Chess Player Strip Searched

[John Upham]

- I'm too died in the wool to have a mobile

It is possible you meant dyed-in-the-wool?

[Michael Farthing]

- I'm too died in the wool to have a mobile

It is possible you meant dyed-in-the-wool?

That is indeed a possibility!

[Ian Thompson]

... the expectation is that players do not have their mobile phones or other computing devices in their possession when playing under strict FIDE rules. If enforced, watch for the backlash, as that says you shouldn't play chess after a day's work or play chess with your luggage with you on the first or last day of a tournament.

Isn't the required wording
"The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe penalty, or no penalty at all" ?

Whilst it might have been difficult, if not impossible, to get general International agreement to this, why cannot the ECF or the CAA if the decision is devolved, state that to be the practical interpretation for most if not all events in England or the UK?

The ECF may have changed the FIDE rules on this for English non-FIDE rated events. There's an article in the April 2014 BCM saying they have. Presumably it's not official until it's been announced by the ECF; I don't think it has been. There's more than half a page on the mobile phone ban, which the article says will apply in all non-FIDE rated events unless the entry form says otherwise.

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably it's not official until it's been announced by the ECF; I don't think it has been.

Whilst their hand was forced by the leaking of the no-confidence meeting and the subsequent resignations, it appears the ECF Directors have gone back into silent mode. It would have been a suitable topic as AOB at the Finance meeting as there won't now be any wider meetings until after a supposed ban has been theoretically implemented. Leagues and counties will be holding their AGMs between now and September. In the absence of guidance from the ECF, their simplest course of action would seem to be to set aside any interpretation of the FIDE rules as a ban and continue to tolerate the presence of mobile phones and computing devices. Whether they enforce the phone ringing as a game default is also another matter. I think rule change "lesser penalty" means they don't actually have to, not that all did anyway.

[Chris Rice]

The FIDE/ACP Anti-Cheating Committee (“ACC”) are about to announce their draft proposals in a 24-page document. The links are below but in summary the highlights are:

1. Sanctions:

a. First offence up to three years suspension from all FIDE-rated events (or one year if player is under 15 or two years if under 18);

b. Second offence up to 15 years suspension from all FIDE-rated events.

2. Continuous training – FIDE-titled arbiters will receive special Anti-Cheating training sessions. They are mandatory and if you fail them or don’t attend you won’t be able to be an Arbiter at the top events. Also FIDE-titled arbiters will need to fill out a form and complete procedures so that they can be designated “Anti-Cheating Educated”.

3. Initial Recommendations – as the training system will take time to be introduced there are some recommendations and advice as to what arbiters can do now including:

a. How players can cheat during the game;
b. Which precautions can be taken to prevent cheating
c. Screening games for precaution and information
d. How to deal with suspicious behaviour
e. How to deal with the new Article 11.3 of the Laws of Chess (arbiter inspections)
f. How to deal with accusations
g. How to deal with false accusations


4. FIDE will supply organisers and arbiters with an Internet-based Game Screening Tool which will be hosted on a FIDE-dedicated web page. There is a further annex C that deals with statistical methods that references Higgs particle analysis and gravity waves

5. Annex D deals with technical equipment that the top tournaments should have access to:

a. Mobile phone jammers;
b. Hand-held security metal detectors;
c. Walk-through metal detectors;
d. Automatic electro-magnetic screening devices for metallic/non-metallic items;
e. Closed circuit cameras.

6. The recommendations will cover all FIDE events but they will be divided into three layers of protections: Tournaments that require a. maximum b. increased c. standard levels of protection;

7. The ACC Chair will have the power to perform on-site inspections at any FIDE-rated event;

8. A complaint handing system divided into in-tournament and post-tournament complaints;

9. How investigations are to be carried out:

a. Have to be investigated and completed in a maximum of 60 days;
b. Norms/title applications will only be considered valid once the ACC have seen the games of the player in the relevant event;

10. Appeals procedures

11. Publicity – this section states it is the Arbiter’s duty to check players are not subject to sanctions. Also for those subject to sanctions apart from having the grade removed from the FIDE list there will also be a sanctions flag against the players name. If you try and enter a FIDE tournament while subject to sanctions you automatically trigger the second offence.

12. ACC structure – seven members appointed every four years. Meetings at least once a year.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/262 ... 0Final.pdf
http://www.chessprofessionals.org/conte ... g-proposal

[Roger de Coverly]

The ACC therefore recommends to adopt the following rule:
“In tournaments open to amateur players, the prohibition to introduce electronic devices in the playing venue may, and indeed should be waived. However, under no circumstances a player shall be allowed to carry an electronic device, whether switched on or off, working or not, on his body during play. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket. Any player found carrying such a device shall immediately be forfeited his game, with rating points calculated. A second offense during the same tournament shall imply an immediate ban from the tournament, with the player’s name forwarded to the ACC for further investigation.

I rather doubt the practicality of such a rule, indeed if adopted it could amount to a suicide note for FIDE rated tournaments. I don't accept the notion that it won't matter because arbiters will not enforce it in view of the penalties if they do. A switched off electronic device is harmless. It only becomes harmful if it can be removed from the direct playing area to somewhere private and switched on. Entrants to tournaments would prefer to be treated as innocent of cheating unless proved otherwise.

[Roger de Coverly]

4. FIDE will supply organisers and arbiters with an Internet-based Game Screening Tool which will be hosted on a FIDE-dedicated web page. There is a further annex C that deals with statistical methods that references Higgs particle analysis and gravity waves

They presume that analysis of multiple games will let them off, but how can you distinguish between a game won with red hot theory prepared beforehand with a computer engine, to a game won with red hot theory generated during the game by computer analysis? This applies particularly if the opponent doesn't prolong the game into a technical phase.

[Paolo Casaschi]

For statistics to be considered as sole evidence for judgment, a z-score of at least 4.75 (p = .0001% or 1-in-a-million threshold) is needed, from one event or as a combined z-score from several events in close succession.

This is the very concerning part: they argue that statistical analysis alone should be ground for judgement (in reality they really mean conviction rather than judgement here, this tells you about the mindset of the authors of the paper).
Note the wording, even statistical evidence from a single event could be enough for conviction: be careful if you only play one game in the 4NCL.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The ACC therefore recommends to adopt the following rule:
“In tournaments open to amateur players, the prohibition to introduce electronic devices in the playing venue may, and indeed should be waived. However, under no circumstances a player shall be allowed to carry an electronic device, whether switched on or off, working or not, on his body during play. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket. Any player found carrying such a device shall immediately be forfeited his game, with rating points calculated. A second offense during the same tournament shall imply an immediate ban from the tournament, with the player’s name forwarded to the ACC for further investigation.

I rather doubt the practicality of such a rule, indeed if adopted it could amount to a suicide note for FIDE rated tournaments. I don't accept the notion that it won't matter because arbiters will not enforce it in view of the penalties if they do. A switched off electronic device is harmless. It only becomes harmful if it can be removed from the direct playing area to somewhere private and switched on. Entrants to tournaments would prefer to be treated as innocent of cheating unless proved otherwise.

The obvious gap: an amateur player can bring a mobile phone into the playing value but he can not keep it on himself, his clothes or his bag. What is the player supposed to do with the phone???

[Roger de Coverly]

The obvious gap: an amateur player can bring a mobile phone into the playing value but he can not keep it on himself, his clothes or his bag. What is the player supposed to do with the phone???

One obvious answer is that you place it beside your scoresheet on the table in full view of your opponent, arbiters and spectators *. The problem is that if you are making a working assumption that chess players are fundamentally dishonest and would consult their chess engine unless prevented, you have to assume that any loose property, particularly potentially valuable property, would be vulnerable to being nicked.

* That is apparently contrary to the new Laws of Chess from 1st July which appear to require the arbiter to impose "a default or some lesser penalty".

[Paolo Casaschi]

For statistics to be considered as sole evidence for judgment, a z-score of at least 4.75 (p = .0001% or 1-in-a-million threshold) is needed, from one event or as a combined z-score from several events in close succession.

This is the very concerning part: they argue that statistical analysis alone should be ground for judgement (in reality they really mean conviction rather than judgement here, this tells you about the mindset of the authors of the paper).
Note the wording, even statistical evidence from a single event could be enough for conviction: be careful if you only play one game in the 4NCL.

Something even worse that that: in the proposed document, the role of the ACC (FIDE/ACP Anti Cheating Committee) is defined as follows in section 5:
- to legislate about cheating: "The Commission shall be responsible for defining the regulations concerning anti-cheating in Chess"
- to investigate about cheating: "The Commission shall be responsible for investigating incidents of cheating..."
- to judge about cheating: "...and to issue first-degree sentences"
In a nutshell, a group of 7 people are playing the role of the legislator, the role of the policeman and the the role of the judge: isn't that a bit too much?

[NickFaulks]

In a nutshell, a group of 7 people are playing the role of the legislator, the role of the policeman and the the role of the judge: isn't that a bit too much?

This is in reality an ACP document, so what do you expect?

[Roger de Coverly]

This is in reality an ACP document, so what do you expect?

FIDE have their name on it and I don't recognise the names of the authors as being exclusively professional players or even ACP members.

The paper has been prepared by Klaus Deventer, Laurent Freyd, Yuri Garrett, Israel Gelfer (Chair), Konstantin Landa, Shaun Press and Kenneth Regan and is the result, among many other interactions and meetings within the Committee, of two seminal meetings in Paris (Oct. 2013) and Buffalo (Apr. 2014). Valuable contributions came from other members of the Committee, such as Nick Faulks, Miguel Illescas and George Mastrokoukos, and external experts such as Andrea Griffini, Bartlomiej Macieja, Takis Nikolopoulos, and Emil Sutovsky. All names arein alphabetical order only.

[Paolo Casaschi]

For statistics to be considered as sole evidence for judgment, a z-score of at least 4.75 (p = .0001% or 1-in-a-million threshold) is needed, from one event or as a combined z-score from several events in close succession.

This is the very concerning part: they argue that statistical analysis alone should be ground for judgement (in reality they really mean conviction rather than judgement here, this tells you about the mindset of the authors of the paper).
Note the wording, even statistical evidence from a single event could be enough for conviction: be careful if you only play one game in the 4NCL.

Another consideration about the suggestion of allowing the statistical analysis to be used as sole evidence for conviction. If I understand correctly they require two conditions:
- "a z-score of at least 4.75 (p = .0001% or 1-in-a-million threshold)", in other words, enough statistical evidence to reduce the chance of a false positive result to one false positive every one million tests
- statistical evidence to be collected "from one event or as a combined z-score from several events in close succession", this means one event is enough

I downloaded the latest FIDE rating list and counted how many players had one or more rated game in the previous rating period. It happens that more than 38 thousand players have played an event last month, assume for simplicity that each of those played only one tournament. This mean that potentially the ACC could run the statistical analysis for each of those 38k "events" of each of those players for one month of activity. Let's assume that everyone follows the ACC recommendation to upload the games and that all games are checked automatically. Extrapolating to one year, there would be 38k * 12 = almost half a million of those tests to be done. Over two years, there would be almost a million of those test that could be done. If one million tests were done with a probability of a false positive of one-in-a-million... well, statistically we'd have one false positive every two years. So we can expect every two years an innocent player being analyzed, accused, convicted, shamed and disqualified based solely on statistical analysis?

Is the proposed test for convicting a player solely based on statistical analysis really designed to generate a false positive every two years? Am I doing the math right or do I miss something?

[shaunpress]

While the document is a FIDE/ACP joint effort, in a sense it does not belong to anyone in particular. There is often a belief that any document published by FIDE in the lead up to any FIDE Congress is being presented as a fait acompli rather than something that is open to discussion and amendment.
The initial draft of the document came out of meetings held by the ACP and FIDE in October 2013. There was then a further meeting held in Buffalo in April 2014 consisting of some (but not all) members of the FIDE/ACP Committee, in which the document was amended and expanded (quite significantly as it turns out). Nick Faulks is partly right in it being an ACP document, in that the majority of changes are about dealing with computer use in professional chess, and obviously this is where the members of the ACP ply their trade. In fact your more likely to find alternative opinions on these proposals from the FIDE members of the committee, as we are representing a broader base of chess players.
The important thing to note for readers of this forum, is that this is a set of proposals that will be discussed and voted on at the 2014 FIDE Congress. If you do not like what is in this paper, you are encouraged to present alternative solutions to the problems the paper is trying to solve. I, in my capacity as Secretary of the FIDE Anti-Cheating Commission, are more than happy to receive proposals and distribute them to the rest of the committee. And while I often mention ideas and opinions I see on forums such as this in work on ACC and other commissions, you will get a better and unfiltered hearing if you are able to present such ideas yourself. My email address is on the FIDE website.

Shaun Press
Secretary, FIDE ACC