Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Paul Cooksey]

Dlugy

I thought when Carlsenchess.com took their original pop at Max Dlugy that they might have been well advised to stick to softer targets. He doesn't say what he intends to do next, but I don't expect this to be the end.

I personally believe Carlsen's recent behaviour better explained by him being irresponsible than wanting to exercise power over others. But none of us know.

It is strange chess.com leaked correspondence with Dlugy. I find him unsympathetic, but I can't see why they felt the need to do it.

[Jon Tait]

To understand the suspicions of the top players better, consider the following storyline:

Personally I think the whole notion of "cheating" in relationships is ridiculous, especially in marriage. That you can now only ever have sex with one person for the rest of your life...

Rather than confrontation and denial, Romeo and Juliet need to have an honest talk about their needs and desires. Maybe open things up. Set proper rules and suchlike. If Romeo can't deal with being a primary partner, instead of an exclusive one, perhaps they do need to split up.

Anyway, I reject the analogy on its own grounds. Please try again

[Mick Norris]

The best thing to have come out of the disclosure of Niemann's serial cheating ( 100+ games!) is the clarification that there is no real difference between online engine cheating and otb engine cheating. Cheating online to steal prize money or prestigious results is equivalent to doing so otb, but easier to accomplish. No longer can perpetrators somewhat bizarrely plead ' It was only online, m'lud '.

Hi Keith

I think there are a variety of opinions on this, maybe even a split on it between professionals and amateurs, although I just think cheating is cheating myself, that's not been something that I've had everyone in Manchester agreeing with, let alone elsewhere

What I am interested in, though, is how you think OTB cheating may be happening; do you think there's an accomplice onsite or off, or do you think there's use of technology which allows players to cheat without help?

I'd like to know what we were looking for, in the views of the professionals

[JustinHorton]

I thought when Carlsenchess.com took their original pop at Max Dlugy that they might have been well advised to stick to softer targets. He doesn't say what he intends to do next, but I don't expect this to be the end.

One interesting aspect of his screed is that he's the first person I've come across who's said "yes, I gave chesscom their confession, but in fact I didn't do it:". Now personally I think - for obvious reasons - that this is not the best way to go about things (yes, I've seen his reasons) but nevertheless it does potentially threaten chesscom's whole way of doing things, and since that depended on a pledge of confidentiality which they and not he chose to break, we may very well conclude that it's their own fault.

[Roger de Coverly]

do you think there's use of technology which allows players to cheat without help?

The case at the British Championship Congress appears to have been the use of a mobile phone. That's technology which is easy enough to use and doesn't have to involve collaborators. Given that their possession and use is banned during play, how was it that it went officially undetected for almost the whole tournament?

Perhaps a point needs to be made that frequent unobserved absences from the board may be regarded with suspicion.

[Mike Gunn]

The best thing to have come out of the disclosure of Niemann's serial cheating ( 100+ games!) is the clarification that there is no real difference between online engine cheating and otb engine cheating. Cheating online to steal prize money or prestigious results is equivalent to doing so otb, but easier to accomplish. No longer can perpetrators somewhat bizarrely plead ' It was only online, m'lud '.

Hi Keith

I think there are a variety of opinions on this, maybe even a split on it between professionals and amateurs,

Yes, that is my observation too. About 50% of the amateurs I know never moved to online during the lockdowns, many expressing the view "it's not real chess". The ECF's penalties for online cheating are much lower than those for OTB cheating which partly reflects the nature of the evidence cited in each case (and where it comes from) but, arguably, also reflects how seriously the two offences are viewed. I can, however, understand why those who earn money from online chess regard online cheating as more serious than (perhaps) the rest of us.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Keith,

Nobody appears to be condoning online cheating, the debate, at the moment, is should it become an official ruling or law that a player banned from an online site for cheating also receive some form of OTB punishment.
I’m of the opinion no it should not, others, to bring back the bard, ‘want their pound of flesh.’

The logistics (800 a day banned accounts for cheating ) alone makes this non-feasible. Someone has to choose who gets banned and who goes free.
However, as I added earlier, organisers can always refuse who they let in to their OTB tournaments.
That is their personal choice, it is their tournament. You won’t hear any complaints from me about it.

As for online chess being as Mike Gunn has heard, '"it's not real chess" I'm in that school as well.
It's a good substitute for the real thing and it has not turned the game into a lottery, the good players still win (unless of course, and the odds are much higher online than OTB, they meet a cheat.) but, all I can say it's not OTB chess and there is where my true love lay. (I tried to fit the bard in again with something about comparing it to a summers day. Fail.)

[John Townsend]

"Sweet lord, you play me false.
No, my dear'st love, I would not for the world."

[JustinHorton]

Nobody appears to be condoning online cheating

Well apart from Stephen Moss both in the Guardian and on here

[NickFaulks]

Perhaps a point needs to be made that frequent unobserved absences from the board may be regarded with suspicion.

I have believed this since I was first cheated against ( by a confirmed offender ) seven years ago.

When I made that point on this forum, I was subjected to considerable derision. Did I not understand that the bladders of 12 year olds require them to leave the playing hall immediately after every move?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

Maybe I should have said '...in this thread.'
I was actually thinking about that episode you mentioned, I'll pop back onto that thread. (I have to stay online as I'm expecting an important email so might as well hawk the forums.)

Before I go, my love for OTB play is only classical OTB. Blitz and Rapid also fall outside of 'real chess' IMO. (I'm a pure chess snob).
Looks like I'm not alone. Yesterday I picked up Dave Smerdon's 'Swindles' for £3.00! read a bit of it on the bus home.
page 69. Carlsen v Wes So (The GOAT v another good player) before discussing the position Dave starts it off with;
"While only a rapid game..."

The game Dave discusses is https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1879645 and the hidden resource is mention on the 2nd post down.

[Nick Ivell]

To me online chess is skittles, neither more nor less.

But I can see that professionals playing for serious money might take a different view.

Incidentally, I have always hated the word 'cheating' in relationships too. I overhear schoolkids talking about cheating in that context - they are perhaps 14 years old!

In my view, it is a verb which encourages a histrionic approach to relationships.

I realise this wasn't Keith's point though.

[NickFaulks]

To me online chess is skittles, neither more nor less.

But I can see that professionals playing for serious money might take a different view.

Yes, but that is no reason for it to be allowed to mess up the game we take seriously.

[JustinHorton]

The amount of online chess in the world must exceed the amount of OTB chess by a fantastic margin, and ditto the number of online players.

[JustinHorton]

Incidentally Liang discusses the opening of his game here and there's nothing about Anand's game at all!