English Chess Forum

In fairness, the interruption came immediately after my opponent had made a move. I don't know whether you'd call that a non-disruptive moment: it didn't seem that way.

Thanks, Jack. My purpose in posting was not to give you a hard time, but to find out whether others agree with me that an arbiter should not interrupt the game to check that a player is not cheating unless there are grounds to suspect that he may be. The fact that he has left the playing area on his...

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:37 am

Perhaps you should be mre internationally active? Why not play international Senior chess?

Some people have qualms about unnecessary air travel these days.

Where a player has previously left the playing area (not the playing venue), on his own time but with the permission of the arbiter, does this justify the arbiter in subsequently interrupting the game, after further moves have been played, to ascertain whether the player has a phone?

Appalling that anyone should use military terminology when talking about a war game.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:10 pm

I think it's not likely to happen. Fraud-related prosecitions in the sport world are vanishingly rare.

It certainly won't happen if the police aren't informed. And Matt, who clearly knows more about policing than most of us, thinks it might happen if they are.

Practical difficulties in obtaining prosecutions and convictions (as well as the general principle that you really need the process to be under the control of the chess world as far as may be possible). Yes, but what practical difficulties do you envisage in doing that? And why does the process nee...

(I'm not saying we should utterly abjure the route of prosecution, but I am saying that there are a lot of practical difficulties along that road, sufficient that it really shouldn't be relied upon.) What practical difficulties do you have in mind, if (as Matt suggests) the police would be willing ...

There would be a lot for an adjudicator in a CPS unit to consider. The evidence would have to hold up quite well for there to be a reasonable prospect of conviction and charge(s) to be laid before the court. Admissions in interview would be very handy. Indeed. What I am challenging is the suggestio...

There is no need for a test case: the law is quite clear. You commit a crime if you dishonestly make a false representation with the intention of thereby making a financial gain. If there were clear evidence of cheating, the culprit could be prosecuted on the basis that, by behaving like an honest p...

I'm curious to know whether tournament organisers who detect cheating ever do report the matter to the police, or even consider doing so. Is there perhaps an assumption that the police would not be interested, and if so is there any basis for that assumption? Of course winning £1m by fraud (especial...

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:40 am

So for a player who is being signalled to, you’d have a dishonesty offence for the player. Would you have aiding and abetting for the the signaller?

Yes, aiding and abetting. Or they could both be charged with conspiracy, as in the 'Millionaire' case.

Most offences would have to [be] classified as an attempt rather than the full offence. That was the position until 2007, but the law was then changed. Oddly, the new offence of "fraud by false representation" is committed by someone who dishonestly makes a false representation for gain, even if th...

Exactly. I don't recall ever playing in an event with an increment of only 10 seconds but no 5-minute rule.

Since the round times are similar to those at the monthly Hampstead event, is there a particular reason why the time limits are different? I would certainly prefer 60+30.

If the increment is only 10 seconds, you might want to reconsider the requirement that players must record all the moves.