FIDE's 400pt rule

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Keith Arkell
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:45 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:22 pm
Not at all disputing what Keith is saying - and after all he played him, not me - but if Rausis was already cheating in 2011 you have to wonder why his rating didn't start rising until a few years after that. He just started doing it more often, or got "better" at it?
Hi Matt Mackenzie, I suspect he was just dabbling with it at that time, but enough to draw my attention to the fact that something wasn't right. Probably just went to the loo to check the details. I will not be discouraged by Nick Faulk's anti GM detective attitude, and will readily supply the ECF with my other suspicions,as long as it is guaranteed to be anonymous, as suggested by Matt Bridgeman, and if this becomes an accepted policy.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5032
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:14 pm

Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:08 pm
Basically your attitude discourages me from coming forward.
That is worth a detailed response but first, just to be clear, are you still claiming that Rausis cheated against you in 2011?

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:22 pm

I wonder if Rausis chooses to come completely clean Lance Armstrong style, there might be potentially a decent book and maybe even a movie in the story. It could ironically create quite a lot of interest in chess. Perhaps the full truth about when he took his first steps in cheating will be known soon enough.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:43 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:14 pm
Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:08 pm
Basically your attitude discourages me from coming forward.
That is worth a detailed response but first, just to be clear, are you still claiming that Rausis cheated against you in 2011?
That seems pretty clear? With the suspicion aroused not by (just) how he played, but the manner in which he went about playing it.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18046
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:52 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:14 pm
are you still claiming that Rausis cheated against you in 2011?
It's a reasonable presumption that Keith was the victim of computer assisted analysis. That's completely legal if done months before the game, or even minutes. What isn't provable other than by detection at the time on the spot is whether his opponent consulted an engine, database or third party whilst play was in progress.

Tournaments like Sunningdale which are in the hotel where the players stay have the potential weakness that provided it could be done unobserved, a player could return to their room within the complex during the game to consult a computer engine or look something up on a database. That's less vulnerable to camera shots over the wall or someone bursting in, but it is somewhere the player shouldn't be.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:05 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:52 pm
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:14 pm
are you still claiming that Rausis cheated against you in 2011?
It's a reasonable presumption that Keith was the victim of computer assisted analysis. That's completely legal if done months before the game, or even minutes. What isn't provable other than by detection at the time on the spot is whether his opponent consulted an engine, database or third party whilst play was in progress
I think the ultimate contention here is that keith feels he was probably the victim of both. And that Rausis earlier game in the line potentially reinforces the case that he might have been cheating (if combined with ‘unusual’ behaviour). It is plausible that on the basis of analysis of the earlier game Rausis knew he was winning, but lacked sufficient memory/confidence in the circumstances to execute the win without the benefit of a computer reminding him of the key lines. Essentially the knowledge of the win being there made the temptation greater.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2109
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:38 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:52 pm
... a player could return to their room within the complex during the game to consult a computer engine or look something up on a database. That's less vulnerable to camera shots over the wall or someone bursting in, but it is somewhere the player shouldn't be.
On the other hand it is more vulnerable to security camera footage in the hotel showing the player returned to their room. Obviously, no proof of what they did in the room, but it would be proof the player left the playing venue without permission, for which they could be penalised.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5032
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:17 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:05 pm
It is plausible that on the basis of analysis of the earlier game Rausis knew he was winning, but lacked sufficient memory/confidence in the circumstances to execute the win without the benefit of a computer reminding him of the key lines.
Richard, all sorts of things are plausible. You are a strong IM, and it is not in dispute that in 2011 Rausis was a player of at least that standard. Are you saying that if, in the position under discussion, you had recently analysed Nxf7 to a forced win, you would not feel confident enough to play it to a finish without checking the details on a computer?

Keith Arkell
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:54 pm

I've been dragged into this thread three times by Nick - firstly when he suggested, by implication, that a serious GM ought to have calculated the implications of Nxf7, then ( whimsically ) that Paignton is easy rating points and finally when he asserted that Rausis didn't cheat to beat me. I'm going to say this once more.

The game v Rausis left an impression on me that something wasn't right. It was 8 years ago so I have forgotten the details ( eg that it was in the last round, and therefore didn't affect proceeding rounds). When you have been as active for as long as I have you sense when something isn't right. Angus suggests that my anger that my impression is being disrespected is unwarranted. Well I'm sorry but I think I have a right to feel angry. Not angry that I was probably cheated but angry that my judgement is being questioned.

If in the light of all the latest available information, I was asked my opinion of what took place during that game in 2011, I would say that my opponent was aware that the brilliant and unusual 10 move combination beginning with 13 Nxf7! and ending with the quiet 22 Qg8!! was possible but it needed checking, and so he went away and checked it. There is no way that he would have known going into the game that that position would appear on the board. I'm sure ( though Nick Faulks may tell me otherwise) that I hadn't ever had that position before, or even one leading up to it.

I
Last edited by Keith Arkell on Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:04 am

I'm not committing myself one way or the other with respect to the Rausis-Arkell game under discussion. The thing I will say is that I'm rather sceptical of the general value of a "sense when something isn't right". That sort of sense has resulted in some very dodgy cases in the field of police work.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:19 am

Fair enough, but it's all I have to offer, as it didn't occur to me to follow my opponent to the loo. And in any case my phone doesn't have a camera on it, and even if it had it would have been against the rules to take it from my coat pocket.

Anyway surely all this is irrelevant given that my opponent has confessed to being a cheat and that it's highly unlikely even people who lost to him last year will get their rating points back.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3968
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:58 am

I think it was Brian Towers
>Most big tournaments (like Gibraltar and IoM) publish picture galleries taken during play, something which would be impossible with a camera that was "switched off and kept in a bag".<

Most of those photos are taken by professional photographers who are not playing in the tournament.

Oh for the innocent days when the most common form of cheating was collusion with your opponent in the last round of a tournament. 4 times in one year I had 4/5 as did my opponent. 5/6 would have won a good prize.As it was, all four games were drawn and none of us got anything.

One GM used to buy rating points cheaply in Eastern Europe and sell them off, at a profit, in Western Europe.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:14 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:17 pm
Richard Bates wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:05 pm
It is plausible that on the basis of analysis of the earlier game Rausis knew he was winning, but lacked sufficient memory/confidence in the circumstances to execute the win without the benefit of a computer reminding him of the key lines.
Richard, all sorts of things are plausible. You are a strong IM, and it is not in dispute that in 2011 Rausis was a player of at least that standard. Are you saying that if, in the position under discussion, you had recently analysed Nxf7 to a forced win, you would not feel confident enough to play it to a finish without checking the details on a computer?
Maybe “strong player who is an IM” would be more accurate ;). Your question is not really the point. I have not shown a subsequent willingness or propensity to cheat.

If I knew the position on the board was going to arise in advance of the game, would I like to refresh myself of the details of my previous analysis? Absolutely! If at the board I got to a position where I had previously analysed a complicated position to a win but now couldn’t recall the details would I play it anyway? Depends.

I have no idea whether Rausis cheated in this case or not. But I’m simply saying that if there was unusual behaviour in the run up to and/or during the execution of the winning combination then it is plausible. Who knows, it could have been the initial trigger for something that subsequently became routine? Every cheat has to cross the line for the first time. Once done once it becomes easier to do again. Maybe he’ll tell all and we’ll find out one way or another.

Examples of sporting cheating are full of examples of cases where once the practice has been exposed, fresh light is cast on previous events. Sometimes unjustly. There is no proof that Rausis was cheating in the game in question. It is more likely than it was though.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:32 am

Anyway back in 2011 who had decent engines on their phone

Secondly, the phone I had was a lot bigger and more difficult to conceal

Thirdly, at sunningdale you need a passport to get back to your room

I am in the boat that before accusing anybody you need proof, you cannot just say because he has been caught cheating then he always have cheated

Angus French
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Angus French » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:19 am

Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:54 pm
... Angus suggests that my anger that my impression is being disrespected is unwarranted...
No, I thought what you said about Nick was unwarranted. I also wasn't keen on Harold Shipman being invoked.

In general, if someone is going to accuse someone else of cheating then I think some proof is needed. This is especially true if the accusation is made in public. I think it also matters if the accuser is a GM - since the GM, all other things being equal, will have influence and a precedent could be set.

Post Reply