Quick plug before we get into the post today: my chess book is available for order on Amazon! This book has nothing to do with the current cheating controversy, it’s a chess improvement book I co-wrote with my friend GM Eugene Perelshteyn. So if you’re sick of the controversy and just want to work on your own chess, give it a look!
One of the biggest reveals in Chess.com’s 72-page cheating report released this week was that at least 25 grandmasters – about 1.5% of all grandmasters in the world – have confessed to cheating on their platform. Many chess fans were shocked to learn the extent of online cheating among the world’s elite players, but it didn’t shock their grandmaster colleagues.
Like Niemann, other grandmasters caught cheating had their accounts closed. While the account closures weren’t announced publicly, anyone could see the account had been closed just by going to the player’s profile, and word gets around. Other GMs knew whose accounts had been closed and they knew what it meant.
When Magnus Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup, he blew the lid off a cauldron of suspicion and frustration that had been slowly simmering for a long time. Much of the pent-up frustration was directed, perhaps unfairly, at a single individual in the form of Hans Niemann. Now that the cheating conversation is out in the open, it’s a good time to reexamine how online cheating is handled and think about the path forward.
The Status Quo
Chess.com offered players they caught cheating a bargain: confess and we won’t out you publicly, and you can keep playing on a new account. Like any good bargain, this offered benefits for both sides. The player got to avoid public embarrassment and continue playing online. Chess.com got a solemn pledge that they would knock off the cheating behavior and a written confession that would come in handy if they ever landed in court.
But the player and Chess.com weren’t the only interested parties. You could argue that these other parties made out less well in the bargain. Opponents who lost to cheaters were refunded the rating points they lost, but there is no refund for nagging suspicion of future opponents. In a broader sense, the whole community of online chess players is counting on Chess.com to ensure a level playing field. While Chess.com already commands a lot of respect in the chess world, a clear and transparent process for addressing cheating would help players feel more confident.
The Way Forward
The issue of cheating in chess is complex and multifaceted, but in the big picture I see the solution as having two components: transparency and consequences.
There are legitimate reasons for online servers to keep some parts of their fair play process secret. If you give away all the details of what you’re doing, it makes it easier for cheaters to get around it. And public accusations do expose the accuser to potential lawsuits. Nonetheless, there are also good reasons for transparency. Chess.com has said they exercise extreme caution before accusing someone and I see no reason to doubt that, but even the most careful adjudicators make mistakes occasionally. There should be a formal process where the accused have a chance to present evidence in their defense. I’m no lawyer, but I’d imagine that having a clear, consistent, publicly vetted process would also be an asset in the event of a lawsuit. Setting up such a process won’t be easy, but there are existing examples like anti-doping procedures in sports, so we know it’s possible.
The other part of the solution is consequences. At present, the consequences for cheating online are minimal for online play and nonexistent for OTB (except indirectly – more on that in a moment). The private communications shared by Chess.com show that known cheaters were allowed to keep playing on new accounts. In some cases they were banned from prize tournaments, but could be reinstated into those as well. As far as OTB chess, there is no formal system for sanctioning players OTB based on their online behavior, but there are indirect consequences in the form of withdrawn tournament invitations and so on. In a sense, Carlsen’s actions against Niemann are a sort of vigilante justice. Given that online and OTB chess are already clearly connected in the minds of top players, there should be a more formal and explicit system for how online infractions impact your OTB opportunities. In any enforcement system, you can rarely make cheating completely impossible; but by strengthening the consequences you can discourage potential cheaters.
None of this will be easy. In particular, it will require delineating the connection between online and OTB play, which up until now have been largely separate arenas. But with the attention of the chess community – and the wider world – fixed on the cheating issue, we have a unique and transient opportunity to make positive changes.
Very informative as usual Nate! Book is on order. Cheers David
Really online cheaters will always be and OTB cheaters are more than 1 but is not as common as it was, e.eg. in cycling in the times of Lance Armstrong. The super GMs I don't think there is a cheater between them.