Post
by JustinHorton » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 am
No, my comments about Ball, whose grift I've been following from the start, are applicable solely to him.
While I do understand Paul's point about the difference between balance-of-probabilities and beyond-reasonable-doubt, it does seem to me that it would be unwise to risk a court case with no evidence at all as to the apparent method. Which is a problem, because that presumably eans that it would also be unwise to issue bans of any kind on the same basis, which means you really need to catch the cheaters first.
As far as the reluctance of Chessexshire to get involved is concerned, I am absolutely sure Alex is right on this and that basically these guys won't want to do anything if they can avoid it. Chess in England is dominated by stubborn old men. But at the same time I don't see any way to address the question of potential cheating except by making it clear that it is indeed the business of the organisers.
One problem I had with fhe ECF document discusses above was that it essentially assumed a willingness to look into and report potential cheating, it was just a question of how to do so. So what may be needed instead is an overt statement that it is the responsibility of the organisers of participating competitions (i.e. ones that are to be submitted for grading) to take all reasonable measures to detect and avoid cheating. If this doesn't happen, then as Paul suggests upthread, they don't get graded.
I've no doubt this would cause a very big fight, but really, tell me what the alternative is, because sometimes you need a big shift in attitudes and this is one of those times.
Last edited by JustinHorton on Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com