Cheating in chess

[Chris Rice]

In the wake of the Azmai accusation above Dutch GM Reindermann brings up a case from 1999.
At the World Championship under 12 in 1999, Daniel Stellwagen (who Reindermann was coaching at the tournament) and Wang Yue were leading the tournament before the last round. Stellwagen halved out against Tomashevsky and just after Stellwagen was finished, White (also from China) resigned the position below. Is it cheating or not?


The Dutch later appealed but the appeal committee rejected their protest because of 'no proof'' though they did get their fee back. GM Jacob Aagard said this was like the Scottish verdict of "not proven".

[Matt Mackenzie]

The curious thing about that is that White could easily have "accidentally on purpose" blundered if they were determined to throw it - I recall a remark back in the 1980s that Chinese players thought it perfectly OK to deliberately lose games "for the greater (national) good" and they thus didn't even make any efforts to conceal it.

[NickFaulks]

The curious thing about that is that White could easily have "accidentally on purpose" blundered if they were determined to throw it - I recall a remark back in the 1980s that Chinese players thought it perfectly OK to deliberately lose games "for the greater (national) good" and they thus didn't even make any efforts to conceal it.

What about Bottas allowing Hamilton to overtake him and therefore win win a recent Grand Prix race, for the benefit of their McLaren team? Nobody was particularly happy about it, particularly the two drivers, but everyone agreed that it was morally acceptable and what they would have done themselves.

It has always been known that if two strong chess players start a game with both desirous of a draw then, absent any radical measures to outlaw such a result, that is what will happen. Most people take the view that if the mutually desired result is for one side to win, that is altogether less acceptable, but the question is worthy of discussion.

Why isn't a 2600 player conceding an arranged draw with a 2400 player ( expected result .75 ) as serious as the 2400 player conceding an arranged loss ( expected result 0.25 )? I'm just asking, because such issues have always been avoided.

[Alex Holowczak]

The curious thing about that is that White could easily have "accidentally on purpose" blundered if they were determined to throw it - I recall a remark back in the 1980s that Chinese players thought it perfectly OK to deliberately lose games "for the greater (national) good" and they thus didn't even make any efforts to conceal it.

What about Bottas allowing Hamilton to overtake him and therefore win win a recent Grand Prix race, for the benefit of their McLaren team? Nobody was particularly happy about it, particularly the two drivers, but everyone agreed that it was morally acceptable and what they would have done themselves.

There's a bit of historical context there that explains why it was morally acceptable. There was a manufacturers' championship before there was a drivers' championship; the same was true in rallying. Until the 1950s, if a team's number 1 driver crashed or his car broke down, the number 2 driver would pull into the pit so the number 1 driver could take over. Then they'd share the points at the end of the race. But eventually people thought that was too much. So the history of the sport is that the team's interests trump the individual's interests. Hence why having Prost and Senna in the same McLaren team ended in tears. In fact, I remember Alonso pulling some stunts on Hamilton when they were both at McLaren; I remember Alonso staying in the pit garage for a few seconds so that Hamilton didn't have time to pit and get in another qualifying lap.

There was a Speedway race in the early 1980s; an early stage of the World Championship. The top x riders from it qualified for the next stage of the World Championship, and due to the luck of the draw, all four US riders were drawn to face each other in the same heat late in the meeting. Bruce Penhall was already guaranteed of a place in the top x, so he toured around at the back doing wheelies while the other three Americans finished in an order that meant as many of them qualified as possible. Went down well with the British crowd...

There are probably lots of examples of this sort of thing.

[David Sedgwick]

Why isn't a 2600 player conceding an arranged draw with a 2400 player ( expected result .75 ) as serious as the 2400 player conceding an arranged loss ( expected result 0.25 )? I'm just asking, because such issues have always been avoided.

In the Monarch Assurance Masters in the Isle of Man about 20 years ago, two Ukrainian GMs had a short draw in the last round. The organiser was a bit miffed, but I told him that he should be pleased. The two players would have won considerably more prize money between them if they had arranged for one of them to throw the game to the other.

If the theoretical result of the starting position is a draw, as is generally believed, then a prearranged draw doesn't necessitate any deliberately inferior play. whereas a prearranged loss does, or may do.

The issue has not always been avoided. In 2014 I attended a seminar for IAs in Brussels, conducted by Geurt Gijssen and Takis Nikolopoulos. Both of them made it clear that they considered that agreeing a draw before play constituted cheating.

In the recent Guernsey Open, I decided when I saw the last round pairings that I would be happy with a draw. Mindful of the strictures of Messrs Gijssen and Nikolopoulos, I refrained from approaching my opponent before the game. I got my wish when he offered me a draw on Move 8, without any prior discussion.

[David Robertson]

...Geurt Gijssen and Takis Nikolopoulos. Both of them made it clear that they considered that agreeing a draw before play constituted cheating

So what? Is it cheating?

[David Sedgwick]

...Geurt Gijssen and Takis Nikolopoulos. Both of them made it clear that they considered that agreeing a draw before play constituted cheating

So what? Is it cheating?

In their opinion, yes. Am I missing something?

[David Robertson]

In their opinion, yes. Am I missing something?

Yes. You're missing my point. I can read that it's their opinion. I even know that at least one of them is a vastly experienced and well-respected Arbiter; hence, whose opinion reasonably carries weight. But that still leaves it as 'opinion' - to be contested by another reasoned 'opinion'. So what's the outcome? Who decides? For the sake of argument, my opinion is that a prearranged draw is not cheating; but a pre-arranged win/loss is

[NickFaulks]

So what's the outcome? Who decides?

That is clear. The governing body of chess decides, with anyone on the wrong side of their decision having various rights of appeal.

For the sake of argument, my opinion is that a prearranged draw is not cheating; but a pre-arranged win/loss is

I'm sure that is a popular view, and it is at first glance attractive. However, If asked to defend it, I don't know how I would do that. David S has proposed an interesting line of argument, but I'm not convinced that it will quite do.

Resorting once again to comparisons with other sports, I imagine that a pre-arranged draw in the Premier League would be considered just as heinous as a pre-arranged loss, even though the teams would share only two points instead of three, so in principle their rivals should be pleased.

[Chris Rice]

Resorting once again to comparisons with other sports, I imagine that a pre-arranged draw in the Premier League would be considered just as heinous as a pre-arranged loss, even though the teams would share only two points instead of three, so in principle their rivals should be pleased.

The three points for a win, one for a draw system was introduced to reduce the amount of draws and nowadays it seems inconceivable that they would ever go back to the old system. It is odd that three points for a win never gained much traction in the chess world when it would discourage pre-arranged draws and at the same time reduce multiple ties for prizes.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is odd that three points for a win never gained much traction in the chess world when it would discourage pre-arranged draws and at the same time reduce multiple ties for prizes.

Why is it odd? Why give three points for beating a player rated 400 points lower and one point for drawing with a player of equal rating. If football tournaments were organised along the lines of Swiss system pairings, would the three point system have gained credence?

Arguably in double round all play all tournaments, three points encourages pre-arranged losses.

[JustinHorton]

It is odd that three points for a win never gained much traction in the chess world when it would discourage pre-arranged draws and at the same time reduce multiple ties for prizes.

If football tournaments were organised along the lines of Swiss system pairings, would the three point system have gained credence?

Bizarre question.

[Chris Rice]

Chess.com have now written an article on the Azmai accusations and there are a few more details to add to what we already knew.

"While investigating the story, Chess.com spoke to several witnesses who were present in the playing hall when the game between Gines and his opponent ended. Azmaiparashvili was also there, and according to our sources he said multiple times: "This is a scandal."

He came to the board, wanted to reconstruct the final moments of the game and was especially surprised about the facial expression of the player who lost the game.

"I asked them how the game ended, and why the player with the white pieces was laughing," Azmaiparashvili told Chess.com. Later, the Georgian delegation filed an official appeal, which was rejected by the tournament's appeals committee. In a reaction, a representative from the German Chess Federation said: "In the interest of the German boy involved the German Chess Federation will not comment before having discussed the case and its implications with the parents. It has been suggested that the incident could be a case for the FIDE Ethics Commission. There might be grounds for the German Chess Federation to take that path..."

As we know Azmai has got form and his past sins are laid out in detail to finish the article.

[NickFaulks]

It has been suggested that the incident could be a case for the FIDE Ethics Commission.

Statement of the obvious.

[Roger de Coverly]

A statement has appeared at the 4NCL website.

06.11.18 - During a routine Anti-Cheating check by the arbiting team during the 1st 4NCL International, a player was found to have used electronic means to assist them with their games.

After further investigation, that player was subsequently disqualified from the tournament. The details have been forwarded to the FIDE Fair Play Commission, and consequently it is not possible to comment further on the case at this time.

We have received a number of questions about the scores of the players in the tournament. Page 13 of the FIDE Anti-Cheating Guidelines, which are binding on us given the tournament is FIDE-rated, say the following:

“In an individual Open tournament, the offender shall be excluded from the final ranking. Each of the offender’s games shall be considered a loss, but the score for the opponent shall remain unchanged. All games shall be reported as unplayed.”

None of the 8 games played by the player have been submitted for FIDE rating, and they will not be submitted for ECF grading.

Alex Holowczak - Chief Arbiter, 1st 4NCL International

There's background here.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9914#p223480

What isn't stated and presumably won't be unless the FIDE Fair Play Commission eventually discloses it was the nature of the "routine" check.