World Youth Championships

[Jonathan Rogers]

It is true if the case goes to trial; there may be trouble if it is stopped beforehand, as for example, Marcus Ball (the man who tried to prosecute Boris Johnson for lying during the EU referendum) found, literally, to his cost.

One other point here is that the CPS may take over and discontinue any private prosecution, if it does not consider prosecution to be in the public interest; and indeed it is their policy to do so. This is, of course, a serious impediment to the private prosecution of (what might be thought to be) minor squabbles. Now, this might not be a problem for the prosecution of major fraud, which may actually be more efficiently prosecuted, outside the CPS/SFO, if by lawyers who know what they are doing; as you can see from the above link, there may be a laissez-faire approach by the CPS here. But it would be much easier to imagine the CPS intervening and discontinuing in much lesser cases.

Incidentally, I think that anyone alleging cheating in court will need some evidence of method, and could not just rely on the perceived statistical improbability of the results being achieved without cheating.

[NickFaulks]

Incidentally, I think that anyone alleging cheating in court will need some evidence of method, and could not just rely on the perceived statistical improbability of the results being achieved without cheating.

To the extent that anything in our legal system is certain, I'd say you can take that to the bank. Ditto if such a case were heard by CAS.

I even suspect that a skilled expert witness might get the statistical evidence thrown out entirely.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I even suspect that a skilled expert witness might get the statistical evidence thrown out entirely."

Yes - and it should happen more often. Some unfortunate chap was sent down on the basis that there was a one in a million chance that the DNA found at the scene belonged to someone else. In other words, with a population of 60 million, there was a 1 in 60 chance it was his... Nobody in the court realised that. Trying to "prove" something with statistics is virtually impossible.

[Jonathan Rogers]

That used to be called the "prosecutor's fallacy" - at least, I hope I am right in using the past tense and that you are talking about a case from some time ago!

[JustinHorton]

It is true if the case goes to trial; there may be trouble if it is stopped beforehand, as for example, Marcus Ball (the man who tried to prosecute Boris Johnson for lying during the EU referendum) found, literally, to his cost.

Well, literally to the cost of the mugs who had been crowdfunding that obvious chancer, and as far as I am aware continue to do so

[Paul Cooksey]

Incidentally, I think that anyone alleging cheating in court will need some evidence of method, and could not just rely on the perceived statistical improbability of the results being achieved without cheating.

Really? I was taking a different view, and I suppose Adam was too.

Rather than the specifics here, a hypothetical. Lets say I start to score 100% in local league chess, which includes several titled players. There is a very strong correlation between my moves and Stockfish. I appear very relaxed during games. Someone complains to one of the Leagues. I can offer no evidence why my play has suddenly and massively improved. First the league then the ECF imposes a ban on me and I take them to court.

I was assuming, on balance of probability, the ECF wins and the ban is upheld. Cheating is a very plausible explanation for the facts, I do not see another reasonable explanation. An expert witness could confirm that for the court. I guess I might avoid a criminal conviction, even if some money involved, because I could create some reasonable doubt. But on balance of probabilities, I thought it was pretty clear. I suppose whether or not I have agreed to be scanned by a metal detector might make some difference.

I have no significant expertise though. So would be interested if Jonathan or someone else with legal expertise though me wrong.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"That used to be called the "prosecutor's fallacy" - at least, I hope I am right in using the past tense and that you are talking about a case from some time ago!"

Yes - it was fairly early on, in the days where DNA evidence was regarded as foolproof.

[John Moore]

I have appeared very relaxed during games in the past, Paul. That doesn't mean I am cheating, it means I am rat arsed, I appreciate that it's hardly a major part of your argument.

[NickFaulks]

An expert witness could confirm that for the court.

You can buy an expert witness to say anything you want them to say, so can the other side. I would back a good expert witness for the defence, since they would be required only to sow the seeds of doubt and there is a huge lack of understanding on this issue.

[Ian Thompson]

Rather than the specifics here, a hypothetical. Lets say I start to score 100% in local league chess, which includes several titled players. There is a very strong correlation between my moves and Stockfish. I appear very relaxed during games. Someone complains to one of the Leagues. I can offer no evidence why my play has suddenly and massively improved. First the league then the ECF imposes a ban on me and I take them to court.

But for what would you take them to court? As membership organisations I assume they're free to decline memberships if they wish, for whatever reasons they like, so long as they don't break any anti-discriminations laws by doing so.

[NickFaulks]

As membership organisations I assume they're free to decline memberships if they wish, for whatever reasons they like, so long as they don't break any anti-discriminations laws by doing so.

A local chess club perhaps ( I'm not even certain about that ), but surely not the ECF. I think they would need a very strong and clear reason, which the player might dispute.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Incidentally, I think that anyone alleging cheating in court will need some evidence of method, and could not just rely on the perceived statistical improbability of the results being achieved without cheating.

Really? I was taking a different view, and I suppose Adam was too.

Rather than the specifics here, a hypothetical. Lets say I start to score 100% in local league chess, which includes several titled players. There is a very strong correlation between my moves and Stockfish. I appear very relaxed during games. Someone complains to one of the Leagues. I can offer no evidence why my play has suddenly and massively improved. First the league then the ECF imposes a ban on me and I take them to court.

I was assuming, on balance of probability, the ECF wins and the ban is upheld. Cheating is a very plausible explanation for the facts, I do not see another reasonable explanation. An expert witness could confirm that for the court. I guess I might avoid a criminal conviction, even if some money involved, because I could create some reasonable doubt. But on balance of probabilities, I thought it was pretty clear. I suppose whether or not I have agreed to be scanned by a metal detector might make some difference.

I have no significant expertise though. So would be interested if Jonathan or someone else with legal expertise though me wrong.

I gather that has been the situation with prosecuting (or rather, not prosecuting) various cricket players whose involvement in match fixing has seemed extremely likely judging by the correlation between performances and highly unusual betting patterns, but in respect of who there is no actual evidence of meeting or communcations with the other alleged conspirators.

There is a connected problem here: courts do not like trial by expert witness. It might help to emphasise the word "by". Often experts are essential to help us to make sense of other evidence (eg DNA) which otherwise the court would not understand, and that is OK - think of it as trial "with" expert. But take away any such evidence so that you are just left with the opinion of expert chess players based on highly unusual patterns, and it becomes trial "by" expert, and I should think that would be a problem for both civil and criminal courts.

Without wanting to go full Plaskett, I was a bit surprised by the conviction of Major Ingram. But at least the alleged conspiracy was readily understandable without the need for expert evidence - the jury could time the coughs and the answers for themselves.

[JustinHorton]

"Your Honour, it is alleged against my client that he has cheated at chess, and his accusers seem quite certain that it is so. So certain are they, indeed, that they find it entirely unnecessary to provide any evidence whatsoever of his supposed method in doing so. I think the court will agree that such an ambitious case should be made of sterner stuff."



"Instead we are invited to interpret a set of statistics, the meaning of which will be quite obscure to simple laypeople such as ourselves, though perhaps not" (he chuckles) "to Your Lordship, in a manner favourable to the prosecution and equally unfavourable to my client. This is a policy of speculation, indeed one of supposition, and while it may be that such a gambit" (he chuckles again) "may succeed at the chessboard, it surely must not be allowed to do so in one of Her Majesty's courts. I humbly submit that this case must be dismissed without further ado and my client discharged with no stain whatsoever on his reputation."

[Paul Cooksey]

OK, lol - but Rumpole is there for criminal cases where it is necessary to show a lack of reasonable doubt. In my scenario the ECF only needs to show balance of probabilities that it acted reasonably in banning a player or sanctioning an organisation. Assuming it has the will to get involved, which per Alex's comments, it might not.

Pace Justin, given his mistreatment by chess.com, balance of probabilities should not mean an arbitrary decision or a lack of natural justice. If I have given up work, devoted myself to chess, and have Peto Leko staying in my spare room I can try to rebutt the weight of expert evidence. But still, I don't think I can ask it to be dismissed out of hand.

Obviously it would be nice to have cheats locked up, but I would settle for banning them.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Paul, I don't think you answered Ian's question, what sort of action are you thinking of? I could imagine the ECF being concerned that if it bans anyone in a situation where allegations of cheating are known to be circulating, it might be sued for defamation and might have to justify an (arguably, implied) assertion that the person was cheating. (It may well be that such fears would be exaggerated, and an issue might arise about how and whether the decision is publicised; but leave all that aside for now). But that does not seem to be the sort of action you are thinking of, since you are just thinking in terms of the ECF needing to show that it reacted reasonably.