English Chess Forum

MJMcCready wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:37 am

I think they were asked 'On a scale of 1-10 how sure are you that he is guilty'. After analysis, the mean was calculated at 6.66.

I assume this was a linear scale

I think it demonstrates the power of phrasing essentially the same question in different ways (as evidenced in much referendum discussion).

I suspect that being asked the question in this way may lead to responses tending to cluster around the half-way point - i.e. that people are reluctant to answer with an extreme. Presumably there is research on this.

It would seem possible to secure a conviction with a score of about 5.5 yet an acquittal on 9+

Untrue.
The audience had only two simple options: Guilty or Not Guilty.
Two votes. One after Act One and one at the end of the theatre showing of QUIZ.

"Based on the un-cross-examined evidence of a script writer who has presented an emtional interpretation of some real live events please decide the proper outcome of those real live events which you have not impartially observed"

James Plaskett wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:31 pm

Untrue.
The audience had only two simple options: Guilty or Not Guilty.
Two votes. One after Act One and one at the end of the theatre showing of QUIZ.

Untrue correct but facetious is a better word.

Mr Farthing (and you have several times posted here that the case does not interest you) you might just kindle a book on the topic - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Show-Cough ... B00SOVGFJ2

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:49 pm

....
The more interesting question, in my view, is whether the cheat can fairly be regarded as practising a deception (by pretending that he is not cheating) as against simply cheating, which is not an offence in itself. Ingram was convicted on the basis that he deceived Celador, by falsely representing that he was answering the questions without assistance. I have never understood why anyone might think he was making such a representation. He didn't say, even by implication, "I am not cheating": he just cheated. (If he did. Personally I agree with GM Plaskett that the evidence of this was ridiculously weak.)

But no, this strikes me as rather ordinary, for better or worse. The courts have long since been prepared to decide that a person makes certain representations by conduct; eg that a person who offers to pay for goods by card is impliedly representing that he has authority to use the card, or that a person who orders a meal restaurant is intending to pay for it. Implying that someone who puts himself up to win serious money in a contest is representing that he intends not to cheat seems analogous.

Incidentally, even if it were a problem, it could be avoided because there was an alleged conspiracy; and the charge of conspiracy to defraud is quite a different animal which does not depend on making false representations.

Jonathan is quite right about what the law says. Indeed in the cheating thread I argued that, as the law stands, there is no need for a "test case" about whether someone who cheats in a chess tournament could be successfully prosecuted. Clearly they could - provided that the jury or magistrates were willing to find that the cheat did in fact make a "representation" to the effect that he or she was not cheating. And the law says that they would be entitled to make that finding.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that on this point the law goes too far. i think it's quite a stretch to regard a person who acts dishonestly, without more, as implicitly asserting that he or she is acting honestly. It's a legal fiction, which is only necessary because for some (not all) fraud offences the law requires proof of deception.

Ah well.
Enough of this, because we all learn of "the law´s delay". But TWENTY years truly is taking the piss.
The mini series airs in the States on May 31st so that´ll supply an extra fillip.
I predict that there will be a successful appeal...and ex-major Charles Ingram will experience the Cinderella denouement as, at long last, he will become, deservedly, a millionaire!

It all reminds me of Fischer's article on the King's Gambit.

White can play differently, but then he loses differently.

Team Ingram can find different facts than the ones at issue in the trial, about which to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. They've been doing it for what, 15 years now? Team WWTBAM haven't spent the past 15 years refuting every hypothetical that Team Ingram have come up with, because they've had better things to do. The narrative has shifted slightly in favour of the side that cares more about shifting it, which makes sense. Let the Wookiee win!

But if there's a second trial for some reason, and Team Ingram plays differently, they're going to lose differently.

May intrigue -
https://wetransfer.com/downloads/e8eab0 ... ient_email

(If I understand correctly this will NOT be audible after May 13th 2020.)

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Tue May 05, 2020 11:31 pm

It all reminds me of Fischer's article on the King's Gambit.

White can play differently, but then he loses differently.

Team Ingram can find different facts than the ones at issue in the trial, about which to create fear, uncertainty and doubt. They've been doing it for what, 15 years now? Team WWTBAM haven't spent the past 15 years refuting every hypothetical that Team Ingram have come up with, because they've had better things to do. The narrative has shifted slightly in favour of the side that cares more about shifting it, which makes sense. Let the Wookiee win!

But if there's a second trial for some reason, and Team Ingram plays differently, they're going to lose differently.

Not following it courtesy of the pedantry the whole issue is suffuse with but that sounds about right. I would imagine the coughing major wants clear his name and if that attracts attention in the media then potential sources of revenue may well arise. I don't see the point of this thread continuing, some clearly have a heavily vested interest in it but the whole thing isn't very important to me. So people do things they shouldn't so companies implement procedure and operation that is in need of improvement, so what. When was it ever any different. Why don't we start a thread about JFK with the agreed goal that if we all invest 8 hours a day for five years, we can meet up agreeing we are no closer to the truth of the matter and that its best left in the past. Some unimportant tv show that went awry ages ago. Christ...

I disagree. I think it is worth discussing partly because there is an established overlap between chess, the quizzing world and possible cheating.

If people have no interest in a thread, they are under no obligation to contribute to it - or indeed even read it.

Demanding it be closed down simply because of your personal lack of interest/objection is rarely a good look.

And read here if you want to learn how the TRUE cheats worked Millionaire? as, at long, long last, ´The Beast´spills the beans -
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? contestants regularly cheated with ‘nods and winks’ according to The Chase’s Mark Labbett
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wants-million ... 32574.html

The Chase’s Mark Labbett claims he knows of people who cheated on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? by getting thei...

(MINE is the first comment, as ´Harold´, at YAHOO! )

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat May 09, 2020 3:08 pm

If people have no interest in a thread, they are under no obligation to contribute to it - or indeed even read it.

Demanding it be closed down simply because of your personal lack of interest/objection is rarely a good look.

I wasn't demanding anything, just doesn't seem to bne going anywhere.