Dramatic changes in congress performances

[J T Melsom]

I have not to the best of my knowledge met Mr Crockett, but I think it would be far healthier if instead of trial by forum of an individual, the thread focussed on the processes that the ECF has for monitoring possible sandbagging and the scope for intervention. My sense is that individual organisers may well act on a tip-off from other organisers and treat certain players differently, but it would be far better if collective decisions to debar players were made by the national body and subject to proper criteria.

[Roger de Coverly]

the thread focussed on the processes that the ECF has for monitoring possible sandbagging and the scope for intervention.

I'm sure we both know that the ECF has no such processes. Word of mouth and now forum discussions being the only measures.

[J T Melsom]

The point surely is that there should be processes in place rather than trial by innuendo. It seems that whilst regular success in grading limited events might be supposed to act as a trigger to merit further investigation, there are still plenty of organisers happy to take an entry fee from somebody with such a track record. If an individual is cheating or acting unethically, they should be subject to consistent treatment and organisers should feel they have the support of the national body before acting. At present there are simply suspicions which allow this place and others scope to speculate, but there is no actual proof, and not much natural justice for the person under scrutiny.

[E Michael White]

Tournament organisers have every right to take the view that mobile phones blasting out an Arctic Monkeys ringtone are a scourge of tournament chess and the culprit will be punished by loss of the game. What they should not do is insist that this is required by some imaginary FIDE rule and they are only doing it because Kirsan says they must.

It's a bit rich for you to describe the rule as imaginary. It's no longer a specific requirement of the Laws, but it was prior to 1st July 2014.

Oh yes it is :-

11.3 b.During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.

Thus in FIDE vanilla form, in the absence of event rules, if a phone makes a noise it is evident the player who has it in his possession likely brought it into the playing venue and loses the game.

If organisers want to have event rules with lesser penalties they have to include a statement on the entry form. An arbiter announcement at the beginning of the event is not enough. Players can then decide beforehand whether they wish to play or not.

[Michael Flatt]

the thread focussed on the processes that the ECF has for monitoring possible sandbagging and the scope for intervention.

I'm sure we both know that the ECF has no such processes. Word of mouth and now forum discussions being the only measures.

The particular case identified here appears to be extreme and long standing.

Now that the credibility of the Tradewise Grand Prix and integrity of the ECF grading system are coming under scrutiny, it would perhaps be wise for the ECF to introduce some means of identifying and reviewing suspicious results submitted for grading.

[Jon Mahony]

I’m quite late to join this thread but hey-ho...

I played Steve Crocket in the U120’s Rapidplay tournament at the British. I drew quite comfortably on the white side of a Dutch - at the time that placed me half a point ahead of the field with 3 rounds to go, all the strongest players were beaten so technically all I had to do was keep beating the weaker up flow and I would take the tournament - sadly I blundered my Queen to a kid in the next round and he overtook me and went on to win it.

I must admit in the past I did suspect a bit of jiggery-pokery with Steve, but I’m not so sure now, I think he may just run a bit hot and cold. Before playing him at the rapid I did expect a very tough game but it was fairly boring with lots of trades and nobody trying much.

I myself went from winning the 4NCL Bolton minor to loosing to two sub 120 grades at Bradford the next weekend, and I can promise you I am trying to do the exact opposite of trying to keep my grade down

[NickFaulks]

Oh yes it is :-

Oh no it isn't.

Something you can feel free to opt out of is not a "specific requirement".

[Brian Towers]

Oh yes it is :-

Oh no it isn't.

Gosh! Is that the time?
Panto season is here!

[MartinCarpenter]

Why ever would the ECF do something here? They definitely shouldn't in relation to grades. The job of that system isn't to predict strength if someone turns up really focused/trying hard etc. It is to estimate strength across all games regardless of conditions, some of which ultimately aren't that far short of trying to lose anyway

For an extreme example, if someone turned up before each game, tossed a coin then immediately resigned if it turned up heads, you'd still want to grade all the games - you've got a 50 per cent chance of a free win after all!

Were someone's bagging really obvious, the grand prix could I guess want to do something, perhaps individual congresses.

[Michael Flatt]

In the case of a Grand Prix offering significant prize money, aren't the sponsor and competitors entitled to believe that it is a fairly run competition?

If the allegations made above regarding grade manipulation are not properly investigated what trust can players have regarding the integrity of the grading system and the validity of grade limited competitions?

[Carl Hibbard]

I have somehow missed this one so I would prefer we don't trial someone who isn't a forum member and so will not be answering back.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I agree with Carl although there might be a case for simply redacting the player's name from the posts that mention it. To be fair I don't think it is actually possible to `sandbag` to the extent that a player was assured of victory - their grade wouldn't be so far above the field that they couldn't get caught out by an in form opponent or a careless move of their own.

[Carl Hibbard]

It's a lot of posts in one day.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Why ever would the ECF do something here?

Depends what you mean by "here".

If you mean the specific case that has been raised, then I’ve no comment since I don’t know enough about it to make an informed comment.

If you mean in the theoretical case of should 'something be done’ where somebody is found to be artificially keeping their grade low - for whatever purpose - by deliberately losing games or deliberately not winning them (e.g. by offering a draw when one is three queens up for no compensation) - well, I thought that would be obvious. Deliberate under-performance should not be rewarded. Where the usual run of things ends up providing a reward for that sort of thing the governing body steps in.

I’m reminded of those badminton players at the Olympics who chucked a game to get an easier tie later in the tournament. It worked in the sense that they lost the game ... but they were later disqualified.

It’s entirely proper that they should be so since tolerating deliberate attempts to lose undermines the credibility of your competition.



Of course a): the ECF aren’t in a position to ban anybody in such circumstances at the moment. (Are they even able to ban people caught red-handed cheating with a computer?) Frankly I find it hard to believe that they ever will be.

Of course b): these situations are going to be rare because most theoretical people are not going to want to go to a theoretical tournament in a theoretical town like theoretical Coulson and spend a theoretical weekend deliberately losing all their theoretical games even if there’s a theoretical pay-off in the theoretical long term.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I myself went from winning the 4NCL Bolton minor to loosing to two sub 120 grades at Bradford the next weekend ....

Which is not the sort of thing that’s under-discussion here.