FIDE's 400pt rule

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:41 pm

It was more the burden of proof is less in civil proceedings and a feeling that for a organiser who historically handed Rausis a large cash prize, they’d probably have a decent chance of successfully suing him. Whether anyone has the energy or appetite to pursue it remains to be seen.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 733
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:45 pm

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't although there are people better qualified to comment on burden of proof than me, my LLB notwithstanding.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7913
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:47 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:39 pm
I believe this is a chess problem that chess needs to solve with minimal external help.
This sounds right to me, and I would have thought that the way forward, once cheats are identified (a problem in itself, of course) was in seeing how we can try and ensure that bans are imposed, are enforced and are robust against potential and actual legal challenge.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7913
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:50 pm

(I'm not saying we should utterly abjure the route of prosecution, but I am saying that there are a lot of practical difficulties along that road, sufficient that it really shouldn't be relied upon.)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:06 pm

I think FIDE and their internal disciplinary proceedings are quite relevant. If they eventually void his results for the previous 6 years, you start to get a lot of parallels to sporting cheating cases. One I saw was the marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova. Banned for doping offences in 2014, but retrospectively she was also stripped of various marathon titles including the London Marathon way back in 2010. The London Marathon then successfully sued her for the return of £377,000 in prize money and appearance fees.

Jacques Parry
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Jacques Parry » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:11 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:50 pm
(I'm not saying we should utterly abjure the route of prosecution, but I am saying that there are a lot of practical difficulties along that road, sufficient that it really shouldn't be relied upon.)
What practical difficulties do you have in mind, if (as Matt suggests) the police would be willing to investigate?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7913
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:47 pm

Practical difficulties in obtaining prosecutions and convictions (as well as the general principle that you really need the process to be under the control of the chess world as far as may be possible).
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:53 pm

There’s always going to be practical problems, but fortunately a lot of police officers and prosecutors are tremendous problem solvers. (Not chess problem solvers :)

Jacques Parry
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Jacques Parry » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:55 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:47 pm
Practical difficulties in obtaining prosecutions and convictions (as well as the general principle that you really need the process to be under the control of the chess world as far as may be possible).
Yes, but what practical difficulties do you envisage in doing that? And why does the process need to be under the control of the chess world? If the risk of acquiring a criminal record helps deter cheats, I don't see the problem.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7913
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Jacques Parry wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:55 pm
JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:47 pm
Practical difficulties in obtaining prosecutions and convictions (as well as the general principle that you really need the process to be under the control of the chess world as far as may be possible).
Yes, but what practical difficulties do you envisage in doing that?
I think it's not likely to happen. Fraud-related prosecitions in the sport world are vanishingly rare.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:11 pm

"Again you are stepping into the investigators shoes."

What I meant was that if the "tournament" has accused somebody of cheating, it would be reasonable for someone to write/email the accused and say, "we have reported this to ECF, FIDE, police (crime number xxxx), and the tournament committee, each of whom will consider suitable action."

As for Phil Ivey etc., the problem there is that bookmakers and casinos have long had the attitude, "We will refuse to pay out if we feel like it." They make insurance companies seem like models of probity.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:23 pm

I suppose it would be a matter for yourselves, but usually in criminal matters you avoid contact between the offender and victim as much as possible. The type of offending probably shares more features of gambling cheats, using electronic devices, programs and manipulations in bookmakers, casinos and online gambling, rather than sporting cheats using performance enhancing drugs, etc. The police in England do have regular experience with frauds of that electronic nature. Lesser reported matters than the Ivey case, which of course they weren’t involved with.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:03 pm

"I suppose it would be a matter for yourselves, but usually in criminal matters you avoid contact between the offender and victim as much as possible."

I agree - but if you have booted someone out for alleged cheating, there is a bit of a grey area, as you are sort of prosecutor as well!?

Jacques Parry
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Jacques Parry » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:13 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:10 pm
I think it's not likely to happen. Fraud-related prosecitions in the sport world are vanishingly rare.
It certainly won't happen if the police aren't informed. And Matt, who clearly knows more about policing than most of us, thinks it might happen if they are.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19086
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:42 pm

Leonard Barden highlights the issue in his Guardian column

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... gdale-2011

Post Reply