Cheating in chess

[John Swain]

I’m reading an entertaining and thought-provoking book by Evan Davis at the moment which I thoroughly recommend: Post-Truth: peak bull**it and what we can do about it. In that context and spirit …

"..... British Online Fair Play Regulations – v1-1
9. Other (All Events)
Neither ECF nor any of its officials shall have any liability to any player in tort (whether for defamation or any other tort), in contract or otherwise howsoever in relation to or arising from its anti-cheating/fair play arrangements, including the operation of these guidelines. The foregoing shall not limit liability for personal physical injury or death."

"4NCL Online Fair Play Guidelines
8. Other
The 4NCL, its officials, members of the Fair Play Panel and members of the Appeals Committee shall have no liability to any player in tort (whether for defamation or any other tort), in contract or otherwise howsoever in relation to or arising from its anti-cheating/fair play arrangements, including the operation of these guidelines. The foregoing shall not limit liability for personal injury or death."

There are a number of professional lawyers who post on this Forum. Their thoughts on these clauses would be enlightening!

One view I have heard expressed by a recently qualified lawyer is that such clauses, understandably designed to deter vexatious litigation, carry little weight. Therefore, someone who has been wrongly found guilty of cheating and whose reputation has been sullied should not be deterred from seeking legal redress by such a smokescreen, whether "signed" as a condition of entry or not. In other regulations, there is much emphasis on secrecy/confidentiality - no naming of the alleged guilty players by either their opponents or officials – which may suggest that these clauses are not as watertight as they purport to be.

[Neil Graham]

Your statement below is, though, open to misinterpretation in the way that Neil understood as it was a response to a comment about arbiters. I thought the same as Neil on first reading but then changed my mind and decided you probably meant 25 players in total suspected of cheating, not 1 out of 25 arbiters.

Thank you, Ian. I now realise the ambiguity.

My apologies to Neil and to anyone else who was misled.

Thank you Ian and David for the clarification which clears up the statement.

[Roger de Coverly]

One view I have heard expressed by a recently qualified lawyer is that such clauses, understandably designed to deter vexatious litigation, carry little weight.

One might ask whether the near identity of the wording indicates there was collusion between the 4NCL and the ECF in the drafting. Or given that coincidence or otherwise underpins the detection methods used by Ken Regan and others, what are the chances that two lawyers acting independently would come up with the same form of words?

[JustinHorton]

My understanding is that you can't sign away your statutory rights and an agreement which attempts to make you do so will have no standing.

[Ian Thompson]

One might ask whether the near identity of the wording indicates there was collusion between the 4NCL and the ECF in the drafting. Or given that coincidence or otherwise underpins the detection methods used by Ken Regan and others, what are the chances that two lawyers acting independently would come up with the same form of words?

One might also ask why communication between the 4NCL and the ECF would be collusion and not a more positive knowledge sharing. I wouldn't bother asking why the two statements are almost the same when I know that several officials of the 4NCL are also officials of the ECF.

[Matthew Turner]

Where is the like button

[Tim Spanton]

I have been hesitating to out myself as an ECF arbiter playing in the 4NCL as the cloud of suspicion must surely now fall on me. However, my playing record (played 1, lost 1) and general standard of play probably lets me off the hook.

So you would deny cheating by throwing your game(s) to lower your online rating?

[Mick Norris]

One might ask whether the near identity of the wording indicates there was collusion between the 4NCL and the ECF in the drafting. Or given that coincidence or otherwise underpins the detection methods used by Ken Regan and others, what are the chances that two lawyers acting independently would come up with the same form of words?

One might also ask why communication between the 4NCL and the ECF would be collusion and not a more positive knowledge sharing. I wouldn't bother asking why the two statements are almost the same when I know that several officials of the 4NCL are also officials of the ECF.

The MCF policy is pretty much copied from this, so hopefully whoever did the original is correct

There's no intention to deprive players of rights, but equally, there are not going to be any chess events if organisers aren't reasonably able to limit the risks

[Kevin Thurlow]

"One view I have heard expressed by a recently qualified lawyer is that such clauses, understandably designed to deter vexatious litigation, carry little weight."

I have heard similar views expressed. You normally get these things at car parks, where after you have parked, you get a ticket which says, if your car is damaged, we are not liable. Well, if you're negligent, you are liable. They hope to fend off a few people. Others will be discouraged as it's expensive to take legal action, and the court might make a random decision if you do.

[Jacques Parry]

You can validly agree that you will not have a legal claim which, but for the agreement, you would have had. There are certain exceptions, but I doubt that any of them are relevant here.

[Mark D Podlesak]

Do folk really want no kind of cheat detection whether online or OTB? It seems from all the comments I have read, with a lot of bitterness, that many seemingly want a free for all (I don't really believe that, but that's how it comes across). The game would be destroyed. It won't be long before technological inventions arrive if not already such as hidden/ body inserted computer chips that players will use. So it will destroy any meaningful competition in OTB chess , hence the games future. So we need to stick with this anti cheating Software as one of the weapons against cheating, even if the humans checking over cheat probabilities get something wrong very occasionally.
I do feel it's a tragedy for anyone flagged who are innocent, their name is damaged which I imagine there can't be many worse things than that.
I personally can't see anyone below master level remembering computer preparation going 20-30 moves deep especially as your opponent will be playing completely different moves from the computers moves you have so called prepared for.
Big news in Shropshire Chess, which is reported on their web site. In the Shropshire news item that appears in the Shropshire Star Newspaper as a weekly item during the chess season. It's Rapid play Team event on Lichess has closed one of the players accounts. Playing through the games No mistakes, No Mistakes, 5 Inaccuracies over 8 Rapid games against good local players. Also every move (literally except a couple) was Stockfish top 2-3 moves.
Following this Cheating subject (as with several) it is a pity that folk can't have more respect for others comments, even when we disagree surely we can do so in a respectful way. I feel many decide not to join in discussions for fear of others response if they disagree. This is the main chess forum for the UK so lets make it a place where all chess followers want to come.

[Neil Graham]

Neil,
I don't think the 4NCL are trying to cast aspersions against arbiters or team managers, but I do think they are trying to send a message. In season 1, the 4NCL said that the majority of those caught cheating were 'youngsters'. It was therefore possible to conclude that the only people caught were inept and naive and if you were a bit smarter you would get away with it. As time goes on there is a changing demographic to those caught cheating, either because the 4NCL builds up more evidence, or cheats get addicted to cheating and indulge in it more often.
I think it is good that the 4NCL has sent this signal and I hope that those who are cheating reflect on what they are doing.

I agree with everything you've said Matthew. My gripe here was that the 4NCL Fair Play report specifically mentioned two small groups (ECF Arbiters & Team Captains) who could be readily identified; I didn't find that particularly helpful especially as they weren't in the "banned" category.

[JustinHorton]

Do folk really want no kind of cheat detection whether online or OTB? It seems from all the comments I have read, with a lot of bitterness, that many seemingly want a free for all (I don't really believe that, but that's how it comes across). ......

....Following this Cheating subject (as with several) it is a pity that folk can't have more respect for others comments, even when we disagree surely we can do so in a respectful way.

[JustinHorton]

.
Big news in Shropshire Chess, which is reported on their web site. In the Shropshire news item that appears in the Shropshire Star Newspaper as a weekly item during the chess season. It's Rapid play Team event on Lichess has closed one of the players accounts.

The relevant item appears here (entry for 20 January). Curiously, although the player's account does indeed seem to be suspended, it does not appear to be marked as such on the (Android) app.

[Matthew Turner]

.
Big news in Shropshire Chess, which is reported on their web site. In the Shropshire news item that appears in the Shropshire Star Newspaper as a weekly item during the chess season. It's Rapid play Team event on Lichess has closed one of the players accounts.

The relevant item appears here (entry for 20 January). Curiously, although the player's account does indeed seem to be suspended, it does not appear to be marked as such on the (Android) app.

There is quite a bit conjecture there, the account says "This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service"
The report says "An investigation by online chess platform Lichess into those games and several others played online - a total of 13 - detected the hand of computer assistance and Lichess suspended his account"