Page 11 of 15
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:03 am
by Richard Bates
Angus French wrote: ↑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.
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).
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:09 am
by Jacques Parry
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 (especially on television) is likely to be taken more seriously than winning £400 in an under-135 event; but people get prosecuted for stealing £400. Why the difference? For deterrence to be effective, we surely need to maximise both the likelihood of being caught and the likely consequences of being caught.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:15 am
by Matt Bridgeman
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.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:54 am
by Roger de Coverly
Jacques Parry wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:09 am
Of course winning £1m by fraud (especially on television) is likely to be taken more seriously than winning £400 in an under-135 event; but people get prosecuted for
stealing £400. Why the difference?
Another complication is that where an U-135 event or similar is involved, the perpetrator could be a junior. Although it's usually possible to deduce a name from the context, they haven't been publicly named in UK cases.
Examples of suspicious behaviour go back several years.
This one from 2012 for example
https://en.chessbase.com/post/cheating- ... -phone-use
That was before there was the more straightforward rule that even possession leads to a default.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:14 am
by Angus French
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:03 am
Angus French wrote: ↑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.
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?
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
by Angus French
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:15 am
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.
Cheating at chess, possibly to increase the chances of winning a relatively small amount of prize money, while wrong isn't major-league crime and I doubt the police and CPS would have time to pursue it.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:29 am
by Matt Bridgeman
If it was a civil case, on the balance of probabilities Keith’s strong witness evidence and the recent events and admissions by the offending GM might actually sway a judge.
Police and CPS deal with low level crime everyday. It’s their bread and butter! And trust me, they would be interested in a type of case that is unique and probably would generate some publicity. I’m not just speculating here, I actually did the job for over 11 years and now work for another large government enforcement agency. Trust me, these cheating cases would receive the proper attention.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:38 am
by Angus French
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:29 am
If it was a civil case, on the balance of probabilities Keith’s strong witness evidence and the recent events and admissions by the offending GM might actually sway a judge.
Police and CPS deal with low level crime everyday. It’s there bread and butter! And trust me, they would be interested in a type of case that is unique and probably would generate some publicity. I’m not just speculating here, I actually did the job for over 11 years and now work for another large government enforcement agency. Trust me, these cheating cases would receive the proper attention.
Can you cite some comparable cases?
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:40 am
by Matt Bridgeman
Well that’s exactly it isn’t it, they would be doing something new and exciting, which actually investigators do find quite interesting.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:16 am
by Richard Bates
Angus French wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:14 am
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:03 am
Angus French wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:19 am
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.
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.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:18 am
by JustinHorton
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:29 am
If it was a civil case, on the balance of probabilities Keith’s strong witness evidence and the recent events and admissions by the offending GM might actually sway a judge.
If what, specifically, was a civil case?
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:34 am
by LawrenceCooper
I'm prepared to accept that he didn't have computer assistance in this game, or if he did I hope he kept his receipt:
[Event "Isle of Man op"]
[Site "Isle of Man"]
[Date "1997.10.06"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Rausis, Igors"]
[Black "Cooper, Lawrence"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A17"]
[WhiteElo "2490"]
[BlackElo "2330"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "1997.10.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 a5 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2 d6 7. O-O e5 8. d4
exd4 9. Nxd4 Nbd7 10. Rd1 Re8 11. h3 h6 12. Qc2 Nc5 13. Ndb5 Bd7 14. Bf4 Bc6
15. Bf1 Nce4 16. Na4 Nh5 17. a3 Nxf4 18. axb4 Qg5 19. Qb3 Nh5 20. Rd3 axb4 21.
Nxc7 Nc5 22. Qd1 Nxd3 23. Qxd3 Rxa4 24. Rxa4 Bxa4 25. Nxe8 Bxe8 26. Qxd6 Bc6
27. Qxb4 Nxg3 0-1
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:39 am
by Matt Bridgeman
If what, specifically, was a civil case?
Don’t get too carried away. It’s just a hypothetical. If Ruesis is ever sued in civil court, for example, for return of prize money - as Lance Armstrong was multiple times - then its likely that the burden of proof will be the much lower ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ In his case the steady and unusual climb of his rating over the last 6 years is significant evidence.
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:44 am
by JustinHorton
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:39 am
If what, specifically, was a civil case?
Don’t get too carried away. It’s just a hypothetical.
Well yes, but what's the hypothetical?
Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:03 pm
by Matt Bridgeman
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.