Chess's Cheating Crisis: 'Paranoia Has Become the Culture' (theguardian.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: In one chess tournament, five of the top six were disqualified for cheating. In another, the doting parents of 10-year-old competitors furiously rejected evidence that their darlings were playing at the level of the world No 1. And in a third, an Armenian grandmaster booted out for suspicious play accused his opponent of "doing pipi in his Pampers." These incidents may sound extreme but they are not isolated -- and they have all taken place online since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Chess has enjoyed a huge boom in internet play this year as in-person events have moved online and people stuck at home have sought new hobbies. But with that has come a significant new problem: a rise in the use of powerful chess calculators to cheat on a scale reminiscent of the scandals that have dogged cycling and athletics. One leading 'chess detective' said that the pandemic was "without doubt creating a crisis".
At the heart of the problem are programs or apps that can rapidly calculate near-perfect moves in any situation. To counter these engines, players in more and more top matches must agree to be recorded by multiple cameras, be available on Zoom or WhatsApp at any time, and grant remote access to their computers. They may not be allowed to leave their screens, even for toilet breaks. In some cases they must have a "proctor" or invigilator search their room and then sit with them throughout a match. [E]ye-tracking programs may be a way to raise a red flag if a player appears to be looking away with suspicious frequency. Chess.com, the world's biggest site for online play, said it had seen 12 million new users this year, against 6.5 million last year. The cheating rate has jumped from between 5,000 and 6,000 players banned each month last year to a high of almost 17,000 in August.
The growth in cheating and a corresponding explosion in social media discussion of the problem has created a new atmosphere of suspicion and recrimination. "Paranoia has become the culture," said Le-Marechal, whom a friend declared "the cyber chess detective" when he got the job. "There is this very romantic vision of the game which is being scuppered." Without a significant culture change, most say, the cheats are unlikely to go straight.
At the heart of the problem are programs or apps that can rapidly calculate near-perfect moves in any situation. To counter these engines, players in more and more top matches must agree to be recorded by multiple cameras, be available on Zoom or WhatsApp at any time, and grant remote access to their computers. They may not be allowed to leave their screens, even for toilet breaks. In some cases they must have a "proctor" or invigilator search their room and then sit with them throughout a match. [E]ye-tracking programs may be a way to raise a red flag if a player appears to be looking away with suspicious frequency. Chess.com, the world's biggest site for online play, said it had seen 12 million new users this year, against 6.5 million last year. The cheating rate has jumped from between 5,000 and 6,000 players banned each month last year to a high of almost 17,000 in August.
The growth in cheating and a corresponding explosion in social media discussion of the problem has created a new atmosphere of suspicion and recrimination. "Paranoia has become the culture," said Le-Marechal, whom a friend declared "the cyber chess detective" when he got the job. "There is this very romantic vision of the game which is being scuppered." Without a significant culture change, most say, the cheats are unlikely to go straight.
No toilet breaks? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No wonder you only play against females.
Re: (Score:1)
Just hold it in. According to research, this actually improves your decision making [psychologytoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're Jeffrey Toobin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how we did it when I was on probation. Except they had a dude on a stool there watching in addition to the cameras.
Stay away from the devil's lettuce! Or move to another state.
Re: (Score:2)
The way this, and the similar problem of sleep, meal breaks and so on during multi-day games, was solved in Go back in the 17th century.
Say the game is scheduled to run 10:00 to 18:00 for as many days as necessary (for the game/ match/ tournament). As 18:00 approaches, the player who is about to make a move writes it down on a piece of paper, puts it in an envelope, and suggests "it's time for a break". If the other player agrees, they stop the clock, both s
Its only a silly game (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Its only a silly game (Score:4, Insightful)
If every possible move to your game can be recorded in a database ...
That is not how chess engines work. Not at all.
Only the openings are pulled from a database.
Standard chess engines such as Stockfish [wikipedia.org], use a pruned search.
Bleeding-edge engines use neural nets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Two small clarifications: Stockfish is now using a neural network [stockfishchess.org]
Cool. Thanks for the link.
Re: (Score:3)
and the newest chess engines use neural networks to decide what to prune.
I mean, you're not wrong, but you're perhaps.. downplaying it.
AlphaZero outplayed Stockfish while evaluating just 80k moves per second, vs 70 million per second in Stockfish.
While it "prunes", it does it *very* well; because the NN has trained itself to play the game- thus only looking at paths that "look good" to it.
Re: (Score:2)
thus only looking at paths that "look good" to it.
It looks at a lot of bad paths in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
80k moves per second is not "pruning very well".
Well, all things being relative of course.
We were comparing it to stockfish, who has to evaluate 875 times more moves to perform worse.
It looks at a lot of bad paths in the process.
I won't argue that the absolute number isn't high, but I'll refer you to the above argument about relative performances; but also-
You don't know those paths were bad. They merely weren't the one that was chosen. Every one of those 80k paths may have been at a level far superior than what you or I play at.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of those 80k paths may have been at a level far superior than what you or I play at.
Absolutely not lol. You can actually check this and see.
An interesting thing about chess: humans (even those with little experience) can play a "best move" most of the time (greater than 50%). But for those times that you do make a mistake, the computer won't forgive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not lol. You can actually check this and see.
Feel free to show your work.
An interesting thing about chess: humans (even those with little experience) can play a "best move" most of the time (greater than 50%). But for those times that you do make a mistake, the computer won't forgive it.
Another interesting thing about chess- there isn't one winning move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
From a game theory point of view chess is interesting, but actually playing chess is a boring as ****.
That's very daring to say so. That it is boring to you does not say as much about the game as about yourself.
Last I looked a database of every possible combination of moves was still prohibitively large.. so as yet it is still unknown which starting moves if any definitively have a grater chances of wining.
And it will stay so at least in the next few millennia. That's why it's called exponential growth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I came here to say this.
Chess as an untimed, competitive sport is over. Play for fun. Or play speed-chess with no breaks in person. Traditional chess at anything other than a family board game level of fun is dead.
Re:Its only a silly game (Score:4, Insightful)
Get over yourselves!
That's exactly what I say about the cheaters.
Honestly if you can't simply play a game for fun and relaxation and have to resort to cheating to actually play...why are you even playing the game?
How sad and pathetic is your life that you have to cheat at a game?
Need real life play (Score:1)
I was never very good at it when I was a kid, around top eight in my school, but everyone played honest because there was no choice. What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat, a fake, and a clueless moron, even if others don't?
On furth
Re:Need real life play (Score:5, Funny)
What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat, a fake, and a clueless moron, even if others don't?
You can have sex with all the chess-groupie chicks.
Re: (Score:2)
What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat, a fake, and a clueless moron, even if others don't?
You can have sex with all the chess-groupie chicks.
When I read the headline, I seriously wondered why anybody would cheat in sports, though I know it often happens. Are they just in it for the money? I am not a natural sports player or supporter, but I presume the rules of the sport help define what the sport is, and if you cheat, you are no longer playing the game.
Re: (Score:3)
When I read the headline, I seriously wondered why anybody would cheat in sports, though I know it often happens. Are they just in it for the money? I am not a natural sports player or supporter, but I presume the rules of the sport help define what the sport is, and if you cheat, you are no longer playing the game.
The money is a motivator, but, ego is likely just as big a motivator. Sadly, too many value victory, at any costs, and see concepts like honesty, integrity,the purity of the game or whatever as minor, irrelevant concepts only suckers adhere to. For them. nothing is more important than feeding their fragile and delicate ego, and they will go to great lengths to keep the beast satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
When I read the headline, I seriously wondered why anybody would cheat in sports, though I know it often happens. Are they just in it for the money? I am not a natural sports player or supporter, but I presume the rules of the sport help define what the sport is, and if you cheat, you are no longer playing the game.
The money is a motivator, but, ego is likely just as big a motivator. Sadly, too many value victory, at any costs, and see concepts like honesty, integrity,the purity of the game or whatever as minor, irrelevant concepts only suckers adhere to. For them. nothing is more important than feeding their fragile and delicate ego, and they will go to great lengths to keep the beast satisfied.
This is all very sad, and it does not just apply to sports. It applies to business and politics too. It appears to be acceptable to do pretty much anything, as long as you win. All those good old moral values are for wimps and losers. "Greed is good". Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder this as well. What kind of satisfaction do you get from winning, when it wasn't really you? It's a mystery to me.
However, all too clearly, there are lots of people who feel differently. Beat your opponent any way you can, it's all about the short-term winning. These are the same people who, in school sports, encourage their kids to play dirty, do stuff when the ref isn't looking. If you can cripple an opposing player, and make it look like an accident, why not?
Scum. Slimy human beings.
Re:Need real life play (Score:5, Interesting)
What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat, a fake, and a clueless moron, even if others don't?
I have always felt this way and I wonder why in some cultures it never takes root. I work in China now and cheating here is like an epidemic. I feel like I have come to realize it comes down to two parenting approaches. We either teach our children to try to better themselves through internal comparisons or we teach them to regularly gauge their ability against others. Not that either of these is always 100% but the more we feel the competition is internal, the more likely I believe cheating will be avoided because then you only cheat yourself (as you said). However, if the only moral implication of cheating is getting caught and there is a lot of external pressure (initially from parents) to beat others in competitive endeavors -- then the potential for cheating seems to take root.
Qanon I believe is a far more complex social behavior that involves something like schadenfreude and direct attempts to misguide someone, though it's not always clear that these misguided individuals know they are misguided or likewise have much internal checks into their psyche.
Re: (Score:2)
Ninja Warrior is an excellent example of this.
In the original Japanese version, people competed against the course (and themselves, ultimately).
When it was Americanized, people were competing against each other; the course was the mechanism to do so. I just couldn't watch it.
Re: Need real life play (Score:2)
Re:What good is cheating? (Score:1)
What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat
That's how I feel about it. Of course, if there's significant money involved, people will cheat for the money, they aren't even in it as a sport. I suppose some people cheat hoping to score with members of the preferred sex and all that. But, there seems to be something more involved. Look at body builders for example. Some turn themselves into freaks. Some inject oil in their bodies hoping to give the illusion of muscle. Then there are the 'stolen valor' types who pretend to have been Navy Seals or
Re: (Score:2)
The cash prizes are pretty considerable at the top level. IIRC, the top online tournaments pay in the lowish six-figures. People are willing to cheat on their timecard for an extra 15 minutes of pay or to steal a TV. I think they'd be willing to lie for a couple hundred grand.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense. I cannot imagine, even if Carlsen suddenly had a stroke and could not longer understand a board, him faking with an engine. Even though there is no way we'd be able to tell. And similarly for any other known name. Leaving aside their respect for the game, they have a legitimate reputation to loose.
Re: (Score:3)
What good is cheating, if you know yourself that you are a cheat, a fake, and a clueless moron, even if others don't?
These "cheaters" are neither fake not clueless. They play very well and would beat you in a few moves (without cheating). They just want to preserve their ego, and not lose.
It's in all games - it a socialization problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why ultimate frisbee is the best sport in the world! A sport that has held steadfast to the concept of "spirit of the game" and where self-referring is paramount. I know there has been more concern that as the sport becomes more professional, that this would evaporate to some degree. I would think this self-referring would translate into other pick-up sports like pick-up basketball but I think there it really depends on the group and if there is an eventually that will "push it to the limit" with re
Self-referring? (Score:3)
Is Ultimate Frisbee just for solipsists [wikipedia.org]?
Or did you mean "self-refereeing"?
Re: (Score:1)
;). Yes, self-refereeing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why ultimate frisbee is the best sport in the world!
Mixed sex strip frisbee is even better
Re: (Score:2)
Mixed sex strip frisbee is even better
Nothing beats gloryhole golf.
Re: It's in all games - it a socialization problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody that plays paintball knows kids young and old cheat, they know they can get away with it, and it doesn't matter if you don't want to play with them, there are always other suckers. Wipes... obviously, or you sneak up on a camper and they lie to a ref that you went out of bounds, or ignoring the ten foot rule.
That's basically every online game ever too. I don't think playing self organizing games of tag as children fixes that. Some people are just bad, and make awful decisions when they can get away with it.
It's the Internet, it's anonymity, it's vote kick systems, it's matchmaking systems randomly pairing cheaters with impossible records with casuals, it's the lack of referees or admins. Casual players get screwed. Assholes can find more people to play with, there's nothing to lose. Sorry man, your game is the problem not the kids.
The only reason people don't cheat at freeze tag as much is they can get caught easier.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a parenting problem. No respect for fellow humans, no development of a conscious. I think most of it is that no one is taught to fear doing anything wrong. Kids are now untouchable even by parents and grow up into adults with that same attitude. The penal system even reinforces this, it has no bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry man, your game is the problem not the kids.
Ignorance at its finest.
The only reason people don't cheat at freeze tag as much is they can get caught easier.
Well, now that we're down to comparing freeze tag to a game that has been played against world leaders and our most advanced computers of the era, let's continue this nonsensical argument of yours.
First off, blaming cheating on the game is like blaming obesity on the fork. If it isn't clear how broken your logic is, stop reading now.
Secondly, a rampant problem of cheating in chess, did not exist for hundreds and hundreds of years.
This is a parenting problem. Stop raising ignorant
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but degree does matter.
Most normal people have friends, and what their friends think of them matters to them. There have always been people who don't care what kind of experience people take away from interacting with them, because there's always suckers out there who don't know what they're like; but heretofore such persons have always been outliers. People with neurological abnormalities or abusive upbringings.
I wonder whether, in a socially distanced world where play is mediated by social media wi
Re: It's in all games - it a socialization proble (Score:2)
"I wonder whether, in a socially distanced world where play is mediated by social media with its endless supply of clueless suckers, sociopathic behavior might not become normalized."
Maybe something we could compare this to is driving. We all probably know that feeling when we go from being a car on the road to "oh crap, they might be going where I'm going", I'll back off a little, and then the embarrassment when you finally pull up and park at the same time as your neighbors or coworkers and try to recall
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is "natural" or "unnatural" to act this way. I think it depends on circumstance; sometimes you get deviant behavior like persistent cheating as a natural response to unnatural circumstances.
Think of how people evolved -- to live in small, closely knit, mutually interdependent groups. You probably only knew a few dozen people in total; you couldn't avoid them, nor could they avoid you, and in any case you probably depended on each other for survival. So if somebody did something that mad
Or too much focus on winning (Score:3)
I've seen this with my kids playing with others. {...} It really is a socialization problem.
Or too much focus on the "winning" part of sports. I never understood the interest for competitive sports.
I always have been more interested in the "experience" of games or sports that the winning.
That's why I am much more interested in skiing, biking, skating, hiking, etc. (basically enjoying scenery, with the bonus of making stops in good restaurants along the way), then being part of some group of people who manage to put a ball in a hole more often than the other group of people.
Same for games: was alwa
Among Us (Score:2)
Almost every game, 1/3rd of the players drop off after finding out they are not the imposter, as of course that's the most fun.
I think it's just human nature. I remember whiny kids like this when I was young too, and there was no internet nor everyone had a computer back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Most players play multiplayer games as if it were a single player game with computer characters. Or at least it feels that way.
-It seems like everyone on the internet is either a sociopath or five years old.
Re:It's in all games - it a socialization problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Children are remarkably perceptive. They easily see society enthusiastically worships at the altar of self-satisfaction, where individual happiness comes first, no matter how it is achieved, or the cost to anyone else. Our public role models, as seen in the media, and elsewhere, often take pride in blatant greed, open dishonesty, destructive disregard for others, and other asocial attitudes, and are too often very generously rewarded in spite of displaying the worst of human behaviors.
Concepts like integrity, honesty, fair play, self-sacrifice for the greater good, etc, even if taught in the home, and promoted in schools, are not paths to the success children see their world embraces. That presents a huge challenge to parents, and educators. It's not enough to proclaim the message: you have to live it, if you want children to embrace them. That can make for some difficult choices for the adults. A small example: when a personal favorite public figure becomes known for cheating, and you continue wear a shirt or jersey or cap with their name, or brand, on it you are sending a strong message to your kids contradicting every word you ever said about the need and value of personal honesty.
When children believe a parent or teacher is not living what they preach, the message usually dies.
Re: (Score:2)
> lot of kids now think that if the ref doesn't catch it is fair.
Yikes.
That's a *drinking game* rule, in which *anything* is fair *if* it is taking advantage of your opponent's insobriety . . . so reaching across the table and changing a die role is fair, but hiding your own roll and flipping the die is not (unless you're extra flagrant and remove the hiding hand first . . .)
As for chess, I had to give it up when it became clear that the choice was taking it seriously, with the requisite commitment, or t
A crisis in ONLINE chess (Score:5, Interesting)
The bigger problem is someone's coach in the same room - out of the camera view - watching the screen and whispering moves. There's no realistic way to detect that, even with eye movement tracking. You better believe that in the big money tournaments like the ones CCA puts on, the under 2000 crowd is doing exactly that.
Once we go back to OTB tournaments, the "crisis" will be over. For now, just avoid tournaments unless you're willing to play a cheater. No different than waiting a while to go back to movies or concerts.
Re:A crisis in ONLINE chess (Score:5, Interesting)
Never played in a big money tournament, have you? I have, and I assure you, it was dirty. I played in the under 2000 section in a large tournament with a prize of $10,000 for the winner of that section, and my first opponent was a sandbagger. Had a rating of 1998. Before we started, he told me that he'd purposely thrown his last 20 or so games to get his rating under 2000. Even seemed proud of that. He was of course also trying to psyche me out by informing me that he was much stronger. I made him sweat, but I lost.
The next guy had the inaccurate chess clock, which he of course made sure I had the side that ran too fast. This was in the days when mechanical clocks were still the most common kind, and they were notorious for inaccuracy. Electronic clocks have eliminated that particular angle. That cheat could still be done, but now, the player would have to deliberately hack the clock to rig it to do that. Then there was the guy who was constantly calling the judge with a complaint about something I'd supposedly done. His complaints were baseless, and the judge shut him down every time. Getting me with some rules technicality wasn't really his goal, though he would certainly take it if the judge handed him one. His more realistic goal was to distract and rattle his opponent with constant harassment.
Re:A crisis in ONLINE chess (Score:5, Interesting)
That's small potatoes.
With online play, we're talking about people who get expert advice on EVERY move. That's a big difference from a teammate saying "exchange off the bishops" at the water cooler. And it's impossible to detect. CCA already has precautions in place for sandbaggers, and of course the USCF rating floors prevent it from becoming too much of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the big money that brings out all the cheaters and assholes. Doesn't matter what the game is. Chess, poker, bridge, Magic the Gathering, you name it. Much rarer to see any cheating in a small tournament with a prize of only $100. Those so inclined no doubt figure it's not worth risking discovery and consequences for such small prizes. Still, I've seen it a little there too.
One little bit of advice that older, more experiences players emphasized to me was that castling had to be done by moving th
Re: (Score:2)
Apples and oranges. I've played in the big money tourneys, including the World Open in Philly, and I've won my share of money - largest check was $600+ at Mid-America Open in St. Louis. Of course we've always had sandbaggers and people who adjusted the clock while their opponent was in the bathroom, and people who got a hint from their teammate at the water cooler. We're used to all that, and people know what to look out for. That's small potatoes. With online play, we're talking about people who get expert advice on EVERY move. That's a big difference from a teammate saying "exchange off the bishops" at the water cooler. And it's impossible to detect. CCA already has precautions in place for sandbaggers, and of course the USCF rating floors prevent it from becoming too much of a problem.
If you use the expert advice on every move, you'll get caught pretty quick. If you just take the hint sometimes, I guess it will be a lot harder... Also, just being alerted that you should take a closer look would be huge. Remember all of those books on famous combinations, or great plays by current grand masters - or for that matter, missed opportunities? Many of these are pretty easy even to average players - when they know there is something there.
Chess tournament culture was broken before this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Introducing a child into it nowadays would frankly be outright child abuse.
And if that's how we view chess, imagine what we should be doing to those who market and turn children into social media addicts...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you would think a Catholic Priest is somehow honest,
I think that was a pun about child abuse...
Re: (Score:2)
Though I am not a chess player, I would suggest that the honourable thing for a proper chess player to do is to boycott matches where people get away with cheating. I presume this will deprive cheats of opportunities to win against opponents that play fair. It might also provide an incentive to detect and punish cheating. Let the cheats play each other if they want to. A bit like bare-knuckle cage fights, instead of formal martial arts.
I was booted by Chess.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a very interesting field for AI and Machine Learning experts to come up with these cheating algorithms, but they should owe a clear explanat
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how their detection AI works though. Like do they pick out the incredibly crazy moves that only an engine looking 15 deep could find, which heuristically should happen once in a while by accident, even with weaker ELO players. ...
Somehow even good players that make new accounts need to climb the ELO ladder in game, so aren't these all suspicious? because what's the difference between a 2000 ELO player starting out a new account or a chess engine set to simulate 2100 ELO for example?
It's "Elo", not ELO; it's someone's actual name, not an acronym.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how their detection AI works though. Like do they pick out the incredibly crazy moves that only an engine looking 15 deep could find, which heuristically should happen once in a while by accident, even with weaker ELO players. Or can they analyze a full game and put some kind of score on this and correlate this with other games to find outliers? It's probably a very interesting field for AI and Machine Learning experts to come up with these cheating algorithms, but they should owe a clear explanation as to why they think you cheated. Like the particular suspicious moves, or the games where you were clearly punching above your weight. Somehow even good players that make new accounts need to climb the ELO ladder in game, so aren't these all suspicious? because what's the difference between a 2000 ELO player starting out a new account or a chess engine set to simulate 2100 ELO for example?
While the exact details are unknown, I'd expect them to look at automated analysis of complete games... doing long sequences of correct moves would be suspicious. FWIW, you can also analyse your own games with their engine [chess.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"what's the difference between a 2000 ELO player starting out a new account or a chess engine set to simulate 2100 ELO for example?"
That's an easy one: it's one hundred.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is the kid is obviously using a computer to cheat to play at that level consistently, but the parents were not willing to consider the possibility, in spite of the accusation being very likely true.
let them play in own league! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deep Blue which beat Kasparov for example lost to some other engines back then (IIRC).
Re: (Score:2)
Why not play augmented reality chess? .. then see how this advances technology including AI.
They already have engine championships - TCEC - The ChessEngine Championship [wikipedia.org] just finished. Stockfish [chessprogramming.org] is the current champion.
It's Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
The incentive will not go away. (Score:3)
This is the result of making an activity computers perform better than humans do into an economic and social competition. It's inevitable that people will want to cut corners and let a 3000+ rated engine do the job.
Re: (Score:3)
I would suggest that it is the result of making what is actually only a game into a competition where a person could financially profit just from playing well.
If you take away the core incentive to cheat, and the problem should largely take care of itself.
Those that actually have a passion for the game will always play it, and do not require financial incentives
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try a game which isn't dominated by AI? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any games left which are both turn-based and not dominated by Terminators?
Thousands. Computer "AI" is very limited when it comes to more complicated games like most wargames where the number of possible moves per turn is vastly larger than chess or go and there is a random element to cope with too. It's all still just brute force at the end of the day and that only carries you so far in the face of games where each position might have several thousand possible child positions.
Guys Hello !!! I (Score:1)
pipi in his Pampers. (Score:2)
well...
If you're going to ban toilet breaks, don't be too surprised if players with weak bladders start considering wearing diapers for high-stakes matches!
Dorks must really care what other dorks think. (Score:1)
This is news? (Score:2)
Playing online instead of live in person and we are supposed to be surprised players are consulting chess computers in realtime to determine their moves? How is this news? Why would anyone NOT expect this to be happening? Who would even try to play in tournaments for money online? That is the dumbest thing ever. Of course everyone will be cheating.