaments is such a shame to the pride of the game, but it seems as though it could be impossible to fully prevent (like you said with the phone charging not too far away, this is just one example of something they should be looking for).
In 2021 I won against https://lichess.org/@/Alexsur81 in only 21 moves. Alexsur81 is one of the highest and most active players on lichess. After that game he openly accused me of cheating and reported me to the lichess-anti-cheating-committee after which suddenly all my games were scrutinised. Fortunately justice prevailed and no proof was found of cheating but after the stressful experience I suddenly became much less excited of winning against such big guns. So I share your feelings.
For people wondering how one could win in just 21 moves (even without the grandmaster blundering anything) then I must say that he just played some line which I deeply analysed some months before and about which I published some of the analysis on my blog see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-non-sense-of-blitz-part-4.html
Thanks for writing a masterpiece about the topic. The paranoia of few disturbs more other players by influencing chess.com and their measures. You adressed this.
It would be better if they just required all Titled Tuesday players to do a zoom connection sharing the desktop and showing Task Manager or (for mac) Activity Monitor continuously, for every game, all the time. There is no question that interrupting a game with requests for video and screen sharing and other questions is going to impact the outcome of the game in an unfair way.
Also, I'm betting the "big names" never get selected for random interrogation.
As a very low rated player who is very focused on improvement, I've always had this background fear that if I improve too quickly that the chess.com or lichess robots will flag me as a cheater ... just for playing well. Your story resonated we me, of course!
Great story -even without taking into account the fascinating chess context. It weaves together disparate narrative elements to create real drama. Bravissimo!
An outstanding article of great timeliness, and deeply personal in nature. Thank you Nate.
In my recent retirement I too am wondering whether Chess will be a mere pastime to while the hours until death. Perhaps take an active role in my local club running tournaments and acting as arbiter under direction.
The choice of chasing the golden ring for me, realistically, would be cracking 2000 in FIDE sanctioned play, maybe National or International Master would be the crowning achievement of my Chess career.
As to the introduction: still quite a stretch, and not just because a logical draw in the game back in 1999 would have left both players with chances in this tournament.
Nakamura also attended college, at least for a while - according to a NY Times article "to get away from chess" after some disappointing results. Wesley So and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave went to university, while becoming chess professionals before finishing their studies. I had talked to MVL about it in Wijk aan Zee: "Yes, I was a serious student (of mathematics). Of course I missed some classes, but I passed all my exams on schedule."
I understand that it doesn't work like this "in real time", but if someone is innocent (I have no doubts in your case, but in all cases only the person him/herself knows for sure) being considered a possible cheater might actually be taken as a big compliment.
In any case, things could have been worse: you could have been called out as a cheater by their secret algorithms (false positives do occur) or based on the Zoom call - if a visible phone is considered evidence of cheating, or if something deemed suspicious but beyond your control had happened: e.g. not an eight-month-old toddler, but a teenager walking into the room maybe holding a phone.
The point of the Zoom call can only be to "do something against cheating", it could also be per request of an earlier opponent, and to prevent (or make it harder) for actual cheaters to keep cheating. An actual cheater could close windows on his computer and put a phone out of camera sight during the time it takes to connect to the Zoom call - and only very weak players (but untitled ones can't play Titled Tuesday) would suddenly play MUCH worse than before.
"Would it be worth making the sacrifices to seriously improve my own game if succeeding might only result in increased scrutiny and stress?" - this is what happened to Hans Niemann, even he was already considered "too old to improve a lot" ..... .
It's very unfair that the organizers disturb a player while his opponent can focus 100%.
Nice move, Qg5!!
Congrats on the excellent performance against some top players. That is truly impressive, and I'm sorry that the fair play screening soured the experience. Asking to see Task Manager seems particularly intrusive, and I can't imagine how it would help them catch someone determined to cheat. I have no doubt it affected your play in the rest of the tournament; I notice the psychological effect of rude opponents on my play all the time, and it sucks. (One recently pulled his phone out at the board and started typing....)
In higher ed, we saw a huge uptick in cheating with remote learning. It's incredibly demoralizing to realize that the only thing preventing many from cheating is how hard it is, especially since it gets easier all the time. I refused to join the arms race of every circumventable tech "solution" that locked down browers, filmed students, and invaded their privacy. Still, I caught students who posted entire final exams online and paid for homework. The problem is vast, but whatever benefit the draconian measures provide are outweighed by the negative effect on honest actors. In the end, we only catch the most blatant instances anyway, rewarding the smarter cheaters and punishing the honest flukes (can't help but notice the parallel in your 5% odds and the arbitrary cutoff for a significant P-value...)
We need to draw a line somewhere because we'll never fully control it, and rethink how to move forward in a society where both cheating and surveilance are increasingly normalized and easier all the time. Stricter measures mean more false positives, so should really be warranted in their effectiveness. I also don't envy Chess.com's position, and it may be an impossible task, but they have resources, and it's pretty disappointing if what you experienced is representative of their approach.
I've really enjoyed your posts on this topic, and I thought your take on the Niemann fiasco was refreshingly balanced. You give an important perspective on the negative effects of these policies. It's too bad they decided not to create that fair play position; you'd have been great.
I am very impressed by chess.com about how quick and serious they are about cheating. Last couple of weeks I got refunding of ratingpoints practically daily often of games played just hours earlier.
However that also means there are a lot of cheaters as I don't think those are false positives.
Naturally rules for competitions with prizes must be very strict. The rules clearly mention the zoom-call: https://www.chess.com/article/view/titled-tuesday
First of all congratulations on the win against Hikaru! Second, I have to say I think it is complete bs that they required you to join a zoom call and do what they told you to do, all in the middle of a game! Cheating in online tournaments is such a shame to the pride of the game, but it seems as though it could be impossible to fully prevent (like you said with the phone charging not too far away, this is just one example of something they should be looking for).
In 2021 I won against https://lichess.org/@/Alexsur81 in only 21 moves. Alexsur81 is one of the highest and most active players on lichess. After that game he openly accused me of cheating and reported me to the lichess-anti-cheating-committee after which suddenly all my games were scrutinised. Fortunately justice prevailed and no proof was found of cheating but after the stressful experience I suddenly became much less excited of winning against such big guns. So I share your feelings.
For people wondering how one could win in just 21 moves (even without the grandmaster blundering anything) then I must say that he just played some line which I deeply analysed some months before and about which I published some of the analysis on my blog see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-non-sense-of-blitz-part-4.html
Awesome article!!
Thanks for writing a masterpiece about the topic. The paranoia of few disturbs more other players by influencing chess.com and their measures. You adressed this.
It would be better if they just required all Titled Tuesday players to do a zoom connection sharing the desktop and showing Task Manager or (for mac) Activity Monitor continuously, for every game, all the time. There is no question that interrupting a game with requests for video and screen sharing and other questions is going to impact the outcome of the game in an unfair way.
Also, I'm betting the "big names" never get selected for random interrogation.
As a very low rated player who is very focused on improvement, I've always had this background fear that if I improve too quickly that the chess.com or lichess robots will flag me as a cheater ... just for playing well. Your story resonated we me, of course!
Great story -even without taking into account the fascinating chess context. It weaves together disparate narrative elements to create real drama. Bravissimo!
An outstanding article of great timeliness, and deeply personal in nature. Thank you Nate.
In my recent retirement I too am wondering whether Chess will be a mere pastime to while the hours until death. Perhaps take an active role in my local club running tournaments and acting as arbiter under direction.
The choice of chasing the golden ring for me, realistically, would be cracking 2000 in FIDE sanctioned play, maybe National or International Master would be the crowning achievement of my Chess career.
As to the introduction: still quite a stretch, and not just because a logical draw in the game back in 1999 would have left both players with chances in this tournament.
Nakamura also attended college, at least for a while - according to a NY Times article "to get away from chess" after some disappointing results. Wesley So and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave went to university, while becoming chess professionals before finishing their studies. I had talked to MVL about it in Wijk aan Zee: "Yes, I was a serious student (of mathematics). Of course I missed some classes, but I passed all my exams on schedule."
I understand that it doesn't work like this "in real time", but if someone is innocent (I have no doubts in your case, but in all cases only the person him/herself knows for sure) being considered a possible cheater might actually be taken as a big compliment.
In any case, things could have been worse: you could have been called out as a cheater by their secret algorithms (false positives do occur) or based on the Zoom call - if a visible phone is considered evidence of cheating, or if something deemed suspicious but beyond your control had happened: e.g. not an eight-month-old toddler, but a teenager walking into the room maybe holding a phone.
The point of the Zoom call can only be to "do something against cheating", it could also be per request of an earlier opponent, and to prevent (or make it harder) for actual cheaters to keep cheating. An actual cheater could close windows on his computer and put a phone out of camera sight during the time it takes to connect to the Zoom call - and only very weak players (but untitled ones can't play Titled Tuesday) would suddenly play MUCH worse than before.
"Would it be worth making the sacrifices to seriously improve my own game if succeeding might only result in increased scrutiny and stress?" - this is what happened to Hans Niemann, even he was already considered "too old to improve a lot" ..... .