[semeai]

 gwnn, on 2012-September-13, 15:30, said:

It's quite amazing that the developer of the software can say 'it cannot be rigged' with a straight face. Of course he needs to do so but still wow. Hackers continue to break into bank accounts, CIA databases, etc.

It does sound like it can't be that hard. That said, it sounds like maybe the kid just had Fritz running and wasn't using the game record program and nobody noticed earlier.

[gwnn]

Yes that's most likely but it almost defies belief. My opponent is tapping his tablet continuously and I don't bother to look at his screen?? Maybe I'm rude or paranoid but that would be the first thing I would do when I'm bored/see I'm losing, just try to see what he's up to.

[gwnn]

BTW a very famous (for chess players at least) recent case is written up here:
http://www.chessbase...asp?newsid=7094

The most important part being that apparently the coach of the national team of France was signalling moves by staying at some boards for a longer than usual time as:

Quote

Arnaud Hauchard had two phones on him, his and that of Sebastien Feller. He would consult them at the bar and then come back to the playing hall. The moves were transmitted to Feller as follows:

• The opponent of Vachier-Lagrave was A and 1
  
• The opponent of Fressinet was B and 2
  
• The opponent of Tkachiev C and 3
  
• The opponent Feller D and 4
  
• Feller himself was E and 5
  
• Tkachiev was F and 6
  
• Fressinet was G and 7
  
• Finally Vachier-Lagrave was H and 8

Arnaud Hauchard would move around the tables and stop for some time behind different players, e.g. behind the opponent of Tkachiev and then behind Fressinet to signal the square c2. Incidentally it is usually sufficient to signal the destination square – a 2600+ (or even much weaker) player is easily able to determine which piece should be moved there.

Feller, the GM who was not punished for cheating, continues to deny all allegations.

[dwar0123]

 gwnn, on 2012-September-13, 17:12, said:

BTW a very famous (for chess players at least) recent case is written up here:
http://www.chessbase...asp?newsid=7094

The most important part being that apparently the coach of the national team of France was signalling moves by staying at some boards for a longer than usual time as:

Feller, the GM who was not punished for cheating, continues to deny all allegations.

I can't imagine bridge culture is any more noble then Chess's culture, yet still I find it hard to believe highly regarded members doing such abhorrent things.


I don't deny it or even really doubt it, just makes me sad.

[CarlRitner]

Perhaps some do it just to see if they can get away with it, undetected.

In chess any outside observer can see all the pieces (complete information) and consult a computer.
In bridge this would be difficult to do (unless it's VuGraphed) but then who/what do you consult, and how to do it quick enough?

Better to hack the deal machine/network.

[Zelandakh]

 EricK, on 2012-September-13, 14:55, said:

Yes, but they still make bad moves. Nobody with a lowish rating can replicate a long series of computer moves except by cheating.

This is rubbish btw. I have replicated a series of GM moves to around move 40 in a serious game, simply by memorising the book line. There is no reason why a player cannot do the same for computer moves.

[EricK]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-September-14, 01:57, said:

This is rubbish btw. I have replicated a series of GM moves to around move 40 in a serious game, simply by memorising the book line. There is no reason why a player cannot do the same for computer moves.

OK. This can happen occasionally. But is does require your opponent to make the moves in the line you have learnt - and you would also be able to point out where you got those moves from if asked. But once out of book, even GMs can't make the best moves consistently (unless there is a forcing line leading to victory); it is basically impossible for non-rated players to do it.

[billw55]

 CarlRitner, on 2012-September-13, 18:46, said:

Perhaps some do it just to see if they can get away with it, undetected.

In chess any outside observer can see all the pieces (complete information) and consult a computer.
In bridge this would be difficult to do (unless it's VuGraphed) but then who/what do you consult, and how to do it quick enough?

Better to hack the deal machine/network.

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2012-September-14, 06:35, said:

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

The simplest bridge cheating is providing the board before it is played, as a fellow countryman of mine used to do before he was banned for 10 years. Patrick Jourdain vaguely recalled the theme of a slam he played with AKxxx opposite xx in a side suit, where declarer cashed the ace and ducked one, and then ruffed the two losers, guarding against the suit breaking 5-1 which it did. Very pretty, and as Patrick discovered by rummaging through old bridge magazines, card for card as a hand played by Belladonna in the early 1960s.

The Kramnik v Topalov World Championship match was marred by allegations of frequent calls of nature at key moments in the game, and a possible hidden computer. The truth about Toiletgate 2006 has never been flushed out, if you forgive the pun.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2012-September-14, 06:55, said:

The simplest bridge cheating is providing the board before it is played, as a fellow countryman of mine used to do before he was banned for 10 years. Patrick Jourdain vaguely recalled the theme of a slam he played with AKxxx opposite xx in a side suit, where declarer cashed the ace and ducked one, and then ruffed the two losers, guarding against the suit breaking 5-1 which it did. Very pretty, and as Patrick discovered by rummaging through old bridge magazines, card for card as a hand played by Belladonna in the early 1960s.

The Kramnik v Topalov World Championship match was marred by allegations of frequent calls of nature at key moments in the game, and a possible hidden computer. The truth about Toiletgate 2006 has never been flushed out, if you forgive the pun.

Yep, lots of ways to cheat.

In fact, I was once accused of cheating in a chess tournament. As often happened, I was there with several friends, and we would chat away from the table during games. One opponent lodged a complaint. Director gave no penalty but asked that we stop in this particular case.

[antonylee]

 billw55, on 2012-September-14, 06:35, said:

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

Well, instead have a "kibitzer" to go and kibitz a table whose number corresponds to a board where slam is on (or rather, where you need an anti-percentage play)...

[barmar]

 nigel_k, on 2012-September-13, 14:03, said:

2. A 16 year old winning more than his rating would suggest is hardly enough to justify suspicion. Doesn't everyone with a high rating get it by starting out with a low rating and beating higher rated players?

Of course everyone who is highly rated started out lower. But they don't usually come from nowhere and start beating everyone in sight, they improve gradually.

There are occasional prodigies, of course. But they are rare, so it's reasonable to be suspicious. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

[jeffford76]

 billw55, on 2012-September-14, 06:35, said:

The simplest bridge cheating is getting information about a board before it is played. For example, the incredible ease of texting "24 slam" or such, explains the need to ban cellphones.

Or alternately, the fact that this piece of information is so easy to convey in 100 other ways explains the pointlessness of the ban on cell phones.

[barmar]

 jeffford76, on 2012-September-14, 10:37, said:

Or alternately, the fact that this piece of information is so easy to convey in 100 other ways explains the pointlessness of the ban on cell phones.

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

You do the best you can -- prevent as many cheating methods as is reasonably feasible.

[lalldonn]

 barmar, on 2012-September-14, 10:40, said:

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

You do the best you can -- prevent as many cheating methods as is reasonably feasible.

That would make sense if they were doing anything to prevent the other methods. But there are kibitzers allowed, unsupervised bathroom breaks allowed, walking around the room with no one noticing that you are glancing at hands, players hanging out together in the hallway after rounds, etc. Cell phones aren't even close to the best way to cheat even if you wanted to IMO.

Other than using computers to play, the best solution is to switch to barometer. Banning cell phones is pointless and always has been. I still believe it originated as an overreaction to the cell phones ringing since that penalty was so inconsistently being enforced.

[jeffford76]

 barmar, on 2012-September-14, 10:40, said:

Ridiculous. If someone can cheat by method X or Y, there's no point in preventing X unless you can also prevent Y?

Yes, essentially, despite you calling it ridiculous, and assuming that the methods are equally easy. As long as there are easy ways to cheat, then banning some of them just steers people to the others.

[barmar]

So we should get rid of screens?

[billw55]

 jeffford76, on 2012-September-14, 11:11, said:

Yes, essentially, despite you calling it ridiculous, and assuming that the methods are equally easy. As long as there are easy ways to cheat, then banning some of them just steers people to the others.

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

[kuhchung]

 billw55, on 2012-September-14, 12:53, said:

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Edit: I may have responded to a straw man, which is unfortunate.

[dwar0123]

 kuhchung, on 2012-September-14, 13:35, said:

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

So we should never cure anything?

This is becoming a tautology.

Or do you mean to suggest that banning cell phones is worse then cheating? Cause I am totally not following you on that one.