Cheating in chess

[Ian Thompson]

In fairness, the interruption came immediately after my opponent had made a move. I don't know whether you'd call that a non-disruptive moment: it didn't seem that way.

It would be preferable to have waited until you stood up and left the board in my opinion, although that might be difficult if one arbiter is required to monitor a large number of games.

[Chris Rice]

New Rausis wrist watches very discrete for your everyday cheater and rated at 3200.

[JustinHorton]

Discreet, I rather think (regardless of the spelling here)

[Chris Rice]

Nepo not holding back with his accusations in an interview with Chess.com but if he wants some progress on the matter he has to name names with evidence or at least some rationale to back it up.

Are there currently players cheating over-the-board in chess? How can organizers combat this?

I think that it is extremely difficult to detect a smart cheater who does not go to the restroom to check his phone after each move. How can we fight cheating? The cheaters can probably be held at bay by the fear of financial implications. For example, imposing fines in the amount of the first prize of the competition where the cheater is caught. Disqualification is also good, but that is only a threat for strong GMs. Normal cheaters will just shrug it off.

Do you have any enemies in chess? Any players you simply dislike and think are bad for the game?

Of course, every person works with people they like or dislike. It doesn't really become a problem over the board, although it is more difficult to play against your friends. The only people who I truly dislike are those who buy and sell games, ratings and titles. [Titled players who participate in fixed matches in order to "sell" norms, ratings points and titles to non-titled players.]

That's a bold accusation, is this happening frequently in over-the-board chess?

I believe it is, but I won't name names right now.

[Alex Holowczak]

Can you imagine how the UCI would respond if a cyclist said lots of other cyclists are doping to the media, and not raising the matter with the UCI?

[NickFaulks]

Nepo says "I believe it is, but I won't name names right now."

Nothing ever changes.

[JustinHorton]

Can you imagine how the UCI would respond if a cyclist said lots of other cyclists are doping to the media, and not raising the matter with the UCI?

How would they?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Can you imagine how the UCI would respond if a cyclist said lots of other cyclists are doping to the media, and not raising the matter with the UCI?"

Charge them with "bringing the sport into disrepute" by telling the truth?

[NickFaulks]

Charge them with "bringing the sport into disrepute" by telling the truth?

I think that making broad allegations which you refuse to substantiate does bring a sport into disrepute. In fact, what else can be intended?

[JustinHorton]

This might very well be right, but in practice leading people in sport yap off in the media all the time, and I'm not at all sure that in this particular example you'd see any consequences. (Of course much might depend on the actual details.)

[Mick Norris]

That is exactly what cyclists used to say and even now they are reluctant to give names

I don't blame Nepo for not answering publicly but that doesn't prevent him reporting his suspicions privately to FIDE

[Roger de Coverly]

but in practice leading people in sport yap off in the media all the time, and I'm not at all sure that in this particular example you'd see any consequences.

Nepo was making two allegations.

The first was of assistance during play. Witchfinder type analysis based on computer matching shouldn't be considered, but in the case of someone like Rausis caught during play with a device, they would expect either to voluntarily retire (as did Rausis) or face a lengthy ban if the judicial side is properly documented.

The other one was match or game fixing. The milder form which is being agreeable to draws seems to be tolerated whilst in the absence of collaborating evidence losing on purpose can be difficult to prove. There have been allegations of completely faked tournaments, do I get the impression of a reluctance by FIDE to investigate?

Because of the relative ease with which players can contrive to draw, encouraging and developing sports betting on chess would not be a good thing.

[NickFaulks]

There have been allegations of completely faked tournaments, do I get the impression of a reluctance by FIDE to investigate?

Where there is any concrete evidence, no. As a matter of fact, I think social media has made completely faked tournaments quite unlikely.

[Stewart Reuben]

FIDE has become besotted with cheating using computers. For several years they have simply put other forms of cheating to one side. One reason for that is it is difficult to prove absolutely.
Completely faked tournaments could, and should, be discouraged by occasional spot checks.

Betting on chess can be simplified by not having bets that a draw would take place. Thus only betting on wins.
Using computers to analyse player's games can be helpful, but should not be used as the sole basis of an accusation. After all, it is possible that a perfect game be played, simply by playing random legal moves.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I think that making broad allegations which you refuse to substantiate does bring a sport into disrepute. In fact, what else can be intended?"

Well yes, but I was subtly suggesting that the governing bodies of a number of sports/games are quite aware of drug cheats, match-fixing etc., and just cover it up. So it's then a bit dishonest to complain that an individual has exposed your cover-up.

I remember Alex Higgins saying he was going to blow the lid of snooker by revealing all the corrupt goings on. President of the WPBSA then said "Higgins is the only one doing anything wrong", before said President was exposed as a drug cheat! Although better than some of those who have followed...