Talk:Cheating in chess

Cheating in Chess vs Cheating Accusations

There needs to be distinguished between cheats caught and proven versus the many cheating accusations that have been thrown about in the past and present. While chess players are paranoid and will say strange things e.g. the "coded messages in Yogurt" claim during the Karpov-Korchnoi matches or the Fisher-Spassky eccentricities, there are people like Sharma who have been caught red-handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegbert (talk • contribs)

Non-Computer-Related Cheating

There was cheating before there were computers, of course. I will list some ways of cheating now and try to document them later. First, receiving advice about a game from a stronger player is probably the oldest form of cheating. (I have watched a chessmaster tell a 1200 player what move he should make in a game being played on the Internet -- must have been a surprise to his opponent!) Historically, players have swiped pieces from the board and altered positions. Players have invoked rules that didn't exist except in their heads.

With the advent of chess clocks, cheating during time scrambles is often charged, consisting in deliberately knocking over pieces and restricting the opponent from making timely moves. Chess clocks have been altered during games, I think.

Online Cheating

ICC claims to be able to detect cheating, but it can certainly not detect a human master advising a lower-rated player. It can also not detect a computer program running on a different computer than the one that is online. It can't stop a player from referring to chess books during play.

A player I faced recently on FICS who was doing very well against me despite being rated 400 points lower than I implied that he could set some software to "slow play" and thus give himself extra time. He was consistently winning on time against me. He told me I needed to check the "slow option". I didn't know there was a "slow option" and wouldn't set it if there was one.

Geneven (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cheat in ICC only using one computer, you simply just change the name of the program file of your chess software. Then your cheating doesn't get detected. At least it works with Fritz 12. --158.36.232.149 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheating is detected on these servers by comparing the moves made to computer analysis and if it's too similar too often, it's a cheater. Humans simply never play quite like a computer. Funny that the cheaters think they're just detecting applications running. Dancindazed (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

Unregistered user wants discussion before changes? Ok. Raise your hand if you think integrating wikilinks in the article text is better than having them standing alone at the end of paragraphs. *raises* Milto LOL pia 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*raises* Dionyseus 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Integrating wikilinks in text is definitely better. - Aagtbdfoua 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Violating the touch-move rule is not cheating

First, the rule is stupid, because the reason for it is only social elegance and aesthetics, like the parliament rule that requires you to dress in a black suit within the parliament building. There's no real meaning to the rule, nothing that makes a REAL difference. It's rather harmful, since it suppresses real skill and intelligence by letting unneccessary accidents happen. It might be against some social norm within the chess community to touch a piece and not move it, but it's definitely not cheating. "Cheating" is to manipulate the result of the game with trickery. The touch-move rule is rather a cheat itself, in favor of the weaker player since it makes it easier for him to win - by the opponent simply being not careful. --Resource Based Economy (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First, saying that a rule is a cheat is clearly your opinion, and I strongly doubt that it could in any way be considered a neutral point of view.

Second, the reference does show that Kasparov touched a piece and did not move it, which does break a rule, did not acknowledge it, and used this to win a game. This is the very definition of cheating.

Simply breaking a rule is not cheating. --Resource Based Economy (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking a rule by mistake, acknowledging that you did and accepting the consequences is not cheating. Breaking a rule, refusing to acknowledge it (even though the whole thing was recorded !) and using it to win a game is exactly the definition of cheating. Oyp (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking this rule doesn't give you an unfair advantage over your opponent, therefore it's not cheating. The opponent's piece hasn't been moved yet simply by you touching yours, so one can't predict the outcome of a move that way, which WOULD be cheating. When you redecide in the very last moment you've just been a little bit uncareful, not bad at the game. One might as well have redecided before one touched the piece. Result is the same. --Resource based economy (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Before this goes too far, let me clarify a few points.

First, using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses will not help you achieve anything. If needed, a CheckUser can confirm that you are behind all those accounts and IPs.

Second, you are already not only in the scope of the three-revert rule, but even way beyond that. If you keep doing this, you will end up being blocked by an administrator.

So I suggest you calm down, stop reverting everyone else, and discuss the matter here, using one account. Oyp (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I only have one account. It seems like you guys can't argue against me, so you use popular vote and technical power to force your opinion on this article. --Resource based economy (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, let us see what the others are thinking. I propose to restore this, everyone please give your opinion. Oyp (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Per proposal. Oyp (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. SyG (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (but please remember vote is evil)

   Yeah, but it's easy and I'm lazy. Oyp (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

3. Support. The touch-move rule is one of the rules of chess. Breaking it unfairly hurts the opponent. Breaking it intentionally is cheating. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
4. support Robotpandazombie (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - arguments against proposal are unconvincing. --Alan (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Resource Based Economy (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

# Oppose. --158.36.232.149 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, nobody will suspect a thing here. Oyp (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

# Oppose. --158.36.232.201 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have stricken these "votes" because the evidence of at best meatpuppetry and at worst sockpuppetry convinces me. I suggest you all sort it out here without edit-warring on the article, otherwise I'll just fully-protect the article until a proper consensus has emerged. Rodhullandemu 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Others

As it's contended then it requires a source. There is currently no source and according to the WP:PROVEIT policy it therefore may be removed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean for the Kasparov touched-piece incident? It is sourced in the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No. What he/she means is that there is no source that states that breaking the rule is cheating. --Resource based economy (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So cheating says "Cheating implies the breaking of rules." in the lead section. Breaking the rules is cheating, by definition. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not how anybody use the word, and therefore that article should be corrected too. The real definition, how people actually use the word, is when you manipulate the game to give you an unfair advantage. FIDE could add a rule that states that you aren't allowed to stand while playing; nobody would call it cheating if anybody broke the rule, as standing wouldn't make it more likely for you to win the game. Breaking a basic rule, while pretending not to, like moving the king two squares, would be cheating. The touch-piece rule is not basic or really relevant to the chess game, breaking it doesn't affect the game's honest result. --Resource based economy (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, a driver may refuse a traffic citation for running a red light, because he didn't "run" it, he "rolled through it". That, of course, is a fallacy...one that will likely net that driver at least another citation, if not more. Similarly, asserting that a definition is void because "that is not how anybody use the word" (sic) is a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy. My opinion on this matter is on the premise that the definition of a word should be how people use it, not how one linguistics professor uses or thinks it should be used. You guys are the ones that appeal to popularity with your polls. Consensus or democracy is not truth. You can vote that a dog's tail is a bone, it doesn't make it true. --Resource based economy (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to distill the argument to a matter of semantics demonstrate to me, at least, that the argument itself is without merit. --Alan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he is arguing about semantics. I think he just doesn't like the rule. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on intent, only on content. --Alan (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Just semantics". Go ahead and put the Obama article in the socialists category if you take so light on language. --Resource based economy (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Breaking the rules is cheating, by definition.", well no. Let us say a player turns up late, a rule is broken and the game is lost. Is he/she cheating? No they are not. A players mobile phone goes off during a game, again they lost by breaking a rule but it is not cheating? Nope. So breaking a rule does not always equal cheating. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. But in some cases those can cause the player to forfeit the game. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, what is missing from above is the concept of benefit. Cheating means breaking a rule in order to gain something, e.g. by winning the game. Of course, if you break a rule unintentionally and acknowledge it, accepting any consequences enforced by the arbiter, it is not cheating. Breaking a rule, refusing to acknowledge it in order not to face the consequences, and then winning the game thanks to that, is clearly cheating. Oyp (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is old stuff now, but what no one seems to be mentioning is that the reason the touch rule exists is because the player is not allowed to benefit by seeing a position before he she decides to play his move. Often just physically seeing one move further into an analysis helps play stronger moves. If the touch move rule didn't exist you'd have players moving pieces around all over the place before deciding on a move and that is a benefit and that's why it is cheating in this particular case, all though I agree with all points made about if it weren't a benefit or advantage that it wouldn't be cheating. Dancindazed (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

possible reference

The Oxford Companion to Chess, 1992, page 252, about Milan Matulović, "... he played in the Sousse Interzonal in which, after a little cheating (see j'adoube), he came ninth." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit summary claim. What does Hooper and Whyld, page 252, say? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you put it above. It's awkward wording. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 252 is quoted above. Page 185 says: "... withdrew a losing move saying "Ich spreche j'doube" ; this ruse went unpunished ...". It is not clear to me if he took his hand off the piece or not. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the Hooper and Whyld page 252 reference, as a source that touch move is cheating. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

H&W don't use the word "blatant", so how about restoring it in touch-move rule, except for that word? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I tracked down the diff, the very first edit on the article, back in 2005. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago the article was J'Adoube - I moved it it was moved to touch move rule. Anyhow, I have the Oxford Companion and I have ordered the Lombardy book to see exactly what it says. It might be in Larry Evan's This Crazy World of Chess, but I can't find it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

… and he is proud of it

Our new friend, resource based economy (talk · contribs), inserted a screen capture showing himself cheating on ICC against a GM. Not only that, after I reverted, he asked for it to be reinserted despite being blocked (again). I could go on about what I think of cheating on ICC, taking a screen capture of it and showing it off on WP, which is at the same time completely pointless and original "research", but I have doubts on my capability of doing so without resorting to unprintable vocabulary. Oyp (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The actions maybe a little misguided but the intent is fine. Are you claiming the image is original research? I don't think it's possible for an image to be original research. Perhaps you mean the caption with the image is original research? Cheating on ICC doesn't seem notable - it's not referenced in the article so currently I can't see a reason for having an image. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For something to be relevant in Wikipedia, it has to be cited in a quality source. Since this particular case of cheating was never reported in a quality source, citing it would be "original research". Other than that, cheating on the Internet — ICC or any other network — is certainly notable. The French language article cites this case, for example. Oyp (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Manipulating the Choice of Colors

This tactic borders on the whimsical, but could be mentioned.

When it is not otherwise specified which player will be white in a single game or the first game of a match, the colors may be assigned randomly. A coin toss would suffice, but a chess tradition has one player hide a white pawn in one fist and a black pawn in the other, and offer both hands to the opponent. The opponent selects one hand or the other, and is assigned the color revealed. [Is this practice mentioned in any of the articles?]

If you get the choice and draw a black pawn, you are well advised to check your opponent's other hand. You may find a black pawn there as well! (Chess equivalent of a two-headed coin.) WHPratt (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Chess computer disguised as a MonRoi?

I am trying to track down a citation for the following claim:

"In the 2012 Virginia State Scholastic Chess Championships, a Class-A player was caught using an unauthorized chess program hidden in a case, disguised as a MonRoi device, during his 5th-round game on Board 1"

The citation we have just says "unauthorized software indicating an assessment of his position and analysis of possible variations". Do we have a source for the "hidden in a case, disguised as a MonRoi" claim? If so, did he replace the electronics or did he manage to install a chess engine on a MonRoi? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If the person did install a chess engine on a Monroi, would be interesting at least (and keepable). My feeling though, offhand, the person just used a regular smartphone and installed a skin to make it look like a Monroi. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As an engineer, I have to say that something seems strange here. Fitting a smartphone into a MonRoi case is not an easy thing to do. The screen will almost certainly be the wrong size, and programming it to look like a MonRoi screen while running a chess engine, while not impossible, requires a fair amount of skill. Plus, of course, you are out $300 plus for the MonRoi and $100 plus for the smartphone. Then again, hacking a MonRoi's software is no small feat. I would expect something like this in a big-money tournament, not a scholastic. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A user has been adding info about a case in a Virginia high school tournament. The only source now mentioned is from the people running the tournament (vachess.org). I feel as though such low-level incident really don't merit inclusion. I'm sure if one was to look hard enough, you could find a ton of such incidents, most of which never get reported on. I suggest low rated tournaments and scholastic tournaments shouldn't be mentioned. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the case is relevant because of the [Citation Needed] use of a chess computer disguised as a MonRoi. On the other land, the list is getting a bit long. I propose the following: Split it up into a section for each kind of cheating (computer in the bathroom, accomplice feeding moves over a radio, etc. and list the two best examples of each. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and I have concluded that Mateinsixtynine was right all along and I was wrong. The IP who added this has failed to come forward with a reference backing up his "MonRoi" claim, and without that it is just a high school tournament with some sort of unspecified cheating. I am removing it until someone comes up with citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If the situation about the MonRoi comes up in a reliable source, then I would have no problem adding it in. I suspect though the person adding it was an actual witness. The first on it came on Sunday, just after the tourney was over. I removed that simply because it appeared as just a bad accusation. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have obtained a bit of information through private correspondence with an eyewitness to the incident at the Virginia Chess Federation. This information is WP:OR and cannot be used in any Wikipedia article unless someone can come up with conformation from a WP:RS. According to my source this particular incident involves eNotate running on a Windows Mobile PDA, not a MonRoi.

As of today, the only publicly available info on this is at [ http://www.vachess.org/scholastics/11-12%20State%20Ch/SpecialStatement_March2012.html ] and [ http://www.vachess.org/scholastics/11-12%20State%20Ch/SpecialStatement_Mar2012.html ]. Neither source mentions MonRoi or eNotate.

If we get conformation from a WP:RS, this would be notable because eNotate is USCF-approved (See [ http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/electronicscoresheet.pdf ] based upon the alleged inability to run chess-playing software on a PDA that is running eNotate.

Another possible twist in the story is at [ http://www.nachess.org/component/directory/?view=subcat&id=1 ]. This appears to be a list of people who have "eNotate Validation". There is no Clark Smiley on the list, but there is a Mark Smiley. (Typo? Relative?) A Google search on "enotate 1.32 torrent" turns up a bunch of pirated versions. I don't know what safeguards the tournaments have to avoid users having pirated versions, possibly with anti-cheating safeguards defeated.

Perhaps in a few months we will be able to reference the USCF Ethics Complaint that vachess.org talks about, but until then we need to sit on this pending a citation passes WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a mailing list thread that seems to suggest the same thing. The page on enotate seems to be a list of people who have purchased the program. I'm willing to agree to add the allegations back to the article if there's more, especially if the information is on using a hacked version of enotate. Something tells me he simply used enotate for the first round (drawn much lower rated player and TDs likely to be more suspicious), but when against a stronger player, simply used a chess engine. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You guys need to wait until you have the clear story. It was not a "disguised Monroi". It was a Dell Axim PDA with a Windows Mobile operating system, which is the standard PDA for use with the E-Notate software. Over a dozen players in the tournament were using E-Notate. In this specific instance, the player was running Pocket Fritz on the Dell instead of E-Notate. A warning was posted on the USCF Tournament Forum for other directors to be aware of alternate softare being run on the Dell instead of the E-Notate. There is nothing to indicate that the Monroi has ever been compromised, and there is nothing to indicate that a PDA that is running E-Notate can be compromised while E-Notate is running. In this case, E-Notate was never started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.40.155 (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the incident in question was covered in an online article by an ESPN affiliate in September 2012. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8362701/the-evolution-cheating-chess Jrmdc (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Since there's now an article on it, I added info about it in the artcle. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Australian incidents

As far as I can see there is not enough evidence on the basis of the chessvibes article to accuse the players concerned of cheating. FIDE laws state that if an illegal move is discovered, the position is reset to how it was before the illegal move occurred; the touch move rule also applies in this situation. However, once the scoresheet has been signed the result stands. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. (Nothing in the source suggests the moves weren't honest mistakes. It happens. Cheating requires intent. An admission or ruling would be required before defaming text against individuals would be permissable in the article, like the editor so adamantly wanted to include.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIV and WP:DONTBITE still apply though, right? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A trick question!? (Take up on my Talk if you like. And Happy New Year.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No trick. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheating with technology section

I suggest breaking this section up, bullet pointing it, or cutting it back to include only the more prominent examples (e.g. Ivanov, Nigalidze, the French olympiad team). It's getting quite large and unwieldy, and we can be sure there will be more such incidents in the future. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in definite agreement about this. I was thinking to remove anything which was not of historical or international significance. Even something like the Kakkar case in India in May 2015, though in the press a lot because of the high-tech nature, is not that impressive, and easily copy-catable by so many wannabees. Similarly with Ricciardi in September in Italy, lots of press, but little real interest besides a lower-rated guy got foolish. FIDE probably won't end up with either of these cases, as they can be judged nationally. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheating in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/fidecrisan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cheating in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad08.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084006/http://schaaksite.nl/page.php?al=verklaring-international-chess-festival-iasi-open-2014 to http://schaaksite.nl/page.php?al=verklaring-international-chess-festival-iasi-open-2014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/12/27/chess.cheater.reut/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200612271550.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fide.com/minutes/annex_19.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheating in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718160021/http://www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com/3.html to http://www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com/3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Paywalled Links

Link 54 is now behind a paywall, and cannot be read. Does it need removing or do these links remain? Robmonster (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It can stay. See WP:SOURCELINKS and WP:PAYWALL. Quale (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Takeback

Can a person beat a program if the person has no time controls and can use other programs and can take back as many moves as they want? I came here hoping to find answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.78.79 (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cheating in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad08.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310014013/http://www.chess-international.de/Archive/51075 to http://www.chess-international.de/Archive/51075
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fide.com/minutes/annex_19.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Simultaneous games section

So, this doesn't make any sense. Is it saying a player can just copy his opponent's moves from a previous game? Just copying a sequence of moves won't do you any good since the board position created from your opponent's moves would be vastly different. If that isn't what it means, it needs to be reworded to actually make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.243.154 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Touch move rule clarification

Under the section 'Touch move rule' is the following example of a violation: "Matulović played a losing move but then took it back after saying "J'adoube" ("I adjust"—which should be announced before adjusting pieces on their square)." I'm wondering why the clarification that it should be announced before adjusting pieces, when the text already said he only adjusted after he announced? 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:7DA4:B8DE:5FB2:53DE (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

needs expansion

needs more section(s) on online chess and irwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.249.213 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)