Chess row in Cork

[Colm Daly]

First of all, how he was treated [apparently] on the day is totally irrelevant, it is AFTER THE FACT OF CHEATING, and being caught in the act at that.

I'd like to highlight this sentence because I think this is the crux of the issue. Up to the point where Mirza exposed the cheat there is little doubt that he was in the right (breaking down the door is a bit melodramatic and presumably someone somewhere had to pay for the damage but no matter).

However while there is some dispute about what level of force was used and what purpose I still don't understand how some contributors can justify ANY force being used. At the start of this thread the cheat was accused of seeking to distract attention from his own wrongdoing and it was the force used that has given him an opening to do so - nothing else.

I made the point upthread that if the cheat had been six foot four and built like a bouncer would Mirza have been so willing to use force? The fact that nobody has answered this point speaks for itself.

I suspect the reason people did not answer you on this point is because you are so obviously correct that it seems like there would be no need to? I agree fully with you and the points you have made.

And I think the idea of Gabriel kicking down the door has been over played and over stated. There was no damage to the door. I have told Gabriel to his face that what he done was just outrageous and etc etc...

Your previous post in response to my earlier post

Cutting through the crap my point is;

Cheating - beyond unacceptable

Kicking open a cubicle door to expose a cheat - possibly a bit extreme but justifiable

Physical assault - beyond unacceptable

My worry is that some people seem to disagree on the last of these.

pretty much summed up things.

We can allow for emotions and feelings of indignation anger etc etc but indeed we have to stay civil and endeavor to do things properly.

[Peter D Williams]

No ban for cheating at chess. Even the originally reported 4 month ban was pretty meaningless as most of it was "out of season".

It is typical of the inconsistent approach in chess. For example, ordinary player refuses to take a drug test - two year-ban; GM refuses to take a drug test - er, don't do it again, as we'll have to think of a new excuse.

Surely the approach should be the same, regardless of age, rating, race, creed, colour, political party, bank balance etc?

You are right the approach should always be the same if some one is caught cheating regardless of age,rating,creed,colour etc

A Junior was caught so we are told cheating at an E2 E4 event but only the Organizers know who this junior is and what was done about it .This junior could enter other events and no one would know what he or she may have done in past events.An adult would have been named and could have agreed he had cheated or could have proved that he or she had not cheated.One wonders how many other juniors have been caught cheating but it has been dealt with in house.Chess organizers come and go so a new organzier starting up a chess event would have no idea about who may have been cheating.

Time for tea and some more cherry cake

[Roger de Coverly]

A Junior was caught so we are told cheating at an E2 E4 event but only the Organizers know who this junior is and what was done about it .

The name of one of them at least is known to a number of people and was worked out from the relevant tournament cross-table. I don't believe an awful lot was done about it, other than expulsion from the tournament. Sean confirmed another case, but less is known about that. If you really wanted to, I suppose you could comb the tournament results looking for abnormal forfeits.

Unless the ECF makes membership or a playing licence absolutely compulsory for every single game played under graded conditions, there's a limit to what the ECF can do. Organisers and team captains, should they know of the case are free under the usual "we may decline your entry" provisions to take their own action.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Unless the ECF makes membership or a playing licence absolutely compulsory for every single game played under graded conditions, there's a limit to what the ECF can do. Organisers and team captains, should they know of the case are free under the usual "we may decline your entry" provisions to take their own action.

The ECF can't impose a blanket ban but they could ban a player from their own events although I'm not sure they have any mechanism to do so. The world of chess organisation is relatively close knit and Sean and other organisers can give each other the heads up; obviously it would be up to individual events to decide whether to refuse any entry.

My worry is that a dangerous precedent could be set. Chess players have very long memories ...

[Sean Hewitt]

A Junior was caught so we are told cheating at an E2 E4 event but only the Organizers know who this junior is and what was done about it .

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. I do wish that people would stop posting stuff as fact when they clearly know absolutely nothing about the topic they are waffling on about.

For the record - on both occasions when players were caught cheating at an e2e4 event the following action was taken

1 - The player was awarded a loss (and the opponent a victory) in the game in question
2 - The player was defaulted in all of his previous games in the event
3 - The player was excluded from the rest of the tournament
4 - The matter was reported to the English Chess Federation for further action
5 - The matter was reported to FIDE for further action

Time for tea and some more cherry cake

Followed, it would seem, by a rather large portion of humble pie.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF can't impose a blanket ban but they could ban a player from their own events although I'm not sure they have any mechanism to do so.

The ECF run very few events, mostly those with British, English or National in the title. I'm not even sure that some of even those aren't just in effect a franchise with no direct ECF control.

[Colm Daly]

For the record - on both occasions when players were caught cheating at an e2e4 event the following action was taken

1 - The player was awarded a loss (and the opponent a victory) in the game in question
2 - The player was defaulted in all of his previous games in the event
3 - The player was excluded from the rest of the tournament
4 - The matter was reported to the English Chess Federation for further action
5 - The matter was reported to FIDE for further action:

Time for tea and some more cherry cake

Followed, it would seem, by a rather large portion of humble pie.

That does does look like game,set and match alright and I have to agree that humble pie would now be best served up next, along with a little apology too perhaps.

[Peter D Williams]

[quote For the record - on both occasions when players were caught cheating at an e2e4 event the following action was taken


4 - The matter was reported to the English Chess Federation for further action
5 - The matter was reported to FIDE for further action[quote =Sean Hewitt

What action did the ECF take with this junior?
What action did FIDE take?

This junior could enter an event that is not E2 E4 and no one would know he/she had been caught cheating. As chess organizers and ECF officers come and go.

Some of the answers on here remind me of how Putin dealt with the nonsesne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ux3oiWELIQ

Fry up tonight with 2 eggs but first some more cherry cake

[Mike Truran]

Why don't you ask the ECF and FIDE?

[Peter D Williams]

Why don't you ask the ECF and FIDE?

That is not my job it is for the ECF and FIDE to explain what has been done to this person that was caught cheating my guess is nothing its no good reporting some one if nothing happens to them

Not that it make any difference to me as i do not play rated chess games anymore but it must be of real interst to chess players what happens to some one who is caught cheating.

niow i must eat that lovely cherry cake

[Mike Truran]

They are hardly likely to explain it to you if you haven't asked them. Why not spend a bit less time eating and a bit more time taking the trouble to contact the people who might be able to answer your question?

[NickFaulks]

Cheating - beyond unacceptable

Kicking open a cubicle door to expose a cheat - possibly a bit extreme but justifiable

Physical assault - beyond unacceptable

My worry is that some people seem to disagree on the last of these.

The trouble is that the definition of assault changes with the times. When I was at school, a boy shouting foul language on a bus could expect to have his ear seized by an adult passenger and to be turfed off at the next stop. Nowadays, that would be considered a serious case of assault. Which approach is morally correct? I don't know, but I do know which one makes buses more pleasant to travel on.

[NickFaulks]

5 - The matter was reported to FIDE for further action

To whom in FIDE does one report such things?

[Peter D Williams]

They are hardly likely to explain it to you if you haven't asked them. Why not spend a bit less time eating and a bit more time taking the trouble to contact the people who might be able to answer your question?

I would have thought your mate Sean would be able to tell the chess world what action was taken when he reported it or is it a state secret? it must be of real interest to chess players who play in chess tournaments.

Do you not like cherry cake?

Well i must go stuff to do in the garden i be back next week to see what progress we made with this subject

[Jonathan Bryant]

Why don't you ask the ECF and FIDE?

Or browse the forum to find the relevant threat where the matter was discussed at the time. The ECF question was answered there.