The December 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

The problem of students cheating on exams using electronic devices has been around for awhile, as this 2006 article in the New York Times shows. And with school exam time just around the corner, I am sure there will soon be more than a few articles on the subject appearing in the press.

Alas, it seems that electronic cheating has found its way into chess world once again as well. The London Telegraphreported a few days ago that the French chess federation (Fédération Française des Échecs) has suspended three top federation players for using "mobile text messages, a remote chess computer and coded signals to beat the opposition" at the Chess Olympiad held in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia last September.

According to the French federation, one of the players followed the game via the Internet, inputted the moves into a chess computer, and then sent the suggested moves to another in coded phone numbers who would next relay them to the third by special signals. This other Telegraph article describes the process allegedly used in more detail.

No, the Telegraph article did not specify the chess computer used, if you are curious.

The player receiving the help was said to have won a gold medal at the Olympiad and 5,000 Euros.

Two of the accused players received 5 year bans, while the third - who happened to be the French chess team captain - received a life ban on being a future team captain or coach.

All three deny any wrong doing, and are appealing the federation's ruling.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less