Yes, Chess Has CAW's and its Share of Cheaters, but They're Handled Much Differently

Chess is a fantastic, old, heady game that has stood the test of time. 

But, one thing some might not know, is that they've worked pretty hard to ensure this immutably true statement hasn't been sabotaged. 

Magnus Carlsen, the world number one in chess, was asked by Joe Rogan on his podcast recently about computer engines. Carlson replied, "Elon Musk tweeted out that my iPhone can beat Magnus Carlsen at chess, and he's correct". 

In 2025, humans are not the best chess players, computers are. 

Chess engines like Swordfish - alogs that suggest moves that are perfect play - are prevalent and easy to use; so easy that one can use it while playing chess online. 

Sensing a threat to the game, chess took an interesting approach. 

When something statistically looked out of whack with a player, not only did the top players mention it, the organizations in charge of the game acted swiftly. Players were under scrutiny immediately, their old games were analyzed for wrong doing, and security at live games was enhanced. Some players with obvious cheating based on these engines and analysis were banned. 

The engines - the black box to win, the algo for perfect play, the holy grail of chess - that could beat Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov or Magnus Carlson, was completely eliminated from the game. And the people that would use it to hinder the game were also sent to pasture. And and all permission structure regarding them didn't exist. 

Meanwhile, in horse racing - and I realize this is news to no one - this has been handled much differently. Or maybe more apt, has never been handled at all. 

Back in 2007 or so, trainers that had 8% or 9% win percentages for years - the proverbial "couldn't teach a poodle to piss" types - suddenly starting winning at 20% 30% or 40%. Horses in harness racing were dropping four or five seconds in a two or three weeks when entering these barns. 

These statistical anomalies that were noted and acted on swiftly in chess using logic and reason, were mostly excused, and when one brought them up, you were called "jealous" or other pejoratives. What probably made it most maddening, was that the industry itself would have these trainers on the cover of the trades, and give them year end awards. They created a permission structure, didn't eliminate one. 

Only later of course did we learn of the presence of EPO and it's other name Aranesp. Some trainers were nabbed, but in my view if we caught 10% of them it would be surprising. Some in the industry still cling to the fairy tale that for those who weren't caught they magically improved virtually every horse that entered their barns with shoeing changes or some other such nonsense. 

The game has suffered because of this. When you can't compete you either cheat, or leave the game. Foal crops and horse ownership; the number of trainers competing, etc, have all fallen, while slots and purse money have still flourished. 

Meanwhile, this same braintrust has done almost exactly the same with another element of the game, the CAWs. CAW's created and developed a "Swordfish" for racing, and they are allowed to use it, which is fine. No one is saying smart people can't win. 

But instead of leaving it at that (and this is what angers most, in my opinion), they not only create a permission structure, they pour gasoline on it, by giving them obscene pricing that the rest of us have no hope of getting. 

Think about it for a second. It's like chess inviting me to play a regular player where I can use an iPhone to beat him while he can't, they charge me $1 to play the game and him $20. How long would that sport last?

Chess is a healthy game despite technology and cheating readily available to it, but it's that way because they took it seriously as a threat to the game. They don't allow someone to beat Magnus Carlsen for a World Championship cheating with an algo, and then put that person on the front page of their marketing materials. They don't allow one group with an edge to get more of an edge and more of an edge, chasing away new and old customers, leaving computers to play themselves. 

Racing did that. It did it to themselves. And in 2025, they continue to do what they've always done when pressed with a threat - ignoring it and hoping it goes away. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone.