It's useful to stress that this refers (I assume) to computer assistance. The nature of chess events is such that cheating can take other forms, some of which can appeal in particular to grandmasters. Many events are round robins or Swisses where it is possible to deliberately lose or accept a draw in order to boost the chances of a compatriot - or of someone who is willing to give you a share of his extra prize money. This was allegedly popular, normal even, when Soviet Union players travelled en bloc, and it apparently still happens. Presumably there are suspicions it can happen (or has happened) in go, given that draws for playing partner nowadays seem routinely be made so as to pair compatriots in early rounds. Go professionals have certainly not been immune to other forms of cheating, so we can't be sanctimonious about go.BTW, if online cheating at chess is like other anti-social behavior, it may well be that the number of players who have cheated could be as high as 25%; but the number who cheat frequently or who cheat in tournaments is probably less than 5%. A lot of people succumb to temptation once or twice, but then find that it is not all that rewarding, and give it up.
Chess officials seem to rely on two main strands to detect computer-assisted cheating. One is a loo patrol and other ways of searching for mobile phones. The other is to look for sudden improvements in Elo ratings. Both can be implemented in go. But there are yet other difference between go and chess in that most chess events are either open or invitation only (much more than in go). On the one hand open events seem to provide more opportunities for weak players to try cheating. On the other, mere suspicions of cheating can mean invitations are no longer forthcoming, so cheating can be controlled to some extent without even proving it. Go pro events are mostly controlled by guilds, so amateurs are mostly excluded. Also, the guilds rather then the event organisers control invitations.
I suppose it's also worth asking whether we are getting too uptight about cheating. When I was young the first electronic calculators came out and there was a huge kerfuffle about some kids using them in exams. They were rigorously banned even in the classroom. But nowadays calculators are allowed, encouraged even, and I was shocked last week to hear that a grandson taking a language exam is to be allowed to take a dictionary into his exam, as well as bullet points for essays (though there is a 30-word limit).
Applying this approach to go, some computer assistance (or "cheating" as it would then become) could be allowed but controlled less by officials and more by social disapproval, and to some extent also by reducing time limits (as in exams - the blitz approach seems popular in online chess). A report on the BBC this week claimed calculators had actually helped people learn. It could be that allowing computers could also allow go and chess players under tournament conditions to learn faster.
Does anyone know what sort of effect computers have had in correspondence chess? It seems to generate a big debate, and one comment I found interesting was this:
In competitive correspondence chess everybody uses the strongest computer they can get, but there are still consistent differences in strength between different players.
Computers are strong, but they're nowhere near perfect. They're extremely good in positions where calculation is the primary factor but not that good in endgames and positional play. Good correspondence players know which computer lines to trust and how to direct the computer to the critical lines.
Unassisted humans have no chance at all, of course.
OC, everybody at the table was in on the secret, so it was not exactly cheating. Years later, when I was playing in my first national tournament, in the Swiss Team event, my partner and I faced an elderly married couple who were playing the Precision Club system, in which One Club was conventional, and players were sometimes forced to open One Diamond with only two cards in the suit. The elderly lady coughed and opened One Diamond. My partner and I just looked at each other and grinned. 
And I think that the similarity to civil and criminal law is important. I became a duplicate bridge director after taking a class from the world's best. 
The class did not cover cheating, and it was emphasized that the attitude of civil law was the right one. If there is an irregularity the idea is to restore equity, not to punish wrongdoing. The burden of proof is also less in civil law. I defer to the officials who found that this game was irregular, in which case throwing out the game result would restore equity. The close similarity to Leela's play is enough to say that there is something funny about this game. But it is, as Regan says, only supporting evidence of cheating. Also, cheating is not just an irregularity, it is wrongdoing that should be punished. For a finding of cheating, the burden of proof needs to be higher, just as it is in criminal law.
as a critical error, preferring the approach at "a". According to Leela, that approach gives White a 56-44 lead, while Triton's move gives Black a 52-48 lead. Not only is 
. However, for 
Leela recommends 50. 
Leela recommends "a", but Black plays 
. Leela regards 
But wait! If Tarzan always make Leela plays, Tarzan get caught. Tarzan not always make Leela plays, also make plays Leela like, but not play. Tarzan not get caught playing Leela plays. 
Tarzan King of Jungle. Tarzan King of Go. 
)