English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:15 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:11 am

There are other problems linked to stripping someone of a rating, mostly related to inflation and deflation in the rating system.

I don't understand. What precisely is your concern?

If someone cheats their way to a high rating, a lot of rating points have been sucked from the victims along the way and gone into the cheat's rating. If the cheat's rating is then removed, the rating points have now just disappeared from the system.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:27 am

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:15 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:11 am

There are other problems linked to stripping someone of a rating, mostly related to inflation and deflation in the rating system.

I don't understand. What precisely is your concern?

If someone cheats their way to a high rating, a lot of rating points have been sucked from the victims along the way and gone into the cheat's rating. If the cheat's rating is then removed, the rating points have now just disappeared from the system.

That's true, but has a negligible effect surely?

Each victim of the cheating might lose 10 or 20 points, say. They get them back when they play other players, so the lost points are spread amongst more players, and they play more players to get their points back, etc..

It's almost certainly a much smaller effect than the similar one that arises with rapidly-improving juniors, true.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:30 am

When someone's already been caught cheating it's probably not unreasonable to assume they might continue to so in the future, in a different way. Suppose his true strength is 2400 and he's unrated. He deliberately plays badly in his first tournament back and gets a low rating, e.g. 2100. He then starts playing properly. He performs at a level way above his published rating until he gets back to something close to 2400, picking up quite a few rating prizes along the way.

Or he could simply pick up lots of prize money by entering grade restricted tournaments.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:15 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:11 am

There are other problems linked to stripping someone of a rating, mostly related to inflation and deflation in the rating system.

I don't understand. What precisely is your concern?

A cheat could still be a strong player without cheating, if they get treated as "new" (ie low rated) on returning that could clearly have an effect.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:09 pm

if they get treated as "new" (ie low rated)

I don't understand.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:09 pm

"new" (ie low rated)

New does not mean low rated. It means unreliably rated. Their first rating will be based on only a few games and there is no way of knowing if those results were above, below or at the player's true strength.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:54 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:09 pm

"new" (ie low rated)

New does not mean low rated. It means unreliably rated. Their first rating will be based on only a few games and there is no way of knowing if those results were above, below or at the player's true strength.

That is obviously true of any initial rating. Why is it more serious in this individual case than in the thousands of others?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:02 pm

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:54 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:09 pm

"new" (ie low rated)

New does not mean low rated. It means unreliably rated. Their first rating will be based on only a few games and there is no way of knowing if those results were above, below or at the player's true strength.

That is obviously true of any initial rating. Why is it more serious in this individual case than in the thousands of others?

The argument is that taking the rating away will allow the player to profit by his cheating as he will now be free to win lots of grading limited tournaments and rating prizes etc that he wouldn't otherwise have been eligible for and I think they do have a point. Do we perhaps need a rehabilitation period for the player? ie that he can compete in Opens but tournament organisers should be free to refuse him entry or pay him those rating prizes he would have been eligible for. At least for the length of whatever rehabilitation period was felt appropriate.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:12 pm

tournament organisers should be free to refuse him entry or pay him those rating prizes he would have been eligible for.

Tournament organisers are free to define eligibility in any terms they like - for instance, ratings based on at least n games. I have always felt that they should do that.

Without being too controversial, isn't it a little bit of a moot point if the national federation is not in a position to take any positive action. In the case last year of the suspected cheating junior player from the 4NCL Congress last year, disqualified before the final round was played, didn't face any action at all and is free to carry on playing, (but has choosen not to enter any events since the incident)?

This idea of leaving things to the tournament organisers has the potential to be problematic. Presumably the ban is deemed to be served, then imposing further restrictions might be open to challenge. Better in my view for the governing body to lay down the punishment and the treatment after that punishment has been served, or part served. The punishment in this case might extend to ineligibility for rating prizes for a further period. The clarity is actually fairer for all. Similar issues arise in other sporting activities such as athletics where athletes are theoretically free to resume their career but individual meet promoters may choose not to invite them. One of the Diamond League promoters operates zero tolerance so you don't see Justin Gatlin at his events.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:36 pm

Without being too controversial, isn't it a little bit of a moot point if the national federation is not in a position to take any positive action.

Some federations are choosing to "take positive action". Others prefer to do nothing.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:36 pm

In the case last year of the suspected cheating junior player from the 4NCL Congress last year, disqualified before the final round was played, didn't face any action at all and is free to carry on playing, (but has choosen not to enter any events since the incident)?

Is that known for certain? At the time, the impression given was that it was being reported to the FIDE Fair Play Commission.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/loc ... hropshire/

Chief arbiter Alex Holowczak said: “During a routine anti-cheating check a player was found to have used electronic means to assist them with their games. That player was subsequently disqualified from the tournament.

"The details have been forwarded to the Fide Fair Play Commission.”

I stand to be (strongly) corrected, but I don't think a darn thing happened! The incident is around 10 months old now. It would be interesting to hear what went well, and what went wrong with that particular case? My take on it was that there was a very strong suspicion of round by round, move by move, engine assistance, but when the player walked away with the disqualification, there was a lack of physical evidence left to take proper action with.