Cheating in chess

[Paul McKeown]

Roger, I wasn't, of course referring to yourself. You generally have evidence.

[Alex Holowczak]

It appears that case was sent to the FIDE Fair Play Commission not the Ethics Commission.

Isn't that the one the CAA are referring to? It's not beyond the possibility that "Fair Play" passed it on to "Ethics" who have just returned it to the ECF.

It is possible though I failed to find any report on the case via the EC website or the FPC homepage on FB which look like both could do with some updates. As Alex wrote the 4NCL report but then responded to your post asking what 4NCL case this was I assumed he had no knowledge as to whether it had been passed on to the EC.
Unfortunately you have to be a member I guess to find out CAA's information source in issue 39 of Arbiting Matters Too.

To clear all this up.

As that statement says, I wrote to the FIDE Fair Play Commission in early November 2018 reporting it, as the regulations said I should. There was no Commission until 1st January, 2019; there was a lengthy delay between Dvorkovich being elected and the new Commissions being composed. There was then a further lengthy delay because somehow the Fair Play Commission was improperly constituted. I don't know the full details, but I think I was told it had too many people. Finally I heard back from Fair Play in July 2019 once all their ducks were in a row.

The summary of the response was indeed that that it should be handled on a national level, but that if the Fair Play Commission were dissatisfied with what the ECF did, it reserved the right to investigate the matter for itself. The implication would be that this overruled any decision we took.

Given that:
- By then 8 months had passed
- The initial ban according to the FIDE regualtions would have been for 1 year
- In my estimation, the year would more or less have been up by the time we'd made a decision
- The player was not playing chess regardless
- Even if we'd done something, FIDE could decide that they didn't like what we'd done

We decided that we'd do nothing, and that if the Fair Play Commission didn't like that we were doing nothing then they had the right to investigate the matter themselves anyway. If they made that decision, then that'd be fine by us, because that's what we were expecting them to do in the first place.

[Roger de Coverly]

We decided that we'd do nothing, and that if the Fair Play Commission didn't like that we were doing nothing then they had the right to investigate the matter themselves anyway. If they made that decision, then that'd be fine by us, because that's what we were expecting them to do in the first place.

I suppose that leaves it back in the hands of the organiser, arbiter or ECF as to what to do should similar circumstances arise in the future. We saw in the British Championship that players can be penalised if found in possession of a switched off phone away from the board.

[Chris Rice]

The FIDE Ethics Commission have finished their deliberations on the Rausis case and given him a six year ban and stripped him of the GM title though he keeps the IM title. Specifically the sanctions against him read as follows:

"Taking into account Mr Rausis’ acknowledgment of guilt, his co-operation at the hearing and remorse displayed, as well as his personal circumstances, but keeping in mind the precedent established by the ETH’s decision in case no. 7/2015, the ETH unanimously decided to sanction Mr. Igor Rausis with a worldwide ban of 6 (six) years to take effect from 31 July 2019 and to end on 30 July 2025. During this period Mr. Rausis is prohibited from participating as a player in any FIDE rated over-the-board chess competition (whether classical, rapid, blitz or Fischer-random chess), and from any chess-related activity as an arbiter, organizer or representative of a chess federation. In addition, Mr. Rausis’ grandmaster title is revoked effective from the date of publishing this decision.

For the sake of clarity, the sanction does not seek to prevent Mr. Rausis’ participation in FIDE correspondence or online chess games, or to restrain Mr. Rausis from earning income during the period of the ban as a private chess trainer, teacher or coach, provided that he shall not act as captain or assist any player or team during any official FIDE event or Continental championship at the physical site of the tournament. Remote coaching is FIDE Ethics Commission 4 permitted. The ETH decision does not affect Mr. Rausis’ rating or any other titles he holds, such as FIDE International Master, FIDE Trainer, and National Arbiter."

More details will be published on the FIDE website in due course, but from what I gather from other sources the leniency granted given that he could have had a maximum 15 year ban was for various reasons.
Firstly, Rausis did not contest the infamous toilet photo which meant an automatic three year ban and loss of the GM title as in the Nigalidze case.

Secondly, he also confessed to three other cases of cheating in previous years, two with mobile and one a pre-arranged game and it would be interesting to see what they referred too.

However, given his cooperation and pleas of health problems it was felt that six years was fair.

[Roger de Coverly]

The FIDE Ethics Commission have finished their deliberations on the Rausis case and given him a six year ban and stripped him of the GM title though he keeps the IM title.

That seems to confirm that the Ethics Commission are claiming the right to convict and sentence.

The 4NCL Congress case seems to suggest that they (FIDE Ethics) aren't interested in pursuing players outside of the elite, or who are not participants in elite or near elite tournaments.

The unanswered question would have been what would have happened had the 4NCL cheating been perpetuated and detected in the Open section?

[NickFaulks]

and pleas of health problems

I was unaware of this element. Do you have supporting evidence?

[Alex Holowczak]

The 4NCL Congress case seems to suggest that they (FIDE Ethics) aren't interested in pursuing players outside of the elite, or who are not participants in elite or near elite tournaments.

The FIDE Ethics Commission will normally form a judgement on any case that reaches them, which might include a decision that it is not receivable.

In the 4NCL Congress case, the FIDE Ethics did not form such a judgement, because Fair Play did not form an investigatory chamber to gather the evidence for Ethics to make a decision. So we don't know if the 4NCL Congress case was receivable or not, because it was never sent to them in the first place by Fair Play.

[Roger de Coverly]

So we don't know if the 4NCL Congress case was receivable or not, because it was never sent to them in the first place by Fair Play.

Presumably then, Fair Play took rather more interest in the Rausis case, which given the level of publicity was difficult to ignore.

Some kid cheating in a rating restricted tournament, even with the apparent TN of using a Smart Watch attracted less interest.

[JustinHorton]

Secondly, he also confessed to three other cases of cheating in previous years, two with mobile and one a pre-arranged game and it would be interesting to see what they referred to.

Well yes, particularly seeing as (a) people will speculate and (b) a pre-arranged game by definition involves another player. (I wonder if that may open up a very big can of worms.)

I don't think I knew you could revoke a grandmaster title.

[NickFaulks]

Secondly, he also confessed to three other cases of cheating in previous years, two with mobile and one a pre-arranged game

Two with mobile? We really need to see the full report, because this is another detail that I am not sure is correct - in terms of what he has confessed to, not what he may actually have done.

[Jacques Parry]

Fines?

If the prizes involved are large, and the evidence strong and readily understood by a non-technical audience, then pass the matter onto the police and the public prosecutor. A prison sentence for fraud (or whatever the current legal name is for financial gain by deception) ought to discourage cheaters motivated by money, if not those motivated by false glory.

I agree. The 4NCL cheat was trying to defraud the other players in his section. Had I been one of them (which I would have been, had I not played up a section) I would want to know whether the police had been informed. I'm not saying he should have been prosecuted, but that should be for the police and the CPS to decide.

[Alex Holowczak]

even with the apparent TN of using a Smart Watch

I'd love to know where that information came from.

[John McMorrow]

The FIDE Ethics Commission have finished their deliberations on the Rausis case and given him a six year ban and stripped him of the GM title though he keeps the IM title.

The unanswered question would have been what would have happened had the 4NCL cheating been perpetuated and detected in the Open section?

Cheating incident in the Irish International Open was sent to FIDE but we never heard back like with the 4NCL case. Was dealt with at a national level though.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd love to know where that information came from.

Rumour, gossip, speculation, the more recent crack down on Smart Watches.

Players and more particularly arbiters need to be aware of what to watch out for. If you set aside the more fanciful attempts such as dedicated hardware in hats, shoes, glasses or hearing devices, the more obvious ones are lengthy departures from the board to consult a phone or computer, either in public or private, the Rausis method, signalling from an accomplice spectator, which was the French Olympiad method and also I believe the recent Irish case, signalling using a Smart Watch which is strongly rumoured to be the Telford method.

[JustinHorton]

Fines?

If the prizes involved are large, and the evidence strong and readily understood by a non-technical audience, then pass the matter onto the police and the public prosecutor. A prison sentence for fraud (or whatever the current legal name is for financial gain by deception) ought to discourage cheaters motivated by money, if not those motivated by false glory.

I agree. The 4NCL cheat was trying to defraud the other players in his section. Had I been one of them (which I would have been, had I not played up a section) I would want to know whether the police had been informed. I'm not saying he should have been prosecuted, but that should be for the police and the CPS to decide.

There's been quite a lot of discussion on this long thread as to whether fraud prosecutions are likely to happen, let alone succeed, in this particular field, but as may also have been said above, unless and until there's some kind of test case, we're not going to know. Still, you'd have thought a prison sentence a less than likely outcome, no?