Page 7 of 14

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:18 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
The game in question is from 2011 - when did his big rating rise start?

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:39 pm
by NickFaulks
Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:02 pm
Surely, a GM could work that out, particularly when they have already seen the opening
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.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:40 pm
by NickFaulks
Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:18 pm
The game in question is from 2011 - when did his big rating rise start?
2013

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:51 pm
by Stewart Reuben
Matt and Adam >I don’t think you’d get that sort of thing through an English court<

But it isn't an English court that is being referred to. The event did not take place in England! It is unwise to assume our laws are universal.

Mostly 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.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:57 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:51 pm
Mostly 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.
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.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 am
by Keith Arkell
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.PNG

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?
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?

Memory plays tricks with details, but let's just say that during the game something didn't feel right, and that 8 years later I am still left with a bad taste -which has since grown to engulf my memory of the whole tournament. It isn't always the moves your opponent plays. Sometimes it's body language/ timing/ and so on.

Since the Rausis game I have had that same feeling on two further occasions. Obviously I am not going to publicly name names, but even if I'm not a 'serious' enough GM to prepare properly for Rausis, at least I am experienced enough to whif when something isn't right.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:30 am
by NickFaulks
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.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:37 am
by Leonard Barden
This was Rausis's performance at Sunningdale 2011:
https://ratings.fide.com/individual_cal ... -09-01&t=0

His rating was 2510, his consistent level until two years later in 2013 when he began his abnormal surge. His Sunningdale performance was at that 2510 level, including draws conceded to Alan Merry and Alexander Longson.

He also lost to Ameet Ghasi in a game which featured in my Guardian report of the event:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ ... nal-master

The Ghasi game was played in the penultimate round, just one round before Rausis v Arkell. What happened there seems sufficiently explained by Rausis's previous experience, and likely post-game computer analysis, of the critical position before 13 Nxf7.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:56 am
by Angus French
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.
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.
Keith Arkell wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 am
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?
I usually enjoy reading what Keith writes because it's thoughtful and insightful but I think this is unwarranted.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:59 am
by Nick Ivell
I'm more concerned with the apparent fact that a cheater has been caught, than the propriety of the methods used. I think most members of the chess community will share my views. Almost certainly the phone was being used for nefarious purposes; and we all know that consulting a phone during play is the most suspicious thing you can do.

As a matter of interest, how much of this stuff do we think is going on? I'm staggered that an experienced GM appears to have been getting up to no good. I always thought this kind of cheating was confined to callow juniors.

I'm worried that chess will start to acquire the reputation of athletics, where any kind of sudden improvement in one's mature years will be regarded with suspicion.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:22 am
by Matt Bridgeman
There is probably more than we think. I've become aware of two new methods in the last year, both involving accomplices - in Ireland there was the spectator with a smart phone in the crowd/audience hand signalling to a 1500 player who was beating everyone. And in an English 4NCL event, there was likewise a 60 odd rated player wearing a Smart Watch, being fed every move and beating up 140/150's aiming to pick up the £500 1st prize. Phone in the toilet seems the most common try, but probably from the world of casino Blackjack gambling, there was someone who was strongly suspected to have an electronic device hidden in his shoe, presumably being operated by his toes?! I think cheating bubbles way in unexpected places, not always motivated by money.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:30 am
by Ian Thompson
Nick Ivell wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:59 am
I'm staggered that an experienced GM appears to have been getting up to no good.
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.

That doesn't apply to amateur enthusiasts who don't need the money and would gain no pleasure at all from knowing they'd won by cheating, even if no-one else knew.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:03 pm
by Nick Grey
That the photo has made page 3 of The Sun puts the case into the public domain and a quote from Gormally -'It's amazing Rausis wasn't stopped earlier...
Perhaps there will be more checking of unusual improvements.

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:47 pm
by Chris Rice
The Rausis Effect at Riga. Grischuk "It’s inexcusable of course to go for such lines without remembering anything, but I have a little excuse that I was in a very good mood before the game because Rausis finally got caught cheating and it’s very good news. But it’s dangerous to be in a good mood when playing chess!"

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:12 pm
by Roger Lancaster
The Times and Daily Telegraph are also now running the story.