FIDE's 400pt rule

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I certainly think that everything should be reported, even more difficult to prove signalling cases. If the strong suspicion is there the police can put them through the process, whether by arrest or a voluntary interview. Ultimately it will be a matter for the CPS to decide if there’s enough evidence to proceed. I don’t think organisers should second guess themselves. They aren’t investigators. Report the witness details and let the police do their work."

Yes. Apart from anything else, if you inform the accused that you have done this, and tell them the "crime number", it will get their attention. But you do need to be right...

[Matt Bridgeman]

Again you are stepping into the investigators shoes. Organises and players are simply witnesses. Don’t overthink it too much! It’s up to the police to decide if there is reasonable suspicion. And if after a witness statements have been taken later, and the suspect has been interviewed there’s ultimately no further action, then so be it. At least everyone was thorough and did the best they could. The process itself would probably act as a strong deterrent.

[Paul Cooksey]

Maybe, although my suspicion is that the police are very likely to say they have more important things to do.

I was considering posting about the the Phil Ivey Edge Sorting case. I decided it was materially different in too many ways to use as a direct comparison. But maybe relevant that even when a dispute alleging dishonesty is multi-million dollar it seems law enforcement view as a civil rather than a criminal matter.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I wonder if in that case the casino wanted the civil route as they felt it was more appropriate for the financial aspect, which is often the remit of civil courts. I think their primary concern was the 7 million pounds and not whether Phil Ivey received a criminal conviction.

[Angus French]

I’m not sure that Keith disagrees with your general point though? Hence he’s only posted his thoughts now, after Rausis has been caught. And I would suggest that proof will very rarely be obtained if cause for suspicion (communicated privately and in confidence) isn’t evident in advance. And initial suspicion will never come with “proof”, only circumstantial evidence.

Forget Keith’s game, is it wrong to (now) publicly raise suspicion that Rausis may have been doing this for a long time? Because there’s no “proof” of that either (short of any confessions he might have made in the interim).

If there are reasonable grounds for suspicion and that's communicated privately and in confidence (to an arbiter) then I think that's fine and appropriate. Making an accusation is, of course, going a step further.

Does it matter that an accusation is made now that Rausis's reputation is wrecked? Perhaps not so much. However, the fact that he's been caught out doesn't mean he was always a cheat and shouldn't there still be the same standards of evidence? In the case of the cited game with Keith it seems to me that a plausible reason for Rausis's play has been provided and I don't think it would be reasonable, on the information provided, to conclude that he cheated on that occasion - a judge wouldn't conclude that, would they?... I wonder: did Keith communicate his concerns at the time of the game?

I think, and apologies to both for any misrepresentation, that you are interpreting Keith’s suspicions as being based on the quality of Rausis’s play, and not the manner in which he played it. If, and Keith hasn’t really made clear, the suspicions were based as much on Rausis spending unusual no of periods (or single long period) away from the board during the course of the game, then the “plausible explanation” ceases to really become an explanation, or only explains part of the suspicion.

Yes, I think if there were periods away from the board and out of sight - in the run-up to 13. Nxf7 and after (since the combination was non-trivial) - then that would be suspicious.

[Ian Thompson]

I wonder if in that case the casino wanted the civil route as they felt it was more appropriate for the financial aspect, which is often the remit of civil courts. I think their primary concern was the 7 million pounds and not whether Phil Ivey received a criminal conviction.

I thought it was the other way around. The casino refused to pay Ivey his winnings because he'd cheated. He said he hadn't cheated and sued them for the money, unsuccessfully.

[John McKenna]

"... For deterrence to be effective, we surely need to maximise both the likelihood of being caught and the likely consequences of being caught."

Yes, let's embrace Big Brother and welcome back capital punishment!!

[Matt Bridgeman]

Yes I got it back to front. The Ivey case was actually very big for both Civil and Criminal law in relation to the definition of dishonesty in England. Prior to that case law the definition hasn’t changed since 1982. I think it just goes to show these game cheating cases can be quite significant, and I think with a decent explanation attached would be treated with great interest by the police if a report came their way.

[JustinHorton]

That Ruesis is at some point sued for lost earnings or prize money. Really the point was that it was suggested Keith’s weight of evidence wouldn’t persuade a judge, when actually in a civil case it might actually very well do just that.

I'm taking it unless you tell me otherwise that we're discussing a hypothetical case based on Rausis at the 2011 Sunningdale Masters, which I assume is the tournament referred to here.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Not really, but I think it fairly likely Rausis will end up being sued at some point soon, be it by an chess organiser or even a player. My thinking was that in such a civil case it will hinge on both him being caught in the act and historical evidence from players themselves.

[Leonard Barden]

That Ruesis is at some point sued for lost earnings or prize money. Really the point was that it was suggested Keith’s weight of evidence wouldn’t persuade a judge, when actually in a civil case it might actually very well do just that.

I'm taking it unless you tell me otherwise that we're discussing a hypothetical case based on Rausis at the 2011 Sunningdale Masters, which I assume is the tournament referred to here.

...as already quoted by myself last Saturday on page 7 of this thread, and ignored by all other posters.

[JustinHorton]

Not really, but I think it fairly likely Rausis will end up being sued at some point soon, be it by an chess organiser or even a player. My thinking was that in such a civil case it will hinge on both him being caught in the act and historical evidence from players themselves.

So we have a hypothetical case case but one based on no specfic occurrence and in no specific legal, jurisdiction, is this right?

[Matt Bridgeman]

I wonder how much benefit he has accrued over past 6 years? If he also coaches you’d imagine the increased rating/Open results probably helped attract plenty of parents or promising juniors. The Charlie Storey effect as it’s now known. Joking! Lol (Sorry Charlie

Justin - there was the Lance Armstrong cases. He had more lawsuits than probably any cheater in history.

[JustinHorton]

Point is Matt, we can't serioously make a judgement on the likelihood of a legal case succeeding if we don't know what it would directly concern, what the charge would be or even in what jurisdiction it would take place.

[Paul Cooksey]

I agree with Justin. But further, as far as I can see Armstrong not convicted of any criminal offence. I see some speculation that the prosecutor may have been put off by the acquittal of baseball players who admitted steroid use.

Which goes to the point I was making earlier that I do not think law enforcement want to get involved in such things even when much higher value and scale than the Rausis case.

Even if a civil case on balance of probabilities, I think some sort of proof would be needed against Rausis. He has only admitted cheating in the most recent case to my understanding.

I'm labouring this point, not in the hope of encouraging people to cheat, but because I believe this is a chess problem that chess needs to solve with minimal external help.