Chess Player Strip Searched

[Peter Sowray]

For reasons I explained up-thread, introducing the ACP rule in the 4NCL and other weekend / hotel-based events would have no impact on many (most?) players.

That's incorrect. Assuming you didn't want to leave valuables in your car, or you didn't have a car, what are you going to do with your luggage once you have checked out on a Sunday morning? For that matter, what happens if you haven't been able to check in before the start of play. If there's to be paranoia about a phone in a jacket pocket or bag, there should be equal paranoia about the potential for players to return to their rooms or consulting device equipped friends or relatives in the public areas of hotels.

Roger,

If you want to quote me and then state that I’m talking nonsense, please take the trouble to read my posts. It’s common courtesy. I have already explained already why any players who attend the 4NCL with a laptop for preparation are not impacted by the ACP rule.

I am not concerned about players returning to their rooms – this is well covered by existing laws.

I am not concerned about players trying to access devices in public areas – the risks of being caught cheating are too high to make it worthwhile.

Peter

[Peter Sowray]

I am concerned about players going to the loo with a mobile phone in their pocket. I’ve just done an experiment using the exact position in the case I referred to previously. It took me about 6 minutes to turn my phone on, enter the position into an analysis engine, find the engine’s recommendation, play a few moves to see why the engine liked the move, and then switch the phone off.

We already know of several cases where players have been caught cheating in this manner here and abroad. I suspect these players were only caught because of their incompetence and there are rather more cases where the cheat has been successful.

Irrespective of whether the laws change, I am going to adhere to the ACP rule in future whenever I play FIDE-rated chess. I think anyone doing otherwise leaves themselves open to accusations or suspicions.

Relying on arbiters to enforce the existing rules is placing them in an invidious position where they are bound to fail. We, as players, should surely be able to come up with a solution.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have already explained already why any players who attend the 4NCL with a laptop for preparation are not impacted by the ACP rule.

Did you read the bit about having a device in your bag? I interpreted that to mean that if you carried your laptop case with you after you had checked out and left it under the table, that was an offence under the proposed ACC rules, being not different from having a small handbag on your person with a device in it.

This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket.

I am concerned about players going to the loo with a mobile phone in their pocket. I’ve just done an experiment using the exact position in the case I referred to previously. It took me about 6 minutes to turn my phone on, enter the position into an analysis engine,

Being more nuanced, attending chess events with a phone with chess software installed upon it, puts a player at risk of accusations. So the phone should be switched off and for avoidance of doubt not have chess software installed on it. That's talking enforcement. Being in possession of a switched off mobile phone should not incur penalties. If going to the loo is a potential issue if you distrust your opponent, a simple if demeaning device is that players have to ask the arbiter's permission or declare their intent and temporarily leave the phone in the possession of the arbiter, or even the opponent.

[Richard Bates]

I have already explained already why any players who attend the 4NCL with a laptop for preparation are not impacted by the ACP rule.

Did you read the bit about having a device in your bag? I interpreted that to mean that if you carried your laptop case with you after you had checked out and left it under the table, that was an offence under the proposed ACC rules, being not different from having a small handbag on your person with a device in it.

This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket.

Roger - whilst there obviously remain potential issues with the ACP wording above (the most glaring outstanding issue being the definition of "electronic device" and, in particular, where one draws the line with watches), it is fairly obvious that having a device in a bag left under the table is NOT "carrying a device (...) on their body during play". If this really needs spelling out to you the wording could be:

...under no circumstances a player shall be allowed to carry an electronic device, whether switched on or off, working or not, on his body during play. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device through being in contact with a bag containing said device or wearing a jacket containing said device...

The ACP is clearly referring to being in physical contact with the bag, (and i imagine that this will cause more of an issue for women who are more likely to carry bags on their person in the form of handbags) although i think the wording should be clarified to only being when a player is away from the board/out of the immediate vicinity of the playing area (and so excluding toilets or other out of sight of opponent areas etc) to avoid theoretical breaches for inadvertently putting on a jacket off a chair etc. This would also avoid theoretical breaches from individuals arriving late for games with devices in bags/jackets on their person. Alternatively there should be some wording allowing some "common sense" to be applied, which, even if disliked by those who seem to prefer all rules to be prescriptive and "black and white" would allow appeals committees to overrule zealous/unnecessarily over-officious interpretation by arbiters.

Leaving devices unattended in bags/jackets/by the board whilst visiting the toilet will clearly be at an individual's own personal risk.

I should agree that i am mystified by the suggested requirement for the British/(Hastings?) of registering phone numbers which seems to serve no obvious purpose (and obviously doesn't cover tablets etc which are small enough to carry in coat pockets etc).

[Alex McFarlane]

Registering a phone number could be useful if an allegation of cheating has been made.

1) the registered number could be phoned to see if the phone is active when a player has left the room, or
2) if 'the accused' has a different phone on their person from the one registered then some explanation will be required as to why that is the case.

Obviously not a foolproof method but it may provide useful info.

[Richard Bates]

Registering a phone number could be useful if an allegation of cheating has been made.

1) the registered number could be phoned to see if the phone is active when a player has left the room, or
2) if 'the accused' has a different phone on their person from the one registered then some explanation will be required as to why that is the case.

Obviously not a foolproof method but it may provide useful info.

Ah OK, fair enough. Seems reasonable. In a way i suppose it could be seen as an attempt to make the old law more enforceable (whilst having the potential to exploit the new law only if necessary).

[Roger de Coverly]

1) the registered number could be phoned to see if the phone is active when a player has left the room,

If you are going to accuse players of cheating, it is logical to also assume they will cover their tracks. So if running chess software, they put the phone in "airline" mode where it cannot communicate, but it can run software. Admittedly that rules out using online opening databases and tablebases.

[Roger de Coverly]

whilst there obviously remain potential issues with the ACP wording above (the most glaring outstanding issue being the definition of "electronic device" and, in particular, where one draws the line with watches), it is fairly obvious that having a device in a bag left under the table is NOT "carrying a device (...) on their body during play".

We've had ACC members or observers contributing to this thread, neither of whom has made this clarification. If anything, they seemed to be suggesting that the phone should be on open display, like a scoresheet, rather than concealed.

[Steve Rooney]

Registering a phone number could be useful if an allegation of cheating has been made.

1) the registered number could be phoned to see if the phone is active when a player has left the room, or
2) if 'the accused' has a different phone on their person from the one registered then some explanation will be required as to why that is the case.

Obviously not a foolproof method but it may provide useful info.

It is of course possible for all of us to adhere to rules like this, even if they are a bit silly and frankly rather pointless.

However the more important issue is about the spirit of the game itself. I play chess seriously, but principally for fun and mental exercise. I simply don’t want to be involved in events where there is so much suspicion of cheating that trust and decency have entirely disappeared.

I think the arbiters have got this one completely wrong and their actions in heightening fears about cheating with mobile phones (while conveniently ignoring all other methods) are a slippery slope with the potential to destroy the amateur game entirely.

Correspondence chess has been affected, some would say completely devalued, by chess software, and if you play online at longer time controls you have to accept that you could be playing someone with silicon assistance. But over-the-board is largely free of those worries; two people pitting their wits, memory and stamina against each other in an intellectual battle.

If you get to a position where everyone suspects the motives of their opponents in what they are carrying, wearing, or what they are doing when they leave the table or the room, then frankly the game isn’t worth playing any more.

Of course, there may be odd occasions when someone suspects their opponent is getting assistance, (although I have never witnessed one in 40-odd years of playing with plenty of casual access at congresses to strong players and bookstalls), but let’s just deal with any well-founded accusations as best we can without devising daft rules and inciting everyone to suspect everyone else of being a cheat. This is one of those occasions where the supposed ‘cure’ has the potential to be far more damaging than the problem itself.

[JustinHorton]

But over-the-board is largely free of those worries.

The trouble is that this is no longer true and is becoming less true all the time.

[Richard Bates]

Registering a phone number could be useful if an allegation of cheating has been made.

1) the registered number could be phoned to see if the phone is active when a player has left the room, or
2) if 'the accused' has a different phone on their person from the one registered then some explanation will be required as to why that is the case.

Obviously not a foolproof method but it may provide useful info.

It is of course possible for all of us to adhere to rules like this, even if they are a bit silly and frankly rather pointless.

However the more important issue is about the spirit of the game itself. I play chess seriously, but principally for fun and mental exercise. I simply don’t want to be involved in events where there is so much suspicion of cheating that trust and decency have entirely disappeared.

I think the arbiters have got this one completely wrong and their actions in heightening fears about cheating with mobile phones (while conveniently ignoring all other methods) are a slippery slope with the potential to destroy the amateur game entirely.

Correspondence chess has been affected, some would say completely devalued, by chess software, and if you play online at longer time controls you have to accept that you could be playing someone with silicon assistance. But over-the-board is largely free of those worries; two people pitting their wits, memory and stamina against each other in an intellectual battle.

If you get to a position where everyone suspects the motives of their opponents in what they are carrying, wearing, or what they are doing when they leave the table or the room, then frankly the game isn’t worth playing any more.

Of course, there may be odd occasions when someone suspects their opponent is getting assistance, (although I have never witnessed one in 40-odd years of playing with plenty of casual access at congresses to strong players and bookstalls), but let’s just deal with any well-founded accusations as best we can without devising daft rules and inciting everyone to suspect everyone else of being a cheat. This is one of those occasions where the supposed ‘cure’ has the potential to be far more damaging than the problem itself.

Amen to that.

There is also an argument that the more you move from a game which is policed by etiquette and 'unwritten' rules, to one where attempts are made to codify every transgression and its appropriate punishment that you ultimately increase the prevalence of cheating itself. The more you try to police by the latter, the more the approach of participants is likely to become one of defining what is acceptable by what is not documented as illegal. Which presents a great challenge for those who draft the laws and one doesn't get the impression that existing arrangements are sufficiently robust to this. One might cite the examples of drugs in athletics, the debate about walking in cricket, diving in football or the myriad of examples across the range of sporting activities. Nothing is directly comparable of course, and there is always a balance - sometimes the former approach is simply unsustainable, but i would hope we haven't reached that stage in chess yet.

[Roger de Coverly]

The trouble is that this is no longer true and is becoming less true all the time.

I don't know about Spain, but as regards England, I believe you are mistaken. There is every difference between playing online when no-one can see your opponent and over the board where they can.

[JustinHorton]

I think you've maybe been given some useful examples above. I don't see any reason why Spanish and English experiences should differ in this respect: the facilities used and the technology available are essentially the same.

Arbiters and rulemakers aren't coming up with this stuff in order to inconvenience other people for a laugh. They're doing it because they're grappling with difficult and unanticipated problems.

[JustinHorton]

although I have never witnessed one in 40-odd years of playing with plenty of casual access at congresses to strong players and bookstalls

I really don't believe that access to strong players or bookstalls are, as potential aids to cheating, on anything like the same level as the technology which was not available to us forty years ago.

[Michael Farthing]

I think you've maybe been given some useful examples above. I don't see any reason why Spanish and English experiences should differ in this respect: the facilities used and the technology available are essentially the same.

Arbiters and rulemakers aren't coming up with this stuff in order to inconvenience other people for a laugh. They're doing it because they're grappling with difficult and unanticipated problems.

At the higher level of the game above mere mortals, which is what most of us are.
Occasionally they may have to grapple at lower levels.
I agree with Roger. I see no problems in England.

The biggest grumbles I hear is about players throwing games to keep their grading down so they can carry on entering easy sections. Of course, I suppose they might be consulting electronic devices to find a bad move.

[Anyway, we have more important matters to argue about like whether Manchester is in the North or the Midlands]