Carlsen resigns on move 2

[David Sedgwick]

On a side note, I wonder how long it will be before we hear about some sort of sanction for our home grown OTB cheat - the lad who came within a round of stealing the British Under 16 Championship at the beginning of August?

Unless someone is willing to stand up and ask searching questions at the ECF AGM, I doubt that we shall hear any more about it.

[Ian Thompson]

Another report: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... al-matches

It points out a couple of statements in the report:

• "We estimate that fewer than 0.14% of players on Chess.com ever cheat"
• "Chess.com’s online cheating-detection system ... has been used to close the accounts of ... hundreds of titled players, dozens of GMs. It has elicited cheating confessions from 4 players in the FIDE top 100."

If both those statements are to be believed then the conclusion must be that titled players, GMs and top 100 players are all far more likely to be cheats than the average player.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Hans has made the front page of The Daily Star! “How on Earth did they check, mate?” asks the Daily Star regarding a chess cheating scandal.

[Mick Norris]

On Radio 5 Live 7:56; Francis Bowers talking about cheating in chess for a couple of minutes

[Kevin Thurlow]

and again... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-63153281

[Kevin Thurlow]

On a side note, I wonder how long it will be before we hear about some sort of sanction for our home grown OTB cheat - the lad who came within a round of stealing the British Under 16 Championship at the beginning of August?

Unless someone is willing to stand up and ask searching questions at the ECF AGM, I doubt that we shall hear any more about it.

I would expect any such questions to be declared out of order.

[David Williams]

It's interesting that the first three pages or so of this were about what action should be taken against Magnus Carlsen, and the last 40 or so are about cheating. These are really two separate issues, and the first one hasn't gone away.

[JustinHorton]

What I find disappointing from chess.com is that they changed their assessment of Niemann’s history because of Carlsen claim about their OTB game. Chess.com claims they have the best cheat detection and prevention tools and yet they vetted Niemann for their upcoming event. Then Carlsen complains about their OTB game and only at that point chess.com looks back at games played in 2020 and disqualifies Niemann. Clearly they are fitting Carlsen opinion somehow in their cheating prevention tools and that seems wrong to me.

There's quite a lot of discussion of thisa in the report and I can understand their point of view more than I did before, but that's not to say I agree with it. Clearly they found themselves in a position where one of their stars wasn't going to play if another one did and they reacted as a football club might if there was a bust-up in the dressing-room: they got rid of the player they needed least. This is not a procedure I particularly admire and they are not quite candid enough to admit it.

One thing I meant to mention before about the Chesscom* report - does it say anything about the mysterious "cheat list", who can see it and on what basis? (I didn't see anything but I might have missed it.)

Tarjei

[* think I prefer this to Chessdotcom]

[Chris Rice]

Susan Polgar on FB makes some good points:

"I just read hundreds and hundreds of comments online. I see three types of people during this saga:

a) 2+2=6

b) 2nd group jumped in calling 1st group stupid because 2+2=5

c) 3rd group threw up their hands in disbelief, went to make more popcorn.

So, unless there is a photo of a player in the toilet with phone in hand and the exact position on the board with Stockfish running, forget about convincing anyone. And even if that is the case, some will think it is photoshopped or the player was framed.

And I said before:

1) Good players DO NOT cheat on every move
2) Even with just one hint, it can be enough to change the outcome of a game at high level
3) Smart players will most likely not be caught
4) So definitive proof is 99.99% impossible for OTB play with spectators and live broadcast
5) This will get even more scandalous and ugly, as most people are dug in and made up their minds with their biases, it will be nearly impossible to change minds."

[JustinHorton]

How are they "good points"? What's her evidential basis? What's her preferred means of proceeding?

[Chris Rice]

How are they "good points"? What's her evidential basis? What's her preferred means of proceeding?

It should be possible to give your opinion without feeling you are on trial. She makes a number of reasonable conclusions IMO on the basis of what's been presented regarding "evidence" so far. If you disagree with what she says then it's up to you to disprove it with evidence isn't it? That's one of the points Paul Cooksey was making. Of course, what exactly constitutes "evidence" is one of the critical issues in this case and that essentially is the argument she is making.

[JustinHorton]

. If you disagree with what she says then it's up to you to disprove it with evidence isn't it?

No it isn't. You can't just pluck claims out of nowhere atnd say it's up to people to disprove them. "Where are you getting this from?" is a proper response to any given claim, and often a necessary one.

that essentially is the argument she is making.

She isn't making an argument. She's making a series of unsupported contentions. An argument proceeds logically.

[JustinHorton]

Take this as a contention.

Smart players will most likely not be caught

What does it mean? How do we know? How would you prove or disprove it? Is it based on smart cheaters she knows, or knows of? Is it based on some technique she's thought of that she thinks would be infaiilible?

You can't even engage with it. There's nothing there.

[Chris Rice]

Take this as a contention.

Smart players will most likely not be caught

What does it mean? How do we know? How would you prove or disprove it? Is it based on smart cheaters she knows, or knows of? Is it based on some technique she's thought of that she thinks would be infaiilible?

You can't even engage with it. There's nothing there.

Well, her statements are not out of nowhere for a kick off. She's giving her opinion based on the evidence so far. It's what she believes. She has been in chess all her life and was a world champion and on that basis her experiences and thoughts are of value.

As for what constitutes an argument this gave me a golden excuse to watch one of my favourite Monty Python sketches again so thanks for that.

[Tim Spanton]

The new Private Eye has a man, who is running a pub quiz, saying: "Before we start, please switch off your mobile phones and vibrating anal beads. "