user907: While I write this question, I am certain I completely miss the spirit of the world championship. But however, I got curious about how well the cheating-countermeasures at the championship actually work.
Before the match, I watched a TV program which explained how the games would be, and they showed us a metal detector that the players had to go through before every match. The purpose of the metal detector was to find devices that could be used for cheating.
In today's match (number 7), I notice that Anand is wearing his wrist watch. I would believe this would trigger the metal detector, and I doubt they would dismantle it to check if it's ok.
Since the metal detector is a countermeasure to cheating, should they let devices such as wristwatches pass?
I seriously doubt that anyone would cheat at this level - I cannot imagine the impact it would have on the game (their career). 

user4093: It's just a watch. 
Obviously it'd be a different story if the watch was a smartwatch, had some type of detailed display(digital) or did anything else but tell the time in an analog fashion. These players are being monitored by camera and by people live for the entire duration of their matches. The odds of getting away with cheating are incredibly small.

user550: I don't think Anand is cheating at all, but it's an interesting hypothetical. 
A more reasonable thing to ask is: how long has Anand been wearing that watch? Many people wear the same accessories for many years if they have significance, so it's even possible that the watch has been used in tournaments long before cheating like this was worthwhile or viable. 
Another factor is that Anand has already lost one game and come perilously close to losing a second. While it's not inconcievable that this is just a ruse to make later (illegitimate) wins seem real, you'd have to be pretty dumb to go to all that trouble to cheat and then lose anyway.
The final thing to note is that as Peter Svidler noted in the commentary (I think during Game 2?), all wireless radiocommunications signals are being jammed in the venue.

user86: The organizers certainly noticed the watch, if you did. Therefore, since it was allowed at the match, they must have determined that it could not aid chess play in any way.
Their reasoning should be simple: either the watch communicates with an outside device in order to signal the player, or else the watch does all chess calculation itself.
Communication with an outside device requires radiation which is easily monitored by a counter-cheating system, and a watch that could a) internally calculate chess moves at such a strength as to aid an elite human, b) accurately yet undetectably signal the wearer from an analog clockface, and c) accurately read the chess board, is currently technologically impossible.
Hence, dismantling the watch is unnecessary until technology allows undetectable wireless communication or a computer of the described caliber becomes even a remote possibility.

907: <p>While I write this question, I am certain I completely miss the spirit of the world championship. But however, I got curious about how well the cheating-countermeasures at the championship actually work.</p>

<p>Before the match, I watched a TV program which explained how the games would be, and they showed us a metal detector that the players had to go through before every match. The purpose of the metal detector was to find devices that could be used for cheating.</p>

<p>In today's match (number 7), I notice that Anand is wearing his wrist watch. I would believe this would trigger the metal detector, and I doubt they would dismantle it to check if it's ok.</p>

<p>Since the metal detector is a countermeasure to cheating, should they let devices such as wristwatches pass?</p>

<p>I seriously doubt that anyone would cheat at this level - I cannot imagine the impact it would have on the game (their career). </p>
 4093: <p>It's just a watch. </p>

<p>Obviously it'd be a different story if the watch was a smartwatch, had some type of detailed display(digital) or did anything else but tell the time in an analog fashion. These players are being monitored by camera and by people live for the entire duration of their matches. The odds of getting away with cheating are incredibly small.</p>
 550: <p>I don't think Anand is cheating at all, but it's an interesting hypothetical. </p>

<p>A more reasonable thing to ask is: how long has Anand been wearing that watch? Many people wear the same accessories for many years if they have significance, so it's even possible that the watch has been used in tournaments long before cheating like this was worthwhile or viable. </p>

<p>Another factor is that Anand has already lost one game and come perilously close to losing a second. While it's not inconcievable that this is just a ruse to make later (illegitimate) wins seem real, you'd have to be pretty dumb to go to all that trouble to cheat <em>and then lose anyway</em>.</p>

<p>The final thing to note is that as Peter Svidler noted in the commentary (I think during Game 2?), all wireless radiocommunications signals are being jammed in the venue.</p>
 86: <p>The organizers certainly noticed the watch, if you did. Therefore, since it was allowed at the match, they must have determined that it could not aid chess play in any way.</p>

<p>Their reasoning should be simple: either the watch communicates with an outside device in order to signal the player, or else the watch does all chess calculation itself.</p>

<p>Communication with an outside device requires radiation which is easily monitored by a counter-cheating system, and a watch that could <em>a)</em> internally calculate chess moves at such a strength as to aid an elite human, <em>b)</em> accurately yet undetectably signal the wearer from an analog clockface, and <em>c)</em> accurately read the chess board, is currently technologically impossible.</p>

<p>Hence, dismantling the watch is unnecessary until technology allows undetectable wireless communication or a computer of the described caliber becomes even a remote possibility.</p>
