If Hans is cheating, then how is he doing it?

@Nomoreusernames said in #125:

He has played 160 high profile games, and each one has a substantial risk of scanning a device etc, where other players in the same tournaments have been caught (or at least have been reported as caught).

You are aware that the question of being caught depends both on the helper devices and the method of cheating, aren't you. Some might get caught, others don't.

The question doesn't specify which tournaments, but if his play is over 2650 FIDE at least, why would he cheat against 2300-2600, and then not cheat against 2750-2850 rated players? That's not really in the spirit of the question.

Because he was primarily playing against the 2300-2600 range while he had his steep Elo rise.

There are also jammers and RF signal scanners, which would catch cheating even if the device was off.

Are you serious? You do think that you can detect a transmitter with an RF scanner even if the transmitter doesn't transmit? I'm interested in this, please tell me more.

Also, he would have to switch it on without being seen.

And? You don't need something at the size of a light switch. A microswitch in your pants does it and is not detectable.

It would have to be big enough to communicate with him, and also carry a battery.

When your assistant can follow the game from an external position (like it was the case at the Sinquefield Cup up until round 4 when they switched to a 15 minute delay in their live stream) you only need a stronger transmitter from the assistant to the player. You don't need to transmit anything back from the player to the assistant. So the only transmitter that needs to be on the player is the one that delivers the signal to the earpiece. This signal can be both very weak and thus very hard to detect and only switched on in critical positions.

Anyway, I asked about the electronics detector, as I would have thought your brother in law would be interested in this field, it's called non-linear junction detection.

I don't know if he is. He regularly shows me what stuff he is building for his house automation and where he is buying the parts for that. So far I haven't spoken with him about cheating devices for chess.

How big is the battery?

Pick one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell
These small devices don't need much energy.

As you pointed out, they use other detectors also, this is probably only to detect a battery.

Which you won't detect as well if it is small enough.

Impossible? Even when all your opponents and the security are looking, and have the tech to find it?

Err, no. You have a little plastic box in your underwear with the receiver from your assistant and the transmitter for the earpiece, a microswitch to switch it on and off in your pants pocket and an earpiece so small and deep in your ear that you can't see even when directly looking at the ear. And as already layed out: You only activate the transmitter in critical positions and then it will only transmit a very weak signal which you certainly won't be able to pick up with the 50 bucks device from Walmart.

You said "the 50 bucks device from Walmart does just fine." I don't agree, I don't think it's naive to think that the security would have the appropriate equipment.

So why did they use the 50 bucks device then? Here's the answer: Because they had to get this equipment quickly within one day because of the uproar Carlsen caused with his withdrawal. The technical suitability was less of an issue, it was just about having a scanner available within a few hours and at the beginning of the next round.

I don't think that Rex Sinquefield - or one of the other big organizers like Tata Steel for that matter - would have a financial problem to buy proper equipment. But a lot of the smaller organizers have. Can a chess club who holds the occasional tournament with IMs and and perhaps some lower-ranked GMs which already in itself costs a lot of money can afford to spend thousands of Dollars for scanning equipment? I doubt that.

@Katzenschinken said in #131:
@Nomoreusernames said in #125:

He has played 160 high profile games, and each one has a substantial risk of scanning a device etc, where other players in the same tournaments have been caught (or at least have been reported as caught).

You are aware that the question of being caught depends both on the helper devices and the method of cheating, aren't you. Some might get caught, others don't.
At least some who don’t get caught actually aren’t cheating, right? And that there are people caught, means that there is cheating detection, which is working. It may not have found the specific person you might want it to, but that doesn't mean that the detection isn't working, right?

The question doesn't specify which tournaments, but if his play is over 2650 FIDE at least, why would he cheat against 2300-2600, and then not cheat against 2750-2850 rated players? That's not really in the spirit of the question.

Because he was primarily playing against the 2300-2600 range while he had his steep Elo rise.
So why cheat against people who are worse than you, and then not cheat against those who are better. I am not saying it’s impossible, just it’s pointless to cheat against people you are likely to beat any way.

There are also jammers and RF signal scanners, which would catch cheating even if the device was off.

Are you serious? You do think that you can detect a transmitter with an RF scanner even if the transmitter doesn't transmit? I'm interested in this, please tell me more.
I already did, you ignored me because it didn’t suit your narrative at the time.

Also, he would have to switch it on without being seen.

And? You don't need something at the size of a light switch. A microswitch in your pants does it and is not detectable.
But it’s in his ear, right? He’s gotta aim the pen very well to hit the micro device “on switch”, for example. Even if you could, nonlinear junction detectors would find it, even if it was switched off.

It would have to be big enough to communicate with him, and also carry a battery.

When your assistant can follow the game from an external position (like it was the case at the Sinquefield Cup up until round 4 when they switched to a 15 minute delay in their live stream) you only need a stronger transmitter from the assistant to the player. You don't need to transmit anything back from the player to the assistant. So the only transmitter that needs to be on the player is the one that delivers the signal to the earpiece. This signal can be both very weak and thus very hard to detect and only switched on in critical positions.
You seem to not understand digital communication well, if there is and RF scanner, you can’t do that. Speak to your brother in law.

Anyway, I asked about the electronics detector, as I would have thought your brother in law would be interested in this field, it's called non-linear junction detection.

I don't know if he is. He regularly shows me what stuff he is building for his house automation and where he is buying the parts for that. So far I haven't spoken with him about cheating devices for chess.
When you have access to someone who can clear this up for you, you can provide informed opinions instead of drivel like: “And for you the same is valid as for Mr.@Nomoreusernames : You don't seem to have a single clue what is possible in terms of miniaturization.” Maybe he can enlighten you about detection devices!

How big is the battery?

Pick one of these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell, These small devices don't need much energy.
How are you going to get that into your ear where nobody can see it? Or past a metal detector from 50 years ago?

As you pointed out, they use other detectors also, this is probably only to detect a battery.

Which you won't detect as well if it is small enough.
Do you understand how metal detectors work?

Impossible? Even when all your opponents and the security are looking, and have the tech to find it?

Err, no. You have a little plastic box in your underwear with the receiver from your assistant and the transmitter for the earpiece, a microswitch to switch it on and off in your pants pocket and an earpiece so small and deep in your ear that you can't see even when directly looking at the ear. And as already layed out: You only activate the transmitter in critical positions and then it will only transmit a very weak signal which you certainly won't be able to pick up with the 50 bucks device from Walmart.
Run this one by your brother in law, he can clear up the many ways this will fail for you.

You said "the 50 bucks device from Walmart does just fine." I don't agree, I don't think it's naive to think that the security would have the appropriate equipment.

So why did they use the 50 bucks device then? Here's the answer: Because they had to get this equipment quickly within one day because of the uproar Carlsen caused with his withdrawal. The technical suitability was less of an issue, it was just about having a scanner available within a few hours and at the beginning of the next round.
Your ideas are getting wilder and wilder.

I don't think that Rex Sinquefield - or one of the other big organizers like Tata Steel for that matter - would have a financial problem to buy proper equipment. But a lot of the smaller organizers have. Can a chess club who holds the occasional tournament with IMs and and perhaps some lower-ranked GMs which already in itself costs a lot of money can afford to spend thousands of Dollars for scanning equipment? I doubt that.
This scanning, jamming, detection tech is readily available everywhere. If you live in a city, there are likely more than 100 of each in your city. Most event sponsors would have them in their own security. The Miami tournament would have most definitely had them, as they had network engineers who were probably carrying them around in their pockets for other purposes. Some types of cheating can earn you billions of dollars (not chess). The detection, jamming and scanning tech is easily- and for the most part- reasonably cheaply available, and even explicitly stipulated by FIDE, so before you start saying that events don’t have it, you should probably find out if it's actually true. A player or spectator can’t see a signal scanner or a jammer (which normally has its own scanner). As I said, they have caught other players with these devices.

Niemann has passed the combined detection, RF scanning, jamming and non linear junction detection for 160 events. How'd he do that? That's what the question means to me!