French Chess Federation investigates cheating players

[David Sedgwick]

When I was a match arbiter at the Turin Olympiad in 2006, I didn't see much of the team captains during the period from about half an hour to about two and a half hours into the session. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a captain might leave the playing area during this period, for instance to attend a meeting at the accompanying FIDE Congress.

The captain wouldn't be banned from using his phone whilst outside the playing venue. Inside the venue (or at least inside the playing area) he would be required to have it turned off and completely silent, as would anyone else.

All communication between a player and a captain during play is supposed to take place in the presence of the arbiter. In theory this would prevent a captain passing on any information which he obtained while outside.

Reverting to the specific case, I note that the Disciplinary Committee Meeting is being held in Paris next Saturday (19th March) and that the FFE Claim to have considerable evidence even without the mobile phone transcripts. We may or may not see a statement immediately after the hearing, but I'm sure that the whole matter will be the subject of discussion and gossip at next week's European Individual Championship in Aix-les-Bains. Thread starter Sean Hewitt will be there as an arbiter and I hope he'll be able to keep us posted.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm sure that the whole matter will be the subject of discussion and gossip at next week's European Individual Championship in Aix-les-Bains. Thread starter Sean Hewitt will be there as an arbiter and I hope he'll be able to keep us posted.

Assuming my French is up to it!

[Tim Spanton]

Beginning to sound somewhat circumstantial...

That's often the best kind of evidence!

[Jonathan Bryant]

Almost certainly irrelevant is the fact that the blog of the "new" BCM editor has been wiped.

Interesting. That particular blog did discuss the French situation as I recall. More recently Mr G removed a post he'd written about Boggie Lalic and more recently still wrote a couple of strident posts about an issue that arose in New Zealand of late. Lots of language along the lines of “blatant act of fraud”, “crook", “criminal act of fraud” etc.

Assuming the blog isn't just temporarily suspended or suffering short-term technical problems, it seems most unlikely that it's gone because of anything that it contained about the French Chess players case.

[Justin Hadi]

Here's why :

http://doubleroo.blogspot.com/2011/03/r ... l#comments

[Adam Raoof]

Blimey. Thanks for this, Justin.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Here's why :

http://doubleroo.blogspot.com/2011/03/r ... l#comments

So he's holding his breath until he faints? I assume he's not actually going to quit the BCM too, but we can but hope.

[Matt Mackenzie]

A lot of love for SG on here, isn't there??

[Jonathan Bryant]

A lot of love for SG on here, isn't there??

As it happens I think he's right that the New Zealand case *is* important and should be condemned (though I tend to think that calling for life bans is somewhat of an over-reaction). It's more I think that if you say things like

"If even a voice of intelligence and reason like yourself cannot see the seriousness of what happened in NZ, then there is no hope for chess"

you should probably be more careful who you choose to brown-nose. Otherwise you'll just come across as a huge hypocrite.

[Michael Jones]

Like any good chessplayer, I know a lost position when I see one and I resign.

I think a better analogy would be "Like any spoilt little brat, I can't stand losing, will knock the pieces halfway across the room, snatch the board away then sit in the corner and sulk". I do agree with him that the NZ case is more serious than that blog treats it as, but he acts the same way in any debate - can't believe that anyone could have the nerve to disagree with him, go to great lengths to denounce them, then if they persist in disagreeing, refuse to continue the discussion.

[Adam Raoof]

To be fair, the tone of SG's postings does indicate he's suffering from a certain degree of intolerance. I am sure there is more to it than at first meets the eye.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I am sure there is more to it than at first meets the eye.

Well for a start there's the question - as yet unaddressed by Giddins as far as I know - as to why $55 worth of "fraud" is so awful but this sort of thing - and from a man who, amongst (many) other things, has been proven to be plagiarist and perfectly willing to sign a contract that he has no intention of honouring - is perfectly OK.

[Adam Raoof]

I am sure there is more to it than at first meets the eye.

Well for a start there's the question - as yet unaddressed by Giddins as far as I know - as to why $55 worth of "fraud" is so awful but this sort of thing - and from a man who, amongst (many) other things, has been proven to be plagiarist and perfectly willing to sign a contract that he has no intention of honouring - is perfectly OK.

Both are wrong.

Hypocrisy is a uniquely human failing. I can think of a few examples where, if it suited them, normally logical individuals have been prepared to overlook the misdemeanors of others, in the chess world and in the real world. Normally it has something to do with enhancing their reputation by association, or simply paying the mortgage. I have not had that experience myself, and therefore I try not to judge others too harshly.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I try not to judge others too harshly.

I normal circumstances I might be willing to either ignore (even large) discrepancies between a person's position in one context when compared to that s/he adopts in another, or at least simply point it out and leave it at that.

When the person goes further and states that nobody in the chess world other than himself has any understanding of morality I allow myself the freedom to take a stronger line.

[Jonathan Rogers]

one could at least suggest some culpability for Marzano and Hauchard for the suspicions being aroused. Whereas Feller would be absolutely blameless,

Bizarre though that the trio haven't admitted that games were discussed (if that's what happened), but that all such discussions were outside the playing area. The FFE as well, made it very clear that the other 4 potentially in the team were in no way involved.

That seems entirely consistent with the only 'evidence' being texts between Marzano and Hauchard discussing Feller's game. As i said, arguably ill-advised texts but not something they could deny if they happened. Of course if you were convinced that the texts were evidence of cheating then you'd have to assume that Feller was in on it (otherwise where is the cheating?). But you'd be hard pressed to draw the rest of the squad into it!

However if there is no cheating then Feller is entirely blameless. And it's not surprising that he would not be interested in putting out "joint" statements with the other two.

I have gone undercover and am in Paris now trying to resolve the mystery.

(That's not wholly true but I am in Paris reading a recent copy of Liberation And certainly no one knows who I am).

After outlining the broad allegations, it offers the following sentences "La preuve? Les messages telephoniques echange entre les trois joueurs pendant certaines parties de Feller" which suggests to me that there is supposedly evidence that the messages reached Feller's phone too ("entre les trois joueurs"), and were sent while ("pendant") he was playing.

Apparently "la Commission de discipline" of the FFE were due to hold a further meeting today.