If there were a monetary incentive it would probably turn into a race-to-the-bottom optimization problem where people are stuffing computers into body cavities, but still fun to think about.
Sounds like a fun idea to me, not to replace the current rules but as a different game.
Take chess for example. Online it is considered enough that you've played too consistently beyond human capability in order to be deemed a cheater. This isn't proof, though, it just that it defies astronomical odds. In over the board play, it is required that the mechanism be discovered -- you have to catch them with an app on their phone for example. Or that they break tournament rules by not showing you what's on their phone.
The point above being that cheating would likely (eventually) elevate to the point of building the ruleset such that one's particular method of "cheating" is allowed, or can't be discovered.
I think with a lot of things we're already there now. F1 has people clearly "cheating" every intention of the rules, but if it's not in the rulebook it is legal until the rulebook is changed. Players in a variety of sporting leagues are only drug tested with urine samples that have been beatable for decades -- they're effectively not actually testing these players -- cheating has effectively been negotiated into the rulebook.
I think it's an incomplete description to, I'm pretty sure move times are also taken into account, and lichess apparently uses some client side behavioral signals too (and doesn't let you play via API in the fast time formats where those signals help).
It's still cheating even if you aren't caught.
I recall a story where a person negotiated a game (I forget what game) at a casino to play for big money. They demanded someone come with them (this person was a known card cheat) specific brand of cards to be used, and some other things. Turns out they knew of a flaw in the printing of those cards.
Casino found out about the flaw after they won big and refused to pay.
The fact that they allowed a cheat and specific cards made it seem like the scenario you describe ;)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Ivey#Edge-sorting_litigat...
Did the casino also refund 100% of everyone's losses who ever played with the flawed brand of cards? If not, that seems like a horrific double standard.
Vs team card games... where you have 2 players working together that aren't allowed to talk.
The only way to "fix" this is allow full communication between partners. Allow them to text during the game. Or any kind of signal. You need to level the playing field.
The honor system is fine for a fun game with friends, but not fine in anything "competitive".
> The honor system is fine for a fun game with friends, but not fine in anything "competitive".
Is the honor system "not fine" in competitive situations because you have a deontological view that the only rules that matter are rules that are mechanistically enforceable, or is it not fine because you have a consequentialist view that competitive situations will usually devolve into something messy and unfair if all rules are not mechanistically enforceable?
I see the logic and appeal of both lines of reasoning, but they're quite different and people might easily disagree (for different reasons) with each.
See also my comment about ultimate frisbee, elsewhere in this discussion.
It is not. But it doesn't take many cheaters to ruin a game for everyone.
In competitive online games, I'd estimate that less than 5% of all players in my games are behaving dishonorably in some way. And that is even though aimbots, AI assistants etc. are readily available to those who seek them out.
If they weren't online games, the number would probably be even lower.
In any case, those numbers would be far away from the point where you could make statements like "the nature of man is to cheat". That feels a bit like saying "in stories most people identify with villains". They obviously don't - most people don't want to be that kind of person. Though obviously some have given up on themselves.
More recently Anna Rudolph was accused of hiding a computer in her lip balm.
> hiring a hypnotist to be in the audience
> hiding a computer in her lip balm
This is the kind of thing I'd support as far as cheating being allowed. Lots of intrigue, weird custom devices, etc. Maybe someone in the audience could get one of those hyper-directional speakers going to whisper in the ear of the player. Then there becomes a second layer to the game of figuring out how the other person is cheating.
I'd add the rule that the winning player must give a bond-villain style monologue about how they did it, so that we all get to enjoy it afterwards of course.
A better example is Rausis from a couple of years ago — https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/13/igors-rausis-c...
Cheating over the board happens frequently enough that tournaments are held with very tight controls, but monitoring is off in places like the bathroom.
What level of sophistication would be required to get an edge from a 1cm by 3-4cm cylinder of computing and batteries?
At first I thought "yogur" was a word from a different language, but after trying and failing to find it when searching, I have to ask: did you mean...yogurt? How does one leave a secret message in yogurt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1978
> On the 25th move of game 2, a waiter delivered a tray with a glass of violet colored yogurt to Karpov. After the game Leeuwerik sent a letter to Schmid protesting the yogurt. 'It is clear that a cunningly arranged distribution of edible items to one player during the game, emanating from one delegation or the other, could convey a kind of code message'. Although the letter was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, Baturinsky took it seriously and suggested that the binoculars Leeuwerik used during the game might also convey a coded message to Korchnoi.
https://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/78kk$$01.htm
It's also used a plot point in the musical Chess - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_(musical)
You certainly can cheat in Chess. Cheating in Chess has been a problem (or a perceived problem) for a long time, both online and in person, and the in person cheating long pre-dates computers even being able to play Chess. It's even the same kind of cheating as used in Bridge, namely, another party uses hidden signals to communicate to you. E.g. you have a better player (or a team of players that collectively are better) in the audience that surreptitiously signal moves to you.
And in the modern era of course there are endless ways to use computers to cheat at Chess, similar to what cheating in casinos can look like.
But you're right about bridge. The game design is utterly broken when you have people playing who care about winning more than they do the spirit of the game. There's no way to prevent cheating at all. Teams can always develop additional channels of information, even on top of the official public one, to exchange information covertly. There's just no way to prevent it.
[1] https://www.chess.com/news/view/igors-rausis-58-under-invest...
At the top level, receiving a single bit of information from an observer is enough to turn the game.
That bit of information is "Your opponent blundered."
Modern chess engines can answer this question far faster than humans.
Vishy Anand had mentioned in an interview that he would be virtually unbeatable if he received a simple signal from an observer indicating that the current position is a critical position in the game.
I consider it cheating to recess for the day, then have your team game out all the alternatives for you. It's supposed to be you against your opponent, period.
I don't think bridge would really work if you allowed open communication. I take it you've never played?
FWIW adjournment never really happens anymore, largely because computers just make the analysis too easy and time controls are shorter. And I do agree that it does ruin a certain aspect of the game, but I don't think that makes it cheating, it was just a different time.
Adjournments used to be an accepted standard of high-level match play. If both sides agreed to a rule, are aware of it, and if the rule wasn't set up so one side has an inherent advantage, is it cheating?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/13/sports/chess-karjakin-mis...