Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

[John McKenna]

Matt B>... I don’t know anybody who can play chess as well and as fast as Declan, and if this is a genuine, amazing, breakthrough talent it should of course be celebrated...<

That's either disingenuous or you need to mingle with a wider circle of chess players.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Right. That’s me told again. Let me edit that sentence out as well. I know I shouldn’t be saying anything further, but who in your wider circle is playing like this? I'm happy to learn more about players I may not have heard of.

[John McKenna]

Good takeback, Matt.

[Daniel Gormally]

I'm sorry, but why should you apologise?

Given the incidents that we have seen recently, people have every right to be suspicious. I think if someone comes along, they've hardly played chess and they start playing like a strong I.M. (at least), they wear a baseball cap, and are matching with the top move of the engine on almost every move, how can we not be suspicious?

I made an account just so I could post about this, because I feel so strongly about this whole anti-cheating issue. Cheats disgust me. Rausis I made accusations about on twitter, and at the time there were plenty of people who called me out for it, said I shouldn't be saying it, and that he was on the level. Well look where we are now with him. He's been banned for six years. I think when you've worked with engines as much as I have, it becomes quite obvious to see when people are using engines during their games. Rausis was too obvious because his games were too clean. Even if a 2600 player beats a 2300 guy say, there's normally some kind of struggle. with Rausis this wasn't the case.

I have no idea if this kid is cheating or not, and those in charge of Dorset chess have made a statement to protect their player. That's understandable. But the other players in the Dorset league also need to be made to feel comfortable, and they shouldn't feel that they are unprotected against anyone who wishes to cheat against them.

In my view given the growing strength and ease of use of chess engines these days, this problem is only likely to get worse. I saw for myself the use of scanners at the London chess classic, and I was scanned twice, something I welcome. I think now that if chess leagues up and down the country are keen to protect their players from potential cheats, they could do worse than invest in scanners, even if these things are quite expensive. It's worth the investment.

[Roger Lancaster]

More or less everyone will agree on condemning cheats - that's not the issue here. The issue here is the undesirability of naming someone on suspicion of cheating in the knowledge that, even if that person is ultimately found to be innocent, those accusations will remain in the public domain.

[Daniel Gormally]

But how else are they ever going to be unearthed? If people hadn't made accusations about Rausis openly, then perhaps he would never have been caught- he would have carried on, as nobody would have been any the wiser.

If someone said to me you're a cheat, I wouldn't really be bothered. In fact many have done after I've beaten them in online games. I just find it amusing, and a compliment. If you're genuinely on the level it's not going to bother you that someone thinks you are cheating at chess.

[Daniel Gormally]

I think the other issue here that people are ignoring is the opponents- who are protecting them?

[John McKenna]

Right. That’s me told again. Let me edit that sentence out as well. I know I shouldn’t be saying anything further, but who in your wider circle is playing like this? I'm happy to learn more about players I may not have heard of.

If you've ever attended a Super Blitz Open at the London Classic you'll have seen younger better players.

Youngsters playing at blitz speed in longer games against fairly strong older opponents can have a debilitating effect on the more experienced player.

He/she fears the possibility they've encountered a prodigy, or in recent times some sort of a cheat, and they worry about losing to a low-rated junior.

The faster and better the youngster plays the more those fears grow, while the youngster has no such qualms and just plays chess.

Put that youngster in the Super Blitz and he/she will either sink or swim.

If Declan is a talent those around him should find out why he sank last Sunday and explain it to us here, perhaps.

[Ian Thompson]

even if that person is ultimately found to be innocent

The problem is they probably won't be found to be innocent; it will more likely be found that there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt (assuming there was something to arose suspicion in the first place), and consequent no smoke without fire afterthoughts.

[JustinHorton]

. If you're genuinely on the level it's not going to bother you that someone thinks you are cheating at chess.

1. Just speaking personally, I don't agree
2. I doubt that this argument would wash in the case of a defamation action.

This is not to say that I'm not in sympathy with Danny's general point. This for instance

But how else are they ever going to be unearthed? If people hadn't made accusations about Rausis openly, then perhaps he would never have been caught

strikes me as an argument with some strength. People can have all the suspicions they like, but unless somebody is prepared to openly say what they see, then it gives everybody else an excuse to pretend they can't see it either. (Let me offer, as a comparison, the sandbagging/Grand Prix affair in British chess a few years ago.)

[Ian Thompson]

If you're genuinely on the level it's not going to bother you that someone thinks you are cheating at chess.

I think most people would be concerned that they'd been accused of being a cheat, particularly when there's no way you can prove your innocence.

[Daniel Gormally]

I couldn't care less if someone accused me of a cheat. I'd just take it as a compliment. But I fully understand that everyone is different.

I just think there's an easy solution to this. Sit Lovelock down in a training match with a decent amateur player. Remove his baseball cap and scan him beforehand. Let him play a couple of rapid play games. If he performs even half decently then just let him carry on as before, and we can all shut up about him. The problem is at the moment there's no real evidence that he's any better than a very weak amateur player (if his performance in the super blitz is anything to go by) so a training match would confirm one way or another. And it would only take a couple of hours.

My experience of playing people who I have suspected later of being cheats, is you rarely analyse with them afterwards, or in fact rarely see them analyse at all. Strong players you know are strong players because they can talk about chess on a decent level. So a training match with an analysis session afterwards would assuage any doubts.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Well there is a way to prove his innocence. If he could sit down and dazzle strong players in controlled conditions, I’d be happy to apologise even more loudly that I’ve got it all so wrong. I’d be very embarrassed.

[John McKenna]

I think the other issue here that people are ignoring is the opponents- who are protecting them?

Are you suggesting that opponents of cheats are colluding in some way - by keeping quiet, for example?

[NB: In the case of players less than 18 y.o. it is better to proceed with kid gloves.]

[Daniel Gormally]

No i'm not suggesting that at all. In fact I find it strange that you're even suggesting as much.

I'm simply suggesting that players in lower leagues have no recourse to protect themselves if players decide to cheat against them, other than making some vague accusations which are difficult to prove. So introducing more safeguards (like scanners for example) can only be a positive thing.

As this guy Kenneth Regan pointed out in a recent podcast, you can't actually ban someone on the strength of their moves. That is the problem here. So unless you have specific anti-cheating measures in place it's very hard to stop someone who is set on cheating.