Stephen Moss

[LawrenceCooper]

If you are honest, yes. I'll admit this is a significant loophole

Is that a relatively new development? During the online 4NCLs in 2020 players who got flagged by LiChess reappeared with a new username either in a future season or sometimes even in the same one.

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't know if they were banned or suspended. But a new email address is a problem for a server giving away free accounts.

[NickFaulks]

or historical offences should do so, which I would find utterly unacceptable.

I think I agree with this, personally, but obviously it does not appear to be a universal view.

Where would that leave people who "confessed" even though they knew they were innocent, because they were given assurances that this would bring benefits but carry no penalties?

[Tim Spanton]

I am at a loss to understand why a hitherto respected journalist should have chosen to damage his good name and reputation in this way.

The ethical way of using Blitz games for training on lichess is to play the game as normal and then run the Computer analysis features to see what the resident Stockfish reckons. Then have another go against a new opponent. Mind you Stockfish would probably flag 2. f4 as a mistake after 1. e4 e5

Stockfish15 doesn't (although it does show yellow), but Komodo13.02 does

[Chris Goodall]

The huge point here is whether future online cheating should result in an OTB ban, which to me is an interesting discussion point with arguments both ways, or historical offences should do so, which I would find utterly unacceptable.

I see no difference between a) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at online chess, and b) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at (online) FIFA 22.

In both cases, you are assuming that if a person is A Cheat, their cheating nature will translate to a different arena entirely.

[Geoff Chandler]

I see no difference between a) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at online chess, and b) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at (online) FIFA 22.
In both cases, you are assuming that if a person is A Cheat, their cheating nature will translate to a different arena entirely.

Hi Chris,

I think the debate there would be the historical online cheat took the risk knowing a site ban was the only thing that could happen. If FIDE got in bed with chess.com there would have to be a truce, A clean slate for all.
That would stop the active OTB players from cheating, however it may also stop the active players from playing online at chess.com for fear of an accidental ban or a daft moment of temptation.
Have chess.com ever expressed an interest in their bans transferring to OTB games. It could cost them members and members = money. They might not like the idea.

[LawrenceCooper]

Where would that leave people who "confessed" even though they knew they were innocent, because they were given assurances that this would bring benefits but carry no penalties?

A very good point. It does seem that something is wrong if admitting to cheating when innocent can be beneficial.

[Graham Borrowdale]

What about people who ‘cheat’ at OTB blitz or friendly games down the club - you know the sort of thing, a player blunders and takes a move back, or the opponent retracts the move for them so as to continue the game ‘properly’, or the players chat while playing, effectively discussing the game? Or, back to online, I had a blitz game where a spectator was shouting ‘push the h-pawn’ to my opponent in the chat, and another where a follower of my illustrious opponent was commenting on my moves… Are they to be banned also? It’s not clear to me where to draw the line when we are talking about casual online games.
To answer the original question, as an ex-Surbiton player, I would not have a problem with Stephen Moss continuing to play in the local league down there.

[NickFaulks]

I see no difference between a) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at online chess, and b) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at (online) FIFA 22.

Nor do I. I have the impression that there are Puritans among us who would do both.

[Ian Thompson]

Where would that leave people who "confessed" even though they knew they were innocent, because they were given assurances that this would bring benefits but carry no penalties?

That assurance doesn't sound very credible to me. If a cheat detection process is flawed and finds an innocent person guilty once, then isn't it likely to get it wrong again in the future? The victim is then faced with being an admitted cheat who did it once and promised to never do it again (in the case of chess.com accounts), but broke that promise.

[Ian Thompson]

I see no difference between a) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at online chess, and b) banning someone from OTB chess because they cheated at (online) FIFA 22.

Any form of online chess? Do you see no difference between cheating in online:

• Unrated casual games
• Rated games where all that is at stake is rating points
• Organised tournaments with titles at stake
• Organised tournaments with no prize money
• Organised tournaments with prize money

[NickFaulks]

Organised tournaments with titles at stake

Titles?

Organised tournaments with prize money

This brings me to a question re Niemann which I don't think anyone has asked. It is claimed that he has cheated in at least one online event with prizes, which does sound serious, but did he actually win a prize?

[Ian Thompson]

Organised tournaments with titles at stake

Titles?

Yes. The British Online Chess Championships, for example, which attracted some attention when one of the leaders in the Championship event was disqualified.

[NickFaulks]

Ah, that sort of title. You can define the winner of any tournament as "Tournament X Champion", but I suppose some are more significant than others.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Organised tournaments with titles at stake

Titles?

Yes. The British Online Chess Championships, for example, which attracted some attention when one of the leaders in the Championship event was disqualified.

And off the back of that event advertises chess lessons at £35 an hour on Superprof and probably other sites, calling himself the strongest player in Brighton no less;

'I started playing chess at the age of 4.

Recent achievements: Ranked 3rd in British online Rapid Championship 2021.

My favourite server for playing chess is lichess, as it is very respectable overall in my opinion.

I am currently better than 99.6% of the players...'