Tradewise Gibraltar Masters 2017

[NickFaulks]

A suggestion I made ages ago is that players should have been below the rating limit continuously for the past twelve months. I don't know why every tournament wouldn't wish to do that, although Gib does seem to get scalped more than most.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm not sure that is the way forward; I think conventional wisdom is that attempts to legislate for criminality usually fail. People just find a new way to bend or avoid the rules. So you need effective sanctions.

But that is a bit problematic, I doubt FIDE have the will or capability to do anything about it. Even if they did I can't say I'd really trust them to ban people without it become political.

[Roger de Coverly]

But that is a bit problematic, I doubt FIDE have the will or capability to do anything about it. Even if they did I can't say I'd really trust them to ban people without it become political.

Individual tournaments can set more exacting rules for eligibility for rating restricted prizes. FIDE doesn't have to be involved, other than making rating histories readily available.

Falsified tournaments on the other hand should be a FIDE concern. Do they ever investigate?

[NickFaulks]

I'm not sure that is the way forward

It is simple and personally I think it would work. Insisting that FIDE deal with the problem because organisers can't be bothered is standard procedure but unhelpful.

Anyway, we won't find out until some organiser has the guts to try it, and I'm not holding my breath.

[NickFaulks]

Falsified tournaments on the other hand should be a FIDE concern. Do they ever investigate?

Of course, when players send in complaints about tournaments they are always investigated.

I don't believe we have ever seen one from you, so I presume you have no such information.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't believe we have ever seen one from you, so I presume you have no such information.

Allegations have been made on this forum.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5723

[NickFaulks]

Allegations have been made on this forum.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect FIDE to trawl the world's chess chat sites for allegations of impropriety. Emails ( with a genuine signature, they get the other sort ) sent to [email protected] are not ignored.

[Chris Rice]

Allegations have been made on this forum.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect FIDE to trawl the world's chess chat sites for allegations of impropriety. Emails ( with a genuine signature, they get the other sort ) sent to [email protected] are not ignored.

I would agree that I don't think it is reasonable either. However, on page 2 of that thread Shaun Press states "As for the matters raised at the top of (and during) this thread, they have been drawn to the attention of the FIDE Qualifications Commission. Such matters are outside the brief of the FIDE/ACP Anti-cheating Committee (of which I am a member), as we are only dealing with computer aided cheating at this time. This may of course change in the future if it is decided that the ACC should be expanded to cover other kinds of cheating (fixed tournaments, thrown games, sandbagging etc)."

Did these matters ever reach the QC?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 3&start=15

[Paul Cooksey]

It is simple and personally I think it would work. Insisting that FIDE deal with the problem because organisers can't be bothered is standard procedure but unhelpful.

I was seeing it as FIDE's responsibility to ensure the integrity of FIDE ratings.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was seeing it as FIDE's responsibility to ensure the integrity of FIDE ratings.

FIDE appear to have an intolerance of minor rule bending such as adjusting pairings to potentially help Norm seekers, but appear disinterested in making any proactive investigations into potential rating fraud. Are any of the numerous FIDE Commissions or Committees responsible for this? It isn't part of the remit of the Anti-Cheating Committee/Commission.

[NickFaulks]

It isn't part of the remit of the Anti-Cheating Committee/Commission.

I can confirm that ACC is interested only in computer cheating - if indeed, with slashed budget, it is still in a position even to do anything about that.

[Alex Holowczak]

but appear disinterested in making any proactive investigations into potential rating fraud

I should hope they are disinterested.

[Alex Holowczak]

A suggestion I made ages ago is that players should have been below the rating limit continuously for the past twelve months. I don't know why every tournament wouldn't wish to do that, although Gib does seem to get scalped more than most.

It's a suggestion that has been made to me, and we thought about implementing at various events; albeit, we only used "continuously for the past six months", to tie in with the fact that ECF grading lists are published every 6 months.

The reason we didn't implement it is resource-based. For an event the size of the London Chess Classic, or the British Championships, we'd have to check the ratings of about 1000 entries over a 6 or 12 month period. We have some software that looks up the rating being used for the tournament, but it isn't as sophisticated as checking the ratings going back 12 months.

[Ian Thompson]

A suggestion I made ages ago is that players should have been below the rating limit continuously for the past twelve months. I don't know why every tournament wouldn't wish to do that, although Gib does seem to get scalped more than most.

It's a suggestion that has been made to me, and we thought about implementing at various events; albeit, we only used "continuously for the past six months", to tie in with the fact that ECF grading lists are published every 6 months.

The reason we didn't implement it is resource-based. For an event the size of the London Chess Classic, or the British Championships, we'd have to check the ratings of about 1000 entries over a 6 or 12 month period. We have some software that looks up the rating being used for the tournament, but it isn't as sophisticated as checking the ratings going back 12 months.

You wouldn't need to. You ask players to declare their highest rating on the entry form. You only need check the ratings of the winners, based on the entry form data, at the end of the tournament, to confirm they've won, or to disqualify them if their stated rating was too low. I don't think you need concern yourself with the possibility that someone declares too high a rating and would have been a winner if they'd declared the correct rating. Even if you did have to disqualify a few players, I don't think it would take very long before you found a correct declaration and your winner.

[Alex Holowczak]

You ask players to declare their highest rating on the entry form.

That won't work. Players often don't fill in their current grade/rating correctly, never mind asking them to put down their highest in the last 6 months.

You only need check the ratings of the winners, based on the entry form data, at the end of the tournament, to confirm they've won, or to disqualify them if their stated rating was too low. I don't think you need concern yourself with the possibility that someone declares too high a rating and would have been a winner if they'd declared the correct rating. Even if you did have to disqualify a few players, I don't think it would take very long before you found a correct declaration and your winner.

I think letting an ineligible player play in a tournament, and then disqualifying them afterwards, would be an excellent way for potential entries to lose confidence in your event. It is the organiser's responsibility to get players into the correct section before Round 1, and not go around retrospectively disqualifying people - i.e. prevention is better than cure.

I don't know enough about what happened in the Blackpool event, where they retrospectively decided a player was ineligible, but I'd be keen to avoid going to court at the end of a tournament having disqualified them even if I did win the case.