English Chess Forum

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:08 pm

we can also add a chess.com account of his being closed for cheating in August 2019

https://www.chess.com/member/sheldortheassassin

Well we can't, without any evidence as to what this was based on

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:18 pm

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:08 pm

we can also add a chess.com account of his being closed for cheating in August 2019

https://www.chess.com/member/sheldortheassassin

Well we can't, without any evidence as to what this was based on

When I was on chess.com a couple of years ago, i had many conversations with the staff about what constitutes a fair play ban, and they told me it was specifically computer assistance

there is a few other things written down on their site, and after only 11 games played it pretty much cant be anything else on the list that they would ban him for. To be banned after only those few games whatever warranted the ban must have been pretty blatant.
(the staff and mods did tell me it was purely computer help though, whether that has changed in the last 2 years im not sure)



Fair Play Policy
Do not get help from any other person, player, or coach
Do not allow anyone else to use your account or access anyone else's account
Do not use chess engines, bots, plugins or any tools that analyze positions during play
You may use Opening Explorer or other opening books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only
Do not artificially manipulate ratings, matches, or game outcomes
Do not interfere with the game-play of other members
You may not use tablebases, or any other resources which reveal the best move
Do not "blunder check" or do any analysis of your games in progress
If you suspect your opponent is using outside help, this is not an excuse for you to do the same. Please report the player

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:32 pm

there is a few other things written down on their site, and after only 11 games played it pretty much cant be anything else on the list that they would ban him for. To be banned after only those few games whatever warranted the ban must have been pretty blatant.

1. No it mustn't. Unless they're actually prepared to show you the evidence you're in no position to say so, this is basic.
2. 11 games is not any kind of an adequate sample.
3. Other people have been banned by chess.com in extremely unconvincing circumstances, including myself. They are not at all reliable or trustworthy in this area.

Out of interest was the chess.com account which only had 1 game on closed for a violation as well?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:38 pm

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:32 pm

there is a few other things written down on their site, and after only 11 games played it pretty much cant be anything else on the list that they would ban him for. To be banned after only those few games whatever warranted the ban must have been pretty blatant.

1. No it mustn't. Unless they're actually prepared to show you the evidence you're in no position to say so, this is basic.
2. 11 games is not any kind of an adequate sample.
3. Other people have ber
En banned by chess.com in extremely unconvincing circumstances, including myself. They are not at all reliable or trustworthy in this area.

I am going going by what the chess.com staff and mods have specifically told me before.

Im not debating chess.coms methods, they might be shite for all i know. Maybe we should question lichess methods too?

it should still be included in the 'facts' that I quoted, as it was for what chess.com describe as a 'fair play' violation

maybe a better wording from me was that it should be included for breaching chess.com fair play policies

James - Carl asked us not to discuss the specifics of he individual. Maybe you could take this to some other social media?

It would be good to keep a discussion of cheating in general open. I thought Alex McFarlane's perspective very useful.

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:47 pm

maybe a better wording from me was that it should be included for breaching chess.com fair play policies

Maybe better still to observe that this is what is alleged, but also that no supporting evidence has been produced.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:51 pm

James - Carl asked us not to discuss the specifics of he individual. Maybe you could take this to some other social media?

It would be good to keep a discussion of cheating in general open. I thought Alex McFarlane's perspective very useful.

so what did i post that was different to the list i was quoting? I merely said it should be added to the list that someone made on the previous page.

James Hooker wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:58 pm

so what did i post that was different to the list i was quoting? I merely said it should be added to the list that someone made on the previous page.

Apologies if it felt like I was singling you out unfairly. That list not helpful either.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:51 pm

James - Carl asked us not to discuss the specifics of the individual. Maybe you could take this to some other social media?

Yes I can see a few temporary bans for those taking no notice.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that, where someone plays club chess, his or her clubmates are - unless the person in question completely refuses to engage in dialogue with them, which would itself probably be seen as strange behaviour - generally in a good position to make a decent assessment of that individual's level of chess expertise. Answers to questions such as "What did you have planned if your opponent did so-and-so instead?" tend to be illuminating.

In the Dorset example, the individual in question plays club chess. Nevertheless three decent chessplayers [the signatories to the B&DCL/DCCA statement are, or were, all around the ECF180 mark] are all prepared to go out on a limb and say that, to the best of their knowledge, everything is above board. The trio in question, even if not clubmates of the person in question, will undoubtedly know other competent players who are. They must also know that they will be ridiculed if proved wrong. In my view, that should be given rather more weight in this thread than hitherto.

As a general discussion point, I’m aware the mainstream media in the UK rarely covers chess to any great degree. If an entirely new English player won a high profile English event, perhaps at the expense of a number of the top English Grandmasters - How would the mainstream media and chess media cover the story?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:03 pm

It has been mentioned elsewhere that, where someone plays club chess, his or her clubmates are - unless the person in question completely refuses to engage in dialogue with them, which would itself probably be seen as strange behaviour - generally in a good position to make a decent assessment of that individual's level of chess expertise. Answers to questions such as "What did you have planned if your opponent did so-and-so instead?" tend to be illuminating.

In the Dorset example, the individual in question plays club chess. Nevertheless three decent chessplayers [the signatories to the B&DCL/DCCA statement are, or were, all around the ECF180 mark] are all prepared to go out on a limb and say that, to the best of their knowledge, everything is above board. The trio in question, even if not clubmates of the person in question, will undoubtedly know other competent players who are. They must also know that they will be ridiculed if proved wrong. In my view, that should be given rather more weight in this thread than hitherto.

But how do you know if they've had any contact with him. Maybe they're just proud of the fact they've got a good junior.

I mean I wouldn't personally put any store into anyone defending an alleged cheat, I don't think these people know anything more than anyone else. When Rausis was accused plenty of people came out and defended him, some of whom played with him in leagues or knew him through the chess circuit and swore he wouldn't do anything like that. Ultimately either the person is cheating or not, what I or anyone else has to say about it is largely irrelevant.

What I can't get by is when someone matches up highly with an engine and over so many moves. In my experience, I can't see how, in such a situation there's a scenario where a player isn't cheating. That's why I was so sure with Rausis. I just don't think you can play like that and be legitimate, unless you are talking about the super grandmaster level, and even those guys make mistakes from time to time.