Carlsen resigns on move 2

[Geoff Chandler]

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.

Hi Nick,

I agree, it really all depends on how seriously you take it and what level you want play at online. But if there is money for the professional players then I really am glad for them and can see why they take breaking a sites T & C's very seriously because that is theft.

I like a wee flutter every now and then but the idea of playing chess online for money does not appeal, nor does paying a sub to chess.com. I've wondered how the players get paid their winnings by chess.com. I'm not into giving my bank details to a web site that bans 800 cheats a day, because it must be attracting 800 cheats a day... That is a lot of cheats to be running around loose on a web site. If they cheat at chess what else are they getting up to?

[John Upham]

Another take on the same old story:

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/graham-carte ... 00017.html

[Keith Arkell]

Hi Mick, regarding online cheating each site has it's rules and I guess the honest thing to do is to abide by those rules.

How is otb cheating done? I have no idea! I am at the basic level of detection whereby if my opponent starts going to the loo every move then I start to feel uneasy. There have been a few opponents who clearly found a way of doing it while remaining at the board. I can usually tell by their body language as well as their moves, but, just like Magnus, if I say anything I risk getting into trouble.

There are some who just wander to where the parents are sitting with their laptops open. Of course this isn't the kind of crude cheating which accusers of Hans are talking about. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are stories which more and more of us have heard, but they may or may not amount to anything. For that we need to await the outcome of the FIDE investigation.

Hi Mike (Gunn) You are absolutely right. Why would eg MIckey Adams, Bogdan Lalic, Mark Hebden or myself enter the British Online Championship if our opponents were allowed to cheat? If they get away with it ( which the Greek guy 'giyl' nearly managed to do) then they succeed in wasting 9 days of our lives.

I congratulate Pete Heaven for his efforts in drawing the ECF's attention to cases of online cheating, while at the same time reporting to the sites. I understand the dilemma the Federation finds itself in, but I think at the moment they err too far on the side of caution (though I appreciate that that is easy for me to say).

Geoff (Chandler) talks about the fairness or otherwise of an online ban being matched by an otb ban. My view is that it would be unfair to bring into play historical cases of online cheating, as judged by the sites, and retrospectively dole out punishments. Instead how about this? In future players sign up to Lichess and Chess.com with the agreement that if they are caught cheating on more than one occasion then they must agree for their names to be openly listed. There is no official penalising of those players by FIDE, but organisers can make up their own minds whether they invite or allow those players into their otb ( or online) events.

[Mick Norris]

Hi Mick, regarding online cheating each site has it's rules and I guess the honest thing to do is to abide by those rules.

How is otb cheating done? I have no idea! I am at the basic level of detection whereby if my opponent starts going to the loo every move then I start to feel uneasy. There have been a few opponents who clearly found a way of doing it while remaining at the board. I can usually tell by their body language as well as their moves, but, just like Magnus, if I say anything I risk getting into trouble.

There are some who just wander to where the parents are sitting with their laptops open. Of course this isn't the kind of crude cheating which accusers of Hans are talking about. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are stories which more and more of us have heard, but they may or may not amount to anything. For that we need to await the outcome of the FIDE investigation.

Thanks Keith

So, for OTB cheating, as well as the ways we have already seen (consultations with others with laptops, looking at phones in the toilet etc), we are looking at smart cheating using sophisticated techniques

For interest, have arbiters been helpful if and when you have brought concerns to their notice?

[LawrenceCooper]

In Titled Tuesday last night in round 10 the following "game" was played: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5926745 ... pr-It-g4-g Mamedov, who was white, had just beaten Hikaru and was leading the tournament on 8/9 with two rounds to go. This "win" helped Magnus to win the tournament with 9.5/11.

[NickFaulks]

My view is that it would be unfair to bring into play historical cases of online cheating, as judged by the sites, and retrospectively dole out punishments. Instead how about this? In future players sign up to Lichess and Chess.com with the agreement that if they are caught cheating on more than one occasion then they must agree for their names to be openly listed. There is no official penalising of those players by FIDE, but organisers can make up their own minds whether they invite or allow those players into their otb ( or online) events.

This is remarkable, that is the view I have been expressing for some time - in fact, I would be willing to go further and have them officially banned. Players would then know where they stand and could balance the benefits of playing on these sites against the risks of being wrongly convicted and having their careers ruined.

Personally, I wouldn't touch the sites with a ten foot pole, but that would be my my decision.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Keith,

That is the direction I was swinging. No official ban from FIDE but reminded people of a potential deterrent. Organisers can decide who plays in their tournaments. If it became well known certain players were not receiving invites any more or getting their entries to OTB tournaments 'lost' then that would, I think, make a lot players think twice.

[Mick Norris]

At the top level, yes players get invited, or not, and this would work

What about players entering the local congress? If the organisers turn them away, some of them will kick off

[Roger de Coverly]

If it became well known certain players were not receiving invites any more or getting their entries to OTB tournaments 'lost' then that would, I think, make a lot players think twice.

Organisers or organisations doing this would need to have confidence in the robustness of a platform's methods and be prepared to defend against any legal challenge either of the damage to the excluded players' reputations or to their potential earnings.

[Paul Cooksey]

Seems to me a good solution above a certain level

But as far as I know, no obligation to give a real name for untitled players. As well as the practical problems, I don't think anything stops me setting up an account in the name of someone I don't like to get them banned.

[Matt Mackenzie]

In Titled Tuesday last night in round 10 the following "game" was played: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5926745 ... pr-It-g4-g Mamedov, who was white, had just beaten Hikaru and was leading the tournament on 8/9 with two rounds to go. This "win" helped Magnus to win the tournament with 9.5/11.

So what is the story behind that (if any)?

[LawrenceCooper]

In Titled Tuesday last night in round 10 the following "game" was played: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5926745 ... pr-It-g4-g Mamedov, who was white, had just beaten Hikaru and was leading the tournament on 8/9 with two rounds to go. This "win" helped Magnus to win the tournament with 9.5/11.

So what is the story behind that (if any)?

I've no idea, I'm not aware of any history between the two. Does he have a connection to Hans? I don't know that either.

[IM Jack Rudd]

For what it's worth, organizers do have options, such as this one:

"If you are banned from an internet chess site for fair play reasons, we may require you to put up a good behaviour bond at the start of the tournament. If you are found cheating during the tournament, you will forfeit it."

[Graham Borrowdale]

In Titled Tuesday last night in round 10 the following "game" was played: https://www.chess.com/game/live/5926745 ... pr-It-g4-g Mamedov, who was white, had just beaten Hikaru and was leading the tournament on 8/9 with two rounds to go. This "win" helped Magnus to win the tournament with 9.5/11.

So what is the story behind that (if any)?

I've no idea, I'm not aware of any history between the two. Does he have a connection to Hans? I don't know that either.

More to the point, why did Carlsen play 1…g5? Maybe Mamedov was insulted.

[NickFaulks]

He played 1.g4 or 1...g5 in every game.