Chess Player Strip Searched

The very latest International round up of English news.
User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:41 pm

Lewis,

As an amateur I just wouldn't do it (write the essay). It's not a matter of principle - I just would rather spend the time playing another game of chess than writing an essay - an activity I have thankfully left behind long ago (except in those situations where I am doing it to say something I want to say). Oddly as you may think it, I would actually rather present myself naked in front of an arbiter - I can assure you that sadly I have very little to hide [oh bother! I'm in Quick reply and don't know how to do the sad smiley - you'll just have to imagine it].

For professionals the matter is I concede more serious, but I still think that the principle of innocent until proved guilty is paramount. If a contestant is happy to comply with the 'essay writing' as a means of knocking an accusation into touch than I can see that that provides an efficient means of settling the matter. But I still think it would be wrong to view an unwillingness to do this as a plea of guilty - it must surely remain the responsibility of the accusers to prove guilt: the speed you play at; your eye movements; your historic gradings - circumstantial. [At my humble level the accusation is more likely to be that the player is deliberately playing badly to sandbag!]

It is a difficult problem from both perspectives and so I'll share the one serious accusation made against me. It was in an internet correspondence game that I had messed up badly. I saw a neat combination to get myself out of the mess and lured my opponent into a position where I was able to spring it upon him. He was clearly amazed by the sudden turn round in fortune and accused me (in not too complimentary tones) of having resorted to an engine and not being a decent person to play. He would accept no reassurance from me. I was saddened and hurt - yet at the same time I could see why he was so suspicious. He had no reason to be suspicious and he was wrong - but at the same time, given my earlier performance, he had every reason to be.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by E Michael White » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:29 am

KWRegan wrote: ... << various points >>
Ken
I am a retired mathematician, who has not worked in academia. I have doubts about the FIDE rating system when applied to a large number of players and also the English Chess Federation (ECF) grading system, especially the ability to predict scores, which casts doubts on pairing and tiebreak methods in use.

To cut to the chase I have doubts about your anti cheating proposals. May I ask whether you have tried testing games played before engines and modern communication methods existed? If such research showed a gradual increase in positives found after say 1990 and significant jumps on each release of new and better engines and smaller communication devices your conclusions would probably gain wider acceptance.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:45 pm

E Michael White wrote: I have doubts about the FIDE rating system
Have you ever told anyone what they are? I assume they are not based only on the fact that in some federations, most results go unreported.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

KWRegan
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 5:42 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by KWRegan » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:13 pm

E Michael White wrote:
KWRegan wrote: ... << various points >>
Ken
I am a retired mathematician, who has not worked in academia. I have doubts about the FIDE rating system when applied to a large number of players and also the English Chess Federation (ECF) grading system, especially the ability to predict scores, which casts doubts on pairing and tiebreak methods in use.

To cut to the chase I have doubts about your anti cheating proposals. May I ask whether you have tried testing games played before engines and modern communication methods existed? If such research showed a gradual increase in positives found after say 1990 and significant jumps on each release of new and better engines and smaller communication devices your conclusions would probably gain wider acceptance.

Michael, you should check out papers by Mark Glickman, whose Glicko rating system is predicated on improving prediction by making better provision for uncertainty. It is, however, more complex to implement.

I have tested almost the entire history of top-level chess in screening mode (Paul Morphy is among the top 100 engine-matching performances), and some major tournaments of every era and all WC matches in full mode. My work argues a general increase in human performance (see http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/are- ... -at-chess/), quite apart from engines---but maybe helped by training with them in recent decades. I really don't understand the relation you posit between new-engine releases and cheating conclusions, as the latter involve at most several dozen out of over a hundred thousand games I screen per year.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:54 am

Another addition to this long running thread.

You may recall the Bindrich case. He was caught in possession of a mobile phone with some allegations that he had been using it whilst playing. After refusing to hand it over for inspection, the German Federation tried to ban him for two years. He got that overturned on a technicality to do with the point that he was playing in the National League, which like the 4NCL, is independent of the National Federation.

He then tried to take legal action against the Federation for hurt, loss of earnings etc.

That case was dismissed.

http://www.schachbund.de/news/klage-abg ... 10332.html
(in German - so use Google translate)

Also
http://www.chess.com/news/bindrich-sues ... 68000-3357

John Foley
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:58 am
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by John Foley » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:33 pm

The German court raised the issue of contributory negligence which will be relevant to other cheating disputes. A chess authority should not fear to penalise someone for acting suspiciously - because their negligence in so acting offsets the damages - even if they were not cheating. This is quite different from being presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3417
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:42 pm

On Chess.com

New Anti-Cheating Rules Not Approved yet, but may be Applied PeterDoggers

After many months of preparation by the FIDE/ACP Anti-Cheating Committee, finally a proposal for new anti-cheating regulations was submitted for voting by the General Assembly, last month in Tromsø. Unfortunately a vote was not established due to a lack of quorum, but FIDE will allow arbiters to adopt the new regulations anyway.

On July 1, Chess.com presented the biggest changes in the new Laws of Chess here. The “anti-cheating rule” (11.3.b, part of the “conduct of the players”) — in practice the rule about mobile phones — goes as follows:

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.

The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

However, this rule is already out-dated. The current Laws of Chess were approved by the General Assembly in Tallinn, Estonia in October 2013 and came into effect on July 1st, 2014. Meanwhile, the FIDE/ACP Anti-Cheating Committee has proposed a change of this 11.3.b — to a less severe one in fact. It reads as follows:

During a game, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone, electronic means of communication or any device capable of suggesting chess moves on their person in the playing venue. However, the rules of the competition may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, as long as the device is completely switched off. A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without permission of the arbiter. If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty. The arbiter may require the player to allow his/her clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorized by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9. The final decision to make this change to the Laws of Chess shall be made by the 2014 FIDE General Assembly.

The above change should have been approved by the FIDE General Assembly in Tromsø, but wasn't because of lack of quorum. Whereas almost all delegates turned up for e.g. the Presidential elections, many of them preferred to visit the playing hall or do something else during this important vote.

This is a pity, especially since the next General Assembly isn't scheduled before 2016, while these new rules are expected to be approved by a big majority. That's why the Chairman of the FIDE Arbiters’ Commission, Takis Nikolopoulos, has suggested that arbiters start using it on October 1, 2014, even though it is not part of the official Laws of Chess yet. On the FIDE website he writes:

“As the change is very significant and as the period until the next FIDE General Assembly will take place is too long, FIDE suggested that the Arbiters shall apply the above change of the article 11.3.b of the Laws of Chess during all their tournaments that will be held from now on.

Therefore you are instructed to apply the above wording of the article 11.3.b. of the Laws of Chess in all your tournaments, starting from 1 October 2014.”

Nikolopoulos also gives an interpretation of the change:

“In minor chess tournaments, where the players is not possible to leave their mobiles out of the playing hall and the organizers cannot provide an area for collecting the mobiles of all the players during the rounds, the Arbiters have the possibility to apply the new wording of the article 11.3.b., allowing the players to have their mobile phones in their bags, but completely switched off.

The player shall inform the Arbiter before the start of the round, in case that a completely switched off mobile phone, or any electronic mean of communication, or any other device capable of suggesting chess moves is in his/her bag.

All the above shall be included in the rules of competition (tournament regulations) of the specific event in advance. The Chief Arbiter may make an announcement before the start of the round.

This possibility will not be valid for the World and Continental FIDE events.”

With the new regulation, the problem is addressed that it is highly impractical to forbid mobile phones altogether. Chess players are usually happy to switch it off during a game, but it would be too much to keep it at home — a smartphone may be used to find the venue (and thus avoid the loss by zero-tolerance), or read the news on the way there!

Some chess fans might wonder if all these anti-cheating regulations are really necessary, but new cases of (alleged) cheating keep popping up. For example, two weeks ago the Dutch Chess Federation banned 2239-rated Wesley Vermeulen for one year from its events, after he was caught with a mobile phone during a game in Romania earlier this year.

The Romanian Chess Federation reported the case to the FIDE Ethics Commission, who haven't discussed it yet. Nonetheless, the Dutch federation took the decision to ban Vermeulen anyway, “given the seriousness of the case and the start of the new league season”.

It remains to be seen whether the new regulations will effectively prevent cheating in chess. German IM Bernd Kohlweyer, an active tournament player, wrote on Facebook early August:

“Toilet cheating is easy as ever. Nothing has changed.
It was told here that Fide wanted to change some rules for players to make cheating a bit more difficult. Let me tell you what I experienced in 2 of my last open tournaments:
In Benasque Open players were forbidden to bring mobile phones into the playing hall. Very nice! This is big progress if this new rule would be executed in every chess event. But in practice nothing has changed. The players didn´t care and most of them didn´t even know about that rule. They kept on wearing mobile phones in their bags, rucksacks and pants. To my knowledge nobody was checked, so the nice rule was just on the paper, nothing more.
In Badalona I noticed a GM who put 2 mobile phones into his pants just before the games started. I asked the referee about the rules and he said: “If the phones make no noise, it´s ok.”
To me it seems that to go to the toilet and take a look at the chess engine on your mobile is as easy as ever. It´s not the cleverest way of cheating, but the easiest; everybody can do it without much effort.
I´m still waiting that anti cheating rules will be executed.”

It should also be noted that cheating in chess is certainly not limited to getting computer assistance during a game. Also on Facebook, IM Yochanan Afek of Israel remarked early September:

“And even when we will manage to control all technology cheating we will still face the "classical" cheating in opens which Fide and arbiters often refuse to deal with, such as fixed games "insured" results, twisted last round pairings and the likes. Obsessed by the fiber-cheating phobia we almost forgot that cheating in chess was common practice long before the silicon era.”

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:25 pm

Sutovsky might think it trivial, but many would worry about that a-pawn. Maybe the players were tired, had a plane to catch etc?

"The allegations were published in the various chess magazines, but nobody was officially accused and there was no lawsuit."

I read various chess magazines in those days and I don't recall this.

There might be a lawsuit now, if that would make Sutovsky happy!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:39 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote: I read various chess magazines in those days and I don't recall this.
The BCM article just says (after printing the detailed match result)
For much of the match, it seemed that 3-1 was the most likely score
Wales had lost 3.5 to 0.5 with a draw on bottom board.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:05 pm

Chess has the even more laconic and surprising comment: "USA soon won 3 games (v Wales). They adjourned the fourth in a drawn position".

I notice from the next item in the magazine that this was where Keene secured his grandmastership (and this had an air of contention too because in the crucial game an arbiter was accused of wrongly handling an adjournment and an annullment of the game was requested by Keene's opponent). An the item following that is about the beloved Lancs v G Manchester dispute! So, this thread has led me to quite a few interesting snippets.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:57 pm

A win in the final round would have given John the gold medal, instead of Michael Stean, on board 4.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:12 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: The BCM article just says (after printing the detailed match result)
For much of the match, it seemed that 3-1 was the most likely score
That’s rather racy by the standards of the BCM of the day.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:27 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:... it got coverage in the magazines of the time. Just not the British ones.
Well that’s not a massive surprise - although CHESS of that era was quite good at covering controversial era. Doesn’t seem any immediate reason to agree a draw in the final position, but double rook endings aren’t the easiest.

KWRegan
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 5:42 pm

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by KWRegan » Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:31 pm

After a chock-full 24 hours since this was brought to my attention yesterday (giving and grading an exam, correcting book galleys, overdue revision to a talk I'm giving on Tuesday, fixing a math issue in a delayed post on the Gödel's Lost letter blog, and a 4-hour bicycle trip this afternoon), I looked for an found the following in my February 1977 issue of the USCF Chess Life magazine. I have posted this also just now to Sutovsky's thread on Facebook, quoting from pp83-84 of the issue, article written by my longtime friend Bill Goichberg:

"It was now between the USA and Holland, and our prospects looked excellent. We had the edge on all boards and we soon scored three wins. In Holland-Finland, Sosonko was beating Rantanen but the other Finns were putting up stiff resistance. Surely, we thought, the Dutch wouldnot sweep, so a win by Commons would wrap it up.

But Kim slipped from a much better ending to a lost one. The Finns looked slightly worse in all three games; if Kim lost, we would be in the highly uncomfortable position of hoping for three draws---a single Dutch win would spell curtains. Everyone pored over Kim's game, desperately searching for a resource, but the verdict was always the same: Cooper should eventually win. Even Benko, who should have known better by now, declared this position to be beyond our adjournment magic.

Cooper had pondered his sealed move for an hour, leaving himself only 16 minutes for 15 moves. perhaps time pressure would help us, but surely after all that thought he had sealed the best move. Well, when the magic spell is cast, even the sight of an adjournment envelope is enough to make an opponent blunder. Not only did Cooper seal a weak move, his analysis overlooked Kim's reply. Our team /had/ looked at Cooper's move just in case, and it turned out that we had analyzed a move we were not expecting better than our opponents had analyzed it---and they had known what it was!

With only five minutes on his clock and an unexpected situation on the board, Cooper offered a draw. because of time pressure, we had earlier decided to accept any such offer rather than hope for more. The extra half point seemed likely to be just enough to win. And so it turned out, but not before we had to sweat out 20 more hours of rooting for Finnish players."

[The article goes on to describe the long adjourned games. one of which another source puts at "14 hours" not 20. The paragraph just /before/ the ones I quoted notices how the desire of players to sit out rather than jeopardize a title norm had already affected the competition, which I infer was addressed by subsequent relaxations of the rules for norms.]

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Chess Player Strip Searched

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:41 pm

Thanks for posting that. I only ever once played under anything like time controls like that, at Hastings in 1995-6, when they still had adjournments. It is easy to forget that at one time you could easily have multiple adjournments in the same game. And thinking for an hour over a sealed move is completely alien to league chess of course!

PS. It is not 47 allegations by Sutovsky, but 47-year-old allegations, in case anyone is worried about where the other 46 allegations are...

Post Reply