Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Pete Heaven]

Sorry folks, I've just been directed back for an encore.

Just to clear up a couple of things.

I approached the ECF numerous times, more or less the last time being to report someone who had been banned 3 times in the space of 6 months and had 15/15 with his current account. No action was taken and at this point I realised that no action would ever be taken. In fact, I was told never to contact them again and I have upheld my part of this bargain.

Finally, I wasn't a participant in the 2021 online British Championships, as David implies. In fact I am not a victim of any online cheating, aside from the inevitable, occasional blitz game. My motivations for being involved in this weren't based on any personal animosity or defeats. Most of the people I reported I had never met.

[David Sedgwick]

... I wasn't a participant in the 2021 online British Championships, as David implies.

I was aware of that. I should have made it clear that I felt that what was appropriate for competitors should also apply to third parties.

In the interests of fairness, whilst not breaking any confidences, I should report that I have had a further private message disagreeing with me and supporting you.

[NickFaulks]

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.

If you are saying that anyone caught cheating in FIDE rated games should be restricted from playing in future FIDE rated games, that makes sense to me. Is that what you are saying?

[Geoff Chandler]

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.

Hi Paolo,
Yes a stealth cheat will not be part of the 800 a day chess.com are throwing off their site but '...beyond reasonable doubt' must also stretch to OTB games. The mood appears to be 'they cheated online then Without A Doubt they must also cheat OTB so let's give them an OTB ban without any evidence just to be on the safe side.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Peter,

I am not defending online cheating I just do not consider it a serious offence against the OTB game. Serious enough to warrant an OTB ban. A GM OTB cheating? No excuse. Remove their title, ban them for 5 years....longer!

You said; 'However, people who are innocent online will not cheat OTB.'
There I'm thinking people who cheat OTB will not cheat online. You have to get into the mindset of an OTB cheat. They do not want to attract OTB attention. Being banned online will mean, invariably, their OTB games will be looked at. Also the whispering campaign against them will have players, arbiters etc looking at them a bit more closely. That is the very last thing an OTB cheat wants. They possibly won't even play online or if they do they would never cheat.

And taking the 2+2=5 step further. (caught cheating online = also cheating OTB so ban them) I've explained why an OTB cheat would be very foolish to attempt to cheat online. So now everyone who does not cheat online must be cheating OTB. It's this kind of thinking 'in reverse' is why online cheating bans must be kept away from OTB events. The two are not linked.
Some say 'a cheat is a cheat' and an online cheat will cheat OTB. But banning them from OTB games is like locking up someone up in prison because of a crime people think they may commit in the future.

[JustinHorton]

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.

Who cares? Why is he not within his rights to do that?

... I wasn't a participant in the 2021 online British Championships, as David implies.

I was aware of that. I should have made it clear that I felt that what was appropriate for competitors should also apply to third parties.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I have withdrawn any negative allegation regarding Pete Heaven's motives.

Why did you think it an appropriate approach to question his motives in the first place? Why would you take that kind of line?

[Matt Bridgeman]

Why did he resign?

For reasons that we all understand.

In a slight twist apparently the rapidplay victim was Ben Finegold in a final round 2017 Pro League match game against Magnus' Norwegian team;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y4LcvRjm8E

[NickFaulks]

However, people who are innocent online will not cheat OTB.

I missed this until Geoff mentioned it. It strikes me as untrue and dangerous.

Is it really being said that "I've never cheated online" should be a valid defence against an accusation of OTB cheating?

I got three winners of four sections of last year's British Championship banned on chess.com

This did draw my attention but I let it go. I find the wording unfortunate - it leaves the impression that Pete regards getting players banned as a competitive sport, in the same way that most of us regard playing chess, so as I might say "I won three games last week".

[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.

Who cares? Why is he not within his rights to do that?

... I wasn't a participant in the 2021 online British Championships, as David implies.

I was aware of that. I should have made it clear that I felt that what was appropriate for competitors should also apply to third parties.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I have withdrawn any negative allegation regarding Pete Heaven's motives.

Why did you think it an appropriate approach to question his motives in the first place? Why would you take that kind of line?

Justin, I must have missed your appointment as Chief Prosecutor for this Forum. Perhaps you could post your letter of appointment on here so that all members can be made aware of your status.

On your first two questions, I am entitled to my opinion.

On your third question, I have accepted that I should have been more circumspect.

In an earlier event, several players who did not meet the ECF standard of proof for a ban were banned by Chess.com following a complaint from someone whose motives appear to have been less disinterested that Pete Heaven's.

I have always taken a firm line that the ECF and the 4NCL should have procedures in place to protect players from the consequences of platform bans which, although not exactly arbitrary, do not meet the comfortable standard satisfaction of proof stipulated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I would have thought that you of all people would understand that.

I don't plan to comment further on this matter.

[JustinHorton]

Justin, I must have missed your appointment as Chief Prosecutor for this Forum

Absolutely fantastic David

[Roger de Coverly]

In an earlier event, several players who did not meet the ECF standard of proof for a ban were banned by Chess.com

There have been stories that players had been banned by chess.com or lichess for looking at emails during games, looking at other games in a match, or having someone on the same IP address follow games in progress. I don't know whether I believe these stories beyond reasonable doubt, but balance of probabilities that they are true seems possible. Without an explantion of the accusations leading to a ban, you don't know.

Thinking about it, dual screening as Hans was accused would be a natural thing to do in a team match. You play on one screen and have the other three games on a second monitor. If that's against chess.com's terms and conditions, it may just indicate that their terms and conditions are not fit for purpose if you want to run a team match.

Apart for money from spectators, why is that the chess servers present real time analysis of games in progress? It's just makes life too easy for those who would seek external assistance.

[JustinHorton]

Apart for money from spectators, why is that the chess servers present real time analysis of games in progress? It's just makes life too easy for those who would seek external assistance.

Not sure I follow this - unless I misunderstand the question, it's free?

[Geoff Chandler]

Why did he resign?

For reasons that we all understand.

In a slight twist apparently the rapidplay victim was Ben Finegold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y4LcvRjm8E

Thanks Matt,

Now all becomes clear. Of all the people to cheat online against!
He resigned because he has gone into hiding under a different identity.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not sure I follow this - unless I misunderstand the question, it's free?

.

chess.com sell memberships. Would a withdrawal of live games or live games with analysis reduce the appeal?

[Geoff Chandler]

Thinking about it, dual screening as Hans was accused would be a natural thing to do in a team match. You play on one screen and have the other three games on a second monitor.

Hi Roger,
If that is all that was going on then fair enough. I expect, or hope, chess.com when looking at high level cases that can have a serious effect on that player, exhaust all reasonable possibilities and give the benefit of doubt as to why they are NOT cheating before banning a player.
But if after a the screen swap a move was played a few seconds later and this pattern presented itself during the game. A screen swap, seconds later a move, then it's a good bet the player concerned was at at.
However I'm pretty sure an experienced online cheat would use a mobile app so multi-tasking could not be picked up and they would break up their time in between moves so a cheating pattern could not be established or detected that way.