Cheating in chess

[Roger de Coverly]

The Dewa Kipas vs. Irene Sukandar match and GothamChess.

It's only ever circumstantial, but inconsistent play, such as hanging pieces or allowing forks, could be evidence of previous cheating if a higher standard of play is displayed in other circumstances.

[JustinHorton]

My sympathy for Rozman is distinctly limited after this fiasco

[Matthew Turner]

Quite an interesting case this one. You can see the player's games here
https://www.chess.com/member/dewa_kipas

There is some good stuff and some less good stuff. He seems to have a 2300 rating, because, well, he was playing at 2300.

[Geoff Chandler]

More background of what happened here.

https://www.wired.com/story/bird-feed-s ... arassment/

[Matthew Turner]

You can also see the player's games from a month ago here (when he joined chess.com)
https://www.chess.com/games/archive/dew ... meSort=asc

He was only rated 1000 then, so it is a meteoric rise, but it isn't so easy to detect a change in the standard of his play

[Roger de Coverly]

More background of what happened here.

Also at
https://www.chess.com/news/view/most-wa ... dewa-kipas

Leonard's column this Friday had the link.

[Roger de Coverly]

No direct chess references, but a couple of paragraphs caught my eye as things that arbiters of on-line play might find desirable.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nfractions

According to documents and video, at random times during a shift, the webcam system will scan the workspace for breaches, which include “missing from desk”, “detecting an idle user”, “unauthorised mobile phone usage” and another person being in the workspace area.

The cameras will also be set up with facial recognition so they can detect if someone else is sitting at the desk.

[Chris Rice]

Another chess cheating scandal as 20 players are disqualified from the FIDE World Online University Championships, which uses the Tornelo playing platform, though the Fair Play Panel are not officially saying it was cheating they were disqualified for. The winner of the Women's rapid, Iulija Osmak, won the 2017 Ukrainian Women's Championship yet that counted for nothing as her score of 4.5/5 was changed to 0/5.

The wrinkle this time is that Osmak has volunteered for a lie detector test to prove her innocence. But even if that was acceptable, which it won't be, what good would it do if she passed it anyway when essentially she does not know what exactly she did to trigger the Fair Play violations? It appears to me that the Fair Play Panel are prepared to defend themselves by issuing copious reassurances that their process is bullet proof but they are afraid to show the actual evidence to anyone and essentially refuse the right of appeal. The defence seems to be for this, which is trotted out virtually every time, that if they showed the evidence the cheaters would find away around it. I can only imagine the outcry if, in a criminal court, people were convicted for crimes where they are not specifically told what crime they have committed with evidence that they can't challenge and are not even allowed to see.

Of course there is also the problem that if someone is called specifically for cheating then the server or whoever could be subjected to legal challenge. I think we are all fairly clear that most of the cheating that happens and players are disqualified for is circumstantial evidence which is not likely to stand up in Court so its understandable that they don't want to be specific about what it is they are disqualifying players for. Naturally this leads to the conclusion that the processes used are therefore not free of flaws and innocent players may well be getting chucked out of tournaments and having their reputations trashed as a result of this.

Personally I think we're getting to the point where winning anything at online chess becomes meaningless, winners are automatically going to be regarded as potential cheats regardless. Shame really as online chess has been the only kind of chess that we have been able to play during the pandemic. I've arranged many tournaments for juniors (as have Neil Cooper and Robin Slade who have done amazing jobs in this regard) over the various Lockdowns for eternally grateful parents who are thankful for their child to have something to look forward to each day. Even here though in one of the primary school tournaments I organised an issue arose as one of the mums rang me up, very upset and informed that her son was being threatened with being thrown off the Lichess server. Turns out that her son had won three games in 4-6 moves each against complete beginners and Lichess were saying that the quality of the games was so poor that these players were deliberately throwing the games and thus increasing her son's rating. All the Lichess games are recorded so I was able to look at them and realise that her son was playing for Scholar's mate and getting cheap victories against beginners both as Black and White. So there you go, playing for the four move checkmate could well get you thrown off of Lichess!

[JustinHorton]

Of course there is also the problem that if someone is called specifically for cheating then the server or whoever could be subjected to legal challenge. I think we are all fairly clear that most of the cheating that happens and players are disqualified for is circumstantial evidence which is not likely to stand up in Court so its understandable that they don't want to be specific about what it is they are disqualifying players for.

I am not convinced that "we threw them out, but we won't say we threw them out for cheating" would be a successful defence in court, since there's an obvious and reasonable inference that it is very possible to draw.

[MartinCarpenter]

The wrinkle this time is that Osmak has volunteered for a lie detector test to prove her innocence.

Lie detectors make even the dodgiest computer cheating detection algorithms look like paragons of reliability
(So does a fair bit of much more credible forensic science, in fact.).

Although 5 games is, in general, nothing like enough to draw any reliable conclusions unless you're dealing with really stupidly obvious cheating. Odd.

[NickFaulks]

The wrinkle this time is that Osmak has volunteered for a lie detector test to prove her innocence.

Why is she not taking her case to Ethics Commission? This was a FIDE event, so I don't see how they could refuse to accept it.

[Matthew Turner]

The games are available here
https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 2021/1/1/3

You can judge for yourself the quality of play, bearing in mind the time control is 10/5.

My view innocent.

[JustinHorton]

The wrinkle this time is that Osmak has volunteered for a lie detector test to prove her innocence.

Why is she not taking her case to Ethics Commission? This was a FIDE event, so I don't see how they could refuse to accept it.

They may be considering it anyway, according to the FIDE statement.

FIDE Fair Play Commission upon reviewing all the data submitted by FPP will decide, whether the case shall be referred to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for further sanctions.

[NickFaulks]

FIDE Fair Play Commission upon reviewing all the data submitted by FPP will decide, whether the case shall be referred to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for further sanctions.

I'm suggested that whether or not FIDE refers it, the player should do so. The damage is done, so she should act immediately and not wait for FPL.

[JustinHorton]

Sure, I understood that.