Ethics under Suspicion

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Chris Rice
Posts: 2225
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Ethics under Suspicion

Post by Chris Rice » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:09 pm

An interesting article from the Russian GM Daniil Dubov Ethics Under Suspicion. Dubov attempts to lay out some process in regard to what constitutes reasonable suspicion that a player is cheating and what might be decent deterrents. It includes a really controversial proposal where a player under suspicion becomes 'colour coded' on a sort of traffic light basis where I guess those whose status is red are observed more closely than those who are yellow.

"The second very important method is implementing a new status for players — an analogue of a ‘suspect’ in lawsuits. It is important to understand that suspicions are only suspicions: nobody imprisons suspects with no proof. Nevertheless, their status changes: they might be banned from leaving the country, might be asked to attend court hearings, etc.

A similar method should be used in chess. You can call such status however you want — you can mark level of suspicion by colours (green, yellow, redбetc.), come up with a specific term — it is not that important.

But what is important, is that the conditions of receiving a certain colour must be non-negotiable and crystal clear. For example, a certain number of received rating from 2-3 tournaments (for example, 40 points or higher); the number of tournaments in a row where a player went beyond his own rating by more than 100 ELO points (let’s say, more than two in a row); amount of won tournaments.

Such status should not cause any difficulties to the players, apart from a more thorough control. For example, they can be put in another queue for security check before they enter the playing hall, judges should be near their tables more often and be more attentive to them, etc. Clearly, none of these would interfere with the game (provided a good general organisation).

In addition, this status should be a temporary measure: just like a few brilliant performances would lead to such status, it would be taken away after a few not so successful games.

Probably, many would see this policy as too radical, but in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. Most famous chess players would regularly end up in a list of people with such status, however, if this would not cause them any problems — then why not? I emphasise that its main goal is not to catch cheaters (it is unlikely that people will keep cheating when they face such close attention to themselves), but to prevent and hinder it.

Undoubtedly, such policy would require a lot of preparation in terms of specificities— criteria of assignment of such status should be carefully weighed and analysed, as well as distinctive features of players from this list; however, the idea itself seems not bad to me. "

One gets the feeling with some of Dubov's suggestions the cure is worse than the disease but a valiant attempt to lay a bit of groundwork at least.

David Robertson
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethics under Suspicion

Post by David Robertson » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:37 pm

Yet further proof, if any were needed, that even the best chessplayers are not fit to be allowed out alone. Quite simply, they don't know enough, don't read enough, don't think enough beyond their esoteric competence. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam iudicaret

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Ethics under Suspicion

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:22 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:37 pm
Yet further proof, if any were needed, that even the best chessplayers are not fit to be allowed out alone. Quite simply, they don't know enough, don't read enough, don't think enough beyond their esoteric competence. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam iudicaret
Sounds like a load of old cobblers to me.

Post Reply