Stephen Moss

[JustinHorton]

People concerned that online cheating should be taken as seriously as OTB cheating may have a practical example to deal with, since Stephen Moss, of Kingston Chess Club and (at least) the Surrey League, admits in a newspaper column today to being an online chess cheat. This confession should not be taken to imply any degree of penitence - in fact, he seems rather amused by it.

So, I wondered - if people's view is now that online cheating should result in bans from OTB chess, we seem now to have a practical example, close to home, with which to consider if this should be the case. Your considered opinions are sought on the matter. I would also be interested in hearing from

(a) Kingston Chess Club (and any other to which he may belong) ;
(b) the Surrey League (and any other in which he may play) ;
(c) the English Chess Federation.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would also be interested in hearing from

(a) Kingston Chess Club (and any other to which he may belong) ;
(b) the Surrey League (and any other in which he may play) ;
(c) the English Chess Federation.

Given that the ECF has taken no other action against those whose online or OTB results were annulled, an ECF response seems unlikely. Gold member representatives have not canvassed for subjects to be raised on the forthcoming AGM, but there might be an opportunity to put the question if someone else present is able to raise it and the meeting allows discussion.

[JustinHorton]

Gold member representatives have not canvassed for subjects to be raised on the forthcoming AGM, but there might be an opportunity to put the question if someone else present is able to raise it and the meeting allows discussion.

That might very well be a good idea.

Given that the ECF has taken no other action against those whose online or OTB results were annulled, an ECF response seems unlikely.

Maybe, but there does some feeling that opinion on this matter may be shifting, so the question is worth putting nonetheless.

[MartinCarpenter]

Not such a brilliant example perhaps - I would think/hope that even the hardest line positions would include an amnesty for cheating in what genuinely was beers & skittles as opposed to 'real' events.

If there was genuinely solid enough evidence to convict someone playing something like the 4ncl online then it's harder. You'd at least desire a coherent position, I'd have thought.

[JustinHorton]

Not such a brilliant example perhaps - I would think/hope that even the hardest line positions would include an amnesty for cheating in what genuinely was beers & skittles as opposed to 'real' events.

Well, let's go with what we've got and see what people say.

[Chris Goodall]

Why not add d) FIDE, e) the Court of Arbitration for Sport and f) the United Nations General Assembly?

I would positively encourage any player facing me online to use an engine for only the first 15 moves. It helps me to find the holes in my favourite opening books, and they'll probably make a really instructive blunder on move 16.

[Thomas Rendle]

My considered opinion would be to tell him not to do it again, and leave it at that.

[JustinHorton]

I might even agree with that, but I do think we should take into account (a) that this is a prominent writer who clearly thinks cheating is all right, and is thereby promoting that idea through the piece, and this seems to me to definitely compound the offence (b) if we decided slaps on the wrist are appropriate for close-to-home examples (and they may very well be) then we may not want to be taking a harder line for offences committed elsewhere.

Just something to think about.

[Angus French]

Not such a brilliant example perhaps - I would think/hope that even the hardest line positions would include an amnesty for cheating in what genuinely was beers & skittles as opposed to 'real' events.

If there was genuinely solid enough evidence to convict someone playing something like the 4ncl online then it's harder. You'd at least desire a coherent position, I'd have thought.

So far as I could see the article didn't say in which games/events the author cheated. It could have been in the online 4NCL or some other ECF-rated event(s), couldn't it? Or have I missed something?

[Roger de Coverly]

So far as I could see the article didn't say in which games/events the author cheated. It could have been in the online 4NCL or some other ECF-rated event, couldn't it? Or have I missed something?

I read it as being in what he regarded as training games. So that's the usual login and asked to be paired. It's still not fair on his opponents in particular and the rating pool in general which is why servers would have banned him had they detected it.

[Paul Cooksey]

I wouldn't be willing to ask a question about Stephen Moss at an ECF meeting. I've been watching some of the videos on Rene Girard's theory of scapegoating this morning. I don't entirely agree with Rowson who drew our attention to it on twitter, but think it is relevant.

I don't think I'd ask a question about cheating in general terms, but on practical grounds. The most you could hope for in the minutes is "There was a discussion of Online cheating which Director X said he would consider". If you want to get something done by the ECF I'd suggest finding a relevant official and discussing it behind closed doors. It is considered bad form to put someone on the spot and usually results in stonewalling.

[Roger Lancaster]

Before pronouncing on this, I'd first like to know whether Mr Moss's games were rated or unrated and whether against humans or bots. At one extreme, I wouldn't regard computer assistance against bots in unrated games as deserving of any penalty. Having said that, I consider the piece unfortunate in allowing more impressionable readers to infer that cheating at chess is a trivial matter. Maybe it is, but only in the sense that cheating in other other sport is trivial in the context of world events.

[Chris Goodall]

I'm surprised that Justin, of all people, seems to consider it workable for OTB organisers to make decisions based on online cheating allegations. Justin was wrongly banned from a chess site for cheating. If his local congress had noted his ban and followed suit, Justin could have taken them to an actual court. If they had noted his ban and tried to investigate the allegations themselves, they would have access to only Justin's side of the story. The only way forward is to ignore the ban.

If you want to get something done by the ECF I'd suggest finding a relevant official and discussing it behind closed doors. It is considered bad form to put someone on the spot and usually results in stonewalling.

Others might see this as backroom dealing, but surely this is how the ECF is meant to operate - with officials empowered to make decisions about their area of responsibility, take representations from their constituents to that end, and invite the AGM to elect someone with a different approach if they're not happy.

[NickFaulks]

Speaking as a Surbiton player and a captain of one team, we play regularly against Kingston and I couldn't care less.

[Brian Egdell]

Aside from the extraordinary shameless admission in the article, I'm also astonished that the author seems to imply that he thinks the Niemann affair is good for chess because of the extra publicity. He might be writing tongue-in-cheek, but that is not clear and he ought to make it clear. Surely it is obvious that chess as an international sport is fighting for its life now. I don't think anyone was encouraged to take up competitive cycling as a result of the various doping scandals in that sport, and chess is no different in that respect.