Chess row in Cork

[Gordon Cadden]

The playing area to include the refreshment, and toilet area. Switching off a phone, will not solve the problem.

Could you explain please? The phone should remain switched off when the player was in the refreshment or toilet areas. That's my interpretation of the current rule, is that questioned?

The standard mobile phone will alert a Tournament Controller, when switched on. I believe that the new smart phones, can be used in a toilet cubicle, without making a sound.

[Roger de Coverly]

The standard mobile phone will alert a Tournament Controller, when switched on. I believe that the new smart phones, can be used in a toilet cubicle, without making a sound.

It depends on the phone, but it's long been possible to find a setting of silent mode on most phones , so they can be switched on and off in silence. In any event the Tournament Controller's desk is not generally placed within earshot of the cubicles, so whether a device is silent or not makes no difference.

More generally, what should arbiters do when an opponent like the Cork complainant suspects his opponent is cheating?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The standard mobile phone will alert a Tournament Controller, when switched on. I believe that the new smart phones, can be used in a toilet cubicle, without making a sound.

It depends on the phone, but it's long been possible to find a setting of silent mode on most phones , so they can be switched on and off in silence. In any event the Tournament Controller's desk is not generally placed within earshot of the cubicles, so whether a device is silent or not makes no difference.

More generally, what should arbiters do when an opponent like the Cork complainant suspects his opponent is cheating?

Probably depends if the accused is a junior or an adult. I don't envy arbiters at all when they are faced with such a situation. Presumably arbiter training courses covered what to do with 'old-style' cheating? Would the same apply?

[Stewart Reuben]

Gordon Cadden wrote:
The playing area to include the refreshment, and toilet area. Switching off a phone, will not solve the problem.

No, it does not. The playing venue includes the refreshment and toilet areas. The playing area is where the games are played.

That does not invalidate other comments made. It is just a small correction.

[Peter D Williams]

Of course. But you shouldn't mistake or (worse) misrepresent others disagreeing with you as them asking you to ask them for permission. I never said that and I hope I never would. You should take note of what others say, though, as some may say some things worth listening to before Carl or a moderator are available. They (moderators) can only do so much, and while we can and should disagree where needed, it doesn't need to be confrontational.

I hope you (and everyone else here) has a nice weekend.

You been busy posting away over the weekend.

I only ever take notice of my friends not a forum

Right time to check my sweet peas plants.

[Roger de Coverly]

From http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10513.aspx

Thanks to Professor Ken Regan and others, we can tell when a computer has been used or appears to have been used. This, combined with the rating of the player, enables an arbiter to judge with near certainty if there has been cheating. So I would like to propose the ECF Directors come up with some enforceable sanctions that can be implemented in these cases.

Personally I think this is nonsense. You may be able to demonstrate that it's possible a computer has been used, but in over the board chess, that is not evidence of cheating. Unless you can demonstrate a method of cheating such as leaving the board to consult a phone whilst on the move, it is absolutely wrong to accuse of player of cheating just because their pre-game preparation is exceptional or they have a similar judgement to the chess engine of your choice.

[Carl Hibbard]

The only person I take note of on here over postings is Carl.

Did I miss something

[Greg Breed]

From http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 10513.aspx

Thanks to Professor Ken Regan and others, we can tell when a computer has been used or appears to have been used. This, combined with the rating of the player, enables an arbiter to judge with near certainty if there has been cheating. So I would like to propose the ECF Directors come up with some enforceable sanctions that can be implemented in these cases.

Personally I think this is nonsense. You may be able to demonstrate that it's possible a computer has been used, but in over the board chess, that is not evidence of cheating. Unless you can demonstrate a method of cheating such as leaving the board to consult a phone whilst on the move, it is absolutely wrong to accuse of player of cheating just because their pre-game preparation is exceptional or they have a similar judgement to the chess engine of your choice.

Roger I think Malcolm means this in conjunction with suspicious behaviour. If you do not leave the board then I doubt there can be any accusations (apart from that Borislav Ivanov thing ).

[Chris Rice]

[/quote]
Roger I think Malcolm means this in conjunction with suspicious behaviour. If you do not leave the board then I doubt there can be any accusations (apart from that Borislav Ivanov thing ).[/quote]

I think Malcolm meant exactly what he said ie that if the moves were say 96% in accordance with Houdini 3 as Ivanov's often are then the ECF (if it happened in England) should do something about it. However, personally I can't go along with this and agree with Roger. Even though everything points to Ivanov cheating, it's all circumstantial. Where's the smoking gun?

The Cork incident is clearly different as its clear that the kid was caught cheating and similar instances in England could certainly be dealt with by the ECF along the lines Malcolm proposes. One problem does present itself in that there appears to be a legal issue with naming and shaming a youngster so that if he/she is caught cheating how would another tournament organiser know if its all kept anonymous?

[Andrew Zigmond]

The Cork incident is clearly different as its clear that the kid was caught cheating and similar instances in England could certainly be dealt with by the ECF along the lines Malcolm proposes. One problem does present itself in that there appears to be a legal issue with naming and shaming a youngster so that if he/she is caught cheating how would another tournament organiser know if its all kept anonymous?

I don't think there was any legal issue with naming and shaming the junior concerned as such, more that media sources chose not to name him although his name could easily be determined from the tournament tables. I don't think there would be any legal issues with organisers (who tend to work closely together anyway) from sharing his name on an informal basis.

As I've said a few times the junior in question apparently ended up a) revealed as a cheat and b) the victim of a physical assault I'd be surprised if he shows his face at a tournament for a long time to come.

[Roger de Coverly]

(apart from that Borislav Ivanov thing

The chesspub site has an update on the latest developments.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Y ... 57/353#353

Ivanov has, it appears, now been prevented from playing in Bulgarian tournaments.

His most recent tournament did get a bit farcical. The organisers had imposed a rule that if you had three byes or wins by default, you weren't eligible for a prize. So two players, one of them twice, took it upon themselves to refuse to play him.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger.

Refusing to play him is no solution.

We want him to pay as often as possible and discover (if at all) how he is doing it.
If we do not know how he is doing it, how on earth are we going to prevent it.

I've said all along this guy is standing is standing out because of his grade and past performances.

If this was a 2600 bod then no eyebrows would get raised at all.
If he has found an as yet undectable method to cheat (I stress 'IF') then is he the only one?
Can he now pass it onto someone who will not attract so much attention and split the money.

Keep him active till we either accept he is some kind of gifted player that thinks like a computer
but cannot explain why. Or he is at it.

I cannot wait for his first chess book: Think Like a Computer!

Who knows, maybe this is the next step in evolution, we have been surrounded by computers
long enough now, it was only a question of time before some of us of started thiking like one.

[Clive Blackburn]

I cannot wait for his first chess book: Think Like a Computer!

Who knows, maybe this is the next step in evolution, we have been surrounded by computers
long enough now, it was only a question of time before some of us of started thiking like one.

I'm afraid that this really is not possible. Engines like Houdini "think" the way that they do because they can examine something like 10 million positions per second, depending on the processor speed. This kind of exhaustive analysis is clearly beyond human capability and always will be, so we can never "Think Like a Computer!"

It is more than just a question of playing style.

[E Michael White]

Gordon Cadden wrote:
The playing area to include the refreshment, and toilet area. Switching off a phone, will not solve the problem.

No, it does not. The playing venue includes the refreshment and toilet areas. The playing area is where the games are played.

That does not invalidate other comments made. It is just a small correction.

In connection with the definition of playing area/venue etc and some arbiters' alowing phones to be switched on in the playing area while games are in progress, Geurt Gijssen replied to my Question (3) on chesscafe and some proposed changes for discussion:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt171.pdf

[Andrew Zigmond]

Hi Roger.

Refusing to play him is no solution.

We want him to pay as often as possible and discover (if at all) how he is doing it.
If we do not know how he is doing it, how on earth are we going to prevent it.

I've said all along this guy is standing is standing out because of his grade and past performances.

I think you're getting confused between the two different players involved. Ivanov was the apparent victim of the cheating, however it appears very possible he physically assaulted the young player concerned (other reports suggest he is pretty volatile character). The junior who appears to have been cheating is so far unnamed although you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out from the tournament table. Both are quite rightly personae non grata at events right now but for different reasons.