Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

The problem in Dresden was that the delegates from the big federations supported it. Your own delegate supported it. Yes, I know that he was subsequently voted out of office, but I don't see how that helps.

That's not supported by statements made at the time.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... t=15#p6059

from which

In my opinion, if the President gets his way, there will be a reduction in FIDE Rated chess by 10-20%. There was applause when he made his speech about this matter at the General Assembly. It was over too quickly to observe whether it was by sychophants.

[Roger de Coverly]

Indeed. And so could everybody else. Nobody gives a damn what we think.

FIDE laws and regulations would have a bigger effect in a country like Spain where most amateur chess is FIDE rated than in the UK where it isn't. But then would the Spanish just ignore the rules?

[NickFaulks]

No. I'm saying that the decision of Anand to draw that game suggests he was probably not cheating with an engine during that game.

But that's of no interest to me because, unlike the ACC, that's the position I start from. I want to know what it would take to prove that Anand was cheating. I don't think that failure to blunder will ever do it.

[NickFaulks]

Indeed. And so could everybody else. Nobody gives a damn what we think.

FIDE laws and regulations would have a bigger effect in a country like Spain where most amateur chess is FIDE rated than in the UK where it isn't. But then would the Spanish just ignore the rules?

Spain is an excellent example. They will do something sensible, because they are a sensible federation. Whatever they do, I would recommend that the ECF observes and copies it. If they are faced with regulations which they consider unworkable, then it's time to worry.

[Stewart Reuben]

If you really want to have an effect on the deliberations of any commission, then turn up at the meetings during the congress in Tromso. You would be astonished how democratic they often are and how you can participate by simply putting your hand up. Of course the General Assembly is too big to be effective. You can also attend the Executive Board, but that is also rather too large.
Some commissions respond well to the written comments of 'outsiders'. Others less so.

Ken Regan's talk about matching computer analysis to moves actually played was very illuminating in Tallinn.

[Roger de Coverly]

I want to know what it would take to prove that Anand was cheating.

Provided you can rule out hidden devices in the shoes, clothes or headwear, that you saw him start up a device and consult it or could infer by his absence from the board that he had done so. The background to on-line cheating is somewhat different and the statistical approach may have more validity, since unlike OTB chess there are not usually any witnesses.

[NickFaulks]

The background to on-line cheating is somewhat different and the statistical approach may have more validity

I don't see why it has any more validility, just because nothing else is available.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ken Regan's talk about matching computer analysis to moves actually played was very illuminating in Tallinn.

I would have thought that in regular OTB chess with a player seated in full view of opponent, arbiters and spectators, that if a player's moves match computer analysis that's because either he is playing well, got lucky, or has remembered previously analysing that position or idea, with or without a computer engine. That he has a computing device concealed about his person is well down on the likelihood list unless there are other reasons to be suspicious.

The Ivanov mystery still remains though.

[David Sedgwick]

What about the "we will do what Kirsan asks" club who so nearly got the zero default times incorporated into the Laws of Chess?

The problem in Dresden was that the delegates from the big federations supported it. Your own delegate supported it.

You persist in making this claim. Every time you do so, I respond that it is untrue. From the discussions which I had with Gerry Walsh in Dresden, I'm satisfied that he did not support it.

Please would you now produce some evidence to support your contention, or withdraw it.

That's not supported by statements made at the time.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... t=15#p6059

from which

In my opinion, if the President gets his way, there will be a reduction in FIDE Rated chess by 10-20%. There was applause when he made his speech about this matter at the General Assembly. It was over too quickly to observe whether it was by sychophants.

Thanks Roger.

[Paolo Casaschi]

No. I'm saying that the decision of Anand to draw that game suggests he was probably not cheating with an engine during that game.

But that's of no interest to me because, unlike the ACC, that's the position I start from. I want to know what it would take to prove that Anand was cheating. I don't think that failure to blunder will ever do it.

I have nothing else to offer myself. To answer your question, you should ask Ken Regan that apparently believes he can detect computer cheating by just looking at the games with an error of one in a million. Unfortunately he did not explain how in the proposal paper (and I suspect that part of the plan is to keep the recipe secret).

[NickFaulks]

The problem in Dresden was that the delegates from the big federations supported it. Your own delegate supported it. Yes, I know that he was subsequently voted out of office, but I don't see how that helps.

That's not supported by statements made at the time.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... t=15#p6059

from which

In my opinion, if the President gets his way, there will be a reduction in FIDE Rated chess by 10-20%. There was applause when he made his speech about this matter at the General Assembly. It was over too quickly to observe whether it was by sychophants.

How does this contradict what I said?

[NickFaulks]

I have nothing else to offer myself. To answer your question, you should ask Ken Regan that apparently believes he can detect computer cheating by just looking at the games with an error of one in a million. Unfortunately he did not explain how in the proposal paper (and I suspect that part of the plan is to keep the recipe secret).

As you might expect, I have had long discussions with Ken about this. It was actually my laptop he borrowed to make his presentation.

His claim is that he can identify people who follow computer analysis on every move. I say that once his system comes in cheaters won't do that, if indeed most of them do now. He says they will. We disagree.

[Roger de Coverly]

His claim is that he can identify people who follow computer analysis on every move. I say that once his system comes in cheaters won't do that, if indeed most of them do now. He says they will. We disagree.

Perhaps he can, perhaps he cannot. It's going to give false positives for those who are following computer analysis for every move because they had prepared it beforehand as well as those who come kitted up. But if you were both a good player and an expert in concealing and using hidden devices, you would just consult your electronic adviser periodically and that's unlikely to be directly detectable with any assurance of reliability. It's the same problem as the more amateurish cheat who just takes a device to the bathroom. You have to control the "amateur cheat" problem without destroying amateur chess with ridiculous regulations that assume all players are crooks.

[NickFaulks]

His claim is that he can identify people who follow computer analysis on every move. I say that once his system comes in cheaters won't do that, if indeed most of them do now. He says they will. We disagree.

Perhaps he can, perhaps he cannot. It's going to give false positives for those who are following computer analysis for every move because they had prepared it beforehand as well as those who come kitted up. But if you were both a good player and an expert in concealing and using hidden devices, you would just consult your electronic adviser periodically and that's unlikely to be directly detectable with any assurance of reliability. It's the same problem as the more amateurish cheat who just takes a device to the bathroom. You have to control the "amateur cheat" problem without destroying amateur chess with ridiculous regulations that assume all players are crooks.

Fine, everyone here agrees with you. As Shaun says, PLEASE say the same thing to the ACC. I know it's obvious, but they don't get it.

[Mike Truran]

It seems a little odd that under FIDE's current voting arrangements (if I understand them correctly) national federations with no significant track record in running FIDE-rated events can have a significant influence over FIDE-rated event rules and regulations.

But someone please put me right if I don't understand them correctly!