The enforcement part of the proposal is clear, but what about the detection part? This seems a crime impossible to detect. Somebody pulls a 14-move double-bishop, double-knight, double-castle, queen sacrifice leading to mate and you say, "Wait a minute, that's just too incredible, you must be using Deep Blue," and the reply comes back, "I didn't look 14 moves ahead, I just saw a few moves ahead and then other opportunities became apparent as we played." Or maybe, "I didn't look 14 moves ahead, I just made a mistake, lost my bishop, made another mistake, lost my knight, attempted to rally but lost my queen, then I got desperate and starting looking for opportunities and found that forced mate which by that time was only a few moves away."
About not studying chess books while playing, during the period in my life when I was playing tournaments I always had my nose in at least several chess books all the time. To expect someone to sit at a computer screen waiting for their opponent's next move and just tap their fingers, or to not investigate things when there's a suspension in play, just doesn't seem reasonable.
Or if there's someone else in the room peering over their shoulder, there's bound to be kibitzing.
Maybe it's just me. Perhaps I have an overdeveloped sense of cynicism. But I don't think so. All I have to do is look around this board and count the number of times people have tried to pass off a cut-n-paste as their own to restore my faith in human nature.
--Percy