English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote:Ah - that wouldn't be the story linked to a few postings above?

Same story. This case is an initial test of FIDE's new process for handling accusations of cheating.

Whether he will claim a one-off first offence remains to be seen. His opponent had suspicions from their previous meetings.

Looking at the pairings and the round 4 result, it is possible the Petrosian game was the first in the Dubai tournament where he had sought assistance.

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr168053. ... 984&snr=29

I strongly suspect it won’t have been his first time, as the articles say Petrosian suspected him at a previous tournament, that suggests to me he has likely being doing it on and off for years (probably not in every game). I agree with Nigel Short’s opinion that there should be harsh reparations, 15 year ban (effectively the end of his career) and stripped of his GM title sounds about right.

If this case allowed to slide there will be 5 cases of this in the next 12 months, and so on until it’s an epidemic, leading to the aforementioned Chess apocalypse, which will eventually filter down to the amateur leagues - I’m no good at Fisher Random, I don’t want this to happen!

I just don’t understand how anyone could be so stupid - the articles try and excuse his behaviour saying lower ranking GM's can't afford to eat if they don't win prize money - this may be true but would it be such a hardship to teach some rich kids, or write some books? It beats working in a factory 12 hours a day as some people have to. At the very least its certainly preferable to bringing the game into disrepute and risking your whole career by attempting to cheat, especially so crudely.

It's perfectly possible he got his GM title through dishonestly, and, as an example, the strongest possible action should be taken against him - if we carry on like this OTB will go the same way as CC in my opinion, and I suspect few of us here would adjust well to a life without competitive Chess.

EDIT - just fixed the paragraph spacing.

Jon Mahony wrote:(effectively the end of his career)

It could be the end anyway. Players relying on chess for a living have to rely to an extent on "conditions". These would be a financial contribution to all or some of the expenses of playing in a match or tournament, namely travel, food and accommodation plus an appearance fee.

Organizers and team sponsors would be unlikely to extend their largesse towards proven and perhaps even highly suspected cheats.

Over the Board chess as distinct from correspondence chess is traditionally played under conditions of no external assistance. The challenge is proving this, which ought not to be especially difficult as in principle the opponent is under observation from the opponent, other players, spectators and arbiters for almost the entire game.

Roger de Coverly wrote: Over the Board chess as distinct from correspondence chess is traditionally played under conditions of no external assistance. The challenge is proving this, which ought not to be especially difficult as in principle the opponent is under observation from the opponent, other players, spectators and arbiters for almost the entire game.

It shouldn’t be in theory Rodger but increasing cases are popping up - in this instance the cheater used the cruder hidden phone technique which is borderline ridiculous - how long can it go unnoticed that you are getting up to pee in the same toilet after every move, it’s amazing he hadn’t got caught sooner and if it wasn’t for him being suspected previously, I may even have gone over to the first offence point of view.

I think the more dangerous form of cheating comes in the form of concealed head phones and signals with an accomplice, this is infinitely harder to detect if the offender has a good poker face.

I do think it will eventually come down to metal detectors, wifi jamming and confiscation of all electronic devices before the start of any round - but then we have the old problem of what tourney director wants to look after a big box of mobile phones.

Jon Mahony wrote: I think the more dangerous form of cheating comes in the form of concealed head phones and signals with an accomplice, this is infinitely harder to detect if the offender has a good poker face.

Whilst there has been the odd reported case over the years of someone trying it it on, it's hardly the type of cheating likely to be found in a weekend Congress or evening league game. Nipping out of the room with a device is far more likely.

More info and photos here: http://www.dubaichess.ae/2015/04/12/dub ... ournament/. If accurate, they seem to show that Nigalidze was using Stockfish on an iPod, quite a recommendation for this app!

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Jon Mahony wrote: I think the more dangerous form of cheating comes in the form of concealed head phones and signals with an accomplice, this is infinitely harder to detect if the offender has a good poker face.

Whilst there has been the odd reported case over the years of someone trying it it on, it's hardly the type of cheating likely to be found in a weekend Congress or evening league game. Nipping out of the room with a device is far more likely.

True most weekend congresses wouldn’t be worth the risk, the Las Vegas tournament is another matter though.

I couldn’t see anyone ever risking it in an evening league game, though this would in theory be much easier to do, as they usually take place in pubs - nip to the bar before one move, nip for a cigarette before another, no arbiters around etc.

Once at a counties game a few years ago, I nipped out for a fag and without thinking text the missus, the opposing captain saw me got into quite a flap - luckily I had recently broken my phone and stuck the sim card in my old 3210 and he was quite nice once he realised I was lucky the thing sent texts, never mind run any sort of apps. I always try and leave my phone in the car now whenever possible, especially my current one is quite capable of running the offending software.

From The Guardian: Cheating the system: from chess to pub quizzes, how technology has made breaking the rules easier than ever.

It starts with the Nigalidze case, but puts it in context with cheating in other areas.

There's probably a lot more money-per-effort in pub quizzes than chess.

I was just reading Colin Crouch's last ever blog post, he'll be much missed. Colin was commenting on the Akobian-So dispute at the US Champs and he wrote at one point that "It is an unfortunate aspect of chess that one way of "cheating" is by accusing the opponent of cheating."

When its true, as in the Petrosian-Nigalidze case its OK but one suspects that players who can't stand losing will increasingly see it as a legitimate attempt to upset their opponent's game.

http://crouchnotes.blogspot.ae/

The FIDE system when it is implemented will have a log of accusers as well.

Persistent false accusations will lead to punishment of the accuser.

I am currently in Chongqing (city in China) where every metro station has one of those scanning devices that you get at airports (and they are used on every passenger's bags) so I guess the price of such devices must be coming down and they will soon be seen at "important" tournaments, although I can't see Guildford chess club installing one, quite yet.

While watching the live commentary from the Shamkir tournament I noticed Anand is wearing some sort of smartwatch: I wonder how long it will take for those devices to be actively banned as well from chess tournaments given the increasing computing and communication capabilities of the latest models. The current ban on electronic devices might already cover the issue but I never heard of players forbidden to wear (smart)watches.

Probably should be one (for really serious events) to be honest. They're a very easy place to hide a receiver/some sort of mechanism to pass information by vibration etc.

Smart watches might actually be covered already, it'd depend on how the relevant rules are drafted.

MartinCarpenter wrote:
Smart watches might actually be covered already, it'd depend on how the relevant rules are drafted.

If the watches can be defined as an electronic means of communication then they would be covered.

During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue.