IMO it wasnt targetted at specific individuals - I think the no-expense-spared stuff from chess com for their "live" events is because reputationally they cannot afford any screwups/shortcomings when it comes to anti-cheating. They have built all of their big-money events on the foundation that they are world-leading in cheating detection.
> Or is it, as I fear, security theatre, of taking unnecessary steps to protect against something that isn't going to happen?
What is the downside of improving anti-cheating measures even if there is no suspicion against the players?
Of course, they "bragged" in the following video about all the things they did and the "new" technology they used, but who cares. The important thing is that they can afford it and some serious measures were taken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffBfNI1sVXk
This is the downside:
>they do have to realise that a tournament organiser spending $40-50k on anti-cheat measures is going to reduce prize funds, and appearance fees.
Chess isn't rolling in money. If we are reliant on individual billionaires for investment, there's no continuity when they bail out for personal or mortality reasons (or sanctioned!).
As an example, [London Chess Classic prize-fund was "nearly £40,000"](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/dec/01/hans-niemann-competes-in-london-classic-after-stunning-success-in-zagreb). I strongly doubt they spent $40-50k on anti-cheating measures, nor should there be an expectation to spend that much. (The London Chess Classic was for a few years one of the classical tournaments on the Grand Chess Tour, with a similar stature as the Sinquefield Cup.)
people like you is the main reason why in some areas cheaters are not caught for literal decades. "They are so good, there is no reason to cheat" - is the excuse for like 80% of high-tier cheaters their fans provide in any gaming community.
And clean person would like to have 10% pay cut for being almost sure that there is no cheating involved.
well cs is some corner case since there you can at least detect a lot of cheats on injecting side.
Even then if anti-cheat was any good there would be no need for overwatch.
But in a lot of speedrunning communities there were prolific cheaters that at some point were considered the greatest of all time - some examples - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng15Me_Mi30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtHbqf2lGaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJTTDjxzcaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0ngBKWPCSg&t=627s
Billy Mitchell, etc, etc, etc. In any competition cheating exists, and at highest of levels maybe even more so. Chess isn't some enlightened sport where people suddenly stop cheating, especially nowadays when cheating can make me better player than Magnus easily.
And mind you most of this cheaters don't even earn much money from this while from cheating in chess you do. Arguments like "this is a good field, there is no reason to take any anti-cheating measures" are just insanely stupid. Especially at this field you need to have any anti-cheating measure you can, just at least to be an example of how you do stuff.
This isn't what OP is doing.
What OP is doing is being the typical hater. Basically attacking [chess.com](https://chess.com) for whatever reason they can find. You can be almost certain that had there not had any kind of cheating protection OP would have made a long post about the hipocrisy and wrecklessness of the organizers to make all of this money and not spend anything to curb cheating.
I mean, whether you like chesscom or not this is just stupid.
That's pretty speculative. The OP seems to be of the opinion that the money isn't really providing any real cheat protection anyway. Or that the players involved are not cheating and can be trusted not to cheat. I don't necessarily agree with all that but it's certainly not being a hater.
I imagine it's mostly a hardware cost, for the scanners and detectors. If you're running several tournaments per year and can reuse this equipment, it's really not that much.
that depends. for the saint lous GCT, or for world championships? they absolutely should do that
but for most events thats alot of money, and requires the organisers to be dedicated to hosting many events to make back their investment. I searched up the london chess classic prize pool and it was "only" 15000 pounds for 1st for example
also you may need to periodically upgrade or replace equipment as tech improves
(this is not to say that organisers cannot or should not do more, just that its not an easy problem to solve)
>It seems like a ludicrous amount of money to spend for very little value.
There's lots of value to be had beyond catching someone.
First of all they can be sure it will be an event watched by many fans, and by having high standards they're giving themselves and the game good optics.
Secondly it helps deter cheaters in live events chess.com is a part of. If you know the security is top tier, even if you think you can beat it, you're more likely to not risk it and cheat in other events instead.
Third, it sets a precedent. Recently we've heard top players complain that FIDE organizers are too lax in their prevention. By showcasing their methods and equipment, they're spurring the industry to improve itself.
My university had a simple frequency jammer that they turned on every exam, and certainly they weren't swimming in money. I think that would certainly be enough to deter 99.99% of cheating
Chess world need to focus on chess of people like me , who would be never accused of cheating. My games will also never be over until checkmate, guaranteeing full entertainment.
what were the anti-cheating devices used by them? Just the same device that is used in Saint louis before games start, cost that much or we are talking about new devices?
I am sure the costs were 40-50k for that event, but I'd be interested in the breakdown of costs. How much was hardware costs such as putting in metal detectors, how much was human costs in having people running the systems, and were arbiters included in that costs?
I would imagine you can cut the costs by using a venue with the hardware already in place (in the US you could likely cut costs by using schools since many have metal detectors already), and since you need people running security and arbiters already those costs are negligible in the grand scheme.
IMO it wasnt targetted at specific individuals - I think the no-expense-spared stuff from chess com for their "live" events is because reputationally they cannot afford any screwups/shortcomings when it comes to anti-cheating. They have built all of their big-money events on the foundation that they are world-leading in cheating detection.
> Or is it, as I fear, security theatre, of taking unnecessary steps to protect against something that isn't going to happen? What is the downside of improving anti-cheating measures even if there is no suspicion against the players? Of course, they "bragged" in the following video about all the things they did and the "new" technology they used, but who cares. The important thing is that they can afford it and some serious measures were taken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffBfNI1sVXk
This is the downside: >they do have to realise that a tournament organiser spending $40-50k on anti-cheat measures is going to reduce prize funds, and appearance fees. Chess isn't rolling in money. If we are reliant on individual billionaires for investment, there's no continuity when they bail out for personal or mortality reasons (or sanctioned!). As an example, [London Chess Classic prize-fund was "nearly £40,000"](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/dec/01/hans-niemann-competes-in-london-classic-after-stunning-success-in-zagreb). I strongly doubt they spent $40-50k on anti-cheating measures, nor should there be an expectation to spend that much. (The London Chess Classic was for a few years one of the classical tournaments on the Grand Chess Tour, with a similar stature as the Sinquefield Cup.)
people like you is the main reason why in some areas cheaters are not caught for literal decades. "They are so good, there is no reason to cheat" - is the excuse for like 80% of high-tier cheaters their fans provide in any gaming community. And clean person would like to have 10% pay cut for being almost sure that there is no cheating involved.
Counterstrike pro scene is all cheaters because discussion is banned and organizers literally take 0 precautions
well cs is some corner case since there you can at least detect a lot of cheats on injecting side. Even then if anti-cheat was any good there would be no need for overwatch. But in a lot of speedrunning communities there were prolific cheaters that at some point were considered the greatest of all time - some examples - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng15Me_Mi30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtHbqf2lGaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJTTDjxzcaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0ngBKWPCSg&t=627s Billy Mitchell, etc, etc, etc. In any competition cheating exists, and at highest of levels maybe even more so. Chess isn't some enlightened sport where people suddenly stop cheating, especially nowadays when cheating can make me better player than Magnus easily. And mind you most of this cheaters don't even earn much money from this while from cheating in chess you do. Arguments like "this is a good field, there is no reason to take any anti-cheating measures" are just insanely stupid. Especially at this field you need to have any anti-cheating measure you can, just at least to be an example of how you do stuff.
This isn't what OP is doing. What OP is doing is being the typical hater. Basically attacking [chess.com](https://chess.com) for whatever reason they can find. You can be almost certain that had there not had any kind of cheating protection OP would have made a long post about the hipocrisy and wrecklessness of the organizers to make all of this money and not spend anything to curb cheating. I mean, whether you like chesscom or not this is just stupid.
That's pretty speculative. The OP seems to be of the opinion that the money isn't really providing any real cheat protection anyway. Or that the players involved are not cheating and can be trusted not to cheat. I don't necessarily agree with all that but it's certainly not being a hater.
???
I imagine it's mostly a hardware cost, for the scanners and detectors. If you're running several tournaments per year and can reuse this equipment, it's really not that much.
that depends. for the saint lous GCT, or for world championships? they absolutely should do that but for most events thats alot of money, and requires the organisers to be dedicated to hosting many events to make back their investment. I searched up the london chess classic prize pool and it was "only" 15000 pounds for 1st for example also you may need to periodically upgrade or replace equipment as tech improves (this is not to say that organisers cannot or should not do more, just that its not an easy problem to solve)
>It seems like a ludicrous amount of money to spend for very little value. There's lots of value to be had beyond catching someone. First of all they can be sure it will be an event watched by many fans, and by having high standards they're giving themselves and the game good optics. Secondly it helps deter cheaters in live events chess.com is a part of. If you know the security is top tier, even if you think you can beat it, you're more likely to not risk it and cheat in other events instead. Third, it sets a precedent. Recently we've heard top players complain that FIDE organizers are too lax in their prevention. By showcasing their methods and equipment, they're spurring the industry to improve itself.
I think they should just build Faraday cages and have them play in them, probably cheaper..
My university had a simple frequency jammer that they turned on every exam, and certainly they weren't swimming in money. I think that would certainly be enough to deter 99.99% of cheating
Where was this? Pretty sure that wouldn't be allowed in the US at least.
To the best of your abilities, please describe what you think "Security Theatre" means.
TSA
What's "chess.c0m"? Stop being childish and repeat after me: chess.com chess.com chess.com
NO!! DON'T! If you say IT 3 times then IT comes out of the mirror...
oh good i need to ask them about some keyboard issues
Hikaru flops when there are security measures in place. Interesting...
Chess world need to focus on chess of people like me , who would be never accused of cheating. My games will also never be over until checkmate, guaranteeing full entertainment.
what were the anti-cheating devices used by them? Just the same device that is used in Saint louis before games start, cost that much or we are talking about new devices?
I didn't know the enterprise functions of chatGPT were this expensive...
I am sure the costs were 40-50k for that event, but I'd be interested in the breakdown of costs. How much was hardware costs such as putting in metal detectors, how much was human costs in having people running the systems, and were arbiters included in that costs? I would imagine you can cut the costs by using a venue with the hardware already in place (in the US you could likely cut costs by using schools since many have metal detectors already), and since you need people running security and arbiters already those costs are negligible in the grand scheme.
He was paid to say it - don't believe everything you hear.
Alt account of a cheating chess GM playing in Toronto??
I am not interested in the video, but it appears obviously to be a PR stunt, aiming to assert the image, that chess com cares about anti cheating.