22

In 2004 the British illusionist, Derren Brown, despite being a very poor chess player scored +4 -3 =2 against 9 strong chess players including scoring 2/4 against 4 grandmasters in a simul. Of course it was a blind simul (the players couldn't see each other) with alternating colours where he just copied moves between pairs of boards.

All good, clean fun when performed as entertainment, but what happens when it happens in real life? In a serious competition? What are the sanctions? What can the arbiter do about it? Is it even illegal?

When this was put to Geurt Gijssen in An Arbiter's Notebook his reply was basically nothing!

In my opinion, an arbiter has no possibilities to forbid this behaviour.

Stewart Reuben describes a situation which occurred in an U13 match between England and Sweden about 30 years ago where the Swedish players with white copied the moves made by the English players on the boards next to them and similarly the Swedish black players.

Once the English players realized what was going on one of them, Darren Lee, deliberately lost a piece to see what would happen. The blunder was faithfully copied by the young Swedish player. Eventually the English boys solved the problem by just sitting there until they were in acute time trouble and then blitzed their opponents who didn't have time to continue with their cheating and England ran out 3-1 winners.

Stewart Reuben's suggestion is to make use of article 11.3 a. 

During play  the players  are  forbidden  to make use of  any notes,  sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

However it is a stretch to describe what is going on as "analysis on another chessboard" and it is unclear if you can actually impose a penalty based on this.

The only solution he could suggest was moving same coloured boards affected to another room or another part of the same room to prevent the copying.

In case you think this sort of thing doesn't happen at the highest level here are 3 games from the round 13 of the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal, although I suspect no way were any of the black's copying!

[White "Keres "]
[Black "Najdorf, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Kg7 14. O-O Ne5 15. Bg3 Ng6 16. gxh6 Rh6 17. Rf7 Kf7 18. Qh6 axb5 19. Rf1 Ke8 20. Qg6 Kd7 21. Rf7 Nc6 22. Nd5 Ra2 23. h4 Qh8 24. Ne7 Ne7 25. Qg5 

and

[White "Geller "]
[Black "Panno, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Ne5 14. Bg3 Bg5 15. O-O Ke7 16. Be5 Qb6 17. Kh1 dxe5 18. Qf7 Kd6 19. Rad1 Qd4 20. Rd4 exd4 21. e5 Kc5 22. Qc7 Nc6 23. Bc6

and

[White "Spassky "]
[Black "Pilnik, Gothenburg 1955 round 13"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. fxg5 Nfd7 11. Ne6 fxe6 12. Qh5 Kf8 13. Bb5 Kg7 14. O-O Ne5 15. Bg3 Ng6 16. gxh6 Rh6 17. Rf7 Kf7 18. Qh6 axb5 19. Rf1 Ke8 20. Qg6 Kd7 21. Rf7 Nc6 22. Nd5 Ra2 23. h3 Qh8 24. Ne7 Ne7 25. Qg5 Ra1 26. Kh2 Qd8 27. Qb5 Kc7 28. Qc5 Kb8 29. Bd6 Ka8 30. Be7 Ra5 31. Qb4

I once did something similar myself. My opponent, white, outrated me by about 200 points but turned up about 30 minutes late. meanwhile I kibitzed the game of a player about 400 points stronger than me who often played one of my favourite openings as black. He got a powerful attack although eventually his opponent neutralized it and then my opponent turned up and I had to concentrate on my game.

I followed the moves I'd seen played on the higher board and was delighted when my opponent unwittingly did the same and I got the same powerful looking attack. At a key moment we ended up repeating moves when my opponent alternately checked me and then defended with the checking piece while I alternately blocked the check and then moved the blocker back into the attack, but still a good result.

  • 5
    I am not sure whether copying another ongoing game in the same tournament hall should be called "cheating". It seems to be a risky strategy to copy someone's game and enter an opening variation you don't know much about. – Rauan Sagit Dec 29 '14 at 0:26
  • 3
    Leonard Barden tells the story of how in the 1957 Hastings premier he was white against Peter Clarke in a Ruy Lopez Steinitz deferred where the same moves were played in Keres - Filip shown on the demo board which he could see but which was behind Clarke's back. He started deliberately copying Keres moves and when Clarke got up to look around he realized what was happening and joined in! Keres - Filip was agreed drawn in 16 moves and Barden - Clarke followed suit a few moves later. A modern, angst-ridden example streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com.es/2009/07/… – Brian Towers Dec 29 '14 at 11:00
  • 4
    I'd say there are two different questions here: (1) one player copying moves from another ongoing game, or (2) two players copying moves from each others' games. The first case always allows the opponent to diverge at some point; the latter case would guarantee a 50 % score for the collaborating players if time was not an issue. – JiK Dec 29 '14 at 11:55
  • 1
    @JiK I agree. In the second case I think the arbiter has to intervene and do something even if it is just to move the players to make it more difficult. In the first case I think it is up to the opponents and the arbiter should not intervene. Stewart Reuben disagrees with me on this since he has in the past switched off the demonstration board when he has seen a mirror image occurring on another board in the playing hall. – Brian Towers Dec 29 '14 at 14:08
  • 1
    Here is a clip of Kasparov telling the story of the "Argentinian Tragedy": youtube.com/watch?v=rNTI4pO7Ib0#t=4m25s – Imran Nov 25 '17 at 3:16
4

You must realize that no one may figure out a line like that over the board. This variation (up to 8. ... g5 9. Bh4) was quite popular in fifties, and for such an important tournament was obviously heavily analyzed. The Argentinians came well prepared with 10. Nf7. It turned out that Soviets were equally well prepared with 13. Bb5. A teamwork at its best.

The Gothenburg variation was born.

  • Agreed. For the Russians to score +3 from their opening preparation in one variation must have seemed like all their birthdays and Christmas arrived all at once! On the Argentinian side a good argument for the team members not robotically playing the same variation of the same opening. I bet the vodka was flowing freely that evening. – Brian Towers Dec 29 '14 at 14:03
3

Stewart Reuben's suggestion is to make use of article 11.3 a.

During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

However it is a stretch to describe what is going on as "analysis on another chessboard"

You can debate whether it's "analysis on another chessboard". But if the moves are being deliberately copied from another game, that other game is clearly being used as a "source of information", which is also prohibited. A penalty can certainly be imposed if the arbiter is sure that this is what's happening. If the arbiter suspects but isn't sure, moving the game would probably be a good solution.

Of course, players can play identical moves due to similar opening preparation, so merely having identical boards is not indicative that this is happening (although you'd expect one board to get ahead of the other because not everyone plays at the same pace, even when they're in their opening preparation.) But if a player has the move and, instead of contemplating their position, is looking at an identical chessboard and waits for that player to play, then immediately plays the same move, and that's repeated several times... that would be good enough for me.

3

In your question you are conflating two different things. The first thing described is your first link about Derren Brown in which he plays as white game A, as black game B, and then, copies every move his opponent makes as white in game B, into game A, and vice versa exchanging colors. this effectively makes Derren just a "telephone" transmitting the moves between boards A and B, so, those 2 guys are playing a game between themselves.

There is a catch: While your clock in the game you are color sorta emulates the game where your oponent is color, in reality it takes you some time, to react to the move played by color and trasmit it into the other board. So you have to be quick, or else, you'll loose some seconds each move, wich if time trouble comes could be lethal, but if there is no time trouble for any of the oponents, then it's all good. So time control matters in this scam.

This is, and should be, highly illegal and frowned upon. Because, for example, rating don't mean anything anymore: if you can find 2 oponents stronger than you, you are guaranteed, without even thinking or investing ANY effort, to have a score 1/2 in this match. Then, your rating goes up undeservedly.

The second thing you described is copying a game that has already had happened in the past. That is totally legal and even good. Top players "replay" opening moves others did in literally all the games, begginers copy the scholars mate, etc. To punish this would be to punish knowledge, which goes against chess wisdom/philosophy. Also note at some point is extremely likely your oponent will deviate soon and it won't be anymore possible to copy anymore. Note this is called: "getting out of book".

2

Well I think copying should not be a matter of "cheating", because there are huge amount of opening variations and even if you copy some moves the opponent isn't likely to play the same move sequence. And even the opening lines are copied, aren't they? Some grandmaster or master plays the opening sequence (be it long time ago), you like it and play it. It is also a kind of copying but definitely far from cheating.

1

From Chesslife, July 2016, "The Chess Multiverse"

In http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1156906, After the fifth move, "Barden was wondering how to continue at this point when he looked up--and noticed that the same position had appeared on a large demonstration board behind his opponent's back." (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072644) Before his ninth move, Clarke noticed that his game was following the other and started to copy Filip's moves. "Barden added, on the English Chess Forum Website. The reaction from the spectators and the tournament arbiter 'was just amusement.'" The Keres-Filip game was agreed to a draw after white's 16th move, so the other seven moves play were from the mind's of Barden and Clarke.

Since the coping was for such a short number of moves the argument could be made that they were just following opening theory and the similarity was just a coincidence. Although the use of other sources of information, that is another game was referenced, the arbiter isn't able to make any judgement unless one of the players makes a complaint.

The famous 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal incident is true, but it was the Argentinians who found this opening trap, and they just happen to be able to surprise their Russian opponents at the same time.

  • "the arbiter isn't able to make any judgement unless one of the players makes a complaint." - Says who? – D M Nov 24 '17 at 17:36
  • The USCF rules, state that the arbiter can not interfere unless one of the players makes a request. The online FIDE rules state that the arbiter "must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess." This statement is vague as the text doesn't clearly state that the arbiter must intervene if the rules are violated. – Fred Knight Nov 25 '17 at 5:49
  • I don't see the USCF rule that says that. I see rule 21D3 which says a director may intervene in a chess game to warn or penalize players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportmanlike behavior. – D M Nov 25 '17 at 6:54
  • As for the FIDE rules, if "The arbiter shall ensure fair play" (rule 12.2.1) wasn't enough, it also says "the arbiter shall... follow the Anti-Cheating Rules or Guidelines". Those guidelines say "Potential breaches may be observed during play directly by a tournament arbiter" and "If the report is based on possible breaches of Article 11.2 or 11.3a, then the arbiter shall investigate the breach in the usual manner, with reference to Article 12.9 for possible penalties ." fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Anti%20Cheating%20Guidelines.pdf – D M Nov 25 '17 at 6:59
0

Isn't a player allowed to make any legal move on their turn?

If my White position happens by chance to be identical to another board's White position, and that white makes a move and then makes a wincing expression clearly showing it was a mistake, can I avoid that move or would I be using another source of information if I eliminate that move?

Don't put a board next to mine and tell me I can't copy. Or put salt in the wound by saying I can't copy now, but I can copy those moves in future games, including the very next game.

  • 1
    "Isn't a player allowed to make any legal move on their turn?" No, he's not. He is not allowed to get moves, legal or otherwise, from other sources like notes, a computer, his phone, other players, etc. – Brian Towers Sep 27 '18 at 9:50

protected by Phonon Sep 27 '18 at 15:40

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.