Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 10:13 am
Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 9:53 am
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 9:43 am
I think the ECF fair play policy is a very sensible outcome given the circumstances.
The ECF has surrendered control as to who is barred from their events.
Roger,
This is simply not true, please read the fair play policy.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Thu May 28, 2020 10:43 am
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:08 am
So it has. I had initially assumed that it was just a question of a link having been put on the front page of the ECF website, but it is indeed a revised document.
...
The news story appeared on the ECF website yesterday evening and initially the link was, I think, to the original version of Fair Play document.
I wonder: what changes have been made to the original version of the document? Also, who is the author or owner of the document?
Last edited by Angus French on Thu May 28, 2020 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Thu May 28, 2020 10:52 am
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:13 am
Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 9:53 am
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 9:43 am
I think the ECF fair play policy is a very sensible outcome given the circumstances.
The ECF has surrendered control as to who is barred from their events.
Roger,
This is simply not true, please read the fair play policy.
If you're banned on chess.com, say, for receiving computer or other assistance and then successfully appeal to the ECF against an automatic ECF sanction you'll still be banned on chess.com and unable to play in ECF events hosted on that platform, won't you?
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 11:04 am
No, because you can set up a new account
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 28, 2020 11:09 am
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 11:04 am
No, because you can set up a new account
If the membership was paid for, would the remaining months be forfeited? So little is divulged about the chess.com process that it could just be random drawing of lots as to who to label. Justin's case suggested that their witchfinder program doesn't have a particularly deep opening knowledge.
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 11:16 am
That is an issue for Chess.com, not for me, or the ECF.
Last edited by Matthew Turner on Thu May 28, 2020 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
J T Melsom
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm
Post
by J T Melsom » Thu May 28, 2020 11:17 am
I thought multiple accounts were not allowed on chess.com, and that new accounts are only allowed in limited circumstances. if the account is closed for cheating, don't you have to acknowledge the error of your ways as it were. I accept that new accounts can be opened that bypass detection, but if a player is innocent of cheating why should they go to these lengths?
-
Roger Lancaster
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Post
by Roger Lancaster » Thu May 28, 2020 11:23 am
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 11:17 am
I thought multiple accounts were not allowed on chess.com, and that new accounts are only allowed in limited circumstances. if the account is closed for cheating, don't you have to acknowledge the error of your ways as it were. I accept that new accounts can be opened that bypass detection, but if a player is innocent of cheating why should they go to these lengths?
My experience is primarily with Lichess where it appears relatively straightforward to open a new account with a different username [but, as of six weeks ago, the 4NCL ban then applied equally to the new username] and the reason for doing this was that, even where a player protested his innocence, this carried no weight with Lichess - their appeals procedure is a joke - or 4NCL who simply said they followed the Lichess lead.
[Perhaps I should clarify that the new Lichess accounts were opened, and I am aware of at least two juniors who had the experience of being barred by Lichess for alleged activity in non-ECF/4NCL events, in the mistaken belief that this would enable them to compete in 4NCL and/or J4NCL. It's not entirely clear to me whether someone barred by Lichess today for non-ECF/4NCL alleged activity would meet the same fate].
-
MartinCarpenter
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Post
by MartinCarpenter » Thu May 28, 2020 2:30 pm
How would they stop multiple accounts? Not by IP address as you have multiple people needing accounts from one house, block of flats etc.
If its by email (as you'd presume) then that's incredibly easy to work round.
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 2:31 pm
Correct
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Thu May 28, 2020 2:44 pm
MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 2:30 pm
How would they stop multiple accounts? Not by IP address as you have multiple people needing accounts from one house, block of flats etc.
If its by email (as you'd presume) then that's incredibly easy to work round.
The same IP address as that of a banned account could, I suppose, warrant further investigation. For example, do the accounts sharing an IP address play the same openings, play the same types of tournament, play at the same times of day, belong to the same player groups...
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 2:46 pm
Yes, but why would a website bother, unless it was a particularly special case?
-
David Sedgwick
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Post
by David Sedgwick » Thu May 28, 2020 4:00 pm
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 11:04 am
No, because you can set up a new account
Can I get this straight?
If you are banned by Chess.com (or Lichess) for alleged cheating, they will tell you that you need to confess your fault before they will readmit you.
See for instance the plaintive pleadings of the anonymous titled players quoted at
https://www.chess.com/article/view/ches ... -detection.
Or you can simply open another account and Chess.com (or Lichess) will neither know nor care.
I wish I'd known that before my chat with Theophilus Wait a couple of days ago.
Last edited by David Sedgwick on Fri May 29, 2020 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Matthew Turner
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Post
by Matthew Turner » Thu May 28, 2020 4:12 pm
David,
As I said earlier in the thread, titled players are treated somewhat differently, but for everyone else then yep that is essentially correct.
-
Ian Thompson
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Post
by Ian Thompson » Thu May 28, 2020 4:21 pm
Angus French wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 2:44 pm
MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 2:30 pm
How would they stop multiple accounts? Not by IP address as you have multiple people needing accounts from one house, block of flats etc.
If its by email (as you'd presume) then that's incredibly easy to work round.
The same IP address as that of a banned account could, I suppose, warrant further investigation.
Maybe, but if I restart my router I'll get a different IP address from the one I had before and someone else will get my old IP address sooner or later.
If you record the IP addresses of banned accounts what you might do if you see another account on the same IP address, with suspicious characteristics, is to ban that one sooner than you would have done if it was on a new IP address.