FIDE's 400pt rule

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Chris Rice
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:03 pm

Tweeted from Chess 24 "I played my last game of chess already", says Igor Rausis, after what seems to have been an ignominious end to his career:

Image

However, one surely has to question the legality of having a camera installed in the bathroom? Was this why Mr Garrett was so sure he would catch him?

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:19 pm

I would guess the ‘toilet cam’ was a bit of a cowboy move. I don’t think you’d get that sort of thing through an English court under the RIPA legislation in a million years. To justify that sort of invasion of privacy for both the GM and other members of the public no doubt caught on camera, they’d have to be nothing short of a major criminal offence occurring. On some level I think it’s ironic they can pull a stunt like this and send the evidence to an ‘ethics commission.’

NickFaulks
Posts: 4908
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:23 pm

Chris Rice wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:03 pm
However, one surely has to question the legality of having a camera installed in the bathroom?
I wonder what they've done with footage of other patrons who were using the facility for its legitimate purpose. Makes you wonder.

Such scruples aside, I'm glad they got him. It isn't easy.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2344
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Adam Raoof » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:27 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:23 pm
Chris Rice wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:03 pm
However, one surely has to question the legality of having a camera installed in the bathroom?
I wonder what they've done with footage of other patrons who were using the facility for its legitimate purpose. Makes you wonder.

Such scruples aside, I'm glad they got him. It isn't easy.
they obviously didn't install a camera, they just followed him to the bathroom and stuck it over the partition

makes you wonder what they would have done if he was using the toilet "normally"? Perhaps they have done this in the past and failed. Perhaps he will now sue them for invasion of privacy. I think he would win easily.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:32 pm

It’s a bit more than a scruple I think. Photography or filming people on the toilet without any form of court ordered intrusive surveillance in place, is not arguably, but definitely a more serious offence than cheating with a mobile phone in a game of chess.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4908
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:33 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:27 pm
Perhaps he will now sue them for invasion of privacy.
From his own comments, he doesn't sound minded to do that. I suppose he may be persuaded to do so by a lawyer hoping for a percentage.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:59 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:32 pm
It’s a bit more than a scruple I think. Photography or filming people on the toilet without any form of court ordered intrusive surveillance in place, is not arguably, but definitely a more serious offence than cheating with a mobile phone in a game of chess.
So by your point of view you can never catch a cheat, they had suspicions and did what they did to catch him

Now it be interesting what the French court case can use

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:07 pm

Isn't the normal method to find the phone and then link it to the player? Isn't this just going too far?

Richard Bates
Posts: 2856
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:27 pm

As far as the majority of the chess community is concerned I would suggest that the important thing is that he was caught and will be effectively exiled from chess going forward. If he can actually face legal consequences or not is a detail.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4908
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:36 pm

Keith has posted on the Facebook thread - I have removed a rude word.

"Keith Arkell I told Danny Gormally 5 days ago that Rausis would be caught very soon. The xxxx got too greedy. Accelerated his BS too rapidly. Typical criminal behaviour. They get greedy. ~

Me and Rausis were always about equal in strength, then suddenly, at a tournament in Sunningdale, England, he beat me brilliantly with a 3 piece sacrifice. Something didn't feel right. After this I collapsed completely despite starting with a win against a very strong player. I guess there are many other players whos tournament he ruined. I hope it's a life ban."

Danny chimes in

"Danny Gormally yeah it's total engine stuff. looks obvious now in hindsight."

The game Rausis - Arkell is indeed superficially impressive. If the rating report is to be believed it took place in the final round, so it's hard to see how it ruined the rest of anyone's tournament, but never mind.



This becomes interesting when you look at a game played a few months earlier.

boros rausis.PNG
boros rausis.PNG (389.61 KiB) Viewed 238 times

Boros-Rausis followed the same ( highly unusual ) path until White decided not to try 12.Nxf7 and played instead 12.Ne4, leading quickly to a draw. When Rausis himself did play the sacrifice it was no doubt based on computer analysis, but done after the previous game. I thought that was called preparation, and what serious GMs are supposed to do?

Richard Bates
Posts: 2856
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:45 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:36 pm
Keith has posted on the Facebook thread - I have removed a rude word.

"Keith Arkell I told Danny Gormally 5 days ago that Rausis would be caught very soon. The xxxx got too greedy. Accelerated his BS too rapidly. Typical criminal behaviour. They get greedy. ~

Me and Rausis were always about equal in strength, then suddenly, at a tournament in Sunningdale, England, he beat me brilliantly with a 3 piece sacrifice. Something didn't feel right. After this I collapsed completely despite starting with a win against a very strong player. I guess there are many other players whos tournament he ruined. I hope it's a life ban."

Danny chimes in

"Danny Gormally yeah it's total engine stuff. looks obvious now in hindsight."

The game Rausis - Arkell is indeed superficially impressive. If the rating report is to be believed it took place in the final round, so it's hard to see how it ruined the rest of anyone's tournament, but never mind.

[Event "e2e4 Sunningdale International Masters B"]
[Site "De Vere Sunningdale Park Hotel"]
[Date "2011.08.14"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Rausis, Igor"]
[Black "Arkell, Keith C"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2510"]
[BlackElo "2432"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]

1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 g6
8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Bg7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ba3 Re8 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nxf7 Kxf7 14.
Bc4+ e6 15. Rxe6 Rxe6 16. Bxe6+ Kxe6 17. Qg4+ Kf6 18. Qf4+ Ke6 19. Qd6+ Kf7 20.
Qd5+ Kf6 21. Re1 Bf8 22. Qg8 Kg5 23. h4+ Kh5 24. Qd5+ g5 25. Qf7+ Kxh4 26. g3+
Kg4 27. Re4+ Kh3 28. Qh5# 1-0

This becomes interesting when you look at a game played a few months earlier.


boros rausis.PNG


Boros-Rausis followed the same ( highly unusual ) path until White decided not to try 12.Nxf7 and played instead 12.Ne4, leading quickly to a draw. When Rausis himself did play the sacrifice it was no doubt based on computer analysis, but done after the previous game. I thought that was called preparation, and what serious GMs are supposed to do?
I’m not sure if your point in this is to try and defend Rausis against the accusation of cheating or to suggest that isolated examples are not in themselves conclusive?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4908
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:00 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:45 pm
I’m not sure if your point in this is to try and defend Rausis against the accusation of cheating or to suggest that isolated examples are not in themselves conclusive?
The latter, as I have already made clear. I did wish to believe that it is possible for older players to improve, and I still do, but that idea has been dealt a blow.

It was unfortunately inevitable that this successful investigation would be used to reinforce the usual claims that whenever someone plays surprisingly well, or even just gets good results, they must be cheating. Rausis-Arkell is a very instructive example, since the loser is convinced that he was defeated by cheating, whereas it is in fact quite clear that Rausis won because he had done his homework and Keith lost because he hadn't.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3231
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:02 pm

I wouldn't have thought that the 13. Nxf7 sacrifice is a convincing example of computer cheating. It seems obvious that one should think about it, after all. Nxf7, with the rook gone from f8 is a workaday idea. You quickly get two main variations, 14... Kf8 and 14... e6. In the first line the, king seems unhappy with the Horwitz bishops quickly established on a3 and c4, with the White queen about to threaten mate on the light squares. The main difficulty in the line chosen is the second sacrifice, the much heavier one of the rook on e6. Once you have seen it though, then it is surely just club player bullying with a queen against a butt naked king. Surely, a GM could work that out, particularly when they have already seen the opening, even if they aren't Misha Tal?

None of which is to say that Rausis didn't cheat in that game, just that there must be clearer examples.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17934
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:12 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:02 pm
I wouldn't have thought that the 13. Nxf7 sacrifice is a convincing example of computer cheating. It seems obvious that one should think about it, after all. Nxf7, with the rook gone from f8 is a workaday idea.
Given that he had seen the position before and Nxf7 is an obvious candidate move, it's likely this was no more than a computer checked line. You need additional evidence, that he or no-one else had seen the position before and that he was absent from the board at move 12.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3231
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:13 pm

Absolutely agree, Roger.

Post Reply