Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests Soviet players likely colluded to dominate matches during Cold War
By Gerry Everding
Oct. 9, 2006 — World Chess Championship matches now taking place in Kalmykia, Russia, were suspended late last month amid allegations that Russian chess master Vladimir Kramnik used frequent bathroom breaks to cheat in his match with Bulgarian opponent Veselin Topalov. When play resumed, new allegations surfaced charging that Kramnik’s moves seem suspiciously similar to those generated by a computer chess program.
While it’s doubtful that these allegations will be proven, new research from economists at Washington University in St. Louis offers strong evidence that Soviet chess masters very likely engaged in collusion to gain unfair advantage in world chess championships held from 1940 through 1964, a politically volatile period in which chess became a powerful pawn in the Cold War.
“We have shown that such collusion clearly benefited the Soviet players and led to performances against the competition in critical tournaments that were noticeably better than would have been predicted on the basis of past performances and on their relative ratings,” conclude study co-authors, John Nye, Ph.D., professor of economics, and Charles Moul, Ph.D., assistant professor of economics, both in Arts & Sciences at Washington University.
“The likelihood that a Soviet player would have won every single candidates tournament up to 1963 was less than one out of four under an assumption of no collusion, but was higher than three out of four when the possibility of draw collusion is factored in,” the co-authors wrote.
The study, presented at several academic meetings this summer, has sparked ongoing discussion on economics- and chess-related blog sites, such as Freakonomics, since it was posted on a popular site for economics working papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612.
The rest of this article can be read here.
Fischer knew what he was talking about.
“The likelihood that a Soviet player would have won every single candidates tournament up to 1963 was less than one out of four under an assumption of no collusion, but was higher than three out of four when the possibility of draw collusion is factored in,”
These considerations can’t prove anything. All these figures show is that they actually are not against the case of collusion.
I also think that this kind of collusion was probable but I base my opinion rather on political situation and traits of human nature.
Karpov said that too.
He said that Petrosian, Keres and Geller agreed for 3 draws in Curacao 1962. After this, Bobby boycotted FIDE tournaments “until Russians stop fixing chess.”
The sad part is that in certain places in the world people grow up to be blind to this and believe that things are different today in certain parts of the world. Bad people are out there. Just because a few years have passed does not make them good people.
There were many pre-agreed draws played in tournaments of all ranks by all nationals, not only the soviets. Is it something totally unheard of? It is funny to hear that soviets invented it. Should all these games be called cheating now? And, of course, the conclusion that Kramnik may be cheating because the soviets colluded in the 60th is very logical for the author of this article.
Not that I am telling that pre-agreed draws are good for chess but it looks like they are not prohibited by the rules. To avoid them players can play with special rules like those that were used in Sofia. But why call those guys cheaters?
This is shocking??
Gosh the sun set this evening. I am shocked.
The news of Soviet chess player’s collusion during the past interzonals and candidates tournaments, is rather OLD news, rather than shocking.
That is why Bobby Fischer’s success in winning the 1972 World Chess Championship over the Soviets, will never be equaled, nor surpassed.
How is that shocking? Hasn’t it been common knowledge for years.
What is annoying is that the media seem to have swallowed these lies put forward by Veselin Topalov. Kramnik should not only sue FIDE, he should sue Topalov for defamation of his character.
Susan, this is not mature posting.
This is merely desperate rumor mongering, ala throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks [The article insinuates that the Topalov camp’s attacks upon Kramnik were justified because of some Cold-War era grab-bag generality: “you know those Soviets, they all cheat”]:
“While it’s doubtful that these allegations will be proven, new research from economists at Washington University in St. Louis offers strong evidence that Soviet chess masters very likely engaged in collusion to gain unfair advantage in world chess championships held from 1940 through 1964, a politically volatile period in which chess became a powerful pawn in the Cold War.”
Shocking News? You desire REALLY shociking news?
Well…the unuverse might just be oval-shaped [and not round]!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197712/
>The news of Soviet chess >player’s collusion during the >past interzonals and candidates >tournaments, is rather OLD news, >rather than shocking.
>
>That is why Bobby Fischer’s >success in winning the 1972 >World Chess Championship over >the Soviets, will never be >equaled, nor surpassed.
Pre-agreed draws mathematically are to prevent large fluctuations, so that _accidentally_ a weaker player will not surpass a stronger player. They cannot prevent a stronger player from winning.
Therefore, Fischer was simply stronger, but not that his performance is historically something like “unsurpassable”
Garry Kasparov is of course the best player of all time. Much better than Fischer. Fischer peaked once and then got afraid of Karpov. Kasparov was the best player in the world for 20 consecutive years.
Latest news “Mild mannered Kramnik is by night the super hero Bathman”
Even Topalov in the Trud Daily (largest Bulgarian daily newspaper) interview reprinted earlier in this blog maintains that Kramnik is not “from the FIDE and the traditional Soviet ‘old-school'” and instead joined Kasparov and Short in their fight for independence from FIDE:
“Q: After all, Kramnik was one of the “breakaways” and stayed away from the FIDE tournaments.
VT [Veselin Topalov]: True.”
Thus, even comparing Kramnik’s tactics to those used by the Soviet “old-school” is absurd.
This is REALLY old news. Haha, how’s that for an oxymoron!
As far as calling it collusion, I beg to differ. I would call it extortion. The Soviet players had to do what they were told to do OR ELSE! Else, they would never be allowed to travel out of the country and participate in another tournament again.
Fischer -6 Taimanov -0 !!
Fischer -6 Larsen -0 !!
Fischer -6.5 Petrosian -2.5
Fischer -12.5 Spassky -8.5
Kasparov???
Who is better?? ++ Fischer!
Does the article accuse both men and women, or only men?
I, too, am definitely NOT shocked. It’s common knowledge the Soviets rigged major chess tourneys . . . and the Olympics and just about everything else for that matter.
The Soviets dominated in the period mentioned (1940-64) simply because the top dozen and some more players at the time in the world were all from the Soviet Union as the paper itself says. It’s as simple.
And the Soviet Union kept producing champions even after ’64 like Tal, Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov which means their domination wasn’t a result of collusion.
Another thing that the paper mentions regarding Fisher’s allegations is this:
“Fisher performed so poorly in that tournamnent that any collusion was unlikely to be the cause of his defeat.”
the probability of someone winning in Elista is 100%.
All us Bush supporters are for the freedom fighter Kramnik.
Bush for prez!!!
As someone said above, the “logic” used by the article that Kramnik may have cheated because the “Soviets” allegedly did so earlier is laughable. Even Danailov’s allegations that Kramnik cheats because his moves are similar to Fritz, while completely unfounded, have more probability of being true.
But hey, here’s another “logical” conclusion. Bulgaria has been allied with the Fascit Germany in WWII. Therefore, we must immediately eject Topalov from the tournament and never allow him back again.
Infact American chess has been strengthened by players defecting from Russia/former Soviet Union. Russia/Soviet schoool also strengthened American chess together with some other countries in Western Europe through defections.
Kamsky, Onischuk, Kaidanov, Ibragimov, Shulman, Gulko, Akobian, Shabalov, Novikov, Stipunsky, Ivanov are all in the American top 15.
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2006/07/11/checkmate-i/
Some good points here reagrding the so-called “study”.
This is a boring issue to chat about.
Fischer played chess–he played for a win, not a draw. Since Fischer, there hasn’t been anyone like him. Even Kasparov played for draws–look at his matches with Karpov, which are filled with prearranged draws (most likely). Perhaps Kasparov would have beaten Kramnik had he played against him without thinking of drawing the majority of the time. The parallel between chess and politics is the same here, politicians don’t dare make statements that are truthful because they involve too much “risk.” Therefore, computers often play more interesting games than humans.
The perfect game of course would always end in a draw for both players–at least so it appears.
Garry Kasparov is of course the best player of all time. Much better than Fischer. Fischer peaked once and then got afraid of Karpov. Kasparov was the best player in the world for 20 consecutive years.
It is impossible to declare anyone as the “best ever” in activities which can’t be measured on an absolute scale (such as 100 meter dash). No matter how hard we try, it is just not realistically possible.
Susan,
The article is hardly shocking. You are hungarian (as well as I am), although you were born at the stage of the communism when it began to break up (sort of). It was well known that the soviet bloc countries cheated in sports, wherever they could. The very concept of “amateurism” in the olympic games was one of the most obvious. Leading sport characters were just as professional (did it in full time) as those at western countries, except those couldn’t compete at the olympic games, because of their professional status. All the sport characters in the soviet bloc countries had a fake job at some factory where they never showed up. Quite obviously they didn’t have to worry about endorsement money either. That was one the main reason the soviet bloc countries did so well in sports and that was one of the biggest and most obvious cheating. The whole world knew it, yet nobody could do anything about it (except that later the rules were loosen up).
Gabor,
That is not the shocking I meant. I meant shocking that they came out with this during the World Championship fiasco. This will only put more fuel into the fire.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Ms Polgar
It’s odd that most didn’t understand the current impact of your post or chose to focus on the aspect of history that is fairly well known.
The dominant issue is that suspicions of cheating very much devalue the intellectual worth and currency of chess. We all therefore have an interest in
1) finding and punishing cheating when it happens
2) using such accusations appropriately, and not for frivilous or self interested reasons
Here, in my opinion, the Topalov harmed chess. Such headlines will gather more attention in the popular press because it sells more newspapers than analysis of games.
If Topalov suspected cheating, there are better ways to find and punish it than a press release. More likely, in the opinion of most, accusation was made for a tactical or psychological objective.
If true, the Topalov camp demonstrated that it cares more for its short term interests than the interests of all chess players everywhere and holds public respect for the game in low regard. That is why the vast majority of GM’s stand against him.
This is what I just posted on Mig’s blog:
Please allow me to make this as directly and clearly as possible. Obviously, you and others will choose to believe what you want no matter how incorrect it is. I see it hundreds of times a day on my own blog. I will only state this once on this forum. I apologize to Mig upfront for being off topic.
1. I have said countless times that the actions of Danailov are INEXCUSABLE. The tone and wordings of his letters are very unprofessional. I even question Topalov’s decision not to part ways with Danailov. This does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov’s camp wrong, very wrong.
2. I have also said countless times that it is wrong for Topalov to accept the forfeit win, even if FIDE insisted on it. Many people in the chess community will never forget this. It was a wrong decision even if he thinks he deserved it. Again, this does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov’s camp wrong.
3. I have NEVER said that I blame both equally. That is a total lie. I said all three sides are to blame (some more than others with FIDE and Danailov leading the big percentage). Once again, this does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov’s camp wrong.
4. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying that Kramnik has been a Saint during this whole match. Yes, the Appeals Committee made horrendous mistakes and I also said so many times. However, somebody has to big enough to allow the other side to make the last word. This does not mean I support Topalov.
5. I could not care less who wins. It does not make an ounce of difference for me. I have friends on both sides and I want to see a unified World Champion. I am a chess fan as well as a chess professional. I just want to see exciting chess without the unprofessional open letters or silly press releases from any side. I feel that with strong leadership, this matter could have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction without making it into a scandal.
6. The problem is there are lunatics who believe that unless I support Kramnik 100%, I am against him and I support Topalov. That is like saying unless I appreciate Bishops 100%, it means that I hate Bishops and will only play with Knights. And to make their silly points, these lunatics have to lie, insult (me and everyone who disagree) and spam the same nonsense hundreds of times.
7. I have been a victim of my own supporters in the past. While I appreciate people supporting me, I ask that they do not behave that way. There is no need to spam other websites dozens of times to defend me or insult others. It is good to have a civilized debates or discussions. There is no need to get hostile and rude.
8. If I wanted a job with FIDE or Bessel, I could have had it. My phone rang many times but no thanks. I want no part of the destructive politics. I hate chess politics. I am interested in promoting chess, especially for kids, without ugly bureaucracy and dirty politics. That is why I formed the Susan Polgar Foundation. I have enough work to do in chess while taking care of my 2 children.
9. If people want to believe in lies and nonsense then there is nothing I can do about it. I have no problem if people do not like me or do not agree with me. They are more than welcome to do that. But it is sad that people would try to put words in my mouth, make up things that I never said, or pretend to be me and post on various sites.
10. Just remember, there are always many sides of every story. Do not be so hasty in jumping into conclusions without knowing all the facts. Today, Anand spoke out against Topalov and stated this match has been spoiled. He believes that the 2007 World Championship in Mexico City will determine the true World Champion. Guess how long it took for fans of Topalov and Kramnik to bash Anand?
I am not rooting for either side. I would just like for everyone to behave more professionally for the sake of our sport. If that is too much to ask then I have wasted your time. I hope we can agree to disagree. The last word is yours 🙂
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
I add that Kramnik continued to play when ahead 3-1 in the face of FIDE error or injustice.
Of course, it was in part synergistic with a self interest calculation, but also in part to demonstrate a respect for chess and professionalism for which we should all be appreciative.
“The likelihood that a Soviet player would have won every single candidates tournament up to 1963 was less than one out of four under an assumption of no collusion, but was higher than three out of four when the possibility of draw collusion is factored in,”
This is a made up number, which is rather insulting to the intelligence. The reason no non-Soviet won any of the first 4 candidates is because they scored so badly.
The scores of the top non-Soviets in these events were as follows:
1950: Najdorf 9-9
1953: Reshevsky 16-12
1956: Szabo 9½-8½
1959: Fischer 12½-15½
1962: Fischer 14-13
None of these scores are anywhere near good enough to win a Candidates Tournament. Reshevsky is the only legitimate contender of the bunch, and even in that tournament Kotov beat Smyslov in the second half when Reshevsky was close behind.
Surely there are enough documented cases of Soviet cheating that we need stoop to such a ridiculous argument as “they must have chaeted because they won”.
As for anyone who thinks Fischer knew what he was talking about, he accused Korchnoi of throwing games to the others. Even he doesn’t believe that any more.
Though Grandmaster draws are certainly objectionable, blaming them for the fact that Fischer couldn’t score better than +1 in 27 rounds must go down as one of the most feeble excuses of all time. In 1959, Petrosian and Tal played 4 quick draws without a hint from Fischer that this kind of thing might keep him from winning the next tournament. He lost in 1962 because he wasn’t good enough yet. Period.
All this arguing aside, does anybody ever think there will be a world championship match where the players quietly sit down, play really well, shake hands and leave the board politely without a lot of things that give the non chess fans a bad impression of chess?
Read Garri Kasparov’s MY GREAT PREDECESSORS and see how he criticizes inferior moves. However, as far as I know, he never achieved such results like Fischer did in candidates matches. Also, the issue isn’t that Russians just play chess better, their gov’t pumps more money into it than Hungary ever did. In Topalov’s place, I’d be highly suspicious of Kramnik’s restroom trips (this is after all a high stake match). Also, for all those people who believe in the invincibility of Kasparov and others, just look how often they refuse to play lower rated players because they know any loss from a lower rated player would drop their rating. If they really were superior, they’d defend their title every year by participating in a knockout tournament, not just by playing one player whose moves they can study for a year in advance(and get paid a million even if they lose?). Last, who cares if a person is biased, aren’t people allowed to have opinions in a democracy?
Gladly Mig tolerates freedom of speech.
And you’re the same idiot who spam this blog with the same stupid thing all day.
Yeah, I’m glad Susan deletes obnoxious posts. Hit the road, Jack!
Don’t forget there is a lot of cheating in US sports, let’s mention Lance Armstrong. Baseball. Athletics. etc etc.
Any time there is a benefit to gain, some people will cheat.
“It was well known that the soviet bloc countries cheated in sports”
“All the sport characters in the soviet bloc countries had a fake job at some factory where they never showed up. Quite obviously they didn’t have to worry about endorsement money either. That was one the main reason the soviet bloc countries did so well in sports and that was one of the biggest and most obvious cheating.”
Well, care to enlighten me how’s that cheating? You can say the Soviet sports system was rigid or even brutal but cheating it was not.
Some facts here.
The combined medals tally of the former Soviet countries continued to remain comfortably higher than any other nation in every subsequent summer Olympics (I’ve not included Winter Games here) post-disintegration.
Russia won 92 medals in the ’04 Athens Olympics (88 in Sydney) – just 10 less than the USA with less than 1/10th of the American Olympics budget and half the population size and much inferior infrastructure (American sporting infrastructure is unmatched and it attracts the best coaches and brightest talents from all over the world like Susan). The USA won 102 medals in Athens. But the Russian medal spread was over the most number of sports. And the country has improved in some other sports where it used to lag previously like tennis (mainly because “pro” sports were prohibited).
And if we add the medals of the former Soviet countries to Russia’s Athens tally then it swells up to a whopping 162! While the corresponding increase in population still falls short of that of the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, how quickly we forget (or should I say ruen a blind eye toward the fact) that no one invested any more than a TINY FRACTION of the resources (and state-created prestige) that the Soviets did from approximately 1945-1985. As a matter of fact, it is likely that the Soviets invested as much or more than the entire rest of the world COMBINED on chess during this time period.
Thus, why is it surprising that the Soviets won nearly all the International competitions and world titles then? And, that they achieved spectacular results (and spectacular frustration when Fischer, virtually unaided defeated their entire system)?
13 of the top 20 players today are still from the former Soviet-bloc countries. Just pumping money in the absence of a strong culture for the sport never works. Brazil doesn’t spend as much in football as does some west-European nations. And like I said previously, the Soviet-bloc countries along with some others from eastern-Europe continue to do well in the olympics and other sports like tennis with a tiny fraction of the sports budget of some nations in the West.
Its good to read your common sense views and comments Susan, but asking for civilised debate and no mud slinging is like asking water to flow up hill. Sadly, its the very small minorities in such matters that make the loudest noise, they make the game look bad in the eyes of all other onlookers.
The vast majority appreciate common sense views, common sense comments and a civilised debate, its just that we don’t make the same amount of noise about it.
>>
“All the sport characters in the soviet bloc countries had a fake job at some factory where they never showed up.
>>
That isn’t true. They were all officially “amateurs”, yes, who officially had other jobs, but in many cases, their other job was “Journalist” (albeit chess journalist only). Botvinnik really was an electrical engineer, though, and a guy named Izmailov qualified for the finals of the 1929 Soviet Championship and then had to drop out because of final exams.
People quote 1971 to show how good Fischer was, but Fischer 1971 and Fischer 1962 are two totally different beasts. The Fischer who won 13 straight in the Candidates in 1971 is much better than the Fischer who in 27 rounds never once managed a better score than +1.
Grandmaster Draws were a disease that afflicted the whole chess world, not just the Soviets. It was so common that Reshevsky in a US Championship once believed he’d pre-arranged a draw with Benko, and then, when Benko refused an offer, he had the chutzpah to complain to the TD that Benko was breaking an illegal deal.
This was the final round of the 1975 Championship, if anyone wants to look it up. Both sides had their say about it in Chess Life & Review.
“The likelihood that a Soviet player would have won every single candidates tournament up to 1963 was less than one out of four under an assumption of no collusion”
One out of four??? 25% is not a reasonable sigificance level. Do these people call themselves scientists?
anonymous, The reason the Russians have inferior infrastructure and have less than 1/10 of The Americans Olympic budget is because starting with Stalin who murdered over 7 million people! And followed by Barbarian rulers like Brezhnev who were obsessed with complete and total world domination! The former Soviet Union crippled its economy and infrastructure by spending all its resources and money to build nuclear bombs to blow up the world and always tried to build triple as many as the United States who were trying to defend the rest of the free world against barbarian communistic aggression! That is why the former Soviet Union has crumbled and fractured off into separate states. For years because of heavy committment and heavy military spending for nuclear weapons and ignoring almost every other problem in Russian society, for instance young married couples had to wait years to get an apartment to live in. When a McDonalds opened Russian people had to wait in line for an hour to eat fast food, and the Russian people over the years were so oppressed it staggers the mind. Lets hope the new Russia will never go back into tyranny.