Cheating in chess

[JustinHorton]

Well, I guess the organization probably cannot sue, but if you named an individual within that organization and said they acted dishonestly when they banned you, they could try to sue you. I expect chess.com (e.g.) would not want to go down that route as the defendant would recruit a large number of people who would say they had been unfairly banned and that chess.com (or its owner) did not have a good reputation so it could not be damaged.

Right, so we're talking about something hypothetical as opposed to something people have been doing or a practical situation people are grappling with?

(Incidentally, of course organisations can and do sue for libel. You may recall a famous instance where McDonald's did precisely that.)

[Matthew Turner]

Naming a player has GDPR implications, so you can argue that naming a player prevents fraud and that therefore there is a public interest in doing so, but this is (as far as I know) untested in law. However, the GDPR regulations are written in such a way as to give much greater protection to minors, so I think it is highly unlikely that naming an U16 found guilty of cheating in an event like the 4NCL would be legal.
Whilst the EBU has a policy of naming those found guilty of cheating, this does not apply to minors. It is rumoured that various national Bridge organizations are prevented from naming a group of leading players because of ongoing legal action.

[Ian Thompson]

if you named an individual within that organization and said they acted dishonestly when they banned you, they could try to sue you.

With a good chance of success, I would think. How would you prove dishonesty as opposed to, for example, incompetence or just following the recommendation of a computer program without giving the matter any further thought?

[NickFaulks]

How would you prove dishonesty as opposed to, for example, incompetence or just following the recommendation of a computer program without giving the matter any further thought?

So "I was only following orders" could be sufficient defence provided that the entity giving the orders is a computer?

I'm not saying you're wrong - in 2020 we have seen many things that would previously have been considered confined to dystopian fiction.

[JustinHorton]

The orders to follow the program do not however come from the program, which may render moot that particular point

[Ian Thompson]

How would you prove dishonesty as opposed to, for example, incompetence or just following the recommendation of a computer program without giving the matter any further thought?

So "I was only following orders" could be sufficient defence provided that the entity giving the orders is a computer?

As a defence to something that was dishonest, no.

I wouldn't have thought that following the recommendation of a computer program could be classed as being dishonest unless it could be shown that the person knew that the program was giving an incorrect assessment.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I wouldn't have thought that following the recommendation of a computer program could be classed as being dishonest unless it could be shown that the person knew that the program was giving an incorrect assessment."

Like the Post Office wrongly sacking and prosecuting staff as the faulty computer system said they were guilty of theft...

Justin's initial ban came because the computer said some of his games had 5 moves of theory when it was really about 15 moves. (Numbers may be wrong there.) So chess.com know that the system does not work, because he told them. Doubtless, others have said the same thing. That does not mean their computer is always wrong but there is a considerable doubt.

[JustinHorton]

Justin's initial ban came because the computer said some of his games had 5 moves of theory when it was really about 15 moves. (Numbers may be wrong there.)

As I've said a few times, we don't actually know that. It seems likely, but we don't know it, because chess.com won't say.

Speculating about the likely success or failure of hypothetical legal actions cast in general terms doesn't strike me as a useful way forward.

[Neil Graham]

I have been told you cannot name anyone who is being investigated as even if you clear them, suspicion remains. People are also scared to name a suspect due to fear of legal action. All I want is some sort of statement that somebody investigates concerns and allegations and then does something. But then I guess if they say Lichess or chess.com banned ten people and they were all innocent, that then there's the fear that lichess or chess.com will sue!

In respect of the 4NCL On-Line there was a comprehensive report at the half-way stage of Season One by Alex Holowczak and a subsequent article in Chess. I did send an e-mail after the end of Season One and was given a ball park figure of 40-50 players involved in Lichess bans. In the current 4NCL season 2 my own squad has already come across one player whose results have been changed from wins to losses and who has, presumably, been given a ban. The games are shown as wins on 4NCL Replay/PGN but now recorded as losses on the scorecards. On 17th November I, along with other team managers/captains received an e-mail from Alex that stated fair play checks were being made before the semi-final stage. Since then I have cause to make representations about one opponent who has probably been banned by LiChess. It is not unreasonable to give details of how many players have been investigated; how many have been banned; how many appeals have been made and how many were successful. This should be policy and would give credence to the process rather than the innuendo that keeps cropping up in this never-ending thread - so I wholeheartedly support what Kevin has said above.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"so I wholeheartedly support what Kevin has said above."

Thanks Neil - nice to have one person agreeing!

[Paul Robert Jackson]

Meanwhile in Lancaster

Elsewhere on the forum viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11304 you can see the link for a free download of the USCF magazine. Part of this (Page 9) says:-

"Fair play violations—or cheating, as it is more commonly known—continues to be a major concern among players, organizers, and tournament directors. The surge in online play has increased those concerns. To deter cheating and help assure a fair playing environment for all players, US Chess intends to begin posting the results of adjudicated cheating claims. We are working with the Ethics Committee and other committees with
sanctioning authority to solidify the format for such postings. "

This is interesting, as in England we are told that nobody can discuss these issues as it might infringe people's human rights. This is understandable to some extent, but the unbiased observer could well think that the secrecy means that nothing is being done, even in confirmed cases of cheating.

Proven cases of dishonesty can have implications for individuals employment & future employment
.....even if it is not work related.

This individual at Lancaster University has been identified.
As far as I am aware this is an accusation of cheating - Nothing Proven.

[Roger de Coverly]

As I've said a few times, we don't actually know that. It seems likely, but we don't know it, because chess.com won't say.

At a marginally more sophisticated level, they observed that a player of Justin's rating knew an awful lot of theory. Whilst potential evidence at Rapid or Blitz, they should not use the same standards for "daily".

[Paul Robert Jackson]

British Online Chess Championships 18th December 2020 to 3rd January 2021
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on this forum about the potential to cheat when competing in the above event.

[Wadih Khoury]

British Online Chess Championships 18th December 2020 to 3rd January 2021
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on this forum about the potential to cheat when competing in the above event.

Which forum? Do you have a link?

[David Sedgwick]

British Online Chess Championships 18th December 2020 to 3rd January 2021
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on this forum about the potential to cheat when competing in the above event.

Which forum? Do you have a link?

I imagine that Paul was referring to the thread on here at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11183