Chess Player Strip Searched

[David Sedgwick]

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't wont to argue about words.

I'm not a lawyer either and I wasn't seeking to confuse you. Your English has always seemed excellent to me.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't wont to argue about words.

I'm not a lawyer either and I wasn't seeking to confuse you. Your English has always seemed excellent to me.

Sorry, that was some kind of a joke, I meant I did not bother too much about arguing the difference between "illegal action" and "cheating".
(and I was amused by the lawer in the recent chessbase article arguing that the laws of chess are not clear whether using computer assistance during a game is forbidden or not, only a lawyer...)

I'm more interested in your answer to the other question: do you think pre-arranging draws is currently allowed or forbidden by the laws of chess?
As I said, I always assumed that was forbidden regardless of the intentions, although rarely enforced. Am I wrong in my assumption?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I think in football it's done in certain circumstances but it's a silent agreement if not it would be called match fixing I think."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23240104

perhaps.

I was arbiter at an event where two friends were paired on Saturday evening, and produced Hamppe-Meitner (1830 something). It was quite amusing as one of them almost forgot the line. The less well-educated spectators were very impressed with the game, and thought it was being created, instead of recreated, in front of them. I suppose I could have scored it 0-0, but if the players had turned up with a pint of beer each and gone 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bb5 draw I wouldn't have done, so it would be harsh. At least the crowd got entertainment.

[Jonathan Rogers]

... I was amused by the lawer in the recent chessbase article arguing that the laws of chess are not clear whether using computer assistance during a game is forbidden or not, only a lawyer...

Only that particular lawyer, I should think - I was astonished when I read her views, and assumed that Chessbase only published them in order to have an excuse to use her photo.

(Admittedly that does not explain why they published the almost equally nonsensical views of David Levy. I have noticed before that Chessbase don't always do "sane" when provoking comment on topical issues, perhaps because they are indeed trying to provoke).

[NickFaulks]

I have always assumed that in any game between two strong players, if it suits both of them for the result to be a draw, then that is what it will be. They know enough to head down the exchange variation of something or other, leading to a sterile ending after however many moves the organisers insist that they play. If this is considered undesirable, then it is the motivation to win that needs changing, not the Laws.

This is not simple, for instance I believe the 3-1-0 system creates more problems than it solves.

By the way, none of this has any connection whatsoever with the original post!

[Paolo Casaschi]

... I was amused by the lawer in the recent chessbase article arguing that the laws of chess are not clear whether using computer assistance during a game is forbidden or not, only a lawyer...

Only that particular lawyer, I should think - I was astonished when I read her views, and assumed that Chessbase only published them in order to have an excuse to use her photo.

(Admittedly that does not explain why they published the almost equally nonsensical views of David Levy. I have noticed before that Chessbase don't always do "sane" when provoking comment on topical issues, perhaps because they are indeed trying to provoke).

That's easy to explain: all good promotion for their analysis engines for mobile phones...

[David Sedgwick]

I'm more interested in your answer to the other question: do you think pre-arranging draws is currently allowed or forbidden by the laws of chess?
As I said, I always assumed that was forbidden regardless of the intentions, although rarely enforced. Am I wrong in my assumption?

I don't believe that pre-arranged draws are forbidden by the Laws of Chess.

They are forbidden by the FIDE Tournament Rules, viz:

"Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the [Chief Arbiter] shall impose suitable penalties."

The Tournament Rules are binding only for certain events - I don't wish to re-open the debate about which. However, they have advisory status for other events.

That makes the area a difficult one. Different arbiters can and do have different opinions.

Jack Rudd has cited the example of two players, with no prize money at stake, who pre-arrange a last round draw to enable a quick getaway. I agree with him that that is not cheating (although it might be discourteous to the organiser).

If A and B arrange that one of them will throw their last round game to the other in order to maximise their combined prize money, then to me that is cheating.

However, the equivalent conduct is not cheating within the English Bridge Union. Their regulations allow a team to play deliberately badly in order to throw a match.

[Richard Bates]

I'm more interested in your answer to the other question: do you think pre-arranging draws is currently allowed or forbidden by the laws of chess?
As I said, I always assumed that was forbidden regardless of the intentions, although rarely enforced. Am I wrong in my assumption?

I don't believe that pre-arranged draws are forbidden by the Laws of Chess.

They are forbidden by the FIDE Tournament Rules, viz:

"Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the [Chief Arbiter] shall impose suitable penalties."

How are 0-0 results judged for rating purposes? If not counted then i can think that (if there is no prize money motive) then such "penalties" would make prearranged draws more likely, not less! The effect on rating is the biggest disincentive for them to happen.

[David Sedgwick]

How are 0-0 results judged for rating purposes? If not counted then i can think that (if there is no prize money motive) then such "penalties" would make prearranged draws more likely, not less! The effect on rating is the biggest disincentive for them to happen.

In at least some cases, they do count. Each player is rated as though (s)he had lost a normal game.

[Greg Breed]

If A and B arrange that one of them will throw their last round game to the other in order to maximise their combined prize money, then to me that is cheating.

However, the equivalent conduct is not cheating within the English Bridge Union. Their regulations allow a team to play deliberately badly in order to throw a match.

I was at the Badminton Olympics in Wembley last year and I was quite angry at the shenanigans that took place by the Chinese and Indonesians. It totally ruined my (rather expensive) day and my chance to see the Olympics live and in person. Half of all the matches I saw were deliberately lost to affect the final draws. They were correctly disqualified in my opinion, but I still missed out on any world class badminton and it still leaves a sour taste.

[NickFaulks]

If A and B arrange that one of them will throw their last round game to the other in order to maximise their combined prize money, then to me that is cheating.

However, the equivalent conduct is not cheating within the English Bridge Union. Their regulations allow a team to play deliberately badly in order to throw a match.

I was at the Badminton Olympics in Wembley last year and I was quite angry at the shenanigans that took place by the Chinese and Indonesians. It totally ruined my (rather expensive) day and my chance to see the Olympics live and in person. Half of all the matches I saw were deliberately lost to affect the final draws. They were correctly disqualified in my opinion, but I still missed out on any world class badminton and it still leaves a sour taste.

Yes, that was an instructive case, and raised an important issue which the authorities were, predictably, careful to ignore.

What is supposed to happen when both sides form the view, probably correctly, that the most advantageous result is a loss?

[Greg Breed]

If A and B arrange that one of them will throw their last round game to the other in order to maximise their combined prize money, then to me that is cheating.

However, the equivalent conduct is not cheating within the English Bridge Union. Their regulations allow a team to play deliberately badly in order to throw a match.

I was at the Badminton Olympics in Wembley last year and I was quite angry at the shenanigans that took place by the Chinese and Indonesians. It totally ruined my (rather expensive) day and my chance to see the Olympics live and in person. Half of all the matches I saw were deliberately lost to affect the final draws. They were correctly disqualified in my opinion, but I still missed out on any world class badminton and it still leaves a sour taste.

Yes, that was an instructive case, and raised an important issue which the authorities were, predictably, careful to ignore.

What is supposed to happen when both sides form the view, probably correctly, that the most advantageous result is a loss?

They should probably have been advised in advance that if anyone is deemed to not be attempting to win they will face immediate disqualification. Hopefully the threat alone would push them to win. There were other suggestions i recall about teams not knowing in advance who they would be playing in the next round until all rounds were completed. Or random selection.

[Ian Thompson]

If A and B arrange that one of them will throw their last round game to the other in order to maximise their combined prize money, then to me that is cheating.

However, the equivalent conduct is not cheating within the English Bridge Union. Their regulations allow a team to play deliberately badly in order to throw a match.

I was at the Badminton Olympics in Wembley last year and I was quite angry at the shenanigans that took place by the Chinese and Indonesians. It totally ruined my (rather expensive) day and my chance to see the Olympics live and in person. Half of all the matches I saw were deliberately lost to affect the final draws. They were correctly disqualified in my opinion, but I still missed out on any world class badminton and it still leaves a sour taste.

Yes, that was an instructive case, and raised an important issue which the authorities were, predictably, careful to ignore.

What is supposed to happen when both sides form the view, probably correctly, that the most advantageous result is a loss?

Sack the organisers for devising a very poor qualification system. Whilst it's perfectly reasonable for spectators to expect to see a hard-fought match, it's also perfectly reasonable for the competitors to play in the way that maximises their chances of winning the gold medal. It is, after all, the Olympic Games with a once in 4 years chance to win it.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew Martin's take on the Ivanov affair is very interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCist0a7zeA

It is hard to disagree with anything Andy said

[Mick Norris]

More from Ken Regan here
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/07/2 ... een-sigma/