World Youth Championships

[Mick Norris]

Just out of curiosity, we’re the anti-cheating protocols stricter at the London Chess Classic than you would find at your average chess congress?

In the FIDE Open, they were insisting that mobile phones be switched off completely and placed in a bag, but that's as normal for 4NCL events. Additionally they were selecting board numbers and using the metal detector wand before the game on those in that pairing. If there were any other checks being carried out, they weren't publicised.

In addition to that, all of the results in everything that was either captured was screened by Ken Regan's screening tool. Even the Weekend Under 1600s! We managed to get two of the five Rapid sections and three of the Blitz sections too. We also had a dedicated Anti-Cheating arbiter for the first time, who was checking toilets, and checking for any interactions between children and parents, for instance.

That's interesting Alex; is this just what's needed now, or did you have specific reasons for upping the detection?

[Richard Bates]

This thread was pointed out to me by someone I had told about Declan Lovelock a while ago. I think my phrase was he is either the greatest natural talent in the history of chess, or... not.

Of course you do occasionally come across players who can play to a very high standard at a very high speed (and don’t moderate even when playing at slower time controls). Exhibit A: Jack Rudd, of course. But Jack’s been doing that since he was 6.

Maybe it’s a West Country thing

[Alex Holowczak]

That's interesting Alex; is this just what's needed now, or did you have specific reasons for upping the detection?

Our event was only Level 2 on the FPC guideline scale, so we didn't need to have a dedicated arbiter to do it. Normally I would do the scanning rota, but after some communication issues last year where the wrong people were scanned a few times by accident, I decided a specific arbiter in charge of it would be better after working with Andy Howie in the Isle of Man. I think that was the right decision. At a weekender, it can probably be consumed within the roles of a team of 3 arbiters due to there being fewer players and generally fewer moving parts than an event like the LCC.

The main reason the 4NCL inputs games these days, other than because we believe players want it as a service, is so that we have some evidence in case of cheating allegations.

On day 1, there was a bit of worry within some of the arbiting team that the players would be upset with the scanning, but actually they all support it and were very polite and accommodating. For example, Danny Gormally and Keith Arkell are both outspoken about cheating, and so are very supportive of such measures.

It is something that more tournaments need to do, I am increasingly convinced. I see the 4NCL as leading the way on it, in terms of setting expectations which hopefully other events will follow.

I don't know how you do it in evening league chess, when scoresheets get lobbed in the bin at the end typically, and actually if someone wants to cheat using a phone it would be pretty trivial to do so and go undetected.

[Roger Lancaster]

Reverting to the subject of the young man whose performances were viewed with some suspicion in this thread, I notice that he won the top group of this year's Dorset Blitz championships with 10/11. I had thought that it was relative difficult to cheat, for fairly obvious reasons, in blitz events. Am I correct in thinking this or has technology simply overtaken me?

[Matt Bridgeman]

...

[David Sedgwick]

On day 1, there was a bit of worry within some of the arbiting team that the players would be upset with the scanning, but actually they all support it and were very polite and accommodating. For example, Danny Gormally and Keith Arkell are both outspoken about cheating, and so are very supportive of such measures.

My experience of players at the very highest level is similar.

It is something that more tournaments need to do, I am increasingly convinced. I see the 4NCL as leading the way on it, in terms of setting expectations which hopefully other events will follow.

I am very pleased to hear that. Hitherto the 4NCL has had a reputation as a potential cheat's paradise. That may be totally underserved.

I don't know how you do it in evening league chess, when scoresheets get lobbed in the bin at the end typically, and actually if someone wants to cheat using a phone it would be pretty trivial to do so and go undetected.

You either do it or you don't.

If you wish to do it, you introduce a regulation requiring players to keep their scoresheets for four weeks (say) and submit copies to the organiser on request.

If you don't wish to do it, you accept that the occasional cheat will prosper at that level. Players may prefer to run the risk of their being a poisonous nut in their midst than to apply the sledgehammer.

[David Sedgwick]

So what to do about Mr Lovelock and his magic hat? I'd imagine they will be in action again this evening in a Highcliffe A v Ringwood away fixture. 17 wins, 2 draws and counting in standard play in the last 3 months. January standard rating will be over 200 for sure.

Surely the first thing that you do is ensure that the relevant League officers are aware of the concerns being expressed about Mr Lovelock, particularly in the light of his less than stellar performance in the LCC Festival Super Blitz.

[Ian Thompson]

If you wish to do it, you introduce a regulation requiring players to keep their scoresheets for four weeks (say) and submit copies to the organiser on request.

Supposing the game is analysed and shows an unusually high correlation with computer moves, what then? You've got evidence that cheating may have occurred, but no proof.

[J T Melsom]

I find it hard to believe the organisers haven't noticed these results themselves, but in fairness we don't know at present what actions they might have privately initiated. They may rightly be concerned about due process especially as a junior is involved. it is however a lot of individual games and team fixtures that have been impacted whilst this suspicious activity continues. And don't team captains have a role here as well?

[Roger de Coverly]

If you don't wish to do it, you accept that the occasional cheat will prosper at that level. Players may prefer to run the risk of their being a poisonous nut in their midst than to apply the sledgehammer.

It should be easy enough to insist that a phone be placed on the table, or in a bag or pieces box on the table. That at least should prevent the once or twice a game, "what does Stockfish think", type of cheating.

[David Sedgwick]

If you wish to do it, you introduce a regulation requiring players to keep their scoresheets for four weeks (say) and submit copies to the organiser on request.

Supposing the game is analysed and shows an unusually high correlation with computer moves, what then? You've got evidence that cheating may have occurred, but no proof.

If that happened in a tournament the player would be closely watched from then on, in the hope of obtaining direct rather than just circumstantial evidence.

That would be more difficult in a League, but not necessarily impossible.

[Richard Bates]

So what to do about Mr Lovelock and his magic hat? I'd imagine they will be in action again this evening in a Highcliffe A v Ringwood away fixture. 17 wins, 2 draws and counting in standard play in the last 3 months. January standard rating will be over 200 for sure.

Surely the first thing that you do is ensure that the relevant League officers are aware of the concerns being expressed about Mr Lovelock, particularly in the light of his less than stellar performance in the LCC Festival Super Blitz.

It is presumably a bit unusual to find a situation where the main arguments for the defence (Dorset) and the prosecution (LCC) would appear to rest on performance in blitz events!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It should be easy enough to insist that a phone be placed on the table, or in a bag or pieces box on the table. That at least should prevent the once or twice a game, "what does Stockfish think", type of cheating."

For those who only carry one phone! You can easily put a "burner" on the table and hide the good one...

[Matt Bridgeman]

I’ve been informed that back in February 2019 Declan scored 50% in a unrated junior event won by someone of around ECF 100 strength.

[E Michael White]

We also had a dedicated Anti-Cheating arbiter for the first time, who was checking toilets, and checking for any interactions between children and parents, for instance.

I think you need more than a dedicated arbiter checking toilets; someone with skills in cybersecurity and data security would be a good start. Also that person should have a healthy suspicion for links between the FIDE rating system and rational statistics.