Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Paolo Casaschi]

Online cheating is stupid, it's easy to do and easy to get caught.

Not quite, it’s easy to do but it’s impossible to catch a cheater beyond any reasonable doubt. This is why online platforms have to forgo any reasonable due process and impose unilateral obscure decisions without evidence or right of appeal. This is why they enforce a questionable forgiveness policy in exchange of confessions. It’s all good as long as it is limited to their walled garden.

[NickFaulks]

It’s all good as long as it is limited to their walled garden.

Neatly put, says it all.

[David Sedgwick]

I got three winners of four sections of last year's British Championship banned on chess.com within 48 hours of the event completing. They're still British Champions on the ECF site though. Very little ego-deflation in their cases.

I dislike cheats, both OTB and Online, but I also dislike witch hunters.

It is to the credit of the ECF that they followed due process and did not allow you to influence their decision making.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Some useful questions ftom a guy on Facebook

MGleason, I take it - he's been raising the same questions on the chess.com cheating forum.

[J T Melsom]

I got three winners of four sections of last year's British Championship banned on chess.com within 48 hours of the event completing. They're still British Champions on the ECF site though. Very little ego-deflation in their cases.

I dislike cheats, both OTB and Online, but I also dislike witch hunters.

It is to the credit of the ECF that they followed due process and did not allow you to influence their decision making.

The original version of David's post was materially different to this one. I'm glad it has been modified, but I'm not sure that those who read and reached certain conclusions from the original are well served by such changes which they may not necessarily see. Can we not have a more transparent approach, for example acknowledging that a post has been toned down, even if it doesn't go so far as to admit to toning down because of unsubstantiated comments which I've assumed to be the case in this instance. (other reasons are available as well, which seems to reinforce my point).

[Pete Heaven]

I didn’t see David’s original post. Perhaps it’s just as well.

In response to the modified effort, thank you very much for the sentiment. I cannot say I don’t like you as we have never met. However, I don’t like your response.

Is this really a witch-hunt? The sentence of mine you select for your description of witch-hunt is interesting. These people had just become British Champions in their sections. I reported them for cheating; it was obvious in each case. No, it was beyond obvious, much like 2019-20 OTB case, which was swept under the carpet. Well done to chess.com for acting very promptly but they have had much harder examples to deal with.

All I was doing was part of the job that organisations that are happy to take money from people should be doing as part of holding online events. I was also highlighting a small flavour of the behaviour that some online cheats employ. That’s all. And you dislike me for it? Thank you for making me feel like a serial online cheat should feel but clearly doesn’t.

If the ECF’s due process was following Professor’s Regan’s algorithms, it might be a worry to some that people can cheat in precisely the same way for dozens of games without being flagged. You are right that ECF was not influenced by me but I have no idea how they felt when I subsequently got people banned. Well, they didn’t know, of course.

We are in the early days of linking ACPL’s to FIDE Ratings and looking at the percentage of moves in which cheats hold disadvantageous positions and other ‘zealous amateur’ (Regan) ways of looking at cheating. Early days yes but perhaps we can inch close to a place where the ‘next Hans Niemann’ gets an unreserved clean bill of health (or a ban) without being pilloried by the entire chess world for weeks on end.

Zealous amateurs today but hopefully a robust system will come out of somewhere tomorrow.

This will be my last word on this and I won't be reading any more David, so say what you like about me. Frankly I'm sick of the whole thing. Whistleblowers are not well liked and not just by those they are targeting; many disinterested parties take against them for whatever reason. I've said this before but I really did not expect to be disliked and/or ignored by the organisations I was trying to help.

[David Sedgwick]

The original version of David's post was materially different to this one. I'm glad it has been modified, but I'm not sure that those who read and reached certain conclusions from the original are well served by such changes which they may not necessarily see. Can we not have a more transparent approach, for example acknowledging that a post has been toned down, even if it doesn't go so far as to admit to toning down because of unsubstantiated comments which I've assumed to be the case in this instance. (other reasons are available as well, which seems to reinforce my point).

For the record, here is my original post in full:

I got three winners of four sections of last year's British Championship banned on chess.com within 48 hours of the event completing. They're still British Champions on the ECF site though. Very little ego-deflation in their cases.

I dislike cheats, both OTB and Online, but I also dislike witch hunters.

Chess.com appear to have allowed you to influence their decisions. It is to the credit of the ECF that they followed due process and did not.

Many people amend or delete their posts, whether because of new information, because they are satisfied that they have got things wrong, or simply because they they have thought better of them.

I leave you to explain to Forum readers why you have launched your attack now and chosen me as the target.

[J T Melsom]

I flagged up a short while ago [ Edit August 22] that I had a sense of reading posts and then finding later that they had changed often in material ways, new paragraphs being added for example, normally for amplification. I think Ian Thompson explained the circumstances under which this might happen. Having seen the original post I felt the revision was materially different such that it would alter the view of the reader of the original. I do feel that this approach by you but also by others is not entirely satisfactory and might be seen as evasive in some way. I've picked up on your post as its one of the first I'd noticed since raising the issue a short while ago.

[David Sedgwick]

I didn’t see David’s original post. Perhaps it’s just as well.

In response to the modified effort, thank you very much for the sentiment. I cannot say I don’t like you as we have never met. However, I don’t like your response.

If you are still reading, you can now see my original post in full.

I should have said that I dislike "witch hunting" rather than that I dislike "witch hunters". I too cannot say that I dislike you personally as we have never met.

However, I don't like your approach at all. You admit that you circumvented the official ECF procedures and went directly to Chess.com without informing the ECF.

I note that you have said that you don't wish to read anything more from me. I don't plan to comment further in any case.

Edit: I have now read through your post several times and I am prepared to accept that, in your case, your intentions were honourable.

[Paul Cooksey]

It’s all good as long as it is limited to their walled garden.

Neatly put, says it all.

What FIDE thinks its jurisdiction is/ should be is not clear to me. FIDE rated games would make sense to me, but I don't know.

[JustinHorton]

You admit that you circumvented the official ECF procedures and went directly to Chess.com without informing the ECF.

Why would this be unacceptable

[David Sedgwick]

You admit that you circumvented the official ECF procedures and went directly to Chess.com without informing the ECF.

Why would this be unacceptable

Because participants in the Championships were specifically asked not to do that. No sporting event can operate on the basis that people can bypass the official referees and choose their own.

In the early days of the pandemic, I fought hard to ensure that the ECF's procedures gave some degree of protection from over zealous action by the platforms.

[JustinHorton]

But he appears to have acted after the event, not during it.

[David Sedgwick]

But he appears to have acted after the event, not during it.

Yes, but his intention was still to get Chess.com to take action which the ECF did not consider to be justified.

I have withdrawn any negative allegation regarding Pete Heaven's motives. I continue to regard his actions as inappropriate.

I have received private messages disagreeing with that view. It was these that led me to edit my original post.

[Matt Bridgeman]

But he appears to have acted after the event, not during it.

Yes, but his intention was still to get Chess.com to take action which the ECF did not consider to be justified.

I have withdrawn any negative allegation regarding Pete Heaven's motives. I continue to regard his actions as inappropriate.

I have received private messages disagreeing with that view. It was these that led me to edit my original post.

Pete Heaven is undoubtedly one of the unsung heroes who did try to do something positive about the rising tsunami of English online cheating during the Covid years. Usually his efforts were met either with a wall of silence or total indifference, which I also see as inappropriate to put it mildly!