Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Locked
Roger Lancaster
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:35 pm

Phil Makepeace wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:44 pm
Meanwhile
Just played through the most recent game [v Yusupchuk] - terrible mistakes on both sides. Of course, it could just be a mischief-maker who has joined up under that name.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Keith Arkell » Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:44 pm

I think the distinction between 'professionals' and Amateurs' in the context of level of play versus potential level of play depends on a large number of variables. For example, if I've taken it easy all day and then play someone who's been at work all day then I have a clear advantage, but what about if I've spent all day travelling 350 miles to the venue?

And while a 'professional' who plays 70 games a year has a clear advantage over an 'amateur' who plays a similar number of games, which of the two has the advantage when the 'professional' has to play none-stop, week in week out, whether they feel like it or not?

Another important variable is finance. Who has the advantage: the 'amateur' who is comfortable financially or the 'professional' who can be carrying the burden of needing a result from to game to pay their mortgage?

But more relevant to the topic of cheating, and more particularly the case of Rausis, I've been quite vocal the last year or so against ageism in chess. I didn't like that at the London Classic one of the events got called the 'British KO Championship' and then only players aged under the age of 25 got invited to the preliminary stage, while those of us who were rated higher than the lot of them got ignored because we're over 25 (some of us significantly so!). My point is that we shouldn't assume that old gits can't be ambitious and can't get stronger at chess.

For me what hurt most about the Rausis case was that someone was gaining all the glory for their giant strides in their 50s when it had been obvious for years to me, Danny, Bogdan, most strong Latvians and many many others that he had been cheating. And meanwhile I was playing the best chess of my life at the age of 54. Older players can improve at chess - even significantly. When I got divorced at the end of 1993 I was a 32 year old IM rated about 2450. A little over two years later I was a GM rated 2545. The key word was motivation. As it was for me again at the end of 2013 when FIDE brought the minimum age for Senior titles down from 60 to 50.

My point is that I don't like to feel that there is a cap on what we can achieve in chess before the finger of suspicion points at us - whether we are beginners or old gits or any other category of player. I think that we should instead encourage an environment in which we are all ready and willing to submit to any test, whether it be scans, or even, as Danny suggested, being required to play test games under strict conditions.

In the same way as James Randi, as an ex- magician, exposed countless fake psychics - including Yuri Geller - if you sit a junior in front of an experienced GM such as Danny Gormally or myself, for an hour, we'll be able to give you a good idea of their true playing strength.

Mark Ashley
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Mark Ashley » Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:50 pm

Keith Arkell wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:44 pm

In the same way as James Randi, as an ex- magician, exposed countless fake psychics - including Yuri Geller - if you sit a junior in front of an experienced GM such as Danny Gormally or myself, for an hour, we'll be able to give you a good idea of their true playing strength.
I was wondering whether the ECF should have some sort of panel to do exactly this?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:07 pm

Keith Arkell wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:44 pm
if you sit a junior in front of an experienced GM such as Danny Gormally or myself, for an hour, we'll be able to give you a good idea of their true playing strength.
I'm not sure it would even need an experienced GM. I like to think I could tell 2300 from 1700 after an hour of analysis, having spent plenty of time with both. The question is, who will insist that a player submits to that, given that they obviously will not wish to do so?

Andy Stoker
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Andy Stoker » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:23 pm

Sorry to be tedious but I still think it is wrong to discuss a child by name, draw attention to his results on chess.com etc. Simple basic child protection. Smacks of Trump vs Thunberg.

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:35 pm

well maybe, but don't see why it violates child protection. personally I feel enough has been said on the whole subject now, people have been alerted to this, so maybe time to close the thread...

NickFaulks
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:36 pm

Andy Stoker wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:23 pm
Sorry to be tedious but I still think it is wrong to discuss a child by name, draw attention to his results on chess.com etc. Simple basic child protection. Smacks of Trump vs Thunberg.
I agree with the point you are making, and have made it myself, but that is a very strange analogy.

Daniel Gormally
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Daniel Gormally » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm

I think it's more of a moral issue, where it's a bit shameful that a bunch of adults like us are seen picking on a child. so agree, feels a bit uncomfortable.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18353
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:47 pm

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 pm
I think it's more of a moral issue, where it's a bit shameful that a bunch of adults like us are seen picking on a child. so agree, feels a bit uncomfortable.
The key post may be this one.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10438#p237952

A piece suggesting comparisons with a Gary Weinstein may have been spiked as a consequence.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Keith Arkell » Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:15 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:07 pm
Keith Arkell wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:44 pm
if you sit a junior in front of an experienced GM such as Danny Gormally or myself, for an hour, we'll be able to give you a good idea of their true playing strength.
I'm not sure it would even need an experienced GM. I like to think I could tell 2300 from 1700 after an hour of analysis, having spent plenty of time with both. The question is, who will insist that a player submits to that, given that they obviously will not wish to do so?
I agree that any reasonably strong and experienced player who used engines a fair bit would probably suffice. My hope is that in the same way in which we have quickly become happy to be treated as if we were about to board an aeroplane, we will get used to being selected for an hour or half an hour 'test'. I think nearly all honest players would be happy to play ball, because we want to expose the cheats. And the moment someone already under suspicion refuses, then you know you've got them, like in the case of the cheat who refused to take his shoes off.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger Lancaster » Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:34 am

Keith Arkell wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:15 am
I agree that any reasonably strong and experienced player who used engines a fair bit would probably suffice. My hope is that in the same way in which we have quickly become happy to be treated as if we were about to board an aeroplane, we will get used to being selected for an hour or half an hour 'test'. I think nearly all honest players would be happy to play ball, because we want to expose the cheats. And the moment someone already under suspicion refuses, then you know you've got them, like in the case of the cheat who refused to take his shoes off.
Fine but somewhat discriminatory in that it doesn't seem clearly to work where it's a strong and experienced player who is the one under suspicion

Keith Arkell
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Keith Arkell » Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:09 am

In those cases, Roger, detection is obviously more difficult, and we need something more sophisticated, such as the tests done by professor Ken Regan. And obviously such players can also be tested with scans.

However, I was specifically suggesting a method of quickly determining the true playing strength of players new to the scene. In the world outside chess we are told, eg on trains, to report suspicious behaviour, presumably with a view to that behaviour then being dealt with. Why shouldn't this be the case in our world too? Most of us would welcome an environment in which somebody playing suspicious games or achieving suspicious results was tested as a matter of routine. When you are scanned you don't think 'how dare they think I'm cheating', instead you think 'I'm happy to play my part in ensuring that the chess world is clean'.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5793
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Carl Hibbard » Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:58 am

Daniel Gormally wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:35 pm
Personally I feel enough has been said on the whole subject now, people have been alerted to this, so maybe time to close the thread...
I agree.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Locked