MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Main

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:16:25
From: samsloan
Subject: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

[quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
some tell-tale information visible on it.

The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
[/quote]

This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.

The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
transmitted into the playing area.

Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
tournaments?

Sam Sloan

Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:06:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 14, 12:10 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
> >> >Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>
> >> Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
> >> hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
> >> four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
> >> communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
> >> this easy for the TD to detect ?
>
> >> >2) See #1.
>
> >> What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
> >> raised lettering?
>
> >> >I think that takes care of it nicely.
>
> >> You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
> >> nagging doubts.
>
> > All it takes is a little forethought.
>
> > Every tournament I have attended this past year starts with a 10-
> > minute sermon on any special rules regarding the event. I see the TD
> > making the following announc:
>
> > "Attention Please. If you or your opponent are using a Certified
> > MonRoi device, it must be cleared by the TD prior to the start of the
> > round or your game will be forfeited. We will check the tamper-free
> > security sticker on your Device and if it passes, will affix our own
> > sticker to the device to show your opponent it is an unaltered MonRoi
> > device that is connected to the network. All MonRoi devices must
> > remain at the table for the entire game."
>
> I didn't know about this, but I'm sure it can be thwarted for enough money.
>
> > Everyone brings up these great points about hacking the device, but no
> > one is bringing up ways to combat it effectively. I think something
> > like that above would go a long way to doing that. Even if you find a
> > loophole, we address it and resolve it.
>
> > I really doubt people are going to hack a $300 device with the risk of
> > ruining it and not being able to use it as it was designed.
>
> If the prize fund was 10,000 bucks it might be worth the gamble.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So this begs my previous Question, Angelo:

How can you alter a secured MonRoi device that has security stickers
to be, in your words, 'virtually undetectable'?

I little forethought makes it easy to validate legit MonRoi devices
and detect altered devices.

Date: 19 Mar 2007 15:14:13
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

I no longer think the MonRoi is worth fretting about. The only thing I don't
like about it is that it has a representation of the game in progress. Some
people, like me, "see" more on a computer screen than OTB. Still, I would
not use MonRoi because it's too expensive for what it does.

If you really want to cheat the way to do it is through a transmitter in one
shoe and a receiver in another. Taps and buzzes are all you need.

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 14, 12:10 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 13, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
>> >> >Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>>
>> >> Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
>> >> hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
>> >> four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
>> >> communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
>> >> this easy for the TD to detect ?
>>
>> >> >2) See #1.
>>
>> >> What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
>> >> raised lettering?
>>
>> >> >I think that takes care of it nicely.
>>
>> >> You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
>> >> nagging doubts.
>>
>> > All it takes is a little forethought.
>>
>> > Every tournament I have attended this past year starts with a 10-
>> > minute sermon on any special rules regarding the event. I see the TD
>> > making the following announc:
>>
>> > "Attention Please. If you or your opponent are using a Certified
>> > MonRoi device, it must be cleared by the TD prior to the start of the
>> > round or your game will be forfeited. We will check the tamper-free
>> > security sticker on your Device and if it passes, will affix our own
>> > sticker to the device to show your opponent it is an unaltered MonRoi
>> > device that is connected to the network. All MonRoi devices must
>> > remain at the table for the entire game."
>>
>> I didn't know about this, but I'm sure it can be thwarted for enough
>> money.
>>
>> > Everyone brings up these great points about hacking the device, but no
>> > one is bringing up ways to combat it effectively. I think something
>> > like that above would go a long way to doing that. Even if you find a
>> > loophole, we address it and resolve it.
>>
>> > I really doubt people are going to hack a $300 device with the risk of
>> > ruining it and not being able to use it as it was designed.
>>
>> If the prize fund was 10,000 bucks it might be worth the gamble.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So this begs my previous Question, Angelo:
>
> How can you alter a secured MonRoi device that has security stickers
> to be, in your words, 'virtually undetectable'?
>
> I little forethought makes it easy to validate legit MonRoi devices
> and detect altered devices.
>

Date: 14 Mar 2007 20:45:49
From: Rob
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 14, 10:38 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> The more I think about it, the less practical the MonRoi seems as a cheating
> device.
>
> I like my idea of the shoe transmitter/receiver much more. No muss, no fuss,
> no tampering with a proprietary device, no problem with figuring out how to
> receive the moves without your opponent or next-board neighbor noticing.
>
> "Tap-tap-tap-tap-tap (pause) Tap tap tap tap" (e4).
>
> Unless a TD knows what he's looking for it is undetectable. Not virtually
> undetectable, UNDETECTABLE. The confederate need not even be out of sight.
> He can be in the skittles room, pretending to work on a spreadsheet, or in
> the bar/lounge downstairs drinking tinis.
>
> "Tap-tap-tap-tap (pause) tap-tap-tap-tap-tap"
>
> Darn, he's playing the Sicilian!
>
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 13 2007 23:51:53 -0400, Patrick Volk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Could be evidence tape (which is very flimsy), or it could be like the
> >>labels used on some PC's. Little more to it, but has a foil layer
> >>underneath the surface, generally cut out to say VOID (I want to say
> >>Gateway used to do that). Evidence tape is good enough for classified
> >>enclosures.
>
> >>Such seals aren't designed to keep you from getting into something,
> >>but just to make it obvious you did.
>
> >>Also, from their website, if you have the MonRoi device, your tourney
> >>schedule is put in it, and the arbiter has to sign the game on your
> >>unit when you're done.
>
> > If you have your own device that looks like a MonRoi *and* you own a
> > real MonRoi, the off-site confederate could input the moves as the
> > game is played (he's getting them from the look-alike machine) into
> > the real one. There'd be that tiny delay before the hub received the
> > real moves, but that would be hard to detect. The big problem would
> > be palming (as it were) the real one back to the player in time to
> > have the TD sign it. This could be long before the end of the game,
> > if, say, the hidden Fritz left the cheater material up.. If you can
> > pull off that slight-of-hand, the device would be up-to-date, seal
> > intact, ready for signature.
>
> > I still believe the presence of computers on many or all boards offers
> > a rich field for scams and cheating, and that we're a long way from
> > being bullet-proof on this.

Great thought.. Morse code! Way to go Angelo!

Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:47:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 13, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
> >Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>
> Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
> hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
> four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
> communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
> this easy for the TD to detect ?
>
> >2) See #1.
>
> What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
> raised lettering?
>
> >I think that takes care of it nicely.
>
> You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
> nagging doubts.

All it takes is a little forethought.

Every tournament I have attended this past year starts with a 10-
minute sermon on any special rules regarding the event. I see the TD
making the following announc:

"Attention Please. If you or your opponent are using a Certified
MonRoi device, it must be cleared by the TD prior to the start of the
round or your game will be forfeited. We will check the tamper-free
security sticker on your Device and if it passes, will affix our own
sticker to the device to show your opponent it is an unaltered MonRoi
device that is connected to the network. All MonRoi devices must
remain at the table for the entire game."

Everyone brings up these great points about hacking the device, but no
one is bringing up ways to combat it effectively. I think something
like that above would go a long way to doing that. Even if you find a
loophole, we address it and resolve it.

I really doubt people are going to hack a $300 device with the risk of
ruining it and not being able to use it as it was designed.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:50:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 13 2007 13:47:07 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Everyone brings up these great points about hacking the device, but no
>one is bringing up ways to combat it effectively. I think something
>like that above would go a long way to doing that. Even if you find a
>loophole, we address it and resolve it.

I think it's good to brainstorm possible cheating techniques before
the devices are really wide-spread (and, hopefully, close these
loopholes before some cheater sucks out big class money through 'em).

>I really doubt people are going to hack a $300 device with the risk of
>ruining it and not being able to use it as it was designed.

We're talking about people trying to cheat their way to a series of 5
to 10 grand class prizes. In this context, the $300 is just an
investment. Like the phonito and whatever other circuitry the guy
bought. Over time, there's some pretty big money to be made if the
scam is well done. You could start with the lower class prizes, work
up through maybe Expert, then train new "mules" to do it again.

Aside from that, I think there are people who would do it for the
challenge and the kicks. The big class prizes probably tempt some
additional larcenous types.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 00:10:05
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 13, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
>> >Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>>
>> Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
>> hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
>> four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
>> communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
>> this easy for the TD to detect ?
>>
>> >2) See #1.
>>
>> What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
>> raised lettering?
>>
>> >I think that takes care of it nicely.
>>
>> You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
>> nagging doubts.
>
> All it takes is a little forethought.
>
> Every tournament I have attended this past year starts with a 10-
> minute sermon on any special rules regarding the event. I see the TD
> making the following announc:
>
> "Attention Please. If you or your opponent are using a Certified
> MonRoi device, it must be cleared by the TD prior to the start of the
> round or your game will be forfeited. We will check the tamper-free
> security sticker on your Device and if it passes, will affix our own
> sticker to the device to show your opponent it is an unaltered MonRoi
> device that is connected to the network. All MonRoi devices must
> remain at the table for the entire game."

I didn't know about this, but I'm sure it can be thwarted for enough money.

> Everyone brings up these great points about hacking the device, but no
> one is bringing up ways to combat it effectively. I think something
> like that above would go a long way to doing that. Even if you find a
> loophole, we address it and resolve it.
>
> I really doubt people are going to hack a $300 device with the risk of
> ruining it and not being able to use it as it was designed.

If the prize fund was 10,000 bucks it might be worth the gamble.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:05:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 10:26 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
> >> because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
> >> Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
> >> accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
> >> that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
> >> some tell-tale information visible on it.
>
> >> The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
> >> ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
> >> the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
> >> current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
> >> DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
> >> [/quote]
>
> >> This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>
> >> The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
> >> accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
> >> may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
> >> would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
> >> transmitted into the playing area.
>
> >> Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
> >> tournaments?
>
> >> Sam Sloan
>
> > The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.
>
> > As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>
> > "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> > enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> > could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> > information from the outside sources."
>
> > DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.
>
> > You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
> > sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.
>
> Why don't you read his goddamned post before going off like a holy avenger?
> Sam specifically mentioned a MonRoi device that was "modified" to transmit
> and/or receive moves.
>
> It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add a
> transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic chips in
> the device. The move gets transmitted as it is entered into the device.
> Receiving a move from a confederate could also be done with close to zero
> chance of detection by using a blinking character or icon on the screen.
> Squares on a chess board could be represented by numbers only, so "c4" is
> 4-4 and f7 is 6-7. A move like Bxf7+ can be represented by the little icon
> blinking xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx (4-4 to 6-7). Who would notice it? It's
> even possible to do away with the blinking icon. The player can wear a
> simple actuator/receiver in his shoe and get four, four, six, and seven
> buzzes to indicate the best move.
>
> Needless to say the MonRoi "transmitter" or "transceiver" modification would
> be virtually undetectable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.

2) See #1.

I think that takes care of it nicely.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:32:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
>Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.

Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
this easy for the TD to detect ?

>2) See #1.

What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
raised lettering?

>I think that takes care of it nicely.

You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
nagging doubts.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 23:51:53
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Tue, 13 2007 09:32:48 -0700, Mike Murray
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
>>Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>
>Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
>hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
>four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
>communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
>this easy for the TD to detect ?
>
>>2) See #1.
>
>What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
>raised lettering?

Could be evidence tape (which is very flimsy), or it could be like the
labels used on some PC's. Little more to it, but has a foil layer
underneath the surface, generally cut out to say VOID (I want to say
Gateway used to do that). Evidence tape is good enough for classified
enclosures.

Such seals aren't designed to keep you from getting into something,
but just to make it obvious you did.

Also, from their website, if you have the MonRoi device, your tourney
schedule is put in it, and the arbiter has to sign the game on your
unit when you're done.

>
>>I think that takes care of it nicely.
>
>You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
>nagging doubts.

Date: 20 Mar 2007 05:59:13
From: Roget
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

I think I have solved the problem to cheat. All players w/o forshin
win. No place to hide device.

On Tue, 13 2007 23:51:53 -0400, Patrick Volk <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 2007 09:32:48 -0700, Mike Murray
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 13 2007 09:05:20 -0700, "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1) All MonRoi's used in the tournament hall must be registered to the
>>>Base Unit and certified sealed from factory.
>>
>>Say, you have an event with four hundred players in a big hall. One
>>hundred thirty one of these players have MonRoi devices. In round
>>four, the room contains one hundred and thirty two. One of them is
>>communicating not with the base but with some other offsite unit. Is
>>this easy for the TD to detect ?
>>
>>>2) See #1.
>>
>>What's the seal? Is it something like a glued on silvery plaque with
>>raised lettering?
>
>Could be evidence tape (which is very flimsy), or it could be like the
>labels used on some PC's. Little more to it, but has a foil layer
>underneath the surface, generally cut out to say VOID (I want to say
>Gateway used to do that). Evidence tape is good enough for classified
>enclosures.
>
>Such seals aren't designed to keep you from getting into something,
>but just to make it obvious you did.
>
>Also, from their website, if you have the MonRoi device, your tourney
>schedule is put in it, and the arbiter has to sign the game on your
>unit when you're done.
>
>
>>
>>>I think that takes care of it nicely.
>>
>>You are a trusting soul. One hopes you are correct. But I have these
>>nagging doubts.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 22:03:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Tue, 13 2007 23:51:53 -0400, Patrick Volk <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Could be evidence tape (which is very flimsy), or it could be like the
>labels used on some PC's. Little more to it, but has a foil layer
>underneath the surface, generally cut out to say VOID (I want to say
>Gateway used to do that). Evidence tape is good enough for classified
>enclosures.

>Such seals aren't designed to keep you from getting into something,
>but just to make it obvious you did.

>Also, from their website, if you have the MonRoi device, your tourney
>schedule is put in it, and the arbiter has to sign the game on your
>unit when you're done.

If you have your own device that looks like a MonRoi *and* you own a
real MonRoi, the off-site confederate could input the moves as the
game is played (he's getting them from the look-alike machine) into
the real one. There'd be that tiny delay before the hub received the
real moves, but that would be hard to detect. The big problem would
be palming (as it were) the real one back to the player in time to
have the TD sign it. This could be long before the end of the game,
if, say, the hidden Fritz left the cheater material up.. If you can
pull off that slight-of-hand, the device would be up-to-date, seal
intact, ready for signature.

I still believe the presence of computers on many or all boards offers
a rich field for scams and cheating, and that we're a long way from
being bullet-proof on this.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 23:38:45
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

The more I think about it, the less practical the MonRoi seems as a cheating
device.

I like my idea of the shoe transmitter/receiver much more. No muss, no fuss,
no tampering with a proprietary device, no problem with figuring out how to
receive the moves without your opponent or next-board neighbor noticing.

"Tap-tap-tap-tap-tap (pause) Tap tap tap tap" (e4).

Unless a TD knows what he's looking for it is undetectable. Not virtually
undetectable, UNDETECTABLE. The confederate need not even be out of sight.
He can be in the skittles room, pretending to work on a spreadsheet, or in
the bar/lounge downstairs drinking tinis.

"Tap-tap-tap-tap (pause) tap-tap-tap-tap-tap"

Darn, he's playing the Sicilian!

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 2007 23:51:53 -0400, Patrick Volk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Could be evidence tape (which is very flimsy), or it could be like the
>>labels used on some PC's. Little more to it, but has a foil layer
>>underneath the surface, generally cut out to say VOID (I want to say
>>Gateway used to do that). Evidence tape is good enough for classified
>>enclosures.
>
>>Such seals aren't designed to keep you from getting into something,
>>but just to make it obvious you did.
>
>>Also, from their website, if you have the MonRoi device, your tourney
>>schedule is put in it, and the arbiter has to sign the game on your
>>unit when you're done.
>
> If you have your own device that looks like a MonRoi *and* you own a
> real MonRoi, the off-site confederate could input the moves as the
> game is played (he's getting them from the look-alike machine) into
> the real one. There'd be that tiny delay before the hub received the
> real moves, but that would be hard to detect. The big problem would
> be palming (as it were) the real one back to the player in time to
> have the TD sign it. This could be long before the end of the game,
> if, say, the hidden Fritz left the cheater material up.. If you can
> pull off that slight-of-hand, the device would be up-to-date, seal
> intact, ready for signature.
>
> I still believe the presence of computers on many or all boards offers
> a rich field for scams and cheating, and that we're a long way from
> being bullet-proof on this.
>

Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:14:40
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Mike Murray <[email protected] > writes:
> I still believe the presence of computers on many or all boards offers
> a rich field for scams and cheating, and that we're a long way from
> being bullet-proof on this.

The cure is real simple. No computerized crap allowed in the playing
hall unless provided by the tournament organizers.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:03:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 10:27 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8, 12:51 pm, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
> >> > because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
> >> > Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
> >> > accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
> >> > that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
> >> > some tell-tale information visible on it.
>
> >> > The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
> >> > ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
> >> > the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
> >> > current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
> >> > DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
> >> > [/quote]
>
> >> > This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>
> >> > The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
> >> > accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
> >> > may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
> >> > would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
> >> > transmitted into the playing area.
>
> >> > Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
> >> > tournaments?
>
> >> > Sam Sloan
>
> >> The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.
>
> >> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>
> >> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> >> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> >> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> >> information from the outside sources."
>
> >> DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.
>
> >> You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
> >> sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.
>
> There is no such thing. I have hacked my cell phone and I have zero
> knowledge of complex electronics. If Verizon and Samsung can be beat by the
> likes of me then a shitass company like MonRoi can certainly be hacked.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why would you hack a cell phone?

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:40:50
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 8:33 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> >Do you even play OTB chess?
>
> Of course. 1977. Have been as high as 2090. Now, let me ask you the
> same question.

Yes. 2007. I finished 2nd this weekend in the Eastern Class
Championships, Class A. So you have not played OTB since 1977?

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:05:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 13 2007 08:40:50 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On 8, 8:33 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Do you even play OTB chess?

>> Of course. 1977. Have been as high as 2090. Now, let me ask you the
>> same question.

>Yes. 2007. I finished 2nd this weekend in the Eastern Class
>Championships, Class A. So you have not played OTB since 1977?

No, that's my current rating. However, you're close -- I've played
1.5 events since 1977. Heh, heh.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:23:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

I think it's ironic that the USCF in the latest Chess Life runs a
cover feature moaning about what cheating is doing to the game; then
out of purely commercial, financial considerations, they promote the
MonRoi and even make a totally stupid rules change to accommodate the
thing. (They could have very simply and easily limited the ban on
move pre-entry to electronic devices and left things alone for paper
and pencil.)

Of course, if the USCF got something right everyone would have heart
attacks due to the shock.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 11:41:07
From: SBD
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 10, 1:13 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>

Bruceski!

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:17:55
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8 2007 04:16:25 -0800, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:

>[quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
>because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
>Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
>accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
>that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
>some tell-tale information visible on it.
>
>The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
>ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
>the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
>current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
>DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
>[/quote]
>
>This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>
>The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
>accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
>may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
>would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
>transmitted into the playing area.
>
>Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
>tournaments?
>
>Sam Sloan

A couple of questions, which really determine on whether the Monroi is
hackable:

1) What does it use to communicate? Is it wireless cell, or your
garden variety wireless Ethernet. I'm guessing that it probably works
in conjunction with equipment that the directors have set up at the
site. If that is the case:
- They would have a list of everyone on their 'network'
- They have control over what is sent on it.

2) The code hopefully is MD5'ed or some other checksum, along with
tamper seals on the device itself. The device presumably would have a
challenge system. I would expect the following protocol at an event:
- All Monrois must be registered with the TD
- Monrois which do not appear to be operating correctly to be
confiscated by the TD (this could be determined by the device not
showing up on the network, or if it fails a challenge sent by the
network).
- During tournament time, all outside game subscriptions are
unavailable. This would even apply to spectators.

I'm guessing FIDE is responsible for the communications channel. Only
way they'd approve. I would expect that the devices would work in
clubs, where they might have a network with the more permissive
content.

3) I would have to make the point here of there being a distinction
between what is a Monroi, and what isn't. Would you call it hacking
the Monroi if I made a device that looked like it, and at least made
the outward appearance of being one? The answer to me is no there.
Along that line, I would just as soon made a device that could pass
for one, but it wouldn't be a Monroi. That line of argument is kind of
faceteous... i.e. Why are jackets allowed at chess tournaments when I
can make a computer that would fit in them?

- Simple open cheat scenario... You're in a game, you subscribe to
another game. Other game is your accomplice running moves on Fritz. He
watches your game, and uses his game to send them to you.

That probably is the scenario they started with.

IMHO however, it would be easier to make something that looked like a
MonRoi, than trying to hack the MonRoi outright. To me, there isn't
much benefit in doing that. If the above measures aren't part of the
system, then it's even more advantageous to use something more suited
as a chess engine than as a PDA.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:20:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Date: 09 Mar 2007 04:09:50
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

>Can a MonRoi device be switched from Record Mode to some other mode in
>order to receive advice from a renegade tranmission source?
>
>If it can, prove it. If it cannot, then the paranoia is overstated.

Yes it can. Any computer can be hacked. Monroi is a simple device.
It can be hacked to do it. The sad thing is that the Monroi was made
to make it easier for tournament players but unfortunately you have
the cheaters as usual wanting to make money and live in false glory.
Too bad. I like the Monroi but I wouldn't trust it in a tournament.
I woudn't use it because of that reason. If I don't trust it when my
opponent is using it then it is only fair that I don't use it either.
I don't even play internet chess anymore. Too many cheat programs
(and some I might add very sophisticated programs) being used. Yahoo
alone has a cheat program for every game on there server. Some
websites are brazen saying that there cheat program is the best.

EZoto

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:33:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8 2007 13:20:53 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On 8, 2:05 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8 2007 09:53:31 -0800, "[email protected]"

>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>> >> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
>> >> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
>> >> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
>> >> information from the outside sources."

>> You're missing one major point in Sloan's post. The device
>> *transmits* the game to a hub. One major problem of cheating is
>> getting the position to a conspirator *outside* the playing room,
>> where that player can analyze the position with a computer. If
>> someone hijacks that transmission, that's one cheater's problem
>> solved.

>> >And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.

>> If you believe that, you may be in a position to win fifty grand from
>> *Kenneth* Sloan, who happens to be a professor of Computer Science.
>> (see the USCF Issues page).

>> I think it would be more correct to say something like, "MonRoi has
>> taken what they believe to be effective measures to make their device
>> tamper-resistant".

>How is that a 'major point' and a 'major problem'? I can get any
>position in any game simply by looking at the board.

OK. Let's do it a little slower.

Say the cheater is at the board. Sure, his accomplice can come in,
look at the position, memorize it, run back to the hotel room, enter
the opponent's move into Fritz on the laptop, then run back to the
tournament room, pass Fritz's suggestion through some prearranged
visual protocol, etc. Except somebody's gonna notice this guy
shuttling back and forth, especially if the player starts racking up
wins.

If the cheater's recorder is transmitting moves as they're made, and
the accomplice can catch and interpret the signal, half the trips and
the memorization and the time lost doing this just goes away. And, it
gets better. If the cheater is a half-way decent player, he won't
need help on *every* move. Maybe he signals that he wants help (say,
by taking an extra couple minutes). Maybe he's wired to receive, so
the accomplice *can* send suggestions every move.

In other words, the ability to intercept a transmission, while not
eleminating any further difficulties for the cheaters, gives them
extra options and makes their job a whole lot easier.

>Do you even play OTB chess?

Of course. 1977. Have been as high as 2090. Now, let me ask you the
same question.

>I don't know what USCF issues page you refer to,

It's in the USCF forums, members only section. Here's how to get
there:

www.uschess.org -- > About the USCF --> Governance --> Forum: USCF
Issues, etc. You'll have to register with your member number (You ARE
a member, aren't you?). Takes a while for the moderator to bless you.
I know, they don't make it easy to get there.

> but it seems like the
>50K you say he is putting up is for someone to prove you cannot cheat
>with the MonRoi? If so, that's a prize no-one will ever collect. I'd
>rather see him, in all his wisdom, prove you CAN cheat with it and go
>undetected.

Sorry, I must have not worded my comment well. You have it backward.
Here's the quote:

ppwchess wrote:

The difference is your PDA can be loaded with pocket Fritz, and the
MonRoi can't.

and Kenneth Sloan responded:

Would you like to place a small wager on that? Say, $50,000?

>Can a MonRoi device be switched from Record Mode to some other mode in
>order to receive advice from a renegade tranmission source?

>If it can, prove it. If it cannot, then the paranoia is overstated.

I responded to that in an earlier post.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:24:07
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Mike Murray <[email protected] > writes:
> Say the cheater is at the board. Sure, his accomplice can come in,
> look at the position, memorize it, run back to the hotel room, enter
> the opponent's move into Fritz on the laptop, then run back to the
> tournament room, pass Fritz's suggestion through some prearranged
> visual protocol, etc. Except somebody's gonna notice this guy
> shuttling back and forth, especially if the player starts racking up wins.

This is why cellular phones were invented. Well actually not, but
they can save a lot of running around.

> In other words, the ability to intercept a transmission, while not
> eleminating any further difficulties for the cheaters, gives them
> extra options and makes their job a whole lot easier.

If the MonRoi gizmo is transmitting board positions out of the game
room, part of the function is likely to let people outside the room
see the game in progress. So even if used as directed, it still gets
the moves out.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:28:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If the MonRoi gizmo is transmitting board positions out of the game
> room, part of the function is likely to let people outside the room
> see the game in progress. So even if used as directed, it still gets
> the moves out.

Live broadcasts to the net also get the moves out, and recent technology
from another e-board company [Shahcom, who invented the technology and made
first live broadcasts from Elista] can even send moves to your cell phone.
The current issue seems to be the /relative/ ease which broadcast
transmissions can now aid difficult-to-detect cheating.

I see that ACP has just challenged Fide to do something about this issue -
and an Indian IM has been exonerated from cheating, while questions about
the W Ch itself still float around, being a soggy mixture of technology,
paranoia and bizarre behavior involving toilets.

If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way, then I
would tend to credit his point of view, since even those 'untamperable'
electronic voting machines - did you see the documentaries? - have proved to
be susceptible, and can even record negative votes (such as -5)

The real question, IMO, is what to do with cheaters if you catch them?

Phil Innes

Date: 09 Mar 2007 10:37:00
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Chess One wrote:

>
> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,

*Has* Ken Sloan said this???

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:26:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>
> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???

Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he might
have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".

Phil
>
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:07:00
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Chess One wrote:
> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>
> Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he might
> have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".
>
> Phil

Phil employs his usual tactic of clipping my posting and then wondering
why it seems unclear.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:03:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>>
>> Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he
>> might have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".
>>
>> Phil
>
> Phil employs his usual tactic of clipping my posting and then wondering
> why it seems unclear.

This is the entirety of the post I responded to:-
----------------
>
> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,

*Has* Ken Sloan said this???
---------------

As the attentive reader will note /I/ did not a-snipping-go, no, it was
someone else! As the Kettle said to the Pot, I am not black, I am a
kettle-of-color.

And now, back on topic, can the Monroi device be used in 2-way mode? Its
not intended to be, but how hard is to hack? I thought that was what Ken
Sloan would address, instead of errant cryptology. This is not a question,
just a process observation!

Phil Innes

> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:13:25
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.

Chess One wrote:
> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>>> Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he
>>> might have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".
>>>
>>> Phil
>> Phil employs his usual tactic of clipping my posting and then wondering
>> why it seems unclear.
>
> This is the entirety of the post I responded to:-
> ----------------
>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>
> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
> ---------------
>
> As the attentive reader will note /I/ did not a-snipping-go, no, it was
> someone else! As the Kettle said to the Pot, I am not black, I am a
> kettle-of-color.
>
> And now, back on topic, can the Monroi device be used in 2-way mode? Its
> not intended to be, but how hard is to hack? I thought that was what Ken
> Sloan would address, instead of errant cryptology. This is not a question,
> just a process observation!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>> --
>> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
>> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
>> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
>
>

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 11 Mar 2007 20:06:21
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.

Ken,

Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating possibilities
I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
value your opinions and comments beaucoup.

Angelo

Date: 20 Mar 2007 05:59:13
From: Roget
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

I thought someone might bring up the shoe tapper technique. Internet
chess is chickenshit and always will be, But when two registered
players compete with cheating, forget me the gallery.

On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>
>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>
>Ken,
>
>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating possibilities
>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>
>Angelo
>

Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:43:15
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>
>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>
>Ken,
>
>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating possibilities
>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.

I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
What is cheating, and how do you go about it?

The key is transmission.

Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
There's so many other ways to communicate.

Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.

The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
suspect something.

As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
they put on there.

Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
by the mob).

There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
sound, position, time. You could even use smell.

>
>Angelo
>

Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:29:50
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Patrick Volk" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>>
>>Ken,
>>
>>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating
>>possibilities
>>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
>>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
>>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>
> I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
> What is cheating, and how do you go about it?
>
> The key is transmission.
>
> Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
> There's so many other ways to communicate.
>
> Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
> advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
> is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.
>
> The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
> If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
> suspect something.
>
> As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
> need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
> be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
> tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
> they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
> they put on there.
>
> Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
> your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
> player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
> signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
> your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
> by the mob).
>
> There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
> sound, position, time. You could even use smell.

We've been around this block. My conclusion was that any type of
communication that resided in any way outside the cheater's physical
presence was impossible to implement. Remember the ridiculous accusations
that Topalov and Danailov were communicating through hand signals? Gimme a
break! You can't have someone hovering over your game and making signals
without arousing suspicion.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:15:55
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Mon, 12 2007 08:29:50 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>"Patrick Volk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>>>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>>>
>>>Ken,
>>>
>>>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating
>>>possibilities
>>>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
>>>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>>>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
>>>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>>
>> I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
>> What is cheating, and how do you go about it?
>>
>> The key is transmission.
>>
>> Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
>> There's so many other ways to communicate.
>>
>> Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
>> advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
>> is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.
>>
>> The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
>> If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
>> suspect something.
>>
>> As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
>> need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
>> be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
>> tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
>> they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
>> they put on there.
>>
>> Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
>> your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
>> player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
>> signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
>> your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
>> by the mob).
>>
>> There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
>> sound, position, time. You could even use smell.
>
>We've been around this block. My conclusion was that any type of
>communication that resided in any way outside the cheater's physical
>presence was impossible to implement. Remember the ridiculous accusations
>that Topalov and Danailov were communicating through hand signals? Gimme a
>break! You can't have someone hovering over your game and making signals
>without arousing suspicion.
>

What? It's quite easy to implement. Happens probably every day in
casinos across the world. Would it translate to chess? The system
would, absolutely. Most cheating systems involve no less than 3
people. You have the player, the watcher (who could relay
information), and the person giving the signals. It adds enough
misdirection to make it tough to follow. Person 1 is the player, and
never leaves the table. Person 2 doesn't have to leave the action
either. Person 3 acts as go-between between person 4 (who could be
away from the game, on the cellphone with person 5 running Fritz), and
relays the information back to the player. Person 2 is the only one
who has to be able to see the board, but otherwise doesn't have to
acknowledge the player. P3 doesn't even have to acknowledge the game
in that case (but as long as the player can see them).

If it's a game with a crowd, it's quite easy to implement (and I know
you think chess tournaments are secure, but so are table games at
casinos... just about every square foot in a casino can be covered by
cameras). The beauty of the above is, it's been proven it can work
(although I don't know of a case in chess), and is extremely difficult
to detect, because nobody has anything they're not supposed to have.

Chess could even be easier to relay signals, because you probably
don't need to relay every move. And you think relaying moves is
obvious? If they are, then it's amateur. It could be how you hold your
drink, drape your coat around your arm, chew your gum, fidget even.
You also could change the basis to refer to a piece, a rank, or a file
(e.g. twisting my ring says to move your queen x times.. you have at
most 8 selections to determine)

Date: 20 Mar 2007 05:59:13
From: Roget
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Good post about cheating there. The only problem is that in Las
Vegas is they lop your dick off if caught cheating.

On Mon, 12 2007 22:15:55 -0400, Patrick Volk <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 2007 08:29:50 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Patrick Volk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>>>>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>>>>
>>>>Ken,
>>>>
>>>>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating
>>>>possibilities
>>>>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
>>>>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>>>>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
>>>>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>>>
>>> I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
>>> What is cheating, and how do you go about it?
>>>
>>> The key is transmission.
>>>
>>> Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
>>> There's so many other ways to communicate.
>>>
>>> Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
>>> advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
>>> is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.
>>>
>>> The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
>>> If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
>>> suspect something.
>>>
>>> As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
>>> need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
>>> be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
>>> tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
>>> they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
>>> they put on there.
>>>
>>> Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
>>> your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
>>> player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
>>> signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
>>> your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
>>> by the mob).
>>>
>>> There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
>>> sound, position, time. You could even use smell.
>>
>>We've been around this block. My conclusion was that any type of
>>communication that resided in any way outside the cheater's physical
>>presence was impossible to implement. Remember the ridiculous accusations
>>that Topalov and Danailov were communicating through hand signals? Gimme a
>>break! You can't have someone hovering over your game and making signals
>>without arousing suspicion.
>>
>
>What? It's quite easy to implement. Happens probably every day in
>casinos across the world. Would it translate to chess? The system
>would, absolutely. Most cheating systems involve no less than 3
>people. You have the player, the watcher (who could relay
>information), and the person giving the signals. It adds enough
>misdirection to make it tough to follow. Person 1 is the player, and
>never leaves the table. Person 2 doesn't have to leave the action
>either. Person 3 acts as go-between between person 4 (who could be
>away from the game, on the cellphone with person 5 running Fritz), and
>relays the information back to the player. Person 2 is the only one
>who has to be able to see the board, but otherwise doesn't have to
>acknowledge the player. P3 doesn't even have to acknowledge the game
>in that case (but as long as the player can see them).
>
>If it's a game with a crowd, it's quite easy to implement (and I know
>you think chess tournaments are secure, but so are table games at
>casinos... just about every square foot in a casino can be covered by
>cameras). The beauty of the above is, it's been proven it can work
>(although I don't know of a case in chess), and is extremely difficult
>to detect, because nobody has anything they're not supposed to have.
>
>Chess could even be easier to relay signals, because you probably
>don't need to relay every move. And you think relaying moves is
>obvious? If they are, then it's amateur. It could be how you hold your
>drink, drape your coat around your arm, chew your gum, fidget even.
>You also could change the basis to refer to a piece, a rank, or a file
>(e.g. twisting my ring says to move your queen x times.. you have at
>most 8 selections to determine)
>

Date: 10 Mar 2007 15:01:59
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Sat, 10 2007 13:13:25 -0600, Kenneth Sloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>
>Chess One wrote:
>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>>>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>>>> Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he
>>>> might have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>> Phil employs his usual tactic of clipping my posting and then wondering
>>> why it seems unclear.
>>
>> This is the entirety of the post I responded to:-
>> ----------------
>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>
>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>> ---------------
>>
>> As the attentive reader will note /I/ did not a-snipping-go, no, it was
>> someone else! As the Kettle said to the Pot, I am not black, I am a
>> kettle-of-color.
>>
>> And now, back on topic, can the Monroi device be used in 2-way mode? Its
>> not intended to be, but how hard is to hack? I thought that was what Ken
>> Sloan would address, instead of errant cryptology. This is not a question,
>> just a process observation!
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
>>> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
>>> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
>>> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
>>
>>

I think to do that, you need to do more than hack the MonRoi. I'm
guessing it's an 802.11x device, with the network under control of the
site (in this case, the TD's). There's probably something to prevent
you from watching a game when you're recording moves. The device I
imagine only works in certain places (e.g. chess clubs which might
subscribe to a tournament).

That would be the trivial case. I'm recording my game, and watching
another one that is giving me moves. That's the 'duhhh!' case, which
even the bigwigs at FIDE could figure out.

It would be trivial as well to incorporate some integrity checks in
the code to ensure that it's not hacked with (e.g. MD5 hashes). One
disadvantage of the MonRoi for hacking is, it doesn't need a whole lot
of memory to do what it needs to do. You could increase the integrity
by making the integrity checking an active thing (network challenges
the MD5 hash of a block) instead of internal.

I would point out watch going down the slippery slope in the argument
about how you can hack the MonRoi by gutting it, and putting a chess
engine in it. When you start replacing hardware, it's no longer a
MonRoi, let alone a hack.
That's like arguing you can hack your car into a Ferrari, or even
the Queen of England. To do those, the content of the end product has
little or nothing to do with what you started with. Not hacking.

You'd probably get better mileage out of not hacking it, but making
something that would pass for it. Or better yet, how about having
Fritz run on a watch?

Date: 20 Mar 2007 05:59:12
From: Roget
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Fritz on a Watch?" Good post! Queen of England! Good Post....

On Sat, 10 2007 15:01:59 -0500, Patrick Volk <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 2007 13:13:25 -0600, Kenneth Sloan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
>>Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>>
>>Chess One wrote:
>>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>>>>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>>>>> Unfortunately he is not available for comment, though even though he
>>>>> might have be seen to have commented, it was cryptic. Therefore, "IF".
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>> Phil employs his usual tactic of clipping my posting and then wondering
>>>> why it seems unclear.
>>>
>>> This is the entirety of the post I responded to:-
>>> ----------------
>>>> If Ken Sloan says the Monroi device can be configured to be 2-way,
>>>
>>> *Has* Ken Sloan said this???
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> As the attentive reader will note /I/ did not a-snipping-go, no, it was
>>> someone else! As the Kettle said to the Pot, I am not black, I am a
>>> kettle-of-color.
>>>
>>> And now, back on topic, can the Monroi device be used in 2-way mode? Its
>>> not intended to be, but how hard is to hack? I thought that was what Ken
>>> Sloan would address, instead of errant cryptology. This is not a question,
>>> just a process observation!
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
>>>> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
>>>> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
>>>> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
>>>
>>>
>
>I think to do that, you need to do more than hack the MonRoi. I'm
>guessing it's an 802.11x device, with the network under control of the
>site (in this case, the TD's). There's probably something to prevent
>you from watching a game when you're recording moves. The device I
>imagine only works in certain places (e.g. chess clubs which might
>subscribe to a tournament).
>
>That would be the trivial case. I'm recording my game, and watching
>another one that is giving me moves. That's the 'duhhh!' case, which
>even the bigwigs at FIDE could figure out.
>
>It would be trivial as well to incorporate some integrity checks in
>the code to ensure that it's not hacked with (e.g. MD5 hashes). One
>disadvantage of the MonRoi for hacking is, it doesn't need a whole lot
>of memory to do what it needs to do. You could increase the integrity
>by making the integrity checking an active thing (network challenges
>the MD5 hash of a block) instead of internal.
>
>I would point out watch going down the slippery slope in the argument
>about how you can hack the MonRoi by gutting it, and putting a chess
>engine in it. When you start replacing hardware, it's no longer a
>MonRoi, let alone a hack.
> That's like arguing you can hack your car into a Ferrari, or even
>the Queen of England. To do those, the content of the end product has
>little or nothing to do with what you started with. Not hacking.
>
>You'd probably get better mileage out of not hacking it, but making
>something that would pass for it. Or better yet, how about having
>Fritz run on a watch?
>
>
>

Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:17:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Patrick Volk" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think to do that, you need to do more than hack the MonRoi. I'm
> guessing it's an 802.11x device, with the network under control of the
> site (in this case, the TD's). There's probably something to prevent
> you from watching a game when you're recording moves. The device I
> imagine only works in certain places (e.g. chess clubs which might
> subscribe to a tournament).

This is what Monroi say
a.. Portable
a.. Wireless
a.. Accurate
a.. Easy to Use
a.. USB enabled
a.. Rechargeable battery
a.. FIDE Certified
a.. Patented
a.. Fully secure
a.. Tamper-free

> That would be the trivial case. I'm recording my game, and watching
> another one that is giving me moves. That's the 'duhhh!' case, which
> even the bigwigs at FIDE could figure out.
>
> It would be trivial as well to incorporate some integrity checks in
> the code to ensure that it's not hacked with (e.g. MD5 hashes). One
> disadvantage of the MonRoi for hacking is, it doesn't need a whole lot
> of memory to do what it needs to do. You could increase the integrity
> by making the integrity checking an active thing (network challenges
> the MD5 hash of a block) instead of internal.

The official site says it works up to 300 metres, and this is how it
operates:-

a.. At least one chess player in a single game using Personal Chess Manager
a.. Professional Tournament Manager Hardware
a.. Serial or USB cable for connection to your Windows-based desktop or
laptop
a.. Professional Tournament Manager Software installed on your Windows-based
computer
a.. AC wall adapters for Professional Chess Tournament Hardware and your
computer
a.. Your computer cable or wireless connection to the Internet via Ethernet,
Modem, or other link
a.. Registration number of your tournament

the site URL is http://www.monroi.com/ and there are no tech-specs
immediately to hand, but product support information can be requested.

> I would point out watch going down the slippery slope in the argument
> about how you can hack the MonRoi by gutting it, and putting a chess
> engine in it. When you start replacing hardware, it's no longer a
> MonRoi, let alone a hack.
> That's like arguing you can hack your car into a Ferrari, or even
> the Queen of England. To do those, the content of the end product has
> little or nothing to do with what you started with. Not hacking.
>
> You'd probably get better mileage out of not hacking it, but making
> something that would pass for it. Or better yet, how about having
> Fritz run on a watch?

Laugh - or Rybka or just any old engine or database - Monroi, like most
other e-baord links to a large-base.

I worked with the pioneer of e-boards, which can now intereact with your
cell phone, or other small digital device. Alternatively you can receive
moves to your clock! From a remote source anywhere in the world, which could
be running Chess Assistant, for example.

While these conversations on the means of cheating are here illustrated by
discussing potential of technologies

[and we excuse U. Alabam for knowing nothing, and saying more than nothing -
what an unhappy combination to advertise their worth!]

what is really at issue is cheating, period.

(a) What happens if you catch cheaters in chess terms?
(b) If there is money involved, this is fraud, so do you call the cops?

In terms of (a) what do people think? Banning players for
(1) 2 years,
(2) 5 years,
(3) for ever?

And in terms of (b) the answer is simpler, and
(1) yes or
(2) no.

Phil Innes

Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:14:09
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Sun, 11 2007 16:17:32 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>
>a.. At least one chess player in a single game using Personal Chess Manager
>a.. Professional Tournament Manager Hardware
>a.. Serial or USB cable for connection to your Windows-based desktop or
>laptop
>a.. Professional Tournament Manager Software installed on your Windows-based
>computer
>a.. AC wall adapters for Professional Chess Tournament Hardware and your
>computer
>a.. Your computer cable or wireless connection to the Internet via Ethernet,
>Modem, or other link
>a.. Registration number of your tournament

I did check the site last night, and saw that. Pretty much what I
expected.

It says it uses the 2.4 GHz spectrum, which is wireless ethernet range
(802.11b-g). It also says it has 512Kb of memory, takes a SD card

>
>the site URL is http://www.monroi.com/ and there are no tech-specs
>immediately to hand, but product support information can be requested.
>
>> I would point out watch going down the slippery slope in the argument
>> about how you can hack the MonRoi by gutting it, and putting a chess
>> engine in it. When you start replacing hardware, it's no longer a
>> MonRoi, let alone a hack.
>> That's like arguing you can hack your car into a Ferrari, or even
>> the Queen of England. To do those, the content of the end product has
>> little or nothing to do with what you started with. Not hacking.
>>
>> You'd probably get better mileage out of not hacking it, but making
>> something that would pass for it. Or better yet, how about having
>> Fritz run on a watch?
>
>Laugh - or Rybka or just any old engine or database - Monroi, like most
>other e-baord links to a large-base.
>
>I worked with the pioneer of e-boards, which can now intereact with your
>cell phone, or other small digital device. Alternatively you can receive
>moves to your clock! From a remote source anywhere in the world, which could
>be running Chess Assistant, for example.

My point is, is it worth hacking, or would your time be better spent
counterfeiting. Just about every cheating system relies on
communications that is outside the control of the tournament, be it
computer or otherwise.

The MonRoi system appears to have its' own network. It kind of limits
its' usefulness outside the chess tournament environment.

>
>While these conversations on the means of cheating are here illustrated by
>discussing potential of technologies
>
>[and we excuse U. Alabam for knowing nothing, and saying more than nothing -
>what an unhappy combination to advertise their worth!]
>
>what is really at issue is cheating, period.
>
>(a) What happens if you catch cheaters in chess terms?
>(b) If there is money involved, this is fraud, so do you call the cops?
>
>In terms of (a) what do people think? Banning players for
>(1) 2 years,
>(2) 5 years,
>(3) for ever?
>
>And in terms of (b) the answer is simpler, and
>(1) yes or
>(2) no.
>
>Phil Innes
>
>

Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:15:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Sat, 10 2007 15:01:59 -0500, Patrick Volk <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I would point out watch going down the slippery slope in the argument
>about how you can hack the MonRoi by gutting it, and putting a chess
>engine in it. When you start replacing hardware, it's no longer a
>MonRoi, let alone a hack.

> That's like arguing you can hack your car into a Ferrari, or even
>the Queen of England. To do those, the content of the end product has
>little or nothing to do with what you started with. Not hacking.

>You'd probably get better mileage out of not hacking it, but making
>something that would pass for it. Or better yet, how about having
>Fritz run on a watch?

Good point if the focus of your concern is the upon device itself.
Hard to argue with precise terminology.

If, however, one's priy concern is cheating, then it's academic
whether one cheats by hacking into the internals of a device, or by
replacing said device with a look-alike. We have to evaluate the
risks associated with allowing, even encouraging, people to bring from
home and deploy during the game a small, wireless-enabled,
chess-oriented computer, designed to transmit games in progress. Do
the advantages, which admittedly are several, outweigh the risks
associated with this class of device.

As miniaturization continues, it may not be all that far-fetched in a
few years to start worrying about Fritz on a watch, in which case it
won't be too significant whether the perps have hacked into a
timepiece, or cleverly disguised a tiny computer to look like a watch.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 09:00:22
From: Heywood Jablowme
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

The bottom line is that cheating as chess tournaments has happened many
times in the past, and continues to happen. Chess needs to adopt some rules,
such as no jackets or caps allowed onto the actual table. In this day and
age of contact lenses, the need for bulky glasses should also be questioned.
If the integrity of chess is at stake, then the players should be willing to
be inconvenienced and those who refuse should be considered as cheaters.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 06:22:21
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Sat, 10 2007 09:00:22 -0500, "Heywood Jablowme"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>The bottom line is that cheating as chess tournaments has happened many
>times in the past, and continues to happen. Chess needs to adopt some rules,
>such as no jackets or caps allowed onto the actual table. In this day and
>age of contact lenses, the need for bulky glasses should also be questioned.
>If the integrity of chess is at stake, then the players should be willing to
>be inconvenienced and those who refuse should be considered as cheaters.

Brilliant: Everyone plays in the nude, then the organizer doesn't have
to provide any shoes.

But what about implantrd chips?

Isn't it becoming obvious that this is a bottomless pit?

>

Date: 09 Mar 2007 07:34:57
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Chess One wrote:

>
> The real question, IMO, is what to do with cheaters if you catch them?

Put a (C) next to their name on the pairings sheet

Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:25:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Johnny T" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> The real question, IMO, is what to do with cheaters if you catch them?
>
> Put a (C) next to their name on the pairings sheet

How about on their foreheads? But branding is uncool, no? ;( Phil

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:31:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 08 2007 17:24:07 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://[email protected] > wrote:

>> In other words, the ability to intercept a transmission, while not
>> eleminating any further difficulties for the cheaters, gives them
>> extra options and makes their job a whole lot easier.

>If the MonRoi gizmo is transmitting board positions out of the game
>room, part of the function is likely to let people outside the room
>see the game in progress. So even if used as directed, it still gets
>the moves out.

And while moves are transmitted in real time for top boards and big
invitationals, etc., it's still pretty rare for class section games.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:55:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 2:05 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 8 2007 09:53:31 -0800, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
> >> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> >> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> >> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> >> information from the outside sources."
>
> You're missing one major point in Sloan's post. The device
> *transmits* the game to a hub. One major problem of cheating is
> getting the position to a conspirator *outside* the playing room,
> where that player can analyze the position with a computer. If
> someone hijacks that transmission, that's one cheater's problem
> solved.
>
> >And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.
>
> If you believe that, you may be in a position to win fifty grand from
> *Kenneth* Sloan, who happens to be a professor of Computer Science.
> (see the USCF Issues page).
>
> I think it would be more correct to say something like, "MonRoi has
> taken what they believe to be effective measures to make their device
> tamper-resistant".

How is getting a position a 'Major Problem'?

I can walk into any hall and look at the board on an overhead or
directly, memorize the position, and leave. How is that a 'Major
Problem'?

At some point, you have to take the technology at face value.

the question to ask, and NOT to proliferate rumor as Sam Does with his
'I heard' BS., is:

Can a player using a MonRoi Personal Chess Manager switch it from
Record mode to a mode where it can receive a message from an outside
source, and if it can, would not the Arbiter be alerted to it?

The advertising for the MonRoi states:
"While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
information from the outside sources."

So, I don't see it as an issue, and if Kenneth Sloan is so paranoid
about it, I'd like to see him try and hack it so it can receive
messages while in Record Mode from a renegade outside source.

But, that's my opinion only. I'm sure Ken may join the discussion here
and leverage his Professor of Computer Science on me....

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:04:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8 2007 12:55:07 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>How is getting a position a 'Major Problem'?
>
>I can walk into any hall and look at the board on an overhead or
>directly, memorize the position, and leave. How is that a 'Major
>Problem'?

Not a problem to do it for ONE MOVE. Hard to do it for EVERY MOVE
without calling a lot of attention to yourself. If you have a machine
transmitting every move in real time, the accomplice need only enter
the tournament room to make suggestions.

>At some point, you have to take the technology at face value.

A dangerous thing to do.

>...the question to ask, ... is: Can a player using a MonRoi Personal Chess Manager switch it from
>Record mode to a mode where it can receive a message from an outside
>source, and if it can, would not the Arbiter be alerted to it?

That's *one* question to ask, not *the* question to ask.

>The advertising for the MonRoi states:
>"While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
>enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
>could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
>information from the outside sources."

>So, I don't see it as an issue, and if Kenneth Sloan is so paranoid
>about it, I'd like to see him try and hack it so it can receive
>messages while in Record Mode from a renegade outside source.

He'd probably hand the task to one of his grad students -- or maybe an
undergrad -- or a high school kid for his senior project, the way
things are going. :-(

People have hacked a lot bigger, more expensive, more critical systems
than the MonRoi box, for example, the XBox
http://www.xenatera.com/bunnie/proj/anatak/xboxmod.html

For a keting blurb to inspire so much confidence in you that it
can't be done indicates a lack of familiarity on your part with
computing. I don't mean this as an insult. Just do a Google on
"hacking flash devices memory" or some such string and browse some of
the results. AFAIK, *nothing* is really secure.

>But, that's my opinion only. I'm sure Ken may join the discussion here
>and leverage his Professor of Computer Science on me....

You a bettin' man ?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:31:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 2:05 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 8 2007 09:53:31 -0800, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
> >> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> >> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> >> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> >> information from the outside sources."
>
> You're missing one major point in Sloan's post. The device
> *transmits* the game to a hub. One major problem of cheating is
> getting the position to a conspirator *outside* the playing room,
> where that player can analyze the position with a computer. If
> someone hijacks that transmission, that's one cheater's problem
> solved.
>
> >And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.
>
> If you believe that, you may be in a position to win fifty grand from
> *Kenneth* Sloan, who happens to be a professor of Computer Science.
> (see the USCF Issues page).
>
> I think it would be more correct to say something like, "MonRoi has
> taken what they believe to be effective measures to make their device
> tamper-resistant".

I did not miss that 'point' which is not really a point, and I didn't
say it. They did, on their site:

"...they also claim...".

And Sam's implication by this statement:

"I assume that while it may be possible to detect transmissions out of
the tournament hall, it would be virtually impossible to determine if
any moves are being transmitted into the playing area."

So, at some point we have to take the technology at face value. But my
issue is that Sam, as usual, uses the 'I heard' yadda yadda yadda line
of logic to put forward an argument or to start a shit-storm of some
kind that he has no business or expertise doing.

And getting a position to someone outside the hall is trivial. I can
walk up to ANY board in a playing hall, memorize it easily, and leave
the playing hall. The trick is to get the moves to the player. MonRoi,
in recording mode, does not accept moves from 'information from
outside sources', if you believe the advertising.

Now, the questions to ask is:

Can a player using a MonRoi Personal Chess Manager during play switch
it from recording mode to another mode where a transmission of a move
can be received?

Can a player using a MoRoi device stealthly analyze the current
position on the device?

If it can, then the advertising is all wrong, FIDE missed a BIG
security breach, and it is not useful.

Do you believe that?

I have to think that a device such as this cannot be freely switched
from record to receive mode during a game without the Arbiter/Manager
knowing about it. At that point, I might as well walk up to a plyaer
and whisper a move into his ear.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:53:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 12:51 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
> > because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
> > Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
> > accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
> > that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
> > some tell-tale information visible on it.
>
> > The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
> > ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
> > the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
> > current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
> > DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
> > [/quote]
>
> > This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>
> > The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
> > accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
> > may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
> > would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
> > transmitted into the playing area.
>
> > Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
> > tournaments?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.
>
> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>
> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> information from the outside sources."
>
> DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.
>
> You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
> sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 06:44:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 12, 8:29 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> "Patrick Volk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to get
> >>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>
> >>Ken,
>
> >>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating
> >>possibilities
> >>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and the
> >>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
> >>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I would
> >>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>
> > I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
> > What is cheating, and how do you go about it?
>
> > The key is transmission.
>
> > Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
> > There's so many other ways to communicate.
>
> > Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
> > advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
> > is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.
>
> > The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
> > If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
> > suspect something.
>
> > As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
> > need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
> > be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
> > tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
> > they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
> > they put on there.
>
> > Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
> > your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
> > player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
> > signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
> > your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
> > by the mob).
>
> > There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
> > sound, position, time. You could even use smell.
>
> We've been around this block. My conclusion was that any type of
> communication that resided in any way outside the cheater's physical
> presence was impossible to implement. Remember the ridiculous accusations
> that Topalov and Danailov were communicating through hand signals? Gimme a
> break! You can't have someone hovering over your game and making signals
> without arousing suspicion.

I suppose that you are being sarcastic.

Otherwise, perhaps you have never heard of baseball.

Sam Sloan

Date: 14 Mar 2007 00:05:47
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12, 8:29 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Patrick Volk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 11 2007 20:06:21 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >>> It's easier to get a MonRoi to operate in 2-way mode than it is to
>> >>> get
>> >>> Phil Innes to operate in 2-way mode.
>>
>> >>Ken,
>>
>> >>Instead of bashing Phil why don't you comment on the cheating
>> >>possibilities
>> >>I outlined in my posts -- the MonRoi transmitter chip modification and
>> >>the
>> >>shoe transmitter/receiver/actuator possibility? You appear to have more
>> >>expertise in these issues than most of the posters in this group. I
>> >>would
>> >>value your opinions and comments beaucoup.
>>
>> > I think I made the point.... The issue isn't so much with the device.
>> > What is cheating, and how do you go about it?
>>
>> > The key is transmission.
>>
>> > Talking about modifying the chip doesn't really do much for me...
>> > There's so many other ways to communicate.
>>
>> > Chess is one where you can't modify the game hardware to your
>> > advantage (like say, a deck of cards or dice). The state of the game
>> > is open, so any changes there are rather obvious.
>>
>> > The least obvious means of electronic communication is cellular IMO.
>> > If you use the computer ones, they're obvioius especially if you
>> > suspect something.
>>
>> > As far as modifying the 'transmitter', probably wouldn't work. You
>> > need access to a network outside the one provided by the tournament to
>> > be effective. Then your MonRoi would have to be represented on the
>> > tourney network, and there's probably a Punkbuster-type package which
>> > they could run to ensure that the only thing on the MonRoi is the code
>> > they put on there.
>>
>> > Don't think you need the actuator even... All you need is a witness to
>> > your game transmitting moves. Even better would be having a better
>> > player watching the game, and relaying information back to you via
>> > signals of some sort. You probably wouldn't want rigged equipment on
>> > your person (especially if you're in a tourney that might be sponsored
>> > by the mob).
>>
>> > There are so many ways to transmit info, from person to person. Light,
>> > sound, position, time. You could even use smell.
>>
>> We've been around this block. My conclusion was that any type of
>> communication that resided in any way outside the cheater's physical
>> presence was impossible to implement. Remember the ridiculous accusations
>> that Topalov and Danailov were communicating through hand signals? Gimme
>> a
>> break! You can't have someone hovering over your game and making signals
>> without arousing suspicion.
>
> I suppose that you are being sarcastic.
>
> Otherwise, perhaps you have never heard of baseball.
>
> Sam Sloan

Are you for real? Baseball signals are limited to the number of pitches in
the pitcher's repertoir, and positions relative to the plate. They're legal.
Everyone knows the catcher is making them, and intercepting them is against
the rules.

Signaling chess moves is much more complicated, time-consuming. Since it's
illegal it must be done surreptitiously but in a room with hundreds of
spectators. Not possible.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 20:31:15
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > writes:
> Signaling chess moves is much more complicated, time-consuming. Since it's
> illegal it must be done surreptitiously but in a room with hundreds of
> spectators. Not possible.

With electronic devices it's not all that difficult unless the TD's
are willing to undertake security measures comparable to Las Vegas and
maybe not even then. Read "The Eudaemonic Pie" by Thomas Bass to see
how it was done with 1980-era technology. Extrapolate to how gizmos
like that can be made in the present day.

Big-money amateur tournaments never made sense to begin with, so maybe
electronic cheating will nail the coffin shut.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 23:30:41
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Signaling chess moves is much more complicated, time-consuming. Since
>> it's
>> illegal it must be done surreptitiously but in a room with hundreds of
>> spectators. Not possible.
>
> With electronic devices it's not all that difficult unless the TD's
> are willing to undertake security measures comparable to Las Vegas and
> maybe not even then. Read "The Eudaemonic Pie" by Thomas Bass to see
> how it was done with 1980-era technology. Extrapolate to how gizmos
> like that can be made in the present day.
>
> Big-money amateur tournaments never made sense to begin with, so maybe
> electronic cheating will nail the coffin shut.

I'm ambivalent about big-money amateur events. Without a doubt they bring
out the best in players, which makes them large, fun, and exciting. On the
other hand I never think I have a chance in them, so I play up and get
slaughtered.

The cheating factor is something to be reckoned with at one level, but on
another it doesn't upset me too much. It is going to happen --It's too easy
to do. It affects the integrity of the event, but it doesn't affect me at
all because I'm resigned to not winning anything.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 21:27:20
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 8, 12:51 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
>> > because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
>> > Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
>> > accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
>> > that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
>> > some tell-tale information visible on it.
>>
>> > The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
>> > ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
>> > the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
>> > current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
>> > DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
>> > [/quote]
>>
>> > This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>>
>> > The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
>> > accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
>> > may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
>> > would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
>> > transmitted into the playing area.
>>
>> > Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
>> > tournaments?
>>
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>> The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.
>>
>> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>>
>> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
>> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
>> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
>> information from the outside sources."
>>
>> DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.
>>
>> You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
>> sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.

There is no such thing. I have hacked my cell phone and I have zero
knowledge of complex electronics. If Verizon and Samsung can be beat by the
likes of me then a shitass company like MonRoi can certainly be hacked.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:05:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8 2007 09:53:31 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:

>> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
>> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
>> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
>> information from the outside sources."

You're missing one major point in Sloan's post. The device
*transmits* the game to a hub. One major problem of cheating is
getting the position to a conspirator *outside* the playing room,
where that player can analyze the position with a computer. If
someone hijacks that transmission, that's one cheater's problem
solved.

>And they also claim it to be a tamper-free device.

If you believe that, you may be in a position to win fifty grand from
*Kenneth* Sloan, who happens to be a professor of Computer Science.
(see the USCF Issues page).

I think it would be more correct to say something like, "MonRoi has
taken what they believe to be effective measures to make their device
tamper-resistant".

Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:51:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
> because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
> Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
> accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
> that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
> some tell-tale information visible on it.
>
> The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
> ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
> the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
> current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
> DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
> [/quote]
>
> This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>
> The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
> accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
> may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
> would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
> transmitted into the playing area.
>
> Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
> tournaments?
>
> Sam Sloan

The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.

As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:

"While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
information from the outside sources."

DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.

You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 21:26:06
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 8, 7:16 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [quote="jonnybear"]MonRoi is less of a concern than listening devices
>> because it has a visual display. Someone who cheats via a "modified"
>> Monroi -- presumably by being able to analyze on it, or receive an
>> accomplice's remote analysis or text messages -- is taking a big risk
>> that an opponent, TD or passer-by might happen to see the display with
>> some tell-tale information visible on it.
>>
>> The downside of Monroi is that I heard it can be used to communicate
>> ongoing game scores and moves to remote locations -- thereby solving
>> the cheater's problem of how to [b]send[/b] information about the
>> current board position to a remote accomplice. I'd also heard that
>> DGT boards were being banned at some tournaments for this very reason.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> This raises a problem which, frankly, I had not thought of before.
>>
>> The MonRoi solves the cheater's problem of how to send the moves to an
>> accomplice. With that solved, the rest is easy. I assume that while it
>> may be possible to detect transmissions out of the tournament hall, it
>> would be virtually impossible to determine if any moves are being
>> transmitted into the playing area.
>>
>> Does this mean that MonRois have to be banned, even in major
>> tournaments?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> The usual 'I heard' BS from people not in the know.
>
> As usual, Sam, don't let the FACTS get in the way:
>
> "While in the recording mode, MonRoi's Personal Chess Manager only
> enables the recording capabilities. It disables any programs that
> could help a chess player during the game. It also disables access to
> information from the outside sources."
>
> DIRECT FROM THEIR WEB SITE.
>
> You are by far the WORST propogator of misinformation and should be
> sumily dismissed from the Executive Board ASAP.

Why don't you read his goddamned post before going off like a holy avenger?
Sam specifically mentioned a MonRoi device that was "modified" to transmit
and/or receive moves.

It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add a
transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic chips in
the device. The move gets transmitted as it is entered into the device.
Receiving a move from a confederate could also be done with close to zero
chance of detection by using a blinking character or icon on the screen.
Squares on a chess board could be represented by numbers only, so "c4" is
4-4 and f7 is 6-7. A move like Bxf7+ can be represented by the little icon
blinking xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx (4-4 to 6-7). Who would notice it? It's
even possible to do away with the blinking icon. The player can wear a
simple actuator/receiver in his shoe and get four, four, six, and seven
buzzes to indicate the best move.

Needless to say the MonRoi "transmitter" or "transceiver" modification would
be virtually undetectable.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:48:06
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > writes:
> It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add
> a transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic
> chips in

Well I think the idea is that the organizers supply the MonRoi gizmo,
the players don't get to bring their own. If the players get to bring
their own, heck, they could put their own computer running Fritz
inside. So I think we're discussing the possibility of intercepting
the signal from an unmodified unit. If it's using something like WPA
that's likely to be fairly difficult, but who knows what it's doing.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:23:01
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]> writes:
>> It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add
>> a transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic
>> chips in
>
> Well I think the idea is that the organizers supply the MonRoi gizmo,
> the players don't get to bring their own. If the players get to bring
> their own, heck, they could put their own computer running Fritz
> inside. So I think we're discussing the possibility of intercepting
> the signal from an unmodified unit. If it's using something like WPA
> that's likely to be fairly difficult, but who knows what it's doing.

Aren't the MonRoi devices personally owned? I never heard that TDs would be
supplying them.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 07:10:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Fri, 9 2007 08:23:01 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add
>>> a transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic
>>> chips in
>>
>> Well I think the idea is that the organizers supply the MonRoi gizmo,
>> the players don't get to bring their own. If the players get to bring
>> their own, heck, they could put their own computer running Fritz
>> inside. So I think we're discussing the possibility of intercepting
>> the signal from an unmodified unit. If it's using something like WPA
>> that's likely to be fairly difficult, but who knows what it's doing.
>
>Aren't the MonRoi devices personally owned? I never heard that TDs would be
>supplying them.

They've been supplied for top boards in some events and for some
prestige invitationals, as I understand. But the idea is for the
average player to buy 'em.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:53:22
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 08 2007 18:48:06 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://[email protected] > wrote:

>"Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]> writes:
>> It would not take a Nobel Prize in physics to figure out how to add
>> a transceiver chip to the MonRoi or replace one or more of the logic
>> chips in
>
>Well I think the idea is that the organizers supply the MonRoi gizmo,
>the players don't get to bring their own. If the players get to bring
>their own, heck, they could put their own computer running Fritz
>inside. So I think we're discussing the possibility of intercepting
>the signal from an unmodified unit. If it's using something like WPA
>that's likely to be fairly difficult, but who knows what it's doing.

No, people have been buying their own and intend to use 'em in every
event they enter. Some gizmos have been supplied for the top boards.
The official hubs can pick up not only the supplied gizmos, but the
privately owned ones as well.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:20:26
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

Mike Murray <[email protected] > writes:
> No, people have been buying their own and intend to use 'em in every
> event they enter.

Oh man, that's just asking for it then. No remote laptop is needed,
especially for class sections where you don't need a GM-strength
program. Just build the chess computer directly into the MonRoi
thingie and have it send moves to a receiver in your shoes like on Get
St.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 07:12:54
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On 08 2007 19:20:26 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://[email protected] > wrote:

>Mike Murray <[email protected]> writes:
>> No, people have been buying their own and intend to use 'em in every
>> event they enter.
>
>Oh man, that's just asking for it then. No remote laptop is needed,
>especially for class sections where you don't need a GM-strength
>program. Just build the chess computer directly into the MonRoi
>thingie and have it send moves to a receiver in your shoes like on Get
>St.

That's easy to solve: Let the organizer provide the shoes.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:30:53
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

"J�rgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 08 2007 19:20:26 -0800, Paul Rubin
> <http://[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Murray <[email protected]> writes:
>>> No, people have been buying their own and intend to use 'em in every
>>> event they enter.
>>
>>Oh man, that's just asking for it then. No remote laptop is needed,
>>especially for class sections where you don't need a GM-strength
>>program. Just build the chess computer directly into the MonRoi
>>thingie and have it send moves to a receiver in your shoes like on Get
>>St.
>
> That's easy to solve: Let the organizer provide the shoes.

With respect to cheating the MonRoi can only be a facilitator for move input
and, perhaps, receiving moves as I described in my earlier post. My "shoe"
technique could easily work on its own using a transmitter in one shoe and a
receiver in the other. The electronics need be only as sophisticated as a
Morse code practice circuit with an FM transmitter to send moves in one
shoe, and a receiver/actuator to receive them in the other shoe. Two
devices, each with the footprint of a match book and half as thick.
Virtually undetectable. To thwart suspicion about moving slowly in the
opening the first few moves are transmitted but the computer is not sending
moves back. The player indicates where he begins to need help by one long
pulse. Virtually undetectable.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 23:14:49
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: MonRoi and the Problem of Cheaters

On Fri, 9 2007 08:30:53 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>"J�rgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 08 2007 19:20:26 -0800, Paul Rubin
>> <http://[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Murray <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> No, people have been buying their own and intend to use 'em in every
>>>> event they enter.
>>>
>>>Oh man, that's just asking for it then. No remote laptop is needed,
>>>especially for class sections where you don't need a GM-strength
>>>program. Just build the chess computer directly into the MonRoi
>>>thingie and have it send moves to a receiver in your shoes like on Get
>>>St.
>>
>> That's easy to solve: Let the organizer provide the shoes.
>
>With respect to cheating the MonRoi can only be a facilitator for move input
>and, perhaps, receiving moves as I described in my earlier post. My "shoe"
>technique could easily work on its own using a transmitter in one shoe and a
>receiver in the other. The electronics need be only as sophisticated as a
>Morse code practice circuit with an FM transmitter to send moves in one
>shoe, and a receiver/actuator to receive them in the other shoe. Two
>devices, each with the footprint of a match book and half as thick.
>Virtually undetectable. To thwart suspicion about moving slowly in the
>opening the first few moves are transmitted but the computer is not sending
>moves back. The player indicates where he begins to need help by one long
>pulse. Virtually undetectable.
>

There are lots of ways - and there will be lots more in the future -
to cheat undetectably. This has always been true of Bridge, and the
effect is that there are practically no Bridge tournaments with
significant prizes. The same will happen in Chess. The cheating
problem will still not go away and that will be the end of competitive
Chess.