Cheating in chess

[JustinHorton]

Doggers

[Chris Goodall]

Doggers

It would be nice to always go through the proper processes, the problem is that when there's a scandal the public and the media give you zero credit for going through the proper processes, if anything they penalise you. If she'd been caught cheating in a subsequent tournament, and it emerged that there had been previous allegations that had been sat on by the tournament directors, there would be howls of protest at this cover-up. You could get at least three blog posts out of that, in which the words "questions to answer" would feature heavily.

[JustinHorton]

However we do all understand that you can't just make allegations against other people if you can't make them stand up.

[NickFaulks]

and it emerged that there had been previous allegations that had been sat on by the tournament directors, there would be howls of protest at this cover-up.

Surely that's a problem for the tournament directors. In this particular case, the suggestion that the Chief Arbiter would not have dealt properly with the complaint is absurd.

[Michael Farthing]

Doggers

It would be nice to always go through the proper processes, the problem is that when there's a scandal the public and the media give you zero credit for going through the proper processes, if anything they penalise you. If she'd been caught cheating in a subsequent tournament, and it emerged that there had been previous allegations that had been sat on by the tournament directors, there would be howls of protest at this cover-up. You could get at least three blog posts out of that, in which the words "questions to answer" would feature heavily.

It would appear than Justin and Nick are prepared to face the social pressures in the interest of doing what they think to be right.

It would seem that Chris thinks that the social pressures should be ceded to.

Odd, therefore, that Chris seems the one to be suggesting he is holding to the high ground.

[Chris Goodall]

However we do all understand that you can't just make allegations against other people if you can't make them stand up.

Sure. That's why every court case ends in a guilty verdict.

[JustinHorton]

It is also why some court cases involve the law of defamation. But you knew that.

[Chris Goodall]

It is also why some court cases involve the law of defamation. But you knew that.

I was talking about criminal prosecutions not civil suits, but you knew that.

[NickFaulks]

I have received an email, sent I think to all ACP members, which starts

In the past few days, there have been rages over the Internet over the role and the work of the Fide Anti-Cheating Committee (ACC).

Can anyone cast any light?

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >Can anyone cast any light?<

I received the note from the Association of Chess Professionals. Prolix does not do it justice. I have not and will not make time to read this material. Why should readers of this forum?
At first glance it seems to be Yuri justifying his being an officer of both the ACP and ACC.

[LawrenceCooper]

I have received an email, sent I think to all ACP members, which starts

In the past few days, there have been rages over the Internet over the role and the work of the Fide Anti-Cheating Committee (ACC).

Can anyone cast any light?

Internet rage inevitably leads me to check Emil Sutovsky's Facebook page but although I recall him criticising in recent times I can't locate a specific thread so it may be on someone else's page.

[LawrenceCooper]

I have received an email, sent I think to all ACP members, which starts

In the past few days, there have been rages over the Internet over the role and the work of the Fide Anti-Cheating Committee (ACC).

Can anyone cast any light?

Internet rage inevitably leads me to check Emil Sutovsky's Facebook page but although I recall him criticising in recent times I can't locate a specific thread so it may be on someone else's page.

It may be this thread from 5th June from Emil:

Emil Sutovsky
5 June at 14:01 ·
Another case of alleged cheating made it into the news last week. The games of the suspected player in Chicago Open do look highly suspicious - but I'd like to make another point. Disappointigly poor work of the FIDE Anti-Cheating commission (ACC). I'd dare to remind all, that yours truly conducted a massive work in 2012 and convinced FIDE to establish the joint ACP-FIDE anti-cheating panel, which later became FIDE ACC. Ever since it has been a huge disappointment. The self-importance of some of the ACC members is matched only by the utter impotence of the commission. They'd rather chase people who express their suspicions, than take much needed steps to reduce the possibility of cheating. Even the top tournaments are not equipped with the adequate technical tools, players and arbiters are not informed about precise procedures, and most importantly - the regulations care much more about possible witch-hunting, rather than preventing the cheating. Hiding behind some illogical provisions (you can't suspect anyone based only on the strength of their play. Why???), they are ready to suspend and ban Grandmasters, that claim the obvious - no player can display a computer-like precision game after game. Let me reiterate again and again - players have to have right to suspect. In football it is OK to claim - the X is simulating (even it is Ronaldo), in ice-hockey it is OK to measure the length of the opponent's stick, there is no reason a player can't suspect an opponent in chess. Yes, based on his results and/or regular matching with engines. Yes, if someone outperforms his Elo by 300 points, it is enough for a suspicion. People, would you be ready to be screened before/after every game, while you perform head and shoulders above your rating? You betcha! Some of the ACC members choose to talk from the height of their authority, in a threatening or paternalistic tone. I would not do it on their place. Rather I would resign from ACC, as its poor work for the last four years failed to convince anyone, yes, anyone in the chess world. I claimed it back in 2012, and I reiterate it now - we are fighting a deadly battle against computer-assisted cheaters, and proper actions must be taken. Not with the present ACC though, where, you actually have just a single professional player, whose opinion is often neglected. It is not like there are no good or smart people there - but the commission fails to deliver for several years now. Please support and share - as many of the ACC people seem to live in a different world and don't see what's wrong with their work.

[NickFaulks]

It may be this thread from 5th June from Emil:

Thanks, I'm sure you have found it, and presume there is more.

Hiding behind some illogical provisions (you can't suspect anyone based only on the strength of their play. Why???)

What Sutovsky has never managed to grasp is that there is a distinction between suspicion and public denunciation.

[Roger de Coverly]

What Sutovsky has never managed to grasp is that there is a distinction between suspicion and public denunciation.

Also for that matter, there are players of lower ratings who can choose the same moves as titled players perhaps 18 times out of 20. The 19th and 20th moves are invariably fatal of course. But it's a completely plausible explanation as to why players can go 300 points above their published rating for short periods, such as the length of a tournament.

[JustinHorton]

How often does that happen? Specifically, outperforming one's rating by 300 points or more over the course of a tournament of nine rounds or more?