English Chess Forum

LawrenceCooper wrote:One of the arguments put forward for suspecting Sandu was that someone of her age couldn't possibly have such a result. It would be interesting to hear what those putting forward that opinion (eg the President of the ACP) make of Zhukova's 8.5/9 finish.

Normally there is nothing the ACP President likes better than a malevolent accusation of cheating, but it may make a difference that Zhukova is an ACP Premium Member.

NickFaulks wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:One of the arguments put forward for suspecting Sandu was that someone of her age couldn't possibly have such a result. It would be interesting to hear what those putting forward that opinion (eg the President of the ACP) make of Zhukova's 8.5/9 finish.

Normally there is nothing the ACP President likes better than a malevolent accusation of cheating, but it may make a difference that Zhukova is an ACP Premium Member.

Indeed, as is Kiril Georgiev (see Bulgarian thread).

The FIDE's ACC now appear to be investigating the accusers.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ement.html

in which

The ACC wishes to reaffirm that good or even outstanding performance by a player can never in itself be the basis for an accusation or complaint,

What about their fabled screening program which can supposedly detect cheating from the quality of moves played relative to a player's rating?

Roger de Coverly wrote:
What about their fabled screening program which can supposedly detect cheating from the quality of moves played relative to a player's rating?

It has been clear for some time that they are in retreat from that.

LawrenceCooper wrote:http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-ethic ... to-zhukova

As noted earlier, these punishments are hardly draconian. However, Ethics have put down a marker that such behaviour is unacceptable and may be treated more harshly in future.

This possibly won't deter Zhukova herself, who looks like a hard case, but others may be more reluctant to get dragged along.

NickFaulks wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-ethic ... to-zhukova

As noted earlier, these punishments are hardly draconian. However, Ethics have put down a marker that such behaviour is unacceptable and may be treated more harshly in future.

This possibly won't deter Zhukova herself, who looks like a hard case, but others may be more reluctant to get dragged along.

It couldn't really be treated less harshly than this decision. Two years and a token "don't do it again or we might do something" seems a very lame marker.

From Facebook:

Emil Sutovsky "ACP will issue its statement tonight or tomorrow." Yesterday at 13:50

Finally:

ACP is expressing its concern in regards to the decision of FIDE's Ethics Commission on the so-called "Sandu Case".
The decision of Ethics Commission comes almost two years after the events took place, and the chess community may have forgotten the important details of the case. To remind you: the FIDE anti-cheating regulations approved in 2014 foresaw the possibility to fill the complaint against a suspected player. Yes – you could suspect a player and fill an official complaint. There is a special downloadable form, that should be filled by the complaining player – unfortunately it was not done according to the regulations, and that is definitely the fault of signatories.
However, ACP is convinced that the burden to secure a player-friendly environment and to properly advise on these delicate matters lies foremost on the organizers and arbiters of the event. And that was clearly mishandled in Chakvi. As a result, the complaint came in a form of a signed letter addressed to the officials only. It was not rejected, and instead of advising to use the special form, the letter was published openly, creating further damages.
In a nutshell, the mistakes of the organizers and arbiters played a very significant role in leading to very unfortunate consequences. Some may even say it was mainly their mistakes that exploded the whole situation.
That's why we strongly disagree with the decision of the Ethics Commission, that blamed and sanctioned the players, hardly mentioning the unfortunate role of the officials.
In fact, ECU itself realized it should adjust and improve on these issues: as a result of this awareness, all the necessary measures were taken in the recent Women's European Championship in Riga 2017, to the satisfaction of all involved parties. In a safe environment, all players feel safer.
More importantly, ACP further believes that the current anti-cheating provisions fail to achieve the goal as we witness more and more cases of computer-assisted cheating. As in other sports (football, ice hockey, table tennis...), players should be allowed to express their suspicions by addressing the arbiters and organizers – albeit in a proper way. We must strike a balance here and work out the details and limits, thus not opening the Pandora box of witch-hunting. Not everybody will like this solution, but we see it as a lesser evil.
It is clear to us that there is a strong need for better regulations and ACP is ready to lead the way and work together with FIDE in achieving this objective that is vital for the survival of our beloved game.
ACP Board

I do find it amazing that the ACP are blaming the officials so strongly, given the Chief Arbiter and Chief Organiser are both ACP members. I'm not massively clued up on the inner-workings of trade unions, but I don't normally see British trade unions writing public statements criticising their own membership.

I find it incredible that there seems to be no thought or care as to how horrible the situation must be for the person accused. If any of the players had an ounce of human decency they would have apologised by now. But now we have the head of the players encouraging such behaviour.

LawrenceCooper wrote:But now we have the head of the players encouraging such behaviour.

It's hardly his first offence. I have suggested that British ACP members might wish to protest about their President's extraordinary accusations against John Cooper, but failed to find a single one who was bothered.

NickFaulks wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:But now we have the head of the players encouraging such behaviour.

It's hardly his first offence. I have suggested that British ACP members might wish to protest about their President's extraordinary accusations against John Cooper, but failed to find a single one who was bothered.

Remind me......

LawrenceCooper wrote:
Remind me......

Event "Olympiad"] [Site "Haifa (Israel)"] [Date "1976.??.??"] [Round "13"] [White "Cooper John G (WLS)"] [Black "Commons Kim S (USA)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "E31"] [WhiteElo "2351"] [BlackElo "2420"] [Annotator ""] [Source ""] [Remark ""] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 c5 6.d5 d6 7.e3 g5 8.Bg3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Qf6 10.Rc1 exd5 11.cxd5 Bf5 12.Bd3 Qg6 13.Ke2 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Nd7 15.c4 b5 16.cxb5 a6 17.b6 Nxb6 18.Nf3 Nxg3+ 19.hxg3 Bxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Qxd3+ 21.Kxd3 Nxd5 22.Nxg5 Ke7 23.Ne4 Nb4+ 24.Ke2 Nxa2 25.Rc2 Nb4 26.Rd2 c4 27.Rxd6 f5 28.Rb6 Nd5 29.Rb7+ Ke6 30.Nc5+ Kd6 31.Na4 Kc6 32.Rf7 Rab8 33.Rxf5 Rb4 34.e4 Rxa4 35.Rxd5 Ra2+ 36.Ke3 Ra3+ 37.Kd4 Ra2 38.Ke3 Ra3+ 39.Kd4 Ra2 40.Rc5+ Kd6 41.Rf5 Ke7 1/2-1/2

The query is to why White agreed to a draw at move 42 instead of playing the probably winning 42. Kxc4.

Checking it with an engine, it appears White has to find the idea Rh1-h5 with the follow up of Rf5-a5 to get behind the otherwise dangerous a pawn.

I don't know whether it was 41 Rf5 or 41. .. Ke7 that had been the sealed move, but .. Ke7 was apparently a surprise and Cooper was already running short of time.