Also, what about people who play on their phones/ tablets? For whatever reason, they don’t own a desktop as shown in the example video.
Or they have access to a PC in a library, where recording will be most probably prohibited.
I don’t really want to go down that slippery slope, but it’s really easy to cheat in a room big enough and with some assistance. So, it’s not full proof, really… I suggest checking games that seem suspicious anyway, a good player’s opinion will always mean more to me than a video.
An idea that someone in these forums had (I can’t remember exactly now, but someone else probably will) was to have players explain “too good” moves. I guess that would work better in tandem with some automated AI detection of… well, AI. I know there are some things being developed to that end, but those are above my level of understanding so I just mention them for the sake of the discussion.
Also, I don’t recall which one, but some organizer wanted to charge extra for checking suspicious games reported by players. I understand this on a surface level seems like a good repellent of over-reporting, but it truly is a deflection of the organizers’ responsibility to ensure and uphold a fair competition. I don’t think it was BGF, but if it were, I hope it’s not a practice that will be repeated.
I wonder if “peer-checking” could work for B, C and D level tournaments. Generally, the community can reach a good enough conclusion of “cheater/ maybe/ just a good day”. But that’s just me thinking how well has peer assessment worked elsewhere, so I’m not sure if and how it could work here.
Also, I don’t know if such thing exists, but maybe tournament organizers should share a list of known cheaters. Not available to the public, because naming and shaming is cruel, but if someone for example cheated in the Corona Cup, wouldn’t you, as an organizer, want to know beforehand, as soon as they ask to participate in your tournament? And gently tell them, say, they are banned for a year? I’m ambivalent about that, though, so someone may have a good reason not to.
One last thing about regulations, please allow me a personal anecdote on this uncharacteristically long post of mine:
I’ve worked extensively with public funding. When something out of the ordinary came up, for example a machine not included in the list, the auditor would ask a declaration that the machine is OK for funding, because such and such.
The next program, instead of critically checking, would just include that declaration as a prerequisite by default.
On and on, until we ended up with a bunch of useless declarations and rules over the years, that nobody can really tell why they are in place, but are now part of the procedure and can’t be undone without legislation.
What I’m trying to say, let’s not over complicate things and lose track of the goal, the goal is fairness.