English Chess Forum

I first heard about this via Mark Crowther on TWIC:

"German Chess Championships. There seems to have been an incident in the final round. Christoph Natsidis has been expelled from the event."

It is reported that the player, who is a German FM rated 2363 and had obtained an IM norm during the event, was disqualified for use of a mobile phone.

Further reports below via google translations:

http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=11752

About two thirds of the way down the page is the following:

"Christoph Natsidis saw in the last round for a scandal. As he admitted himself, he had acted out his ongoing match against Sebastian Siebrecht on the phone. The game was lost to him as a valued and IM norm, which he had already before the last round is certainly not confirmed. Prize money is not well."

http://www.dem-2011.de/?p=346

"The game Christoph Natsidis against Sebastian Siebrecht was detected because of fraud and Natsidis lost if granted. He has forbidden as the running game on the phone while they re-enacted.
A standard confirmation from the tournament will not Natsidis granted. From further tournament will be excluded. He is not entitled to price. Other consequences are the subject of investigations after the tournament final."

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/e ... mpionships

However it is the disqualification of Christoph Natsidis that will make the most headlines. He has admitted to analysing his final round game on his smartphone. The power that people carry around in their pockets now makes it likely that even carrying such phones will have to be banned at most levels of the game. How effective this would be is another question and there is no doubt it will be highly inconvenient. One would also have to speculate that this has now become extremely widespread.

From Chessbase:

Christoph Natsidis sorgte in der letzten Runde für den Skandal des Turniers. Wie sich herausstellte benutzte Natsidis nicht nur Kaffee, um stärker zu spielen, sondern auch ein Schachprogramm auf seinem Smartphone. Das flog auf, weil Natsidis in der letzten Runde verdächtig selten am Brett zu sehen war. Sein Gegner Sebastian Siebrecht machte dieses Verhalten misstrauisch und er wies den Schiedsrichter darauf hin. Im Anschluss wurde Natsidis ertappt, wie er die laufende Partie auf seinem Handy nachspielte. Partieverlust und sofortige Disqualifikation waren die Folge.

Translated:

Christoph Natsidis was responsible for the scandal of the tournament in the last round. As it turned out, Natsidis was using not just coffee but also a chess program on his smart phone to improve his playing strength. It came to light because in the last round Natsidis aroused suspicion by hardly ever being at the board. His opponent Sebastian Siebrecht thought this behaviour suspicious and reported it to the arbiter. Natsidis was then caught as he analysed the game in progress on his mobile phone. As a result he lost the game and was immediately disqualified.

It seems all the stranger that he had an IM norm even if he lost the last game. If he will retain the norm now must be in doubt.

LozCooper wrote:It seems all the stranger that he had an IM norm even if he lost the last game. If he will retain the norm now must be in doubt.

The earlier stories said the IM norm "wird...nicht bestätigt"

This phrase can be translated various ways, but:

"will... not be confirmed"

- would certainly be one of them. If he was using an engine in the last round, when he didn't need to, you would imagine there will be great suspicion that he was using it earlier in the tournament.

AustinElliott wrote:

LozCooper wrote:It seems all the stranger that he had an IM norm even if he lost the last game. If he will retain the norm now must be in doubt.

The earlier stories said the IM norm "wird...nicht bestätigt"

This phrase can be translated various ways, but:

"will... not be confirmed"

- would certainly be one of them. If he was using an engine in the last round, when he didn't need to, you would imagine there will be great suspicion that he was using it earlier in the tournament.

Agreed. It seems mad to keep doing it but maybe not using it and playing to a lower level might have aroused suspicion. Very sad to see it happening and wondering if there are (many) more cases that remain undiscovered.

TWIC wrote: One would also have to speculate that this has now become extremely widespread.

I would have said not, at least for players who are always at or near the board or always in view.

You can get a bit paranoid if your opponent is frequently absent from the board and nowhere to be seen.

(edit) TWIC (Mark Crowther) doing the speculation

Roger de Coverly wrote:

LozCooper wrote: One would also have to speculate that this has now become extremely widespread.

I would have said not, at least for players who are always at or near the board or always in view.

You can get a bit paranoid if your opponent is frequently absent from the board and nowhere to be seen.

I would think most people would be unable to successfully cheat much in the long-run. Say an adult rated 2100 suddenly consistently plays to 2500+ level, is this realistic?

The only players who may get away with it are the relatively young/talented from whom rapid improvement could be easily believed, if not expected, and even they would have to be almost 2300 strength at first for their increase in playing strength to be believable. I suspect once such a player starts cheating they would find it very hard to stop - and in all likelihood they will eventually be caught!

Of course Feller's case is an odd one as it seems clear he was a very strong GM before any cheating took place (and seemed to be at the Euros) - I guess there it's possible he was led astray by others?

Thomas Rendle wrote:I would think most people would be unable to successfully cheat much in the long-run. Say an adult rated 2100 suddenly consistently plays to 2500+ level, is this realistic?

I give you... D. P . Singh. Here is his rating chart since then: http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5007780

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I give you... D. P . Singh. Here is his rating chart since then: http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5007780

He made it to the Indian team in Turin. I think he lost in the first round and wasn't included again.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

LozCooper wrote: One would also have to speculate that this has now become extremely widespread.

I would have said not, at least for players who are always at or near the board or always in view.

I should point out that was from TWIC, not me.

They Should bring back hanging, as I suspect it to be a very serious crime.

Matt.

Matt, I'm quite sure that when you get to 2500+ in the space of a couple of years it will be completely above suspicion! I certainly hope though that hanging won't be involved should your endeavours be proved to be anything less than absolutely above board.

Thomas Rendle wrote:I would think most people would be unable to successfully cheat much in the long-run. Say an adult rated 2100 suddenly consistently plays to 2500+ level, is this realistic?

I think the bigger risk is the 2100 player who has a good start to a rating limited tournament without cheating, and then uses a computer in the last round or two to increase his chances of winning. Similarly with a 2400 player who got off to good start in an open and then cheated in the last round or two.

The persistent cheat is unlikely to get away with it for too long, but the occasional cheat has a much better chance.

How many times in a game would a strong player really need to use computer assistance to improve dramatically