Cheating in chess

[Matthew Turner]

John,
I guess in a legal sense, there are a lot semantics involved here. FIDE are quoting regulation 5.20

"Neither FIDE, nor the Hosting Internet Platform claims that the determination of a suspected fair
play violation is proof of actual cheating or an admission of guilt of by the disqualified player. Such a determination shall not affect the ordinary status of the player for over-the-board competitions within the jurisdiction of FIDE or its members, unless FPP decides in the case of a clear or gross violation, or repeated violations, to refer the matter to the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Commission which may exclude the player from all official chess participation for a period up to 15 years."

However, that does appear to me to be slightly in conflict with regulation 5.14

"Based upon the results of the anti-cheating algorithm or/and other evidence deemed sufficient by FPP to establish a cheating incident, FPP is entitled to disqualify any player for a suspected fair play violation during the course or after the conclusion of any of the Championships event.

Then we have your comments
"If a FIDE spokesperson said there 'was no proof of cheating', what he or she meant was that the authorities had not proved and did not need to prove whether there was cheating, merely to establish a reasonable suspicion that there was."

I am deeply uncomfortable that a decision of this magnitude could be taken on a 'reasonable suspicion of cheating'. If there is 'reasonable evidence of cheating' then that might well be a different matter.

It is not clear to me exactly what is meant by a 'reasonable suspicion' but on the face of it, it would seem to fall well short of the 'comfortable satisfaction' demanded by CAS. If the Osmak does go to court, then I can see no way of FIDE winning, indeed I am struggling to see how they could even mount a case.

[Leonard Barden]

Today's Guardian comments on the Osmak case:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... beaten-run

[Roger de Coverly]

I know very little about bridge, so can I please ask: what IS self-kibitzing?

From other comments it appears to be the practice of looking up the game in progress, the point being at Bridge that it enables the hidden hand to be seen. Does the same problem arise in Poker with hidden cards?

It would be a problem in chess as well if servers published real time analysis of games in progress.

[Matthew Turner]

I know very little about bridge, so can I please ask: what IS self-kibitzing?

From other comments it appears to be the practice of looking up the game in progress, the point being at Bridge that it enables the hidden hand to be seen. Does the same problem arise in Poker with hidden cards?

It would be a problem in chess as well if servers published real time analysis of games in progress.

I don't think self-kibitzing is really a problem for high level Bridge any more because all you need is a small time delay for spectators (or prevent spectators all together)

[Geoff Chandler]

I've not been following all this thread but from Guardian link above.

" IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention) "

Not good enough. It has to be 100%. in this case 4-0 before any verdict is even considered.
Any doubt at all, even a 3-1 or 3-0 and an abstention must register not guilty.

And who abstained? You cannot sit on the fence in this matter. If you are unsure enough to abstain then 'not guilty.'

Maybe FIDE should adopt a Scottish Law and use 'Not Proven' which basically means we think you did it
but cannot prove it and then return a 'not guilty.' (and refrain from adding they used the 'Not Proven' clause.)

[Matthew Turner]

Geoff,
I think we know that David Cordover (Tornelo) voted against and think it is generally assumed that the Chief Arbiter, Tomasz Delega Abstained with the ACP contingent of Alexsadar Colovic and Bojana Bejatovic voting for the sanction.

The arbiter may have recused himself because of a conflict of interest, being the same nationality as the current winner. If that were the case it would be hard to criticize that decision. I have no evidence that was indeed the case, but merely pointing out that there are numerous good reasons for abstaining.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Mathew,

It seems this committee needs expanding to 6 of mixed nationality and the four chosen decision makers
are from countries not involved so no conflict of interest can surface but even then there was one 'not guilty'
it has to be 4-0 and then every avenue of appeal must be open to the players.

[John Cox]

On the question of self-kibitzing in bridge, the general feeling is that there is no merit in having high-level events without the possibility of kibitzing. The usual platforms were not set up to allow for a time delay and for a long time were not minded to invest the resource to do so. I don't know to what extent this has been been resolved. Top-level events are definitely still taking place with kibitzing; I watched one the other day. My impression was that I was watching in real time - I asked my friend who was playing when they were starting, rocked up at that time and watched. But I could have been wrong; perhaps you are right and they have now built in a delay.

[John Cox]

>The comment in brackets seems to me extremely poorly worded.

I agree; I should not have said 'of course'.

However, the investigating committee will be operating in English because that is the lingua franca of the FPC. It is true that in theory a non-English speaking player could be interviewed live through an interpreter. I am not aware of that having been done or of the resource being available to do it. In practice I think non-English-speaking defendants are likely to interact with the committee in writing.

In my experience in courtrooms, having to operate with an interpreter significantly reduces the merit of hearing live, as opposed to written, evidence.

[John Cox]

In reply to Matthew's point about the regulations, if people want to pursue this then FIDE's lawyer, Mr Martynov, has commented extensively (in Russian) on Emil Sutovsky's Facebook page, and has also given an hour long interview in Russian to the journalist Ilya Levitov, which can be found on youtube (also in Russian).

I believe the intention is that the FPP can disqualify a player, as stated, if they have reasonable suspicion that cheating has occurred. If they further think that in fact there was clearly cheating (say for instance a single instance where the camera actually caught sight of another device being used), or they reasonably suspect gross cheating (say for instance that every move an 1800 player played was the top choice of Stockfish and that player performed at a rating of 3200 for the event), then they may refer the matter to the FPC. The FPC will then appoint an investigating committee of three which will investigate for a considerably longer time than the 72 hours the FPP has available, and then decide whether they are comfortably satisfied or not that cheating has occurred. If they are comfortably satisfied, then the FPC will refer the matter to FIDE's full Ethics Committee, which will then make a decision whether to impose a ban or other disciplinary measure. The Ethics Committee may reject, and on occasion has rejected, the FPC's view.

As to whether the above arrangements are ideal or not, and what would happen in CAS were there a case, I do not express any opinion but offer three fairly trite reflections.

1. The regulations governing the tournament were publicly available before it began and all the players signed up to play with at least the opportunity to read them, whether or not they in fact did so.

2. Only the present global circumstances have forced FIDE to run these online events. The regulations governing face to face tournaments have been refined in the light of experience over a number of decades. The necessary modifications to the regulations to deal with online events have needed to be drafted without the benefit of long experience.

3. This tournament generated 20 disqualifications and many more complaints, suspicious circumstances, and so forth which did not lead to disqualifications but which needed to be considered. In drafting the regulations it is necessary to consider the amount of resource which would be necessary to carry out exhaustive investigations of every one of these.

[John Cox]

As to what is 'a reasonable suspicion', I believe that Mr Martynov has said that if the FPP considers the probability of cheating to have occurred to be 51% or higher then it should disqualify the player.

[John Cox]

Leonard, I enjoyed your Guardian piece as always, but one correction - the decision was not made by the Fair Play Commission, which is a general body within FIDE one of whose functions, as I said above, is to recommend bans for players whom they consider to their comfortable satisfaction to have been guilty of fair play violations. The decision was made by the Fair Play Panel appointed for this tournament specifically. Only two of the members of the FPP were also members of the FPC.

[Matthew Turner]

As to what is 'a reasonable suspicion', I believe that Mr Martynov has said that if the FPP considers the probability of cheating to have occurred to be 51% or higher then it should disqualify the player.

I had heard that referenced before, but not from what I would call a reputable source. Are we really saying that a player can be excluded from an event with everything that potentially entails when there is a 49% chance that they are innocent? Surely, any right-minded individual would wish to distance themselves from that approach?

[Jacques Parry]

"Reasonable suspicion" may or may not be a sensible test in this context, but Mr Martynov must surely know that there can be reasonable suspicion even if the probability of that suspicion being well founded is far less than 51%. "Reasonable suspicion" means what it says: that it's reasonable (or, if you prefer, not unreasonable) to be suspicious.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Well yes, can't see how a mere 51% probability would stand up to any legal scrutiny for a start.