English Chess Forum

Lawrence

Your point being?

Or was it just a general interest post?

Mike

Mike Truran wrote:Lawrence

Your point being?

Or was it just a general interest post?

Mike

I wasn't aware I needed a point to post on the forum

I read the interview a couple of days ago

I thought this bit was particularly interesting

To be honest, I follow women's chess quite seldom. However, in my opinion, women should compete against men. This has always been my firm belief. I'm convinced that women can be equal to men in chess. So, first of all so-called "women's chess" should be abolished, and then we will have a real lot of good female players.

Mick Norris wrote:I read the interview a couple of days ago

I thought this bit was particularly interesting

To be honest, I follow women's chess quite seldom. However, in my opinion, women should compete against men. This has always been my firm belief. I'm convinced that women can be equal to men in chess. So, first of all so-called "women's chess" should be abolished, and then we will have a real lot of good female players.

Yes, I did have a smile about that, especially as his girlfriend played in and won my first London Chess Classic Women's International

Plenty of interesting points

Some truth in that quote no doubt. I don't know if anyone has even tried to do studies (how?) as to whether having woman specific chess (or Bridge, or xxxxx) events encourages participation more than this effect hinders those who do take it seriously.

I found interesting this comment about cheating:

As to me, I suppose that the problem is not as grave as it's usually perceived. Many people think everyone is a cheater who just awaits a good moment to cheat. The issue has been exaggerated. In fact, we don't have a lot of cheating going on, especially comparing chess with other kinds of sports. Of course the problem does exist, but I haven't seen it yet at the top level. I think that half measures would be enough to handle it. I don't see any point in giving way to total panic, since around 90% of the cheaters get caught anyway.

He thinks it would be acceptable for 10% of those cheating to not get caught!?

Well, actually yes? A 9/10 detection rate is surely going to be a very effective deterrent to any halfway rational cheater!

Not that was what he was saying precisely - that was that it is already 9/10 with current (minimal) measures, so no need to be crazy.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:He thinks it would be acceptable for 10% of those cheating to not get caught!?

He actually says " I don't see any point in giving way to total panic, since around 90% of the cheaters get caught anyway."

LawrenceCooper wrote: He actually says " I don't see any point in giving way to total panic, since around 90% of the cheaters get caught anyway."

I found this an extraordinary comment in an otherwise very sensible interview. How can he possibly have any idea of the percentage of cheaters who get caught?

NickFaulks wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote: He actually says " I don't see any point in giving way to total panic, since around 90% of the cheaters get caught anyway."

I found this an extraordinary comment in an otherwise very sensible interview. How can he possibly have any idea of the percentage of cheaters who get caught?

The perils of attempting to answer every question rather than evading them

NickFaulks wrote: How can he possibly have any idea of the percentage of cheaters who get caught?

Players drawing attention to themselves by strange behaviour or performances consistently beyond prior expectations have usually been found to be up to no good. There's been one or two, who on balance of probabilities probably were cheating, but have got away with it. Consulting a smart phone whilst playing in the German league for example.

The really worrying one in some respects was the spectator method, since this could have been used as a signalling device from the very start of organised chess. Moral standards perhaps were high, as even consulting third parties during adjournments was disapproved in some quarters.

NickFaulks wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote: He actually says " I don't see any point in giving way to total panic, since around 90% of the cheaters get caught anyway."

I found this an extraordinary comment in an otherwise very sensible interview. How can he possibly have any idea of the percentage of cheaters who get caught?

To be fair, you should ask the same question to the people claiming to see cheaters everywhere without a shred of evidence either.

Paolo Casaschi wrote: To be fair, you should ask the same question to the people claiming to see cheaters everywhere without a shred of evidence either.

If they quoted numbers I would certainly challenge them.

The more I think about it, the odder his comment becomes. How many people does he think have been caught? If it isn't ten, and I can't think of ten, then he is saying there is precisely one at large. He only has to name this person and the problem will be eradicated.