Cheating in chess

[Chris Rice]

A tweet from Peter Heine Nielsen refers to Kramnik's former manager Carsten Hensel, in a biography of Kramnik, openly accusing Danailov/Toplalov of cheating at San Luis in 2005.

It's in German but the interesting passage is: "What I saw shocked me, Danailov left the room after almost every move Polgar played, came back, and when Topalov looked at him, he indicated with his right hand: fist to the chin, three fingers on the right cheek..."

As we know in the first seven rounds Topalov had six wins and only conceded a draw to Anand, one of the greatest streaks in the history of championship level chess. He then drew every one of his games in the second cycle, clinching the victory with one round to spare. This made Topalov the FIDE World Chess Champion.

[NickFaulks]

Here's another one. Ethics Commission has delivered a light punishment to a Russian GM who has made unsubstantiated accusations on the Internet against a young female player. He has received support from a group of GMs - mostly from Eastern Europe, of course, but it is disappointing to see Jacob Aagaard's name there.

It is worth taking a look at the game which is presented as evidence. It is claimed that, rather than entering into the huge complications of the line she chose, all of the experienced professional GMs contacted would have gone with something more secure. No doubt they would, but she is young and that is how she plays. This time it worked, sometimes it doesn't. As it happens, Ken Regan's computer has found nothing of note even in this game, which went very well for her.

The only cause for sympathy one might have for the accusers is that Anti Cheating Commission has for a long time been completely rudderless, caught up in politics and struggling to do anything constructive. It must be hoped that this can be put right after the election, since neither cheating nor accusations thereof are going away


https://www.chess.com/news/view/gm-solo ... ms-protest

[Chris Goodall]

Here's another one. Ethics Commission has delivered a light punishment to a Russian GM who has made unsubstantiated accusations on the Internet against a young female player. He has received support from a group of GMs - mostly from Eastern Europe, of course, but it is disappointing to see Jacob Aagaard's name there.

It's the times we live in. To be alive in the 21st century is to leave yourself open to unsubstantiated accusations. Because your accusers know that, if they suspect you of doing something wrong but don't say anything because they haven't got proof, and it turns out you were doing something wrong, their career is toast. There is even less forgiveness for cover-uppers than for wrongdoers.

[Stewart Reuben]

Delay in the transmission of moves in a live game were ntroduced by me, English events used to have a 5-10 minute delay before the moves in live games were transmitted.
That doesn't solve all problems, but it dimishes the one about accessing the move from afar and communicating the best move by some means to the player.
But Makro said it was bad for the players in the hall to know the results before the spectators in adjoing rooms. So that syatem was dropped. A pity.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ethics Commission has delivered a light punishment to a Russian GM who has made unsubstantiated accusations on the Internet against a young female player.

Part of the accusation appeared to relate to an overheard conversation in the Ladies. Even if true, that doesn't have to suggest computer cheating, rather the (illegal) discussion of a game whilst in progress.

GMs do seem vulnerable to making the accusation that only their skill or knowledge level is capable of making certain moves. Perhaps though their difference in rating to other players isn't so much skill or knowledge as consistency in application.

[Adam Ashton]

Here's another one. Ethics Commission has delivered a light punishment to a Russian GM who has made unsubstantiated accusations on the Internet against a young female player. He has received support from a group of GMs - mostly from Eastern Europe, of course, but it is disappointing to see Jacob Aagaard's name there.

It is worth taking a look at the game which is presented as evidence. It is claimed that, rather than entering into the huge complications of the line she chose, all of the experienced professional GMs contacted would have gone with something more secure. No doubt they would, but she is young and that is how she plays. This time it worked, sometimes it doesn't. As it happens, Ken Regan's computer has found nothing of note even in this game, which went very well for her.

The only cause for sympathy one might have for the accusers is that Anti Cheating Commission has for a long time been completely rudderless, caught up in politics and struggling to do anything constructive. It must be hoped that this can be put right after the election, since neither cheating nor accusations thereof are going away


https://www.chess.com/news/view/gm-solo ... ms-protest

Certainly the game given isn't evidence. However Solozhenkin is claiming his daughter overheard her discussing something game related in the toilets and certainly I can understand that he would take his daughters word as proof. Of course he can't expect others to do the same and I would have thought quietly voicing his concerns to the arbiters would have been the right thing to do.

I do not recall either Mamedyarov or Zhukova(I'm sure there are others as well) being banned from playing of course. I think the penalties for false accusations should be more clearly defined by this point as it is clearly going to be a continuing issue.

[Chris Goodall]

I think the penalties for false accusations should be more clearly defined by this point as it is clearly going to be a continuing issue.

It wasn't necessarily a false accusation, it was an unsubstantiated accusation. Proving any accusation false is a greater undertaking than proving it true.

[NickFaulks]

It wasn't necessarily a false accusation, it was an unsubstantiated accusation. Proving any accusation false is a greater undertaking than proving it true.

An unsubstantiated public accusation should be considered false until proved true, or at least highly plausible. This one comes nowhere close.

[Chris Goodall]

It wasn't necessarily a false accusation, it was an unsubstantiated accusation. Proving any accusation false is a greater undertaking than proving it true.

An unsubstantiated public accusation should be considered false until proved true, or at least highly plausible. This one comes nowhere close.

Nonsense. Who decides what's highly plausible? Is it possible that the evidence so far presented in bite-sized chunks for your perusal, doesn't represent the sum total of what the parties to this controversy have to say about each other?

[NickFaulks]

Nonsense.

Sure, there's no smoke without fire, just string her up. I do find it interesting that there have been no such remarks about her from the US, even though she played in the Millennials Match and scored 4/4.

[Chris Goodall]

Nonsense.

Sure, there's no smoke without fire, just string her up. I do find it interesting that there have been no such remarks about her from the US, even though she played in the Millennials Match and scored 4/4.

You're doing that thing chess players do where everything is zero-sum, black and white.

You know perfectly well accusations exist that can neither be proven true nor proven false, however much we want them to be one or the other.

If you knew for a fact that the girl was cheating in the exact way she was alleged to have cheated, what would you do with that information? It's not like she'll have written about it in her diary. Your choices are make an unsubstantiated accusation or do nothing.

[NickFaulks]

If you knew for a fact that the girl was cheating in the exact way she was alleged to have cheated, what would you do with that information?

I would supply the proof to the authorities - in the first instance, to the chief arbiter. I wouldn't shout it all over the internet. In this case, of course, there was nothing resembling proof.

[Chris Goodall]

If you knew for a fact that the girl was cheating in the exact way she was alleged to have cheated, what would you do with that information?

I would supply the proof to the authorities - in the first instance, to the chief arbiter. I wouldn't shout it all over the internet. In this case, of course, there was nothing resembling proof.

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between something you know and something you can prove?

[Michael Farthing]

If you knew for a fact that the girl was cheating in the exact way she was alleged to have cheated, what would you do with that information?

I would supply the proof to the authorities - in the first instance, to the chief arbiter. I wouldn't shout it all over the internet. In this case, of course, there was nothing resembling proof.

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between something you know and something you can prove?

Perhaps you could explain this to Nick in return for him explaining to you the difference between bringing accusations through the proper procedures and shouting them abroad to win your case by mob assent.

[Kevin Thurlow]

You also have to beware of people accusing the opponent of cheating just because the "wrong" person is winning. I encountered one such where the 200 was losing to a 160 and screaming that the 160 must have cheated. When we looked at the score sheet, we noticed that the 200 played the opening really badly...