Cheating in chess

[Mick Norris]

I get why, say, the 4NCL doesn't want to publish the names

I'm very conscious that it is up to Carl what we are ok to say on here i.e. he may not be happy with us doing so either, as Nick B has done above in posting his game and naming his opponent

If and only if Carl is ok for us to give names, we're presumably not talking about false accusations, we're talking about players who have been removed from tournaments (we know from Justin's cae that players can be wrongly banned by the sites)

[Carl Hibbard]

I get why, say, the 4NCL doesn't want to publish the names.

I think we should avoid naming of names especially for Juniors

[Mick Norris]

Thanks Carl

[Nick Burrows]

Why would anyone mind naming names? It's not an accusation, it's just a statement of fact. Joe Bloggs enters tournament under stated conditions, they were then removed from tournament after the server closed their account.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I still understand why we should be reticent about identifying young players in these circumstances, tbh.

[Adam Raoof]

Why would anyone mind naming names? It's not an accusation, it's just a statement of fact. Joe Bloggs enters tournament under stated conditions, they were then removed from tournament after the server closed their account.

Just to clarify. I think that the server flags the account, the actual closure of the account is down to the player. Titled players are especially well served because they get the opportunity to close their accounts without being flagged first. I have had a well known master win cash at an event, get paid, been identified as using assistance after complaints from other titled players and closed their account all in the space of a few days.

I dont really believe in naming or shaming. Especially kids.

[John McKenna]

Between there and your 21.Nf5? (Pf4 retains the advantage) Black was just about hanging on and it looked like he would soon lose. (Can you point to where you "reach a +5 position", please?)

I think your suggestion of f4 may be it. There's threats of e5, f5 etc. with a general splat of the King in the centre. Leaving the Knight on d6 prevents the defence as seen in the game of trading the Rooks.

Even given what happened between moves 21 and the exchange of rooks initiated by 28.Rad1 (28.Rf4 would've been better) the way black engineered the win looks more than just lucky.

If a player finds he has lost to someone who subsequently has their online playing account flagged for breaching terms of service surely he has the right to post the moves of the game and name his opponent, if he wishes.

[Roger de Coverly]

Joe Bloggs enters tournament under stated conditions, they were then removed from tournament after the server closed their account.

If you go solely with the results at the chess-results site, Joe Bloggs is still shown as being in one of the prize winning places, so hasn't been removed from the tournament.

[Nick Burrows]

I dont really believe in naming or shaming. Especially kids.

Why?

[Adam Raoof]

I dont really believe in naming or shaming. Especially kids.

Why?

In many ways I consider the kids victims of this issue, but I appreciate many would not agree. Young people are more susceptible to being persuaded into using assistance. I don't think the stigma should stay with them, they need a way back into chess as long as they and their parents accept that rules have been broken

[Nick Burrows]

If you go solely with the results at the chess-results site, Joe Bloggs is still shown as being in one of the prize winning places, so hasn't been removed from the tournament.

Are 4ncl notified by Lichess when an account is flagged?

[Nick Burrows]

In many ways I consider the kids victims of this issue, but I appreciate many would not agree. Young people are more susceptible to being persuaded into using assistance. I don't think the stigma should stay with them, they need a way back into chess as long as they and their parents accept that rules have been broken

Persuaded by whom? I would have thought it would mainly be undertaken independently.

Fair point about the stigma, i think i would agree for a 1st offence only as long as arbiters and organisers are made aware of anyone who has cheated so they can be vigilant towards flagged players.

What about naming 76 year olds?

[Alan Walton]

In many ways I consider the kids victims of this issue, but I appreciate many would not agree. Young people are more susceptible to being persuaded into using assistance. I don't think the stigma should stay with them, they need a way back into chess as long as they and their parents accept that rules have been broken

Persuaded by whom? I would have thought it would mainly be undertaken independently.

Fair point about the stigma, i think i would agree for a 1st offence only as long as arbiters and organisers are made aware of anyone who has cheated so they can be vigilant towards flagged players.

What about naming 76 year olds?

The majority of these kids are all teenagers and older; I vaguely remember (and its been some time now) my parents telling me cheating is wrong and not to do it, I am presuming the parents of these intelligent kids are saying the same thing

But not having a name and shame deterrent we will just keep going round in circles; if you believe you have been falsely accused submit your games to a central source and strong players can validate and get you removed from the "blacklist"

[Matt Mackenzie]

What about naming 76 year olds?

I presume you don't have anybody specific in mind here?

[Robin Nandi]

I get why, say, the 4NCL doesn't want to publish the names

So do I in one sense - they don't want to deal with the agro of claims and counterclaims. However, given the high rate of cheating in the online format, I believe publishing a list of names is necessary to give those who played fairly confidence that cheaters will be caught and to deter would be cheaters from doing so.

I think it is possible for organisers to publish such a list if they frame it carefully i.e. indicates likelihood of cheating above a certain threshold, like a "pregnancy test" rather than "speed camera". And have a panel for reviewing appeals by players.

I can understand why many players will not play in organised online tournaments if something like this is not in place. There are plenty of hourly tournaments on lichess (e.g. Daily Rapid Arena) with decent players participating. What is the advantage in playing in an organised tournament with no prize money?

One suggestion on the prevention rather than detection front: it might help to require a video call between the players. This means that the players can see each others faces during the game and may notice e.g. if the opponent checks his phone. More importantly, it is much harder to lie to someone while looking at their face.