FIDE's 400pt rule

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:52 pm

"The article says that it was the players who took it upon themselves to follow Rausis and take a picture in the bathroom. It was then reported to FIDE who then appeared to take all the credit for it."

If that is so, it makes Garret's comments sound even sillier.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:09 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:10 pm
Or a player with a dedicated digital camera. ... Didn't disturb anybody, didn't break any rules.
That might have been within the rules a few years ago when only "electronic means of communication" were banned, but I don't see how it would be legal now with all "electronic devices" banned unless they're approved by an arbiter, switched off and kept in a bag.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2900
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:14 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:09 pm
Brian Towers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:10 pm
Or a player with a dedicated digital camera. ... Didn't disturb anybody, didn't break any rules.
That might have been within the rules a few years ago when only "electronic means of communication" were banned, but I don't see how it would be legal now with all "electronic devices" banned unless they're approved by an arbiter, switched off and kept in a bag.
What about an analogue one?

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:42 pm

More dry humour - unless it's a Polaroid a darkroom is required -

https://www.polaroid.com/

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/ph ... ying-guide
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:20 pm

There could be a perfectly good reason Rausis had his trouser leg rolled up. Anyone here shaken hands with him?

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:33 pm

To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:08 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:52 pm
"The article says that it was the players who took it upon themselves to follow Rausis and take a picture in the bathroom. It was then reported to FIDE who then appeared to take all the credit for it."

If that is so, it makes Garret's comments sound even sillier.
It also makes the whole bathroom photo story even creepier: I can't believe FIDE is happy (even taking credit for it) for players to follow their opponent in the bathroom and take pictures every time they suspect cheating.
Am I the only one feeling there's something really wrong whit this and even more with FIDE endorsing this instead of taking a clear stand against this invasion of privacy (and likely illegal behaviour)?

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:49 am

Playing in the Seniors at the Torquay 100th British Ch. I luckily won my first round game, with the black pieces, against a considerably higher-rated player (probably 300 points or more higher).

In round 2 I had to play another such player, but was given the black pieces for the second time in a row...

And, when during that game, I once visited the toilet a man in black (for that's the colour of the garb the arbiters were clad in) followed me in and stood with his back to a side wall while I went...

Relieved, I returned to the board and unluckily lost. (After that I was left to pee in peace.)

I wonder what the men in black had planned for me visiting a cubicle? Mission impossible, or a mirror on a stick, perhaps??
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:45 am

"And, when during that game, I once visited the toilet a man in black (for that's the colour of the garb the arbiters were clad in) followed me in and stood with his back to a side wall while I went..."

That's creepy as well. It reminds me of the occasion a gentleman visited the public toilets in a park and was rather disturbed to see a man lurking there, smiling at him. He hurriedly left, but returned quickly with a couple of other men and they beat up the no-longer smiling man, who happened to be an undercover policeman, who was breaking the law by inciting the offence he was trying to prosecute..

"Am I the only one feeling there's something really wrong whit this and even more with FIDE endorsing this instead of taking a clear stand against this invasion of privacy (and likely illegal behaviour)?"

No. Actually a lot of the comments on online reporting of the Rausis thing have related to the photography.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Brian Towers » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:41 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:09 pm
Brian Towers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:10 pm
Or a player with a dedicated digital camera. ... Didn't disturb anybody, didn't break any rules.
That might have been within the rules a few years ago when only "electronic means of communication" were banned, but I don't see how it would be legal now with all "electronic devices" banned unless they're approved by an arbiter, switched off and kept in a bag.
Nonsense.
Most big tournaments (like Gibraltar and IoM) and many smaller ones (like 4NCL) publish picture galleries taken during play, something which would be impossible with a camera that was "switched off and kept in a bag".
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5047
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by LawrenceCooper » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:44 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:41 pm
Ian Thompson wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:09 pm
Brian Towers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:10 pm
Or a player with a dedicated digital camera. ... Didn't disturb anybody, didn't break any rules.
That might have been within the rules a few years ago when only "electronic means of communication" were banned, but I don't see how it would be legal now with all "electronic devices" banned unless they're approved by an arbiter, switched off and kept in a bag.
Nonsense.
Most big tournaments (like Gibraltar and IoM) and many smaller ones (like 4NCL) publish picture galleries taken during play, something which would be impossible with a camera that was "switched off and kept in a bag".
They tend not to be operated by players during their games though.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:48 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:30 am
Keith Arkell wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 am
at least I am experienced enough to whif when something isn't right.
Keith,

Well, yes, but on this occasion you "whiffed" the wrong thing. Your opponent was presumably playing aggressive moves quickly and confidently, so you assume that he was cheating. You ignore the possibility that he had seen the exact position on the board in an earlier game and later analysed it in detail.

I have been involved in the fight against cheating for many years and am pleased when any cheater is caught. When high profile GMs wheel out games where they claim to be certain that cheating took place, but it is easily shown that nothing of the sort happened, this serves only to undermine serious efforts to deal with the problem.
Can you Nick, and those who agree with you, really not get what I'm saying? If I post that 'something wasn't right' then I mean that I was left with a feeling after the game ( yes - after the game not now and not using after timing) that things didn't feel normal. It might be something as simple as that my opponent disappeared for an inappropriate amount of time before his combination, but I am not going to deny this feeling ( which until recently I have kept to myself). I now, in light of information supplied by Nick Faulks, suspect that my opponent did nothing more than go off and check on his engine exactly how the 10 move sequence plays out. Bear in mind that these were the early days before his cheating took hold big time.

When people like Nick Faulks say things like this: ''When high profile GMs wheel out games where they claim to be certain that cheating took place, but it is easily shown that nothing of the sort happened, this serves only to undermine serious efforts to deal with the problem.'' it discourages us from coming forward and highlighting when we were cheated against. FFS show us some respect if you want us to use our ( in my case) 40 years of experience judging body language etc.

Because of Nick's posts I am more determined than ever to keep quiet about the other 2 times I am 99.9% certain that I was cheated against.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:08 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:30 am

When high profile GMs wheel out games where they claim to be certain that cheating took place, but it is easily shown that nothing of the sort happened, this serves only to undermine serious efforts to deal with the problem.
Nick you really have no idea.

Unfortunately this comment is consistent with your recent ( and inexplicable) digs at me, given that Rausis had already confessed at the time of my post. In fact I had deliberately not said anything publicly, until Rausis got caught ( although my friends Danny Gormally and Jonathan Hawkins knew of my belief that that 2011 game was all I needed to be sure I was facing a cheat). We also know of other cheats, but endorsed by Nick's attitude, I will maintain my silence until they are caught, and then, again, I will say 'I told you so'. I will keep a copy of my facebook chats both re Rausis and re the other two.

Basically your attitude discourages me from coming forward.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:34 pm

Maybe something the ECF could ponder is having a way of collating a database of reports regarding players suspected of cheating, with an option for the reporting to be anonymous. Not necessarily to be actioned, but in the first instance as a intelligence gathering exercise to see what the extent of the problem might be and patterns revolving around certain players. Data protection rules would also have to be carefully considered.

As an aside, in the Rausis case I’d imagine he would have been particularly screwed if he’d chosen to cheat in one of the larger Las Vegas tournaments. The authorities in Nevada regularly prosecute cheating punters and croupiers, and 4-5 year sentences and monstrous fines are very common place. I don’t they would have broken much of a sweat applying their laws to Rausis’ antics. But in a lot of countries there just isn’t a lot of anti cheating case law to follow.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2854
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Mackenzie » 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?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Post Reply