von Neuman Ree visited

Today I want to return [What Happened Next? XVI; What Happened Next XVI] to John von Neumann. More specifically, I want to take another look at Hans Ree’s account of what happened at the 1993 World Open.

The most interesting thing about Shoes on Fire (reprinted in The Human Comedy of Chess, Russell Enterprises 1999) is not so much the facts of the case per se. As Richard James’ comment to last Monday’s post shows, you can find these, albeit with variations, all over the internet. No, what really stands out to the modern eye is Ree’s insight that von Neumann would come to be seen as just the tip of an iceberg towards which the good ship Chess World was steaming. Allowing ourselves the benefit of the eighteen years’ worth of hindsight unavailable to the Dutchman, we can see that he was entirely right, albeit perhaps in a way that he had not intended.

In the years since Ree’s article, cases of cheating with computers have surfaced with ever-increasing frequency. If von Neumann was a warning then so was the introduction of Pocket PCs running cut down versions of Fritz, and so is the emerging possibility of running the strongest engines on nothing more than a common or garden mobile phone. The alarms have gone unheeded, though, and we find ourselves no better prepared to deal with the spread of the silicon menace than we were in 1993.

With the recent decision in the French Olympiad case and the emergence of a British example of computer cheating (more on that tomorrow), another look at Ree’s two-decade old prophesy seemed more than timely. After reviewing what has happened since Shoes on Fire and the extent (or lack thereof) of the chess world’s readiness to deal with computer cheating, perhaps, like me, you'll be left feeling both concerned and optimistic: troubled at the situation in which we find ourselves, hopeful that the problem can be tackled and yet worried about where we’ll end up if it isn’t.

A superb book -

and Big Malc will flog it to you for a mere £7.50

Revisiting Ree's article to discover how he came to the conclusion that cheating by computer had a big future, we see that his starting point is the rank incompetence of the attempted fraud. von Neumann was so inept – his use of technology so ham-fisted, his choice of pseudonym so transparent – that Ree finds it impossible to take him seriously. von Neumann, he concludes, must have had a bigger plan in mind than the simple attempt to grab a few dollars away from some gullible amateur chessers.

If there was more to von Neumann than met the eye, what could he have been up to? Was he a decoy designed to attract attention away from a colleague who was using equally dubious methods to secure an even bigger prize? (The ‘smokescreen theory’ that David Sedgwick and I briefly discussed at Golden Lane last Monday night.) Was he an agent provocateur? Hoping to clean up in the libel courts after goading somebody into saying something that couldn’t be proved?

Ree’s ‘fiendish plot’ hypothesis could be true, I suppose, but I doubt it. As an erstwhile magician and one-time student of criminology, I can say with some confidence that the methods employed by those who make their living by deception are typically much less intricate than those imagined by the folk left trying to explain what they have seen. In the absence of any further evidence, then, I don’t particularly feel the need to consider von Neumann to be anything other than he appeared to be.

Where Ree was on the money was spotting the future significance of electronic cheating. He was right for the wrong reasons, perhaps - he thought that the ’93 World Open was a trial run for a group of organised criminals who wanted to know whether setting up shop in the chess world was worth their while - but he knew full well that there were many more John von Neumanns around the corner.

“It will probably be quite a while before someone knowing nothing about chess except for its notation will manage to penetrate into the ranks of elite players ...”, Ree said. I wonder if he has been surprised at the rate of change since the late 1990s. If it wasn’t the case that the best of humanity ceased to be a match for Stean’s Bloody Iron Monsters when Kasparov lost to Deep(er) Blue in 1997, it’s certainly true now.

Chess engines have become stronger and computer technology has become more portable and affordable. At the same time those, like von Neumann and the three Frenchies, who require communication with a third-party to enact their dirty deeds find mobile phones ubiquitous in a way that was unimaginable back in 1993. As a result cheating at chess has become democratised. Once restricted to people who were in contact with somebody who could both play the game and be trusted to co-operate/stay quiet, underhand methods to win games of chess are now available to anybody willing to make use of them. No surprise, then, that since Shoes on Fire was written silicon-powered cheating has expanded exponentially.

Consider this roll of ‘honour’: a list of cases in which it is either proven or strongly suspected that cheating by computer took place:-

• 1993 John von Neuman at the World Open
• 1998 Clemens Allwermann at the Boblinger Open [Chessbase]
• 2003 Unnamed adult (W.S) at Lampertsheim Open, Holland [Chessbase]
• 2006 DP Singh [Chessbase; RHP Forum]
• 2006 Umakant Sharma [Chess Vibes; Chessbase]
• 2006 Steve Rosenberg/World Open [Chessbase; Chessbase II]
• 2007 Unnamed adult, Holland [Chess Vibes; Chessbase; S&BC Blog]
• 2008 M. Sadatnajafi at the Dubai Open [Chessbase]
• 2009 Unnamed 14-year-old, Australia [Chess Vibes]
• 2009 Jean-Michel Mondoloni at the Paris Open [Echecs & Strategie]
• 2010 Feller, Marzolo and Hauchard at the Khanty-Mansyik Olympiad [Chess Vibes]
• 2011 Unnamed UK junior [EC Forum]

In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that unfounded allegations -  the best known examples being Nigel Short at the 2008 Commonwealth Championship and Mamedyarov at the Aeroflot Open 2009 - are on the increase too. To these we should also add the incidents that are difficult to categorise: Topalov at San Luis 2005, Elista 2006 and Wijk aan Zee 2007 for example. What do we call these? Cynical attempts to smear an opponent? Unwarranted suspicions? Unproven suspicions? A player caught, but getting away Scot free? Your guess is as good as mine.

Anyhoo, the increasing frequency of computer-based cheating over the last five years in particular is glaringly apparent. Nevertheless, chess authorities at all levels - international, national and local - are still completely unprepared to handle these incidents.


FIDE
FIDE’s website includes a page dedicated to news and announcements from our favourite game's governing body. Recent articles include things like “Congratulations to Vasily Filipenko” - “Dear Vasily Aleksandrovich! On behalf of the World Chess Federation and me personally, I cordially congratulate you on your election as Chairman of the Duma and the Head of Khanty-Mansiysk city!” - and “Caution” - “This is to inform all chess players / organisers / officials that any chess event organized under the banner of "Amateur Chess Association" is not recognized by FIDE." - but, even though the Frenchmen were caught cheating at FIDE’s own world team championship, you will search in vain for any comment on either their actions our how FIDE intend to respond. There’s not even so much as a “Do you know, on the whole we kind of tend to feel that secretly using computers to help you play a game of chess is sort of a little bit naughty”. Nada.

As long ago as 2007, the Association of Chess Professionals contacted FIDE to request that something be done about cheating in chess. Unfortunately Kirsan and his chums must have been busy with other matters for the past four years because, clearly, nothing happened as a result of that intervention.


ECF
I’m surely not the only one to have been surprised and somewhat concerned at Andrew Farthing’s response to a question posed on the EC Forum:

“The formal advice that I have received indicates that "the ECF does not have any legal mechanism" to punish players for cheating. Sanctions are possible within the specific event (in accordance with the laws of chess), but more far-reaching sanctions - such as a fine or a ban - appear to be problematic.”

Actually, I know I’m not because Andrew continues,

“Speaking for myself, without the benefit of discussion with the Board, this situation is unsatisfactory and needs to be clarified.”

Credit is due to the ECF’s Chief Executive Officer, both for engaging in the debate in the first place, and for acknowledging a poor state of affairs and setting himself about the task of putting matters right. That we are in a far from ideal situation is not Andrew Farthing’s fault. His responses thus far do at least give some cause for optimism that, as far as English chess goes, things will change for the better in the coming months.


LOCAL LEAGUES FOR LOCAL PEOPLE

Finally, what of your local league? How confident are you that procedures are in place to deal with an occurrence of cheating in your area? To be fair to our league and club officials – who do a fairly thankless job after all – this kind of incident would be very difficult and unpleasant to handle, especially when we factor in the observation that (suspected) cheating is often accompanied by threats of legal action from those accused. All the more reason, I would suggest, for each league/club/chess association to lay down in advance a clear process to be followed as and when the need arises.

Hans Ree

Chess Visionary and first-rate karaoke singer

Photograph from Chess Vibes

Hans Ree closed Shoes on Fire with this conclusion:

“I think it was a test.”

We can see now that he was absolutely right. It wasn’t some Sopranos-like bunch of ne’er-do-wells being examined, though. It was us. Twenty years ago the chess world coped with John von Neumann’s attempts to swindle himself a few bucks. Ree asked if we were prepared for a future when cheating with computers was a considerably less amateurish affair. I’m not sure that we were back then; I don't know that we are now.

Is all this a lot of fuss over nothing? Even with the escalation of cases in the last five years, we're still only talking about an average of one instance anywhere in the world every six months or so after all. That's certainly true, but consider this: these are just the ones that we (or I, anyway) know about. They are the most egregious examples; the ones where the person concerned got caught.

When you examine the details, you can also see that they are, like von Neumann, cases that often involve a fair degree of incompetence from those concerned - absurd tournament performances; multiple unexplained absences from the board; 100s of points of rating increases within a few months; layers of clothing worn in hot weather. Even the French Connection, a cheating ring with a sophisticated coding system, was rumbled because they used a mobile phone that belonged to the French Chess Federation's Vice President. As little as £20 spent on a pay-as-you-go mobile instead and they could still be up and running.

The idea that the dozen or so instances listed here are the only cases of chess cheating beggars belief. There are, I'm quite sure, people out there who were and are getting away with it.  Bearing that in mind, imagine the rapidly-increasing rate of known cheating by computer going on for another 18 years. If nothing at all is done, chess could end up somewhere rather unpleasant indeed. Probably just as well, then, that the ECF, if not FIDE, are starting to give the matter some serious consideration.




PS:
Shoes from here.