Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2

[andyburnett]

Andy Burnett,
If play by remote were permitted in the future. You would not be allowed to refuse to play such an opponent.

There is a way round this to avoid a player using a chess engine.
It is called Screen Sharing
Player B ( The remote player) would be obliged to share their screen with the congress organizers. They can then use chessbase to show the congress organizers the position on the board. If player B tried to use an engine then that would show up on the screen in front of the organizers.

I have been using Screen Sharing for a number of years as part of my training for Braille events. I have also been playing Skype tournaments with fellow blind players for the past 2 years. Players have been caught out trying to use engines to aid them.

Hi Steve,

I can refuse to do things pretty much whenever I want!

I get your point though - if it's in the rules then it's in the rules and I would have to choose to not play a particular event. I wouldn't play an event where a chess computer was in the field (for example, was it East Kilbride in the 90's where this was the case?) It doesn't interest me in the slightest to play an engine, and to a lesser degree playing an opponent not there in person makes me feel the same.

I use screen sharing all the time for coaching - I have 2 pc's and there is nothing to stop me from having an engine running the position on the 2nd one, so that doesn't solve the possible problem.

I don't think cheating would be a huge problem in any case (fear of cheating, on the other hand, could cause major problems) but I can't understand Matthew T's and other's belief that cheating wouldn't be more likely to occur 'in private' - people do all sorts of things in private which they wouldn't do if others were around to see them/catch them at it, so why should cheating be any different?!