and: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/07/cheating_hearts_redux.htm .

Q: Where can I learn details of the 2005 cheating incidents at the HB Global Chess Challenge and the World Open?

A: Follow this link: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/07/u2000_intrigue_at_hb.htm

Q: What do you propose to do about it?

A: In chess, as in life, deterring crime means creating three things: a high probability that crime will result in capture; a high probability that capture will result in punishment; and an expectation that punishment when applied will be severe enough to outweigh the criminal’s hope of profiting from his illicit activity.

The present chess tournament culture is deficient in all three respects.

In the first place, there is very little monitoring of what chess players do during their games, especially at the amateur level – so little that even routine disputes such as touch-move violations and time-forfeit claims often are hard to resolve fairly, for lack of unbiased witnesses. Policies and procedures must be created that would make it harder for players with games in progress to possess technology that could be used to cheat (such as wireless receivers or handheld computers), and would make it easier for TDs to locate and inspect players who may be violating such restrictions.

In the second place, when credible suspicions are raised about a particular player, tournament officials usually are forced to respond in a "seat-of-the-pants" manner. Planning in advance for how to handle cheating incidents, and publishing detailed procedures that would be known to all participants, could make such investigations go more smoothly and, it is hoped, lower the perceived risk that a player accused of cheating might bring legal action against a TD or organizer.

In the third place, even cheaters who get caught never face serious consequences. For an amateur-level player who tries to steal a $20,000 prize through fraud, getting forfeited from a chess game or tournament – or even getting banned from organized chess altogether – does not even come close to being a "serious" consequence. A quasi-judicial system must be created within the chess world to adjudicate cases where there is strong evidence of cheating, so that meaningful penalties can be applied without chess authorities having to fear that a cheater will drum up a counter-attack through the regular court system.

Moreover, chess organizers should have a stated policy that, whenever they obtain physical evidence that corroborates cheating allegations (such as a handheld device running chess software), and/or solid eyewitness evidence, they will pursue criminal sanctions against the cheater. This will require organizers of big-time chess events to begin a dialogue with prosecutors in the localities where they operate, so that such situations can be anticipated and each party (prosecutor and chess organizer) will know enough about the other’s operating environment, to make possible meaningful cooperation.

For further elaboration of these issues, please read the anti-cheating petition on page 4 of this Web site (follow the "USCF Petiton" link, above left on this page) and the report of the "Chess Cheating Town Meeting" in December 2006, on page 3 of this site ("Town Meeting" link).

Q: How was the petition delivered, and what was the USCF’s response?

A: The petition was addressed to USCF Executive Director Bill Hall, and was sent to him via email and in hard-copy form. USCF President Bill Goichberg also was told about the petition. In addition, a brief letter describing the petition (and giving the URL for this site) was published in Chess Life in the January 2006 issue.

We received no official response of any kind from the USCF to the petition – not even a form letter acknowledging our concerns.

Q: Are big money prizes for amateurs the main cause of the cheating problem, and should they be eliminated in favor of smaller class and class-section prizes?

A: No, and no.

Q: In the anti-cheating petition published on this site, it states: "A good start is the rules that were announced for the HB Global Chess Challenge ….(including) an absolute ban on players or spectators talking to anyone during play, and a ban on using cell phones or any other electronic device during play without the expressed permission of a TD."

Are you demanding that organizers ban all talking by or to players with games in progress, and ban all cell phone calls by players with games in progress?

A: The intent in describing the HB Global Chess Challenge anti-cheating policies as "a good start" was not that all of those policies should be copied, lock, stock, and barrel, and still more measures added to those. Rather, the phrase "good start" was used to denote a starting point from which other chess organizers, players and policy makers should analyze and deliberate about which specific rules and procedures are likely to be effective and economically practical, and which ones are not. The HB policies were referenced in the petition (and are published in full in the Appendix on Page 4 of this site) because its signatories felt it would be valuable to cite a program that was actually put into practice at a large chess tournament, rather than speak only in the abstract.

Q: The Minnesota-based HB Foundation, which sponsored the HB Global Chess Challenge, shut its doors some 6 months after the tournament. Does that fact discredit the security policies that were used at that tournament?

A: No. Although the HB Global Chess Challenge lost money for its sponsor, there is no evidence that the security policies were to blame. The tournament attracted some 1,500 entrants, the most for any open tournament ever held in the U.S.

Q: Who maintains this Web site?

A: The "Blockade Chess Cheaters" site was created and is maintained by Jon Jacobs, an amateur tournament competitor and occasional Chess Life contributor.

Q: Were you present at the tournaments mentioned above?

A: I played in the HB Global Chess Challenge and the 2006 World Open. I did not attend the 2005 World Open.