Re: FIDE's 400pt rule
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:18 pm
The game in question is from 2011 - when did his big rating rise start?
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
That is the crucial point. Rausis hadn't just seen it, he had played it. After the earlier game any chess player at all, let alone a professional GM, would immediately have checked whether 12. Nxf7 had been an opportunity missed. You might not expect to be given the chance to play it yourself, particularly by another pro, but you never know your luck.Paul McKeown wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:02 pmSurely, a GM could work that out, particularly when they have already seen the opening
2013Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:18 pmThe game in question is from 2011 - when did his big rating rise start?
The reports appear to imply that he admitted the phone usage. Perhaps the photograph was posed after the detection. Some reports seem to be indicating that the phone was found in the cubicle immediately after Rausis had been in there.Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:51 pmMostly these chess cheating matters go to the FIDE Fair Play Commission. If they ban somebody, the player is entitled to take the commission to court. That is why they are so circumspect.
Nick, I have no idea what you do for a living but I hope it isn't doing slippery lawyer stuff to get obvious criminals off the hook. If, before Harold Shipman got caught, someone had described a medical encounter with that doctor 8 years earlier as being sinister, are you really barking up the right tree by trying to prove that he prescribed the correct medication?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:36 pm
"Keith Arkell I told Danny Gormally 5 days ago that Rausis would be caught very soon. The xxxx got too greedy. Accelerated his BS too rapidly. Typical criminal behaviour. They get greedy. ~
Me and Rausis were always about equal in strength, then suddenly, at a tournament in Sunningdale, England, he beat me brilliantly with a 3 piece sacrifice. Something didn't feel right. After this I collapsed completely despite starting with a win against a very strong player. I guess there are many other players whos tournament he ruined. I hope it's a life ban."
Danny chimes in
"Danny Gormally yeah it's total engine stuff. looks obvious now in hindsight."
The game Rausis - Arkell is indeed superficially impressive. If the rating report is to be believed it took place in the final round, so it's hard to see how it ruined the rest of anyone's tournament, but never mind.
[Event "e2e4 Sunningdale International Masters B"]
[Site "De Vere Sunningdale Park Hotel"]
[Date "2011.08.14"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Rausis, Igor"]
[Black "Arkell, Keith C"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2510"]
[BlackElo "2432"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 g6
8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Bg7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ba3 Re8 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nxf7 Kxf7 14.
Bc4+ e6 15. Rxe6 Rxe6 16. Bxe6+ Kxe6 17. Qg4+ Kf6 18. Qf4+ Ke6 19. Qd6+ Kf7 20.
Qd5+ Kf6 21. Re1 Bf8 22. Qg8 Kg5 23. h4+ Kh5 24. Qd5+ g5 25. Qf7+ Kxh4 26. g3+
Kg4 27. Re4+ Kh3 28. Qh5# 1-0
This becomes interesting when you look at a game played a few months earlier.
Boros-Rausis followed the same ( highly unusual ) path until White decided not to try 12.Nxf7 and played instead 12.Ne4, leading quickly to a draw. When Rausis himself did play the sacrifice it was no doubt based on computer analysis, but done after the previous game. I thought that was called preparation, and what serious GMs are supposed to do?
Keith,Keith Arkell wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 amat least I am experienced enough to whif when something isn't right.
I quite agree with this. Given that Rausis had reached the same position - just 12 moves into the game and just six months previous to his game with Keith - a plausible explanation is that he analysed it; he may well have been curious about 13. Nxf7.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:30 amKeith,Keith Arkell wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 amat least I am experienced enough to whif when something isn't right.
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.
I usually enjoy reading what Keith writes because it's thoughtful and insightful but I think this is unwarranted.Keith Arkell wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 amNick, I have no idea what you do for a living but I hope it isn't doing slippery lawyer stuff to get obvious criminals off the hook. If, before Harold Shipman got caught, someone had described a medical encounter with that doctor 8 years earlier as being sinister, are you really barking up the right tree by trying to prove that he prescribed the correct medication?
I think it's easy to see the temptation that a GM of moderate ability is under if they're struggling to make a living from playing chess.Nick Ivell wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:59 amI'm staggered that an experienced GM appears to have been getting up to no good.