World Youth Championships

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Locked
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:37 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:05 pm
In my scenario the ECF only needs to show balance of probabilities that it acted reasonably in banning a player or sanctioning an organisation. Assuming it has the will to get involved, which per Alex's comments, it might not.
I think the ECF Board would take the appropriate action if it happened at the British, or the UK Open Blitz, or some event under its direct jurisdiction.

As for the Chessexshire League, which is likely to be a member of ECF Council - why won't they take any responsibility for the event under their direct jurisdiction? Why does it need the ECF Board to write regulations threatening them with sanctions to get them to do something about it? Why can't they just do something about it now?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:08 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:05 pm
Assuming it has the will to get involved, which per Alex's comments, it might not.
I understood Alex's comment to mean that they might be reluctant to take extreme action over the screaming complaints of the league in which the controversy took place.
I can try to rebutt the weight of expert evidence. But still, I don't think I can ask it to be dismissed out of hand.
You keep making the assumption that the weight of expert evidence would be on your side. The defence is also allowed to play.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:13 pm

Well, in my view computer cheating is an existential threat not just to Chessexshire chess, but English chess too. I'd hope it would be the kind of thing the ECF wanted to do, rather than something it saw as a burden.

Of course the ECF could devolve such things to its constituent members. But it generally chooses not to so far; wanting to set the rules notably regarding membership, publish laws, own the relationship with FIDE, etc.

Chessexshire should take action on its own initiative. But involving the ECF seems correct to me in really serious case, like the one when I am a potential computer cheat. I believe that the ECF should do more than hope Chessexshire deals with it, but place a requirement on Chessexshire to deal with it too.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:16 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:13 pm
I believe that the ECF should do more than hope Chessexshire deals with it, but place a requirement on Chessexshire to deal with it too.
A Council vote on that might be revealing.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:17 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:08 pm
You keep making the assumption that the weight of expert evidence would be on your side. The defence is also allowed to play.
Well, since I am the cheater in the example, I was assuming the weight of evidence was against me. But I take the point.

Seriously though, this is just a cynical view that all courts are corrupt an ineffective isn't it? Or are you really arguing that any reputable expert would try to defend me making Stockfish moves with minimal effort?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:50 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:17 pm
Or are you really arguing that any reputable expert would try to defend me making Stockfish moves with minimal effort?
The prosecution would not get away with such a generality, they would have to produce statistical evidence of the "one chance in a million" type. The expert witness would then attack the maths supporting the claim.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:10 am

I was not talking about a prosecution. I understand you cannot convict someone of a crime based on statistical evidence.

But if this is a civil case about whether the ECF or some other body has the right to ban a player, I think the banned player is going to need to show more than a million to one statistical chance that they should not have been banned. Easy enough to do if they are not a cheater, we talked already about how easy it is to demonstrate you playing strength if you want to do so. I do not think we have much risk of banning innocent players.

I think the ECF's role as a governing body or otherwise is a bit of a side issue, but of course it is one that I am interested in. So to this point:
NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:16 pm
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:13 pm
I believe that the ECF should do more than hope Chessexshire deals with it, but place a requirement on Chessexshire to deal with it too.
A Council vote on that might be revealing.
It would indeed. Also a challenge for the ECF to draft such a motion if they still wanted to use the grading system as a lever to ensure the constituents collect game fee, but are not willing to exercise this authority to prevent cheating.

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by John McKenna » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:31 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:59 pm
"That used to be called the "prosecutor's fallacy" - at least, I hope I am right in using the past tense and that you are talking about a case from some time ago!"

Yes - it was fairly early on, in the days where DNA evidence was regarded as foolproof.
Things have moved on a bit since -
... By combining several of these variable locations in the genome, scientists can say with very high confidence that a match between a DNA profile found at a crime scene and the profile of a suspect are not the same simply by chance. The probability of two unrelated people having the same profile coincidentally depends on how many variable DNA regions you use, but it is typically one in several billion.
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/200 ... ics.cancer

It seems clear also that a population of 60 million individuals can be narrowed down by sex, hair & eye colour, etc (including even age now it would appear) from DNA evidence.

Perhaps DNA evidence has now become closer to being 'foolproof'. There's always the question of how the DNA got to the crime scene. CSI anyone?
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by John McKenna » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:55 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:08 pm
Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:53 pm
It is true if the case goes to trial; there may be trouble if it is stopped beforehand, as for example, Marcus Ball (the man who tried to prosecute Boris Johnson for lying during the EU referendum) found, literally, to his cost.
Well, literally to the cost of the mugs who had been crowdfunding that obvious chancer, and as far as I am aware continue to do so
Care to voice a considered comment on Gina Miller to redress the balance between cunctatious & chancy losers?
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7380
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 am

No, my comments about Ball, whose grift I've been following from the start, are applicable solely to him.

While I do understand Paul's point about the difference between balance-of-probabilities and beyond-reasonable-doubt, it does seem to me that it would be unwise to risk a court case with no evidence at all as to the apparent method. Which is a problem, because that presumably eans that it would also be unwise to issue bans of any kind on the same basis, which means you really need to catch the cheaters first.

As far as the reluctance of Chessexshire to get involved is concerned, I am absolutely sure Alex is right on this and that basically these guys won't want to do anything if they can avoid it. Chess in England is dominated by stubborn old men. But at the same time I don't see any way to address the question of potential cheating except by making it clear that it is indeed the business of the organisers.

One problem I had with fhe ECF document discusses above was that it essentially assumed a willingness to look into and report potential cheating, it was just a question of how to do so. So what may be needed instead is an overt statement that it is the responsibility of the organisers of participating competitions (i.e. ones that are to be submitted for grading) to take all reasonable measures to detect and avoid cheating. If this doesn't happen, then as Paul suggests upthread, they don't get graded.

I've no doubt this would cause a very big fight, but really, tell me what the alternative is, because sometimes you need a big shift in attitudes and this is one of those times.
Last edited by JustinHorton on Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18515
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:51 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 am
because sometimes you need a big shift in attitudes and this is one of those times.
Why do you need a big shift in attitudes? It's against the laws of over the board chess to consult external sources during the game, and always has been.

I agree with previous posters though that you have to establish a method. At various levels it's a cause of concern and a statistical outlier to the very least, that the same player can achieve performances of 2200 to 2300 in one format of chess, but sub 1000 in another somewhat faster variant. Balance of probabilities suggests that in one format there was external assistance, but not the other. You can see this in Correspondence Chess, where some players with correspondence titles may struggle to reach an 1800 standard over the board.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7380
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:53 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:51 am
JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 am
because sometimes you need a big shift in attitudes and this is one of those times.
Why do you need a big shift in attitudes? It's against the laws of over the board chess to consult external sources during the game, and always has been.
Yes of course but so what? It doesn't follow that people think it's up to them to do anything about it.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Jon Underwood
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:28 pm
Location: Devon

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Jon Underwood » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:20 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:51 am
JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:30 am
because sometimes you need a big shift in attitudes and this is one of those times.
Why do you need a big shift in attitudes? It's against the laws of over the board chess to consult external sources during the game, and always has been.

I agree with previous posters though that you have to establish a method. At various levels it's a cause of concern and a statistical outlier to the very least, that the same player can achieve performances of 2200 to 2300 in one format of chess, but sub 1000 in another somewhat faster variant. Balance of probabilities suggests that in one format there was external assistance, but not the other. You can see this in Correspondence Chess, where some players with correspondence titles may struggle to reach an 1800 standard over the board.
I think the standard performances exceed 2300 very comfortably, but there is also a fairly spectacular 10/11 in a buzzer tournament against a fairly strong field to consider (I believe). Oh and the fact that virtually all of the standard games were played at blitz speed on one side of the board...

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:51 am

There are couple of reasons of I made up a scenario to discuss where I was the cheat.

The first is that I don't think Carl wants the hassle of us discussing anything where he could get dragged into a libel case, regardless of how clearly without merit we may think that it would be.

The second is that if you were a cheat, playing in an event where your true playing strength is revealed would be a massive blunder, making the case much easier.

The reason I was trying, and it seems failing, to argue sudden and unexplained increased playing strength and computer correlation was enough to defend a ban is because competent cheating is very hard to detect. Obviously if I was wearing a novelty jesters hat with a lens poking out, no problem. But in real life, as a 2300 player who is head of an IT department, I think I could get someone to knock up a way of cheating undetectable to anything less than full airport security pretty quickly. Probably an intern could do it. The idea someone could catch me by banning watches or with a £50 metal detector is naive to say the least.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7380
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: World Youth Championships

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:06 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:51 am
The reason I was trying, and it seems failing, to argue sudden and unexplained increased playing strength and computer correlation was enough to defend a ban is because competent cheating is very hard to detect.
Isn't the problem here that

(a) I know that
(b) you know that
(c) a layperson and hence a court does not know that?

(Or, at least, the layperson does not know that "sudden and unexplained increased playing strength" is a very likely indication of cheating, as is the sudden emergence of a strong but hitherto unknown player, and they are quite likely to be impressed by alternative explanations.)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Locked