Cheating in chess

[MartinCarpenter]

Like I said, its actually a slightly disturbingly smart solution to the problem of transmitting moves to your remote helper You could shrink things down hugely of course. All you need is a speaker, accelerometer and transmitter - you could make the acclerometer/transmitter combo really small and tiny power draw, so in a watch/shoe pretty easily, maybe even a ring or some such.

The speaker is happily a modest weakness, and needed to make the move transmission possible. As is the obvious pause before every move if using it for every move. But no one smart would cheat in quite that manner. Or use it as a 1500 to beat up on GM's! You'd target big money grade banded tournaments in America.

[Chris Rice]

Really disappointed with the comments made by the ECU President on the Georgian who cheated in Dubai:

Zurab Azmaiparashvili: "Gaioz Nigalidze Should be Banned for One-Two Years Maximum"

The President of the European Chess Union Zurab Azmaiparashvili comments on the situation surrounding the Georgian player Gaioz Nigalidze, who was recently caught cheating.

"I was very angry with Nigalidze, when I first heard about it, but could not react for several days", Azmaiparashvili was quoted as saying by the Georgian newspaper "Palitra Nedelyi". - "I decided to await other people's reaction. But people have been too harsh with him, virtually demanding the death sentence".

"Gaioz is guilty and should be punished, but he has not done anything deserving the death penalty. The chess program he was using could be compared in strength with light doping", the ECU President said.

"The guilty must be punished, but we should acknowledge that he has admitted his guilt, and we should also take into account the difficult financial situation faced by his family. It seems to me that Nigalidze should be banned for one or two years maximum. That way, he will receive a bitter blow and learn the appropriate lesson, but we will not throw down the drain all the efforts this talented young man has made to improve his chess".

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/18922

[JustinHorton]

Not if they are in prison ie should it be criminalised

Out of interest, how do you propose to "criminalise" it given that chess is an international sport taking place in many many different legal jurisdictions?

[Richard Bates]

Not if they are in prison ie should it be criminalised

Out of interest, how do you propose to "criminalise" it given that chess is an international sport taking place in many many different legal jurisdictions?

Well obviously chess authorities don't have the power to 'criminalise' anything. That is not the same, however, as saying that they shouldn't encourage prosecuting authorities to take an interest where the laws of a country suggest a case can be made (cf. the Pakistani cricketers in England in 2010).

[Roger de Coverly]

That is not the same, however, as saying that they shouldn't encourage prosecuting authorities to take an interest where the laws of a country suggest a case can be made (cf. the Pakistani cricketers in England in 2010).

That's one example, the coughing Major would be another. The strangely worded "pecuniary advantage by deception" potentially covers it under English law.

I could see why the ECU President might defend the player. It's hardly good for the reputation of the Georgian to have its champion accused of being a computer cheat, even if the past accusations against the President himself are set aside.

[JustinHorton]

That is not the same, however, as saying that they shouldn't encourage prosecuting authorities to take an interest where the laws of a country suggest a case can be made (cf. the Pakistani cricketers in England in 2010).

That's one example, the coughing Major would be another

But possibly not, since in the case of computer-assisted cheating

(a) the cheat has been caught before they have been awarded any prize money
(b) the amounts of money involved are at any rate piddling by Millionaire standards
(c) there's not much point in citing English law in relation to offences taking place in other jurisdictions.

Yes, of course "attempting to obtain..." might well apply and of course other jurisdictions may have similar legislation but unless we're sure how it works in any given instance we would be unwise to make too many assumptions.

I'm basically observing that if you want to go down the legal route you need to show what law has been broken, which may be harder than you think. You also need to explain who is going to go to law - who is the complainant? who, actually, has been cheated? - and if the answer to the first question is "the statutory legal authorities" then you have to ask why they're not going to say something like "look, your cheat's been caught..." (and maybe add "they'll be on a plane in twenty-four hours anyway and out of our hands") "...so do you really think we're going to consider it in the public interest to spend a lot of time and money detaining and prosecuting them?"

There's an awful lot of cheating in sport and yet incredibly little ever ends up in court, and there's many good practical reasons for this. What is normally far more effective is the ability of the quasi-legal sports authorities to impose sanctions. In this instance this ought to mean a proper response from FIDE, which as far as I can see we're not currently getting but which would need to meet tests both of enforceability (as per Jack above) and of the possibility of legal challenge. But the sooner this is faced up to, the better: in the mean time by all means discuss the potential legal options, but I suspect that it's not all that practical, more's the pity.

[Roger de Coverly]

But the sooner this is faced up to, the better: in the mean time by all means discuss the potential legal options, but I suspect that it's not all that practical, more's the pity.

I suspect you are correct. Nevertheless those who would claim that cheating at chess doesn't break any laws are probably wrong, at least where the pecuniary advantage point would apply. It is not immediately obvious why deliberately bowling a no-ball in a cricket match should be against the law and subject to a custodial sentence but they found a way to prosecute.

[Chris Rice]

I would agree with Justin that legal action is difficult but would equally agree with Roger that laws are being broken. The spot-fixing example is a good one where the two players received five year and ten year bans. But after the case was over I thought the words of Nick Tofiluck of the Gambling Commission were really appropriate:

"Some commentators fear that the integrity of cricket, and sportsmen and women in general, may now be called into question. No sport wants itself to grab the headlines for these sorts of reasons and whilst it seems a long time ago now, and it would be easy to try and forget it and pretend that it never took place, it would be wrong for the sport to do that. In the long term, sport is unsustainable if people fundamentally don't believe that it has some integrity about it. How are you going to encourage youngsters to engage in sport if all you are promoting is 'This is a way to act illegally'? Then there is no future in that at all."

Those words could be applied to chess if Azmaiparashvili's views become the norm.

[JustinHorton]

Well' in the Pakistan case I believe the convictions were on conspiracy charges, "conspiracy to accept corrupt payments" (presumably not relevant) and "conpiracy to cheat" (possibly relevant but you'd want a legal definition).

Obviously in the spot-fixing affair a lot of money had changed hands.

[Chris Rice]

Well' in the Pakistan case I believe the convictions were on conspiracy charges, "conspiracy to accept corrupt payments" (presumably not relevant) and "conpiracy to cheat" (possibly relevant but you'd want a legal definition).

Obviously in the spot-fixing affair a lot of money had changed hands.

The BBC link below of the case shows that the undercover journalist paid the agent £150,000 most of which was never recovered. Of that money the agent claims to have paid the three figures concerned £65,000, £10,000 and £2,500. It's interesting to note that the prize fund in the 2015 Dubai chess tournament where the Georgian was caught cheating was $40,000 with a first prize of $10,000. The figures are not that far different it would seem in regard to what the players were paid. I don't know about the the legal definitions regarding "conspiracy to cheat", I do know its complicated. You do get a fair bit of this in the US where schemes are concocted to cheat the casinos. Guess there would be synergies with chess.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-15573463

[Roger de Coverly]

but we will not throw down the drain all the efforts this talented young man has made to improve his chess.

You have to be sure that these efforts didn't include finding the best hiding places for Smart Phones. Where are the ACC on this? Shouldn't their system for finding suspected computer use be on the case, if only to establish whether his rating, GM title and Georgian championships were, on balance of probabilities, legitimately obtained?

[Jonathan Bryant]

I would agree with Justin that legal action is difficult but would equally agree with Roger that laws are being broken.

What about Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson cases? Neither ended in criminal action did they? Aren’t they closer analogies to computer assisted cheating at chess than spot fixing?

[Chris Rice]

I would agree with Justin that legal action is difficult but would equally agree with Roger that laws are being broken.

What about Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson cases? Neither ended in criminal action did they? Aren’t they closer analogies to computer assisted cheating at chess than spot fixing?

I would say that what happened to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson was just as effective as criminal action.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I would agree with Justin that legal action is difficult but would equally agree with Roger that laws are being broken.

What about Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson cases? Neither ended in criminal action did they? Aren’t they closer analogies to computer assisted cheating at chess than spot fixing?

I would say that what happened to Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson was just as effective as criminal action.

Maybe it was. But clearly not the same thing as criminal action. And the sums involved - for Armstrong particularly - were enormous.

[Kevin Thurlow]

My tame legal adviser reckons that the Fraud Act would cover cheating in UK.