Answers.Body: <p><strong>Since the first World Championship.</strong></p>
  <p>If you have a fellow top player in the audience who is willing to help you with a couple of yes/no messages, you can easily ask them to analyze the available sacrifices and tell you if they work while you focus on finding the best alternative in case it doesn't.</p>
  <p>Note that the spectator Grandmaster probably has the extra advantage of being able to play the moves out on a board.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-21T06:45:56.940Z
Answers.Text: It should perhaps be mentioned that the Kasparov vs. The World match was correspondence, which has very different time controls from WCC (one move per day vs. classical 90+30+30 or whatever the controls looked like at that time). Cheating in a timed match is, at least at the highest level, all about quickly eliminating bad moves and/or knowing when and where to look for good moves. Correspondence is more about the best overall analysis of each move, and speed matters a lot less.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kevin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-22T01:59:32.987Z
Answers.Text: The core of this answer is really just "more processing power" in a way that its result can be boiled down to a sufficiently succinct message.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Flater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-20T13:14:24.887Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-20T13:14:24.887Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Body: <p>This is a purely hypothetical question that could give me some insight into chess history because I am by no means an expert in the latter.</p>
  <p>From what year would e.g. the world champion or the challenger have had an unfair advantage if they had access to &quot;small cheats&quot;?</p>
  <p>I don't mean that in this scenario they could consult Fritz 2 or talk to their buddies throughout the whole game. I mean that they could get maybe a couple of short messages in each game.</p>
  <p>(The image of this was evoked by the suspicion, stated by Korchnoi's team, that the yoghurt received by Karpov during their world championship could be a secret code. I don't think there's any evidence to back up that allegation, by the way.)</p>
  <p>What comes to mind is:</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>Didn't Kasparov beat the world in a famous correspondence game? So at that time his challenger could not have benefited from smidgeons of human advice?</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>I think the first version of Deep Blue couldn't beat Kasparov, so would engines not have mattered then?</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>But I am not the expert: please contribute your opinions if you want.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-20T18:13:11.763Z
Comments.Text: Engines could have saved time at important parts of the game
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ian Ringrose
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-21T04:43:33.440Z
Comments.Text: Cupcakes? I've long heard/read that it was yogurt that Karpov received and the Kortchnoi thought was some sort of signal.
Comments.UserDisplayName: GreenMatt
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-21T10:03:37.433Z
Comments.Text: @GreenMatt oh my mistake, it was yoghurt
Comments.UserDisplayName: Chris Sanders
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-21T15:47:42.190Z
Comments.Text: You might be interested: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/21828/is-a-team-of-gms-stronger-than-a-single-super-gm. Since a team of players is *ceteris paribus* stronger than a single player, this kind of cheating should have provided an advantage since the game was invented.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Tags: <engines><history><cheating>
Title: Since what year would small-scale cheating have given an advantage in e.g. the World Championship?
ThreadText: # Since what year would small-scale cheating have given an advantage in e.g. the World Championship?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-20)
  
  This is a purely hypothetical question that could give me some insight into chess history because I am by no means an expert in the latter.
  
  From what year would e.g. the world champion or the challenger have had an unfair advantage if they had access to "small cheats"?
  
  I don't mean that in this scenario they could consult Fritz 2 or talk to their buddies throughout the whole game. I mean that they could get maybe a couple of short messages in each game.
  
  (The image of this was evoked by the suspicion, stated by Korchnoi's team, that the yoghurt received by Karpov during their world championship could be a secret code. I don't think there's any evidence to back up that allegation, by the way.)
  
  What comes to mind is:
  
  1. Didn't Kasparov beat the world in a famous correspondence game? So at that time his challenger could not have benefited from smidgeons of human advice?
  2. I think the first version of Deep Blue couldn't beat Kasparov, so would engines not have mattered then?
  
  But I am not the expert: please contribute your opinions if you want.
  
  **Tags:** engines, history, cheating
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Engines could have saved time at important parts of the game  
  > **username_2**: Cupcakes? I've long heard/read that it was yogurt that Karpov received and the Kortchnoi thought was some sort of signal.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 oh my mistake, it was yoghurt  
  > **username_3**: You might be interested: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/21828/is-a-team-of-gms-stronger-than-a-single-super-gm. Since a team of players is *ceteris paribus* stronger than a single player, this kind of cheating should have provided an advantage since the game was invented.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2024-07-20. Score: 9 | Accepted answer
  
  **Since the first World Championship.**
  
  If you have a fellow top player in the audience who is willing to help you with a couple of yes/no messages, you can easily ask them to analyze the available sacrifices and tell you if they work while you focus on finding the best alternative in case it doesn't.
  
  Note that the spectator Grandmaster probably has the extra advantage of being able to play the moves out on a board.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: It should perhaps be mentioned that the Kasparov vs. The World match was correspondence, which has very different time controls from WCC (one move per day vs. classical 90+30+30 or whatever the controls looked like at that time). Cheating in a timed match is, at least at the highest level, all about quickly eliminating bad moves and/or knowing when and where to look for good moves. Correspondence is more about the best overall analysis of each move, and speed matters a lot less.  
  > **username_6**: The core of this answer is really just "more processing power" in a way that its result can be boiled down to a sufficiently succinct message.  
  
  ---
  
  