Cheating in chess

[Tim Spanton]

An arbiter's take: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... -Howie.pdf

Includes:
"... it is not uncommon now for a tournament to have no-one cheating in it."
"The system is actually set up to measure fair play not cheating. Due to this it is biased towards letting a cheat go. We
would rather that a cheat gets away with it than someone is falsely accused."
"Anyone who comes to you and says a person has been cheating in a game should be ignored
– they do not know what they are talking about."

[Matthew Turner]

Khalifman weighs in

The voice of common sense, not before time.

For those interested in commentary in English
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/868118939?t=01h52m00s

[John Upham]

"Anyone who comes to you and says a person has been cheating in a game should be ignored
– they do not know what they are talking about."

And if that person happens to be an arbiter or Ken Regan?

[DavidGostelow]

Censored by request

[JustinHorton]

Have you referred the matter to lichess

[Matthew Turner]

David,
Refer the matter to Lichess
Run the games through PGNspy
Don't make unsubstantiated accusations against a player unless you want a non-voluntary break from chess.

[JustinHorton]

I would advise reporting the player to lichess and including the URLs of all the games in that report plus any other information you consider relevant. This is no comment on the correctness or otherwise of your allegations. (It might be a good idea pending this action to delete all or part of your posting above - and perhaps for Matthew to do the same - since the player can easily be identified from the information you provide.)

[Matthew Turner]

Post amended to remove David's quote

[John McKenna]

One minute some people lambast certain online platforms about the lamentable inadequacy of their "fair play" procedures and then refer complainants to the same procedires the next minute.

Confusion or double standards?

Here's my take on the "arbiter's take" that Tim S supplued (thanks to him).

An arbiter's take: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... -Howie.pdf

Includes:
"... it is not uncommon now for a tournament to have no-one cheating in it."
"The system is actually set up to measure fair play not cheating. Due to this it is biased towards letting a cheat go. We
would rather that a cheat gets away with it than someone is falsely accused."
"Anyone who comes to you and says a person has been cheating in a game should be ignored
– they do not know what they are talking about."

Depends what is meant by "a tournament", above.

If it's a titled all-play-all on Tornelo it could well be 100% clean.

However, even if it is an open, but opaque, qualifier for a national championship run on chessdotcom just how dirty it is remains a hidden sore point.

From another thread -

"... so the negative tests don't tell you terribly much."

Worse than that they can be more dangerous than false positives.

If someone has the virus but does not isolate due to a false negative they are a risk to everyone they come into contact with. Whereas if someone isolates due to a false positive only they suffer and only financially in the main.

Applying the same logic to the above arbiter online cheating policy - if "it is biased towards letting a cheat go."

Because -

"We would rather that a cheat gets away with it than someone is falsely accused."

Then the cheat, who has probably already done his worst to some players, potentially goes on to do it to a a whole lot more until he/she finally gets caught one way or another if they're unlucky.

On the other hand false positives wrongly punish only a single individuals, temporarily, and they can openly challenge any accusations and or bans with some hope of clearing their name.

Looks to me like an arbitrary arbiter's cop-out and an admission of defeat. ONLINE CHEATERS RULE, OK!?

[Matt Bridgeman]

It’s a tough balancing act between giving English players something to compete in and actually having anything like a level playing field. It’s pretty obvious to people trying to navigate the long play online competitions that if you’re not on Zoom, then it’s highly probable you’ll bump into one and perhaps two engine assisted players every tournament you compete in. Unfortunately there isn’t a lot of regular Zoom long play events beyond what Adam Raoof offers on Tornelo.

[Roger de Coverly]

On the other hand false positives wrongly punish only a single individuals, temporarily, and they can openly challenge any accusations and or bans with some hope of clearing their name.

As far as anyone is aware neither chess.com nor lichess have any form of transparent appeal process, nor for that matter any coherent accusation beyond "violating terms and conditions".

In the case mentioned above, given that it was in a local team event, a score of 100% is not of itself evidence of any more than lucky breaks and good form. Raising the issue with the local organisers or team mates of the accused player might seem appropriate.

[Matthew Turner]

Lichess have said that they welcome players raising concerns, so if people have genuine concerns then please do raise them with the platforms

[Matt Bridgeman]

It would be a fun experiment to put Adams, Howell, Jones and McShane under assumed identities and see if they could win an online Major. Or would there be a few 140 level players ‘having a good run.’ ‘...no really, I’ve been practising in the lockdown!’ Lol

[John McKenna]

Lichess have said that they welcome players raising concerns, so if people have genuine concerns then please do raise them with the platforms

We know where you stand on this, Matt. It is your usual opponents I am talking about.

"... Raising the issue with the local organisers or team mates of the accused player might seem appropriate."

One could try, Roger, and I believe that has been tried in certain cases but they, like parents, usually close ranks around what is already, on the face of it, a well-protected accused player.

Edit -

It would be a fun experiment to put Adams, Howell, Jones and McShane under assumed identities and see if they could win an online Major. Or would there be a few 140 level players ‘having a good run.’ ‘...no really, I’ve been practising in the lockdown!’ Lol

That would be an acid test - if cheats come up against named titled players and win they risk getting caught.

[DavidGostelow]

On the other hand false positives wrongly punish only a single individuals, temporarily, and they can openly challenge any accusations and or bans with some hope of clearing their name.

As far as anyone is aware neither chess.com nor lichess have any form of transparent appeal process, nor for that matter any coherent accusation beyond "violating terms and conditions".

In the case mentioned above, given that it was in a local team event, a score of 100% is not of itself evidence of any more than lucky breaks and good form. Raising the issue with the local organisers or team mates of the accused player might seem appropriate.

I have been told to remove the post I made but the details were there, its not a 100 percent score on 8 rounds, somebody else managed that and I dont doubt they did it legimately . It was the grade they achieved in comparison to their normal grade (150 normal to 2550 lichess) and more importantly the lichess analysis scores , IE no blunder or mistakes in the 8 games and an average centipawn loss of around 10, plus looking at the games themselves