Cheating in chess

[Mick Norris]

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.

GDPR gets quoted a lot; has there been some legal advice that says that naming someone found guilty is not ok?

I'm not in favour of naming people accused or suspected, but am in favour of naming those found guilty (albeit not minors)

[Matthew Turner]

Mick,
To quote from the Government document, you can process information if there are "Legitimate Interests" in doing so
This is defined as "There is a weighted and balanced legitimate interest where processing is needed and the interest is not overridden by others"

What does that mean?

Lets say we have a senior player found guilty of cheating. How do we offset the benefit of naming them in terms of preventing further cheating with the impact this could have in terms of lost livelihood from coaching etc.

I don't think there is a simple answer, so I doubt very much that a lawyer would give a definite answer. The bottom line is we simply don't know.

[Roger de Coverly]

Lets say we have a senior player found guilty of cheating. How do we offset the benefit of naming them in terms of preventing further cheating with the impact this could have in terms of lost livelihood from coaching etc.

In the wider sporting world, it is accepted that a sports person found taking the wrong type of medication without authorisation or even failing to be present for a test would be named. There is however a due process for bans and suspensions including rights of appeal which isn't really present in accusations by lichess and chess.com.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding - the GDPR has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding - the GDPR has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

If you aren't allowed to name chess players breaking the rules of chess competitions by consulting external assistance, why is this different from naming sports people breaking the rules of their sport by taking banned medicines?

[Matthew Turner]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

[Paul Robert Jackson]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

The implications for a professional would be addressed by their own Professional Body for the example you have given.

[Matthew Turner]

Yes, but again that is nothing to do with the GDPR - we are talking about the weighting and balancing of the interests in publicly naming the player

[Simon Rogers]

Just had another update on my phone this evening from Chess Play & Learn (chess.com).
On the What's New piece all it says is " maintenance release"
Don't know what that is, but the update took less than 20 seconds.

[Nick Grey]

Football - assaulting officials and cocaine use have lengthy bans at all levels-even local leagues. my professional body may be concerned if I was Cheating in chess. A child's school may also be concerned.
But Simon a Chess update to your phone is not Cheating in chess unless using it when playing chess otb or online.

[John McKenna]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

No prize money in that event but there are two places up for grabs in one that does have a prize fund -

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11183&start=45#p256642

[Mick Norris]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

The implications for a professional would be addressed by their own Professional Body for the example you have given.

Only if the Professional body were informed though

If the rules of the non-league football association said they would name players banned, then GDPR can't prevent it; similarly, if the entry form to a chess event, or the rules thereof, said that convicted cheats would be named

[Paul Robert Jackson]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

The implications for a professional would be addressed by their own Professional Body for the example you have given.

Only if the Professional body were informed though

If the rules of the non-league football association said they would name players banned, then GDPR can't prevent it; similarly, if the entry form to a chess event, or the rules thereof, said that convicted cheats would be named

Most Professions (Teachers, Solicitors, Health Care Workers etc.) take dishonesty (even out of work) very seriously.
Their Professional Bodies have their own publications & websites where individuals who bring their profession's into disrepute are named.
Cheating in a tournament such as the British Championship's is unlikely to ignored.

[Matthew Turner]

It isn't different, so there is probably no problem under the GDPR naming elite athletes, footballers or chessplayers. However think about this example, lets imagine a lawyer is banned from his non-league football side for taking a banned substance. Under the GDPR would it be legal to name them? I don't believe anyone could answer this with any level of certainty - we just don't know. How then does this compare to to a senior chess player competing in the Online British Championships (an event with no prize money).

The implications for a professional would be addressed by their own Professional Body for the example you have given.

Only if the Professional body were informed though

If the rules of the non-league football association said they would name players banned, then GDPR can't prevent it; similarly, if the entry form to a chess event, or the rules thereof, said that convicted cheats would be named

If the rules state that a banned player will be named this strengthens the league's case because it can be argued that the player has given consent (one of the legitimate reasons for using data under GDPR). However, I don't think this is conclusive, for example, I still don't think it would be legal to name a minor (in most circumstances).

[Matthew Turner]

The implications for a professional would be addressed by their own Professional Body for the example you have given.

Only if the Professional body were informed though

If the rules of the non-league football association said they would name players banned, then GDPR can't prevent it; similarly, if the entry form to a chess event, or the rules thereof, said that convicted cheats would be named

Most Professions (Teachers, Solicitors, Health Care Workers etc.) take dishonesty (even out of work) very seriously.
Their Professional Bodies have their own publications & websites where individuals who bring their profession's into disrepute are named.
Cheating in a tournament such as the British Championship's is unlikely to ignored.

I would be absolutely shocked if the law society named a solicitor who had been found guilty of cheating in the British Chess Championships. They may well name someone whose name is already in the public domain because of legal action, but otherwise I very much doubt it.