Dodgy ratings in Moscow

[Roger de Coverly]

Those who were reading the forum last year may recall this thread

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... *gibraltar

which was (partly) about a Russian IM who had some poor results before Gibraltar but recovered his form whilst playing in the lower section.

In Moscow, they seem to have a more robust attitude. As reported by Mark Crowther in TWIC

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/e ... -open-2010

Alexei Gubajdullin, the top seed in the B tournament has been disqualified. The organisers believe he manipulated his ratiing prior to the event to lose enough points (57) to get under the 2300 limit for this event and the chance to win the considerable prize money.

The ratings chart

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=4141202

[Ian Thompson]

What's a bit surprising is that they didn't just refuse his entry. The results show that he played and won his first 4 games, was paired in round 5, but lost by default, which suggests the organisers disqualified him after the round 5 pairings were published. His four wins were against players rated between 2012 and 2223, so its not that surprising that a player with a true rating of just under 2300 would win them all. What, if anything, did the organisers find out after 4 rounds that they didn't know before the tournament began?

[Andy Burnett]

What's a bit surprising is that they didn't just refuse his entry. The results show that he played and won his first 4 games, was paired in round 5, but lost by default, which suggests the organisers disqualified him after the round 5 pairings were published. His four wins were against players rated between 2012 and 2223, so its not that surprising that a player with a true rating of just under 2300 would win them all. What, if anything, did the organisers find out after 4 rounds that they didn't know before the tournament began?

Perhaps somebody belatedly drew the organisers attention to Gubajdullin's FIDE rating chart (as per Roger De C's link)? Here's the last 3 years of it...

Jan 2010 2296 9
Nov 2009 2353 21
Sep 2009 2410 29
Jul 2009 2455 9
Apr 2009 2460 9
Jan 2009 2454 26
Oct 2008 2462 37
Jul 2008 2441 18
Apr 2008 2456 35
Jan 2008 2504 10
Oct 2007 2475 34
Jul 2007 2420 12
Apr 2007 2422 0
Jan 2007 2422 9

[Ian Thompson]

Perhaps somebody belatedly drew the organisers attention to Gubajdullin's FIDE rating chart (as per Roger De C's link)? Here's the last 3 years of it...

Jan 2010 2296 9
Nov 2009 2353 21
...

It's certainly suspicious for someone to score 5.7 points less than their expected score over only 9 games. The organisers of the event in which he had this disastrous performance (the MEPHI Autumn-Winter 2009 open) were the Moscow Chess Federation, who also organised the Moscow Open, so they should have known before the event started and refused his entry.

[Anthony Taglione]

Suspicious it might be but I hope they gave him the opportunity to explain himself. From that list of grades, it might be that he worked hard to improve and then, maybe, no longer had the time and opportunity to devote so much of himself to chess. Maybe he suffered some burnout and ennui after attaining a goal. Maybe he suffered some major emotional event in his life over that period or maybe he developed a thyroid issue and lost his ability to concentrate and pull details to mind.

Maybe he did spend a year to reduce his grade and maybe he simply had other things to worry about. A reduced number of games played might suggest that this is purely innocuous.

[Matthew Turner]

It is all well and good saying that organisers should deal with these cheats, but you have to consider what you would actually do if you were an organiser. Surely you are not suggesting that the organiser has to go through the rating charts of all the participants? Even when it transpires that a player's rating is dodgy, what would you do then? Before you say "Well, chuck them out - it's only fair", just think about what might happen next. Perhaps, they will get a doctor to say that they have recently been diagnosed with diabetes which explains their rating plunge and suddenly you are facing litigation under the Disabilities Act.
Whilst it seems the Moscow organisers should be applauded for taking such a principled stand I completely understand why other organisers would adopt a different approach.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is all well and good saying that organisers should deal with these cheats, but you have to consider what you would actually do if you were an organiser.

You need to modify the entry rules for rating restricted tournaments so say that you are eligible only if your rating has not exceeded (tournament cutoff + x) for the last y years. So for the Moscow tournament, they could have used not above 2400 for the last 5 years. Alternatively as this was a "B" section, they could have defined eligibility for the A section as above 2300 in the current list or at least 2400 in one list over the last 5 years and a rule for the B section that you couldn't play if eligible for the A section.

If you are eligible to play in the British Championships, you are not allowed to enter the Major Open.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
Yep, that sounds like a good idea.

[Ian Thompson]

You need to modify the entry rules for rating restricted tournaments so say that you are eligible only if your rating has not exceeded (tournament cutoff + x) for the last y years.

Preferably with the organiser having the option of ignoring old ratings if there is a good reason to do so - I played someone a few years ago who lost 140 points in 6 months (2375 to 2233). He'd had a very serious car accident with obvious physical injuries, and, I suspect, some brain damage. He has remained rated about 2200 (+/- 40) ever since.

[Peter Rhodes]

Surely you are not suggesting that the organiser has to go through the rating charts of all the participants

I just want to introduce some context here.

In 1968 the first heart-lung transplant was performed.
In 1969 they landed a man on the moon.
In 1977 they developed the mobile phone.


Now I realise chess organisers may not have the expertise or resources to make such huge leaps, however checking ratings of participants is not "rocket science" - especially as it's all on the internet - you don't even have to get out of your chair to do it.


EDIT : Oh yes, and also I wanted to add that Roger's idea is excellent and I had thought of a similar scheme myself - utilising a combination of "limits" and "TPR's from previous tournaments". The idea would never take hold however, it's just too good.

[Adam Raoof]

Now I realise chess organisers may not have the expertise or resources to make such huge leaps, however checking ratings of participants is not "rocket science" - especially as it's all on the internet - you don't even have to get out of your chair to do it.

I agree with you, Peter. However a valid current rating is what determines a players eligibility to enter a tournament. There is no scope for an organiser to start filtering out players on the basis of their grading history - they simply don't have the time, and it wouldn't be fair. You can't bar players based on a suspicion.

[Sean Hewitt]

Now I realise chess organisers may not have the expertise or resources to make such huge leaps, however checking ratings of participants is not "rocket science" - especially as it's all on the internet - you don't even have to get out of your chair to do it.

I agree with you, Peter. However a valid current rating is what determines a players eligibility to enter a tournament. There is no scope for an organiser to start filtering out players on the basis of their grading history - they simply don't have the time, and it wouldn't be fair. You can't bar players based on a suspicion.

Adam,

I think Peter is suggesting that organisers should go through a players rating history and weed out those who had a sufficiently high rating in the past. Are you really agreeing with that?!

[Peter Rhodes]

However a valid current rating is what determines a players eligibility to enter a tournament. There is no scope for an organiser to start filtering out players on the basis of their grading history.

Adam,

isn't the scope as you put it - whatever the tournament organiser determines it to be ?

If we take a U140 competition for example, the organiser can easily add an additional eligibility rule that players also must have had a grade U180 during the last 3 years.

[Adam Raoof]

I am clearly and unequivocally agreeing with Peter that organisers have a responsibility to check a player's eligibilty for a tournament. He's right - it's easy. Nevertheless players still get through the checks.

I am not suggesting that any organiser should go though every player's grading history, and I apologise if what I said was unclear.

Unless an organiser wants to grab the bull by the horns! Yes, an organiser can determine rules of eligibility as he wishes - but it does not make them practical, or fair in the application. You could have a rule that said a player has to have had a grade of say U180 in the last three years in order to play in an U140 event. But then what are you implying by that? Are you saying you don't trust the current grading system? Are you suggesting that the player is a cheat? You have to be careful, and the best position is to simply accept the current grading as accurate unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

However an organiser does not have to give a reason for refusing an entry