Cheating in chess
-
- Posts: 3499
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Cheating in chess
Hi Roger L and Simon R;
The system itself keeps a log. I was wondering if you post then edit then submit the edited post it counts as two posts.
You could get 10-20 hits from the one post which matches the the title of this thread.
A kind of sandbagging in reverse. You pretend to have made deliberate errors to boost your post count.
The system itself keeps a log. I was wondering if you post then edit then submit the edited post it counts as two posts.
You could get 10-20 hits from the one post which matches the the title of this thread.
A kind of sandbagging in reverse. You pretend to have made deliberate errors to boost your post count.
-
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:30 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
Thanks Geoff. I was wandering why I had done so many posts. There has been a few posts where I have made a number of edits due to grammatical errors. I didn't want to send myself down to Pedants United.Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:18 pmHi Roger L and Simon R;
The system itself keeps a log. I was wondering if you post then edit then submit the edited post it counts as two posts.
You could get 10-20 hits from the one post which matches the the title of this thread.
A kind of sandbagging in reverse. You pretend to have made deliberate errors to boost your post count.
-
- Posts: 3499
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Cheating in chess
Hi SImon,
I'm going to use a computer to do my post for me, 20 a day in various threads.
They will have to create an algorithm to catch me.
I'm going to use a computer to do my post for me, 20 a day in various threads.
They will have to create an algorithm to catch me.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
"Statement on the Fair Play decisions at the FIDE World University Championship"
https://www.fide.com/news/1042
Any thoughts?
https://www.fide.com/news/1042
Any thoughts?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
"We are saying you cheated in that event but that you are not a cheat".
Sounds like a very odd position to embrace.
Sounds like a very odd position to embrace.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Cheating in chess
I don't think that that is the position that they are embracing, but the actual position is even odder.Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:16 pm"We are saying you cheated in that event but that you are not a cheat".
Sounds like a very odd position to embrace.
"We are disqualifying you from this event, but we are not saying that you cheated."
-
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Cheating in chess
I notice that, while published on on the FIDE website, the statement is not attributed to any person or group of people.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
FIDE might be saying, "The regulations were followed correctly and no further action is required". This is, I think, a perfectly defendable position. In essence it is exactly the same as the ECF's position on Lorin D'Costa at the British Championships.
I don't think it is quite as simple as that, because I note 'due care' is mentioned twice rather than due competency.
I don't think it is quite as simple as that, because I note 'due care' is mentioned twice rather than due competency.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
I am not familiar wit the nuances, but am I correct in interpreting it as, using a football analogy: "the referee did his best, and therefore the red card he gave stands, irrespective of whether it was justified or not. Since we do not have evidence of serious wrongdoing, no further action is taken against the player"Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pm
I don't think it is quite as simple as that, because I note 'due care' is mentioned twice rather than due competency.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
Wadih,
I think getting drawn into the analogy with football could complicate matters, but from what you have said it is clear you understand what I mean. Whether that is what FIDE mean, is of course another question.
I think getting drawn into the analogy with football could complicate matters, but from what you have said it is clear you understand what I mean. Whether that is what FIDE mean, is of course another question.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Cheating in chess
I think that there are two distinct issues here.Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pmFIDE might be saying, "The regulations were followed correctly and no further action is required". This is, I think, a perfectly defendable position.
1. Whether the Regulations were fair and equitable.
2. Whether the specific decision in the Osmak case was reasonable in the context of those Regulations.
It would be perfectly logical to regard the Regulations as acceptable, but to consider that that particular decision was perverse.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
I entirely agree, it could also be perfectly logical to regard the decision as acceptable, but the regulations perverse. So, in this case everyone may have acted entirely appropriately and reasonably but regulations allowing a decision of this magnitude to be made on a simple majority were ill conceived.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:03 amI think that there are two distinct issues here.Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pmFIDE might be saying, "The regulations were followed correctly and no further action is required". This is, I think, a perfectly defendable position.
1. Whether the Regulations were fair and equitable.
2. Whether the specific decision in the Osmak case was reasonable in the context of those Regulations.
It would be perfectly logical to regard the Regulations as acceptable, but to consider that that particular decision was perverse.
-
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Cheating in chess
I'm not sure I'm following the semantics here but is it possible that FIDE is in effect saying something along the lines of "The decision taken was based on an x% probability that the chap was cheating and FIDE doesn't find this unreasonable although FIDE would have required a higher probability than x% to arrive at the same conclusion" ?
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
Roger,Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 amI'm not sure I'm following the semantics here but is it possible that FIDE is in effect saying something along the lines of "The decision taken was based on an x% probability that the chap was cheating and FIDE doesn't find this unreasonable although FIDE would have required a higher probability than x% to arrive at the same conclusion" ?
The regulations for this event are that a player will be excluded if the tournament FairPlay panel determines on the balance of probabilities they cheated, I.e. there is a greater than 50% chance they cheated. Subsequently, the player can be referred to the FIDE Ethics Committee which can impose sanctions, up to and including, removing titles, fifteen year bans and fines of up to 25,000 dollars. That requires a higher burden of proof. This doesn't just apply to Osmak, it applies to all other competitors at the World Universities Championships and as the rules stands any player competing in a FIDE Online event.
Last edited by Matthew Turner on Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Cheating in chess
That would in effect be tantamount to saying everything ran perfectly, we are happy, but I think a cursory reading of the FIDE statement reveals that is not the case here. For starters there is an 's' missing from the end of the fifth word.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 amI'm not sure I'm following the semantics here but is it possible that FIDE is in effect saying something along the lines of "The decision taken was based on an x% probability that the chap was cheating and FIDE doesn't find this unreasonable although FIDE would have required a higher probability than x% to arrive at the same conclusion" ?