From time immemorial, cheating our fellow humans has been with us. From the alchemist instilling greed by persuading the punters that they had observed a base metal being changed into gold, to the trader keeping a finger on his scales while weighing produce. Some offences in Europe carried an automatic death penalty -- like clipping, where a silver coin would be cut evenly around its edge and the resulting haul of silver melted down and sold (the reason many coins were later milled aound the perimeter).
There are still scammers out there and the Internet has made it a great deal cheaper, for a lot more, Nigerian scam letters to be distributed around the world. It was nice to read, however, of the Dutch police arresting more than 100 West Africans who were, apparently, behind one of the "You have won 30 milion Euros" spams.
But despite all the continuing scams, there have always been many more cheats in the games arena, whether it was by doping horses (or human competitors), loading dice, marking cards or using legerdemain to hide the pea under the cup you never could spot.
It was only to be expected that electronics would lead to different forms of cheating. One was detected, and there must, surely, be many others going on, by the simple expedient of watching player ratings, in this case in chess.
The most popular measure of chess player proficiency is called the "Elo Ratings," named after a Hungarian emigrant, Arpad E. Elo, who landed in the US in 1903 when he was 10. For 30 years he was Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Marquette University and was deeply involved with the American Chess Federation. His ratings are based on player performance and, basically, say that a player with a higher rating will, statistically, win over someone with a lower rating. As the ratings become more equal, the statistical chances of a draw increase.
This caught out a player in India, one Umakant Sharma, whose Elo Rating increased from a steady 1900 (for years) to 2484 after a number of surprise wins. People observed that some of the defensive moves he played matched those recommended by a popular computer program. He was finally caught red-"headed" with a Bluetooth receiving system sewn into the cap he always wore -- pulled down over the ears -- when playing. A compatriot, never found, was relaying him the computer's suggestions after each move. After an investigation, the All India Chess Federation slapped a 10-year ban on him -- far heavier than any ban ever imposed for doping a horse.
Electronics were also involved in a cheating system in London where three Chinese recently ended up in prson for taking the house at poker. The two-man/one-woman team used a video camera up the sleeve of one player to watch the dealer's delivery of cards, looking at the face side before the cards hit the table. An operative outside in a highly-noticeable (as it turned out) white van slow-motioned the video and reported the deal to the highly-experienced woman team poker player at the same table.
Although they were caught and the judge declared the cheating as "sophisticated," one has to wonder about casinos that don't use a card shoe for dealing. I have to also wonder, out loud, whether earning a couple hundred thousand Euros over a couple of years, divided among three people, is really profitable enough to risk prison.
I am much more impressed by the likes of Semyon Dukach, the son of poor Russian immigrants, who duped Las Vegas, legally and not, by counting cards -- with his MIT team cleaning up on the blackjack tables. They ended up having guns pointed at them, being beaten in the casino basements and, of course, being barred for life. Credit Dukach for the casinos now using machines, instead of dealers, to shuffle cards at the table.
Another MIT blackjack team also beat the casinos at blackjack using highly sophisticated mathematics to count cards. After millions in winnings, the casinos caught on and behaved in their terribly non-cricket ways to get the students off their floors.
Personally, I'm still trying to think of a way to calculate where that roulette ball has to drop into the right slot. If you start the wheel at a particular speed in one direction (at a particular number position), and the ball rotating in the opposite direction at a particular speed (starting from a particular number position), surely I should be able to come up with a range of slot numbers (not contiguous) where the ball is likely to fall?
I guess I have to go and buy that casino roulette table right now. Then all I have to do is the practical experimentation. And then build my body computer. The table won't see me coming!
