Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess’s Cheating Crisis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 284 posts

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#51

Post by hnaccy »

noneeeed wrote: post #27
dalbasal wrote: post #18

“ Paranoia has become the culture ” This. For every actual cheating incident, there are many paranoid suspicions. Chess demands an intense focus, and this makes players react emotionally (see chess tantrums). Paranoia is one of these reactions. This "culture of paranoia" is generally pervasive, not just in chess. Once a paranoia inducing phenomenon (like cheating) exists, the paranoia pervades. People know fb & googl…

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

When the top 30 100m times all belong to athletes that have been popped for doping with the exception of Usain Bolt you have to ask yourself is he just THAT amazing or is he amazing plus have the best doping team and protection.

You have enormous money and prestige on the line and lots of powerful entities (FIFA, IOC, NFL, countries, athletic wear companies, etc) that don't have a huge incentive to catch their golden boy athletes doping.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#52

Post by gadders »

noneeeed wrote: post #27
dalbasal wrote: post #18

“ Paranoia has become the culture ” This. For every actual cheating incident, there are many paranoid suspicions. Chess demands an intense focus, and this makes players react emotionally (see chess tantrums). Paranoia is one of these reactions. This "culture of paranoia" is generally pervasive, not just in chess. Once a paranoia inducing phenomenon (like cheating) exists, the paranoia pervades. People know fb & googl…

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

I guess it depends on what you make of information like this:

"Of the 50 fastest men's 100m sprint times ever, only 15 have been run by an athlete NOT banned for drugs. All 15 were by Usain Bolt."

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1164654855329329152...

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#53

Post by gadders »

andi999 wrote: post #36
noneeeed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

Isnt that even with doping you need to work incredibly hard and make the most of you talents? (since everybody is doing this, it just raises the bar throughout, doesnt it)

They are necessary but not sufficient.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#54

Post by cglace »

pmontra wrote: post #48
cglace wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said he uses a touchpad instead of a mouse and would look down at the touchpad.

Mmm, maybe it's me but I look at the pointer on the screen, not at the touchpad. I move my index finger and the pointer moves. If I'd be looking at the touchpad I would have to check where I moved the pointer to. Gaze down, gaze up, repeat every few pixels. Och. I do sometimes look at the keyboard though.

Yeah, I’m not saying I buy it. It’s a very bizarre situation.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#55

Post by orwin »

nix23 wrote: post #41
noneeeed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

>basically every elite athlete is doping. Yes this! You have 3 doping levels from cheapest to really expansive: 3: Silver (the doping that is known and detectable) 2: Gold (known and probably detectable but often combined with additional substance to "wash it out" faster or hide it behind other stuff like "legal" painkillers etc) 1: Platinum (doping that is not detectable in the next 5 years "seal of proof by laborat…

I know for a fact that 3 isn't even used on national-cup event in France, at least for sailing, canoe and kayak events. Or rather, that the club and physical preparators from this club advise against anything other than supplements, and even the French Kayak champion (Joly) only take a few of those, only 1/3rd of a year.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#56

Post by 0-_-0 »

BuildTheRobots wrote: post #50
lemagedurage wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invigilator could do a body check, scan for electronics, like they do in airport security.

If people are determined to cheat, cheat they will. Bluetooth controlled vibrating butplugs are an off the shelf product at this point; not sure if most scanners will show internal objects.

And thus the term "chess playing buttplug" is used for the very first time in history...

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#57

Post by motohagiography »

The effects of adulterating the culture of a competition on a micro level work on a macro level as well. Saying it's caused by "pressure to succeed," is kind of dumb. If you want to know why cheating happens, look at the rewards of being seen as a winner vs. likelihood and consequences of being caught, and like cycling, there is an equilibrium change after which it becomes irrational not to cheat to find an edge. People cheat for the same reason they do anything: because it's worth it.

You can see this in business culture, and even in public life, where once a few compromised competitors succeed, it has a cascading effect on the incentives of the entire game. The culture polarizes, with earnest and talented people at the bottom or at the edges, with mediocre performing but skilled liars at the top. When finding these unfair advantages happens at the micro level it's called cheating, but I think when it takes hold, we call it professionalization.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#58

Post by wildmanx »

the-dude wrote: post #47
noneeeed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of online conversations recently where the default assumption is that every Olympic sprinter, every cyclist or swimmet, basically every elite athlete is doping. It's pretty sad that we are in a world where you can work incredibly hard to make the most of natural talents and many people will assume you cheated.

This may be partially or wholly true. Athletes and the public have a different interpretation of what doping actually is. The public thinks of doping as taking performance enhancing substances. Athletes think of doping as crossing the specified threshold/limit. I have heard this interpretation on TV from a well connected Dutch cycling journalist ( Mart Smeets ). Every athlete takes performance enhancing substances.

That's depending on what you consider a "performance enhancing substance". With basic food and drinks, we surely all agree that that's not the case. But the line starts to get blurry with supplements. Whey? Creatine? Caffeine? Supplement stores are full of this stuff, and a lot is really just a waste of money and exists to milk the amateur gym bro cash cow. But some of those things help. And eventually you cross the line into forbidden territory.

That line is a clear one. If you take that line, then no, not every athlete takes performance enhancing substances. But if you count, say, caffeine, then yes, most athletes do. And non-athletes too, FWIW.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#59

Post by QueensGambit »

I have mostly played in face-to-face tournaments. The first time I played in an online tournament, I was ahead of my opponent. Then, he started inquiring my whereabouts during my moves. I replied out of politeness and lost by timing out. I didn't mind losing this way, but the way he left without saying a word.

Like social media, sometimes the online medium makes people do rude things they wouldn't do in real life.

Re: Chess’s Cheating Crisis

#60

Post by paldepind2 »

yewenjie wrote: post #13
stabbles wrote: post #11

Too bad lichess.org isn't mentioned; unlike chess dot com it's free, open source and blazingly fast.

And has an interesting tech-stack. Edit: Links. 1. https://lichess.org/source 2. https://github.com/ornicar/lila

Indeed. It really made my day when I discovered that Lichess uses an open source library that I made (Snabbdom).
Post reply on HN