Cheating in chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:18 pm

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.

Simon Rogers
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:30 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Simon Rogers » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:27 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:18 pm
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.
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
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:36 pm

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.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:45 pm

"Statement on the Fair Play decisions at the FIDE World University Championship"

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.

Wadih Khoury
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Wadih Khoury » 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.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:37 pm

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.
I don't think that that is the position that they are embracing, but the actual position is even odder.

"We are disqualifying you from this event, but we are not saying that you cheated."

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Angus French » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:44 pm

I notice that, while published on on the FIDE website, the statement is not attributed to any person or group of people.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pm

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.

Wadih Khoury
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Wadih Khoury » Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:00 pm

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.
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
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:21 pm

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.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:03 am

Matthew Turner wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pm
FIDE might be saying, "The regulations were followed correctly and no further action is required". This is, I think, a perfectly defendable position.
I think that there are two distinct issues here.

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.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:20 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:03 am
Matthew Turner wrote:
Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pm
FIDE might be saying, "The regulations were followed correctly and no further action is required". This is, I think, a perfectly defendable position.
I think that there are two distinct issues here.

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.
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.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 am

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" ?

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:53 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 am
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" ?
Roger,
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.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Cheating in chess

Post by Matthew Turner » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:01 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:00 am
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" ?
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.

Post Reply