ACP Anti-cheating Committee Proposals

The headline is, “ACP proposals anti-cheating committee.” I thought that meant the ACP, the Association of Chess Professionals, had proposed a committee, but upon reading it became obvious the ACP already has a committee, and it met Oct 2-3. The article, written by Yuri Gelfer, is dated Oct. 7, 2013. It begins, “On Oct. 2 and 3, the ACP Anti-Cheating delegation composed of ACP Board Director IO Yuri Garrett (ITA), IA Laurent Freyd (FRA), GM Konstantin Landa (RUS) and IM Prof. Kenneth Regan (USA) joined FIDE Vice President Mr. Israel Gelfer, Chairman of the joint ACP/FIDE Anti-Cheating Committee, for what proved to be two very successful days of meetings in the premises of the French Federation at Elancourt.”
The article states, “The ACP proposals include, among other things: – a very sophisticated and scientifically verified statistical tool elaborated by Prof. Kenneth Regan for detecting suspicious play.” This caught my attention. I thought of a recent letter to Chessbase in response to the article, “Ivanov ends his chess career.”
Helmut Grass, Frankfurt
“Tal, Karpov and Anand managed to win games against GMs using almost no time on the clock. Most probably this Ivanov is not one of them. But I want real evidence, no statistics or Houdini bs, please! If you think it’s in his shoes then go for them – even if they’re smelly!” http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4011410/ivanov-ends-his-chess-career-051013.aspx
Professor Regan stopped playing chess for a career working with computers. It is in his interest to advocate using a computer program to detect alleged cheating in chess by utilizing a computer chess program. Am I the only one who has a problem with using the cause of the problem to allegedly detect said problem? Who watches the watchers?
Chessbase has printed other responses, including these two, with which I wholeheartedly agree:
Max, Hawaii
“Wow. Are you guys serious? This article is kind of irresponsible. You proved nothing and acted as if you caught the guy red-handed. It is interesting he won’t take his shoes off, and you are free to speculate. But please don’t act like you busted him. Also the concept that he can control chess software with his feet is laughable. I am wondering about the sanity and morality of a lot of involved parties, and Ivanov is not at the top of the list. How awful if he is just some innocent kid sick of being harassed by paranoid grandmasters. I don’t know the truth, but either catch him the act or quiet down and let him play. Please no more published articles on this with zero proof.”
Inda Anebira, Abuja, Nigeria
“I could only sigh in disappointment at ChessBase after reading this article. This is irresponsible journalism! You even went to great lengths to stick a phone in a shoe just to make your case creating, instead, a ridiculous conclusion to a rambling, speculative, and verbose article. As a chess player, do I feel Ivanov is cheating? Yes. But as a scientist, have I seen any definitive proof that he is? No, I have not. So until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is indeed cheating, we need to refrain from publicly slandering him. His grandmaster detractors can either choose to play him or avoid him. As with ‘The Turk’ in the 18th Century, some had their doubts. But they played against it anyway, at least until the secret was unraveled. GM Dlugy is entitled to his own set of opinions but not to his own set of facts.”

O. Al Hamilton once told me he was filled with fear any time he had to face a much lower rated player. I wondered why and, naturally, had to ask. “Because I am afraid they may play the game of their life!” Why would anyone choose to participate in a chess tournament knowing that if they happened to play the game of their life they may be subjected to the command of, “Bend over and spread ‘em?”

The word committee invariably makes me think of a couple of quotes by Fred Allen. “A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.” And, “Committee – a group of men who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done.”

I urge you to read the entire article, with its myriad proposals, including this one for lesser players, “By way of example, the ACP proposed that all electronic devices should be banned in top level tournaments, whereas in amateur/professional tournaments they should only be away from the player’s reach. This means that, in minor tournament, electronic devices can be taken into the playing hall and separately stored (e.g. in a bag), but no player will be allowed to carry them with him (in a pocket, in a jacket, in a bag etc.) during play, even if turned off.”
http://www.chessprofessionals.org/content/acp-proposals-anti-cheating-committee#sthash.eqkm2Z8K.dpuf

Milan ‘J’adoubovic’ Matulović R.I.P.

Yugoslavian GM Milan Matulovic, 1935-2013, was better known for the nickname he earned after taking back a losing move he had just made versus István Bilek at the Sousse Interzonal in 1967. From Wikipedia: “Perhaps Matulović’s most notorious transgression was against István Bilek at the Sousse Interzonal in 1967. He played a losing move but then took it back after saying “j’adoube” (“I adjust” – spoken before adjusting pieces on their square, see touch-move rule). His opponent complained to the arbiter but the move was allowed to stand. This incident earned Matulović the nickname “J’adoubovic”. This reportedly happened several times, including in a game against Bobby Fischer.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Matulovi%C4%87)
In his book on Bobby Fischer, “Endgame,” Frank Brady writes about a match the fifteen year old Bobby played against Matulovic before the 1958 Interzonal in Portoroz. “Bobby’s training match opponent in his first formal game on European soil was Milan Matulovic, a twenty-three-year-old master who would become infamous in the chess world for sometimes touching a piece, moving it, and then-realizing it was either a blunder or a weak move-returning the piece to its original square, saying “J’adoube,” or “I adjust,” and moving it to another square or moving another piece altogether…In his first encounter with Matulovic, Bobby ignored the Yugoslav’s mischievous disregard of the rules and lost the game. So with three games left to play, Bobby told Matulovic he’d no longer accept any bogus “j’adoubes.” Bobby won the second game, drew the third game, and won the fourth, and therefore won the match 2 ½-1 ½. Both of Bobby’s wins were hard fought and went to fifty moves before his opponent resigned. Matulovic may have been a trickster, but he was also one of his country’s finest players, not easily defeated.”
Wiki has a section on his page devoted to, “Controversies,” where one finds: Controversy in actions both over and away from the board was nothing new to Matulović. Over the board he was known for playing out hopeless positions long after grandmaster etiquette called for a resignation, allegedly in the hopes of reaching adjournment (suspension of a game for resumption the next day, common in tournament play at the time) so that the news reports would read “Matulović’s game is adjourned” rather than “Matulović lost!”[2][3]
More seriously, in the aftermath of the 1970 Interzonal tournament at Palma de Mallorca, he was accused of “throwing” his game against Mark Taimanov in return for a $400 bribe, thus allowing Taimanov to advance to the Candidates matches,[4] where he was famously defeated by Bobby Fischer 6–0. The accusations centered on Matulović’s conduct during the game[5] and the alleged feebleness of his resistance. The score of the notorious Taimanov–Matulović game follows, from which the reader can draw his or her own conclusions:
Taimanov–Matulović, Queen’s Gambit Accepted: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Bxc4 e6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.h3 Bh5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.e4 e5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nxf3+ 13.Qxf3 Qe7 14.Bf4 Be5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qe3 0-0 17.f4 Qe7 18.e5 c6 19.Rfe1 Rfe8 20.Qf3 Qc5+ 21.Qf2 Qxf2+ 22.Kxf2 Nd5 23.Nxd5 cxd5 24.Red1 Red8 25.Rac1 Rd7 26.Ke3 Rad8 27.Kd4 Kf8 28.f5 Ke7 29.Rd3 Re8 30.Rdc3 b6 31.Rc7 Rd8 32.R1c6 Ke8 33.g4 h6 34.h4 Rb8 35.g5 hxg5 36.hxg5 Rb7 37.Rc8+ Rd8 38.Rxd8+ Kxd8 39.Kxd5 a5 40.Rd6+ Ke8 41.Kc6 Re7 42.Rd5 1–0
The section culminates with, “Matulović was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and served nine months in prison for a car accident in which a woman was killed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Matulovi%C4%87#Controversies
While on duty at the Atlanta Chess Center one would often hear a player in the skittles room cry out, “What are you, some kind of J’adoubovic?” Most were too young to know much, if anything, about the man who earned the name of infamy. Yet every chess player on earth knows what a “J’adoubovic” is because of Milan Matulovic. He will live on in the lore of chess long after much better players have been forgotten. It is an everlasting tribute to a Grandmaster of ill repute.

Man From the High Plains

Could the man from the High Plains be right? Could computers become more autonomous because they have been programmed to play chess? Before laughing consider this article that appeared on the Defense One website yesterday, October 8, 2013, “Why America Wants Drones That Can Kill Without Humans.” http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/10/ready-lethal-autonomous-robot-drones/71492/ This a day after I published the comments of Mr. Vest concerning the possibility of computers “…becoming sentient entities.”
The article begins, “Scientists, engineers and policymakers are all figuring out ways drones can be used better and more smartly, more precise and less damaging to civilians, with longer range and better staying power. One method under development is by increasing autonomy on the drone itself.
Eventually, drones may have the technical ability to make even lethal decisions autonomously: to respond to a programmed set of inputs, select a target and fire their weapons without a human reviewing or checking the result. Yet the idea of the U.S. military deploying a lethal autonomous robot, or LAR, is sparking controversy. Though autonomy might address some of the current downsides of how drones are used, they introduce new downsides policymakers are only just learning to grapple with.”
You better believe that if DARPA realized chess could be utilized for such nefarious purposes, it would not hesitate in so doing. As a matter of fact, if the Men in Black read this, it is possible chess has seen the last of the High Plains Drifter. There will be some kind of cover story while the HPD is placed in the bowels of some secret government location, so secret even most in government have never heard of it-so secret there are not even any rumors of it-where he will be wired to the collective while they extract any and everything in his brain, for the good of mankind, naturally.

Why People Cheat

An article, “Cheating’s Surprising Thrill”, by Jan Hoffman, appeared on the NY Times website Oct. 7, 2013. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/in-bad-news-cheating-feels-good/?ref=health?src=dayp&_r=0
The first sentence is a question, “When was the last time you cheated?” I thought of the philosophy of the TV Dr. House, which is, “Everyone lies.”
The next question is, “And how did you feel afterward?” This is followed by the answer, “But new research shows that as long as you didn’t think your cheating hurt anyone, you may have felt great.”
Like everything else these days, the reason for cheating has been studied. “…some behavioral ethics researchers were startled by a study published recently in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by researchers at the University of Washington, the London Business School, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. The title: “The Cheater’s High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior.”
“One reason for pervasive garden-variety cheating is “that we have so many ways to cheat anonymously, especially via the Web,” Professor Wiltermuth said. The exhilaration, he added, may come from “people congratulating themselves on their cleverness.”
“The fact that people feel happier after cheating is disturbing, because there is emotional reinforcement of the behavior, meaning they could be more likely to do it again,” said Nicole E. Ruedy, the study’s lead author and a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Washington’s Center for Leadership and Strategic Thinking.
“…the researchers found that those who cheated experienced thrill, self-satisfaction, a sense of superiority. The effect persisted even when subjects cheated indirectly.”

Ole Petter Pedersen left this comment to my previous post: “Well, hard to blame white for Black’s losing moves, as in this game… I think people only look at a player’s rating and goes, hey, he must have cheated. However, computers do affect the way we play, and the term ‘human move’ has always sounded stupid to me. Good move or bad move, that is the question, to paraphrase Mr. Hendricks.”
This was my answer: I looked at the game and did not want to use it as an example, realizing someone may consider the game, as you have done, in lieu of looking at the big picture, which is that it has now become impossible to know for certain whether or not a player has availed himself of a 3000+ rated program. A decade ago there was speculation Topalov and his manager, Danilov, were using signals. Some still believe they accused Kramnik of cheating to throw suspicion off themselves. The Discman was incredulous when learning FIDE still allowed gizmo’s into the playing hall of their tournaments, as well he should be. In chess, the threat is stronger than the execution, is it not?

“The integrity of the game is shattered”

The big chess news today is the chess program known as Houdini, rated 3134, lost to the much lower rated Jonny 6, rated ‘only’ 2799. To make things worse, Houdini had the White pieces. The Legendary Georgia Ironman said Houdini lost because it had “…shown human like qualities by making bad moves.” Ouch! The man from the High Plains, former Georgia and Ga. Senior, champion, David Vest, said the machines were showing Tron like tendencies with the possibility of becoming sentient entities. He added, “We may just think they are off, but in reality they continue to compute chess variations even after the plug is pulled!” I got in on the conversation by adding, “And in the future, when humans are battling the machines, as in the Terminator movies, future humans will look back and blame it on those humans who started it all by programming machines to play chess.” Quiet reigned for a few moments while everyone contemplated the prospect…
Life is change and chess is a part of life, at least for now. How long chess will remain relevant is an open question. I lost interest in the computer tournament after learning humans force the machines to play openings played by other humans at the recent Tata Steel chess tournaments, in lieu of allowing them to play the move the program considered best. I have no interest in the USCL because teams are forced to play an inferior player rather than someone much stronger. The same thing happens in Little League baseball when the rules require a team to stick some obviously under qualified child in right field for a certain number of innings, possibly costing his team a win. Many years ago Maddog Gordon and I, watched an episode of the cartoon series, King of the Hill, in which the poor young son of the King was the unfortunate one placed out in right field, against his wishes, I might add. We laughed uproariously as the poor kid tried, and failed, to catch a fly ball. Although the adults meant well when they forced the poor boy to play, they did not take into consideration what it would do to him to be put into a position to fail. This is often the position some, lower rated player finds himself in when the score of the top three boards, often manned by GM’s, is tied, and the outcome of the match is riding on their small shoulders. What is the point? If a team cannot play their four best players, that means some worthy player is forced to sit while a player of much lesser quality plays in his stead. Imagine the outrage if college maimball teams were forced to play the third stringers in the fourth quarter. How much interest would there be in college maimball?
I sent this chess game to a few friends recently:
[Event “Oslo Chess International – Håvard Vederh”]
[Site “Ullevaal Stadion”]
[Date “2013.09.29”]
[Round “5”]
[White “Johannessen, Leif E”]
[Black “Istratescu, Andrei”]
[Result “1-0”]
[WhiteElo “2519”]
[BlackElo “2646”]
[EventDate “2013”]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. e4 d5 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bd3 c5 8. Nf3
Nc6 9. O-O Bxc3 10. bxc3 cxd4 11. Bxe4 dxe4 12. Qxe4 dxc3 13. Ng5 g6 14. Qh4 h5
15. Ba3 Nxe5 16. Rad1 Bd7 17. Bxf8 Qxf8 18. Qd4 f6 19. f4 Ba4 20. fxe5 Bxd1 21.
exf6 c2 22. f7+ 1-0
The Discman sent this reply, “I read your blog. (Concerning cheating in chess-AW) I am sure some with their heads in the sand will say we’re being paranoid and this type of thing would never happen at your normal weekend tourney but I would be willing to bet does in fact happen. Even if it’s only a small percentage of people who are cheating that’s too much – the integrity of the game is shattered.
Looking at the game below – wow what a hay-maker!” The Legendary Georgia Ironman sent this pithy comment, “I wonder if Leif was “hooked up”?” This is my point, exactly. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it can never be put back, unfortunately. There will always be a question about any outstanding move played by a human. Was it from the mind of man, or was it from the innards of a machine?

The Irrepressible Jude Acers

I first met Jude Acers when he came to Atlanta in the 1970’s to give a simultaneous exhibition at Lenox Square Mall. It opened in 1959 and is the oldest Mall in the South. Back then it was THE place to go, and Jude’s simul was covered by the press. This was during a time when Jude was traveling all over the country performing simultaneous exhibitions. Jude has written about those days and you can find some of the articles he wrote for the Berkeley Barb from 1972-1974 on the wonderful ChessDryad website containing California Chess History: (http://www.chessdryad.com/articles/acers/index.htm) One of his articles is entitled, “Atlanta at Dawn” The Road, Part 1 Berkeley Barb, Vol. 16, No. 23, Dec. 8-14, 1972. Another is, “Adventures in a Greyhound Terminal” The Road, Part XI Berkeley Barb, Aug. 2-8, 1974. I can identify with both of these articles. If Jude had not loved chess so much it is possible he could have been a great writer.
I took one of the boards that evening and admit to being one of Jude’s victims. There can be no doubt Jude helped popularize chess in those days. Jude was strong enough to draw a four game match with Mr. Six-Time, GM Walter Browne, if memory serves.
When Jude had enough of the road he settled in New Orleans, where he has been for decades. Please go to his website, http://classactionfilms.com/, where you will find a short film that captures the quintessential Jude. I promise it will be the best nine minutes of your day. It was one of the best parts of my yesterday. It shows Jude being, well, Jude!
Watching the film brought back memories of the time years ago when I had a job driving vehicles, mostly Bell South, to nine different southeastern states. If there were two or more vehicles they would go on a hauler, but if there was only one, someone would have to drive it, and that someone would be me. Some of the drivers were retired airline personnel and they managed to get home by flying free. I, on the other hand, had to pay to ride a Greyhound bus in order to return home. One of the possible trips was to Lake Charles, Louisiana. None of the other drivers wanted that trip, for various reasons, so I drove there often. I would then make my way back to New Orleans via bus, where I would have a twelve hour layover from seven pm until the Amtrak train left the next morning at 7 am. At that time I was still young enough to handle a night on Bourbon Street. Each and every night I spent there could be a chapter in the book of the Armchair Warrior.
I looked forward to the first trip in hopes of being able to get a chance to play Jude, because I wanted revenge. Every time I left the bus terminal heading for the French Quarter I would walk to the Gazebo, where Jude would be holding court. I do not recall how many times I made the trip, but I know he was always playing someone, and often more than one game was in progress. There always seemed to be ‘victims’ lined up, awaiting their chance for a crack at Jude. I would get something to drink, sit back and listen, while watching the show, for if he is nothing else, Jude is a showman. The show was invariably enjoyable.
The last time I made the trip, as luck would have it, Jude was alone at his table, going over a chess game from some magazine. He quickly put it away when he noticed me. I paid my five bucks and Jude allowed me to move first. I opened with the move known as “best by test,” 1 e4, and it was game on! Jude answered with 1…c6, the Caro-Kann, the opening I started playing after giving up my beloved Najdorf. I played the so-called “Fantasy” variation. My memory will only allow me to tell you I recall Jude bringing his Queen to h4 early in the game, and I somehow won a pawn. We reached an endgame and the place was closing, so I did the gentlemanly thing and offered Jude a draw. “Move,” was his reply. This infuriated me! How dare he turn refuse my offer? Did he think he could outplay me from a pawn down position in an endgame? I fortified myself for the battle to come, knowing that at the conclusion there would be blood spilled over the board, hopefully his! I managed to not blow it and cruised to a victory. “You sure took a lot of time,” was his comment after shaking hands. “What did you expect after turning down my draw offer? What, did you think you could beat me from that pawn down endgame position?” I made my way to the French Quarter ready to celebrate my victory with an adult beverage, while listening to some authentic jazz. I have drawn with dozens of chess masters, but beaten only a couple of handfuls, and that includes only one player who was not technically a NM, my friend the Discman. When I defeated Chris Chambers at the Tennessee Open in 1988 he had just returned from scoring 8 ½ points in the US Open, pushing his rating over the coveted 2200 mark. Anyone who can score 8 ½ out of 12 at the US Open ought to be considered a NM in my book. I have been fortunate enough to beat many players who later became NM’s, but the win over the irrepressible Jude will always have a special place in the book of the Armchair Warrior.
One of my trips driving a Bell South vehicle took me to Asheville, NC, in time for the Land of the Sky chess tournament, considered by many to be the best chess tournament in the South for over two decades. My friend Wilder Wadford is not getting any younger, so I urge you to start making plans to attend his excellent tournament after the first of the year. My friend, The Dude, aka Tim Bond, followed me and, once the mission had been completed, gave me a ride to the Holiday Inn Sunspree Resort, site of the LOTS, as it is known. On the way I mentioned my win over Jude in the French Quarter. “You beat Jude?” he said. “I played him ten times, drawing the first game, but losing the other nine.” A man does not make a living for decades playing chess by losing many games.
The Legendary Georgia Ironman and I made a trip to play in the Texas State Championship decades ago and Tim wanted to stop in New Orleans for lunch. After eating we walked over, finding Jude alone. Even though he was disappointed to hear we did not have time for a game, we were able to converse with him. I am uncertain when this occurred, but it was around the time when USCF began to rate quick chess. Jude managed to bring this fact into the conversation and it became a soliloquy. Jude was under the impression quick chess was going to revolutionize chess, exuberantly saying things like, “It will put money in every master’s pocket and a chicken in every pot! The future of chess is quick chess and it will bring in thousands, MILLIONS, of new players! It is the dawning of a new age of chess!” Jude was reeling with the feeling and got carried away, I suppose. His soliloquy lasted some time. He had to catch his breath and it was then we were able to take our leave. As we walked toward the car I could not help but notice the Ironman had been unusually quiet. I looked at him, noticing a strange look upon his face. I asked if everything was OK. “No, it’s not OK, Bacon. You do not understand… that man was my childhood hero. I got into chess after playing in one of his simuls, and now I find him a raving lunatic!” Tim had not been around Jude like I had and therefore had little understanding. I thought Tim was being a little harsh and had to stifle a laugh. “Look Tim, that’s just Jude’s shtick. He’s a character, which is what makes him what he is. That’s one of the best things about chess, the different characters one meets.” We walked on quietly until the Ironman said, “I guess you’re right, Bacon.”
When Hurricane Katrina hit and the Bushwhackers did nothing but look on from the window of a plane, my thoughts, like many others, went to Jude, wondering if he had made it. Hearing the first report that Jude was alive caused great relief.
I was elated upon learning Jude was participating in the World Senior Championships in 2008. He has played in each tournament since then and he is always my “horse.” As David Spinks was fond of saying, “It is not fun unless you have someone to pull for.”
I urge you to spend less than ten minutes of your time watching the aforementioned film because Jude is definitely sui generis. Read this article to learn why Jude wears a red beret, and what is buried in GM Arthur Dake’s coffin: http://www.nwchess.com/articles/people/dinner_with_Acers.htm
To learn more about one of the true characters of chess, and a real chess hero, go to Jude’s website: http://judeacers.com/
For the chance of a lifetime, please go here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/304635435/the-man-in-the-red-beret

Chess is Doomed

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you must be wondering where the comments of my friend the Discman, aka NM Chris Chambers, I mentioned in my previous post could be found. Chris sent me an email and rather than making a post I decided to leave a comment on my own blog. It did not work, and I do not know why. It is something I will have to look into, eventually.
Many years ago Chris was the first to give me a heads-up on a hand held gizmo containing a powerful chess program, telling me it would kill chess. I probably wrote about it on the BaconLOG. Monday, Sept. 30. 2013, the Discman sent me this email in reply to my post of “Widespread concerns about the potential for cheating.”
“It’s still too easy to cheat – even in FIDE rated events.

All you would need is a device that could send a pulse, for example a device in your shoe.

An outside agent could then send moves to you through sequenced pulses via this device.

A spectator could very easily signal in moves to a player simply by standing there – both arms hanging loosely at your side means “knight.” Left hand clenched means “bishop” etc.

Until you send every player through a screening device and allow nobody else access to the room I’m not going to be convinced that cheating isn’t possible. Nobody wants to play in an environment like that.”

How ironic this became after the article concerning Borislav Ivanov refusing to remove his shoes appeared on the Chessbase website Oct. 3!

Another email from Chris came down from the cloud and was in my box this morning:

“Agreed. I reached the same conclusion once $50 programs played at a GM level several years ago.

It’s way too easy to get moves transmitted to a player if he has a partner. I can think of 5 different methodologies off the top of my head that you and I could pull off with no sweat (if we were cheaters which of course we’re not).”

Sent from my iPhone The major problem facing chess now is the loss of credibility. Perception is reality. Unless and until something is done no one can ever be certain he was not cheated. Every player will wonder if it was really his opponent who came up with that amazing move, or did it emanate from a 3500 rated program. Many years ago I wrote, facetiously, the only solution was “naked chess.” That was before the possibility of implants. Now not even what we can call “Duchamp chess” will eradicate the onerous problem of the possibility of cheating. There is no solution, therefore, as I wrote to Chris before the latest reply in which he agreed, chess is doomed…DOOMED!

These Shoes Were Made For Cheating

A few days after my September 30 post, “Widespread concerns about the potential for cheating,” in which I published the thoughts of my friend, NM Chris Chambers, concerning the possibility of a player utilizing shoes to conceal a cheating gizmo, an article has appeared on Chessbase concerning Borislav Ivanov’s shoes. It is written Borislav refused to remove his shoes during a security search and was forfeited. Please surf on over to read the rest of the story: http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4011396/the-shoe-assistant–ivanov-forfeits-at-blagoevgrad-031013.aspx

Magnus Carlsen has Swag

When I went to the website of the ongoing Oslo Chess International 2013 this morning (http://www.bergensjakk.no/oslointernational/) the first thing I noticed was a picture of world number one, Magnus Carlsen, wearing a pullover sweatshirt with the words, “SWAG DON’T COME CHEAP.” Being under the impression the word “swag” meant “sag” or “droop” I wondered if Magnus, being young, was wearing his pants in the fashion currently popular with a certain segment of society who let their pants droop and sag way too far down their derriere in order to show their often dirty underwear. This sent me to the dictionary where I learned it also means “sway,” or “lurch.” I also learned it is, “…perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Norwegian svagga to sway, rock; akin to Middle Low German swacken to rock.” The first known use dates to 1530. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swag
I had a sneaking suspicion the word “swag” has taken on different connotations. I thought back to the time my little sister and I were talking with our mother when Lynnette mentioned something about one of our mother’s favorite actors being “gay.” Looking perplexed, our mother asked, “What’s wrong with being happy?” My sister looked at me as if to say, “Please help me here, brother.” I told our mother the word was now used to describe a homosexual. “My word,” she exclaimed, “Why would they do that?” I am now at about the same age as my mother when this occurred. There was no Urban dictionary then, but there is now, so I checked out the word on the site. This is the first definition I found:
Swag
The most used word in the whole fucking universe. Douche bags use it, your kids use it, your mail man uses it, and your fucking dog uses it. If you got swag, you generally wear those shitty hats side way, and your ass hanging out like a fucking goof cause your pants are half way down your white ass legs. To break down the word, it means (Secretly We Are Gay). It is also a word that means to represent yourself/ the way you represent yourself, baggy clothes, shitty hats, small penis and basically a way to say your afraid to come out of the closet.
There are many more pages of definitions you can find here. As for me, this one will suffice. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swag