British Championship Congress 2022

[Richard Bates]

What I will say is that the arbiters were taking the accusations seriously from the point they were raised, but recognised that they'd have to tread carefully and it would be difficult to establish guilt.

Really? The account given above seems to imply that the player was going to the toilet after almost every move. If true, how difficult would it really be to establish "guilt"? Rules are pretty clear - phone on person = automatic loss. Doesn't seem such a huge barrier to overcome. Point being that there is no need to establish actual evidence of cheating. Just possession of a phone in contravention of the rules.

Very different to a situation where a player might be receiving forms of outside assistance via third parties, and you might need to leverage in additional evidence on quality of play/computer matching etc (of course if one is cheating via basic method of using phone, then live board coverage etc is irrelevant).

[Kevin Thurlow]

"One player in the 2020 Glorney events, even got zero’d out for cheating, cost their national team the championship and was selected basically a month later for the hybrid European Youth Championships. To my mind this type of undue leniency may have led to this situation where dodgy players think, what the hell, I’ll just cheat in the over the board British too!"

Well, yes. I did complain about that and was told by a senior ECF official that as the player wasn't caught cheating at the Euro event that it was perfectly all right. I mildly pointed out that it wasn't. Not only was a cheat not punished, but all honest players who wanted to be selected were penalized by not having a chance of selection. No wonder juniors give up.

[Richard Bates]

Jack, what is or should be the procedure?
I remember in my arbiter training a very big section on anti-cheating, including keeping an eye on people going frequently to the toilet.
I however can't remember what is the procedure if an arbiter has suspicions? Was it a case of informing the chief arbiter?

I would say yes.

The Chief Arbiter should then institute close monitoring of the player, probably by the arbiter who had raised the matter, but not inform more other members of the control team than necessary.

You might also try to expedite the post game analysis by the Game Screening tool, although that does depend on Ken Regan's availability.

As above, i don't understand why this is even necessary in the stated scenario. Seems to me that people have got so used to the importance/necessity of such methods for online events, that they have forgotten that such things are largely unnecessary for overboard play (excepting really sophisticated cheating - hidden headsets, third party assistance etc)

[Richard Bates]

"One player in the 2020 Glorney events, even got zero’d out for cheating, cost their national team the championship and was selected basically a month later for the hybrid European Youth Championships. To my mind this type of undue leniency may have led to this situation where dodgy players think, what the hell, I’ll just cheat in the over the board British too!"

Well, yes. I did complain about that and was told by a senior ECF official that as the player wasn't caught cheating at the Euro event that it was perfectly all right. I mildly pointed out that it wasn't. Not only was a cheat not punished, but all honest players who wanted to be selected were penalized by not having a chance of selection. No wonder juniors give up.

It would be interesting to know the basis for the (apparent) more lenient approaches towards older juniors in particular. And how it compares with what happens in other areas of sporting or other activity (think cheating in exams etc). These are people who should have a basic appreciation of right from wrong and should be capable of being assigned a high degree of responsibility for their actions. Different perhaps with very young kids, especially where there might be highly levels of parental coercion and/or complicity, but that is not the case here.

[Richard Bates]

Anyway, perhaps the moderators could find a way to split off this discussion. It would be nice to have the prospect on focussing more on the chess in the main event(s)

[Ian Thompson]

What I will say is that the arbiters were taking the accusations seriously from the point they were raised, but recognised that they'd have to tread carefully and it would be difficult to establish guilt.

With hindsight, it's easy to say that if a scan had been performed when the player came out of the toilets it's likely a mobile phone would have been detected. That's not a difficult procedure to establish guilt.

An in game scan has a strong implication that the arbiter thinks the player is cheating. I suspect what you're really saying is that arbiters are reluctant to do these scans in case they find nothing and are then uncomfortable with as good as accusing someone of cheating when they weren't. If that is the problem maybe the solution is to make random in game scans anywhere in the playing venue routine for players who've left the playing area.

[Ian Thompson]

This (pre game scans) always happens at events eg. the 4NCL and in my mind is clear example of how the whole thing is often for show and not a serious exercise - since, this 'excuse'/justification is always available. There can be no penalty because there is no crime in having a mobile phone on your person prior to the commencement of the round.

I made this point while being scanned at a recent event. The response was that the scan was protecting me, in case I had inadvertently got a prohibited device on my person.

That explanation is true. It does protect a player from being defaulted through forgetfulness/carelessness. In that case it shouldn't be presented as an anti-cheating measure because it isn't.

[Richard Bates]

This (pre game scans) always happens at events eg. the 4NCL and in my mind is clear example of how the whole thing is often for show and not a serious exercise - since, this 'excuse'/justification is always available. There can be no penalty because there is no crime in having a mobile phone on your person prior to the commencement of the round.

I made this point while being scanned at a recent event. The response was that the scan was protecting me, in case I had inadvertently got a prohibited device on my person.

That explanation is true. It does protect a player from being defaulted through forgetfulness/carelessness. In that case it shouldn't be presented as an anti-cheating measure because it isn't.

It is a nonsense justification IMO, since it is only done on a minute number of randomly selected boards. It's arguably unfair on those who aren't scanned and aren't therefore given the opportunity to 'forget by accident'. I suppose at best it could be argued that it "protects" those being scanned as well as everyone else in the vicinity who might be reminded as a result. However, even this doesn't really work for "pre game" scans for players late to the board since all the other games have started at that point and it is a bit late for anyone else to say "whoops" i've still got my phone on me (without being at risk of instant default from "letter of the law" arbiters). And doesn't work nearly as well as routine pre-game announcements and lots of reminder signs plastered over the walls.

If it was a serious reason for pregame scans then it would be applied to everyone on entry to the tournament hall (as it is at international team events etc). Assumption is that every phone forgotten about will be detected, but on "no guilt" basis. Phone can't be taken into tournament hall.

[David Sedgwick]

But you would have thought that after last year in the Glorney Cup when it appears two England players cheated (with no action being taken), that there would be a concerted effort to do better this year.

That was actually at the 2020 event, two years ago. The results were amended, but no other action was taken (controversially).

In 2021 there does seem to have been a concerted effort to do better.

[David Sedgwick]

I can't see why a hybrid event would necessarily be safer than an OTB one.

There is a much higher arbiter / player ratio at a Hybrid event.

[NickFaulks]

An in game scan has a strong implication that the arbiter thinks the player is cheating.

If so, that is the problem and it shouldn't have.

[Matt Bridgeman]

With the cat totally out of the bag now with this one, I don’t think there’s any reason to protect his identity. Hopefully like in sport, we’ll get to read the excuses and the action taken.

[Pete Heaven]

"There is a much higher arbiter / player ratio at a Hybrid event."

Sure - and I expected this reply. However, it doesn't come close to covering my entire point by any means, including the quality of this year's Glorney games or indeed arbiters, whatever the arbiter:player ratio, being pro-active, in the absence of opposing players, their parents, neighbouring players etc. Indeed, Wadih made the point that the Torquay incident could have been nipped in the bud well before it affected the final standings.

[John Upham]

Out of curiosity, are there measures in place to deal with an electronic device being stored in a toilet cubicle and being used when the player visits that cubicle?

[Andy Howie]

Out of curiosity, are there measures in place to deal with an electronic device being stored in a toilet cubicle and being used when the player visits that cubicle?

Can't speak for the British but it is something I routinely do when at events.