Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

[Mick Norris]

I'm sorry, but why should you apologise?

Given the incidents that we have seen recently, people have every right to be suspicious. I think if someone comes along, they've hardly played chess and they start playing like a strong I.M. (at least), they wear a baseball cap, and are matching with the top move of the engine on almost every move, how can we not be suspicious?

I made an account just so I could post about this, because I feel so strongly about this whole anti-cheating issue. Cheats disgust me. Rausis I made accusations about on twitter, and at the time there were plenty of people who called me out for it, said I shouldn't be saying it, and that he was on the level. Well look where we are now with him. He's been banned for six years. I think when you've worked with engines as much as I have, it becomes quite obvious to see when people are using engines during their games. Rausis was too obvious because his games were too clean. Even if a 2600 player beats a 2300 guy say, there's normally some kind of struggle. with Rausis this wasn't the case.

I have no idea if this kid is cheating or not, and those in charge of Dorset chess have made a statement to protect their player. That's understandable. But the other players in the Dorset league also need to be made to feel comfortable, and they shouldn't feel that they are unprotected against anyone who wishes to cheat against them.

In my view given the growing strength and ease of use of chess engines these days, this problem is only likely to get worse. I saw for myself the use of scanners at the London chess classic, and I was scanned twice, something I welcome. I think now that if chess leagues up and down the country are keen to protect their players from potential cheats, they could do worse than invest in scanners, even if these things are quite expensive. It's worth the investment.

Welcome to the forum Danny

As you are aware, in the Manchester League, like most leagues, clubs don't play at a central venue; so the investment in scanners would effectively need to be for each of the clubs to have one, so that would be at least 16 scanners needed; it is hard enough to get some of our clubs to buy digital clocks, I can't see persuading them to invest in scanners as likely

It's possible the MCF could do so, and use them in congresses around Manchester

I've not been aware of any cheating allegations in Manchester, but I completely agree that it is a subject that should be taken seriously; I am hoping that the ECF take a lead on this

[Daniel Gormally]

Yes I agree Mick but you wouldn't need more than one scanner per league to greatly reduce the dangers of cheating. Just pass the scanner around during the course of the season. Then any potential cheat is having to take a greater risk that particular night he won't be scanned. And scan several players during the course of a club night.

I'd also go further and scan people during play. If you are scanned beforehand, you can always say "oh I forgot I had my phone on me", but if the clocks are paused during the middle of the game and players are scanned and something found on them, they have no excuse.

[Adam Ashton]

I do think you need to err on the side of caution when it comes to accusations of cheating. False accusations are no small matter in my opinion and I imagine it's is best to report suspicions to arbiters and hope they are caught at some point. At some point though, when results exceed a certain (extremely high) level of probability, I think it's fair to ask some questions. Borislav Ivanov being the most obvious example. Whilst it might offend the player in question anyone with a rudimentary grasp of probability and respect for chess would see why it was necessary.

I don't know the junior but to come out of nowhere and perform well over 200 is pretty much unprecedented (I'm not sure some posters are realising quite how improbable it really is). You then add in a online account locked for cheating and a blitz result no player of that genuine strength would ever turn in and he must understand why people are asking questions. Doesn't seem like a big ask in those circumstances to spend an hour analysing with a strong player to ensure he is legitimate.

[Daniel Gormally]

Completely agree with all of that. It's only common sense to suggest that the onus should be on the player in these circumstances to prove he's on the level. especially given recent developments, when even established grandmasters who are official arbiters and respected national team coaches have been found to be cheating.

[NickFaulks]

I couldn't care less if someone accused me of a cheat. I'd just take it as a compliment.

I'm not sure that I can believe that. I'm not talking about nonsense after an internet game, but if you started Hastings with 5/5 and the other players insisted publicly that you should be subject to special measures because you were obviously cheating, would you really have the mental toughness to keep playing as though nothing had happened? That was the Sandu case, her play was affected and her lead accuser went on to win the tournament

[Daniel Gormally]

I couldn't care less if someone accused me of a cheat. I'd just take it as a compliment.

I'm not sure that I can believe that. I'm not talking about nonsense after an internet game, but if you started Hastings with 5/5 and the other players insisted publicly that you should be subject to special measures because you were obviously cheating, would you really have the mental toughness to keep playing as though nothing had happened? That was the Sandu case, her play was affected and her lead accuser went on to win the tournament

I wouldn't, because I'd play David before then and he always beats me

Fair point, although I think that Sandhu case was a bit of an extreme example. I think in that instance she was just having the tournament of her life, and unwarranted jealousy crept in. But I think we've seen in recent years that far more accusations have hit the mark than been wide of the mark.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck etc...

[Phil Makepeace]

Doesn't seem like a big ask in those circumstances to spend an hour analysing with a strong player to ensure he is legitimate.

Most of us could tell after ten minutes on the phone.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've not followed this discussion right from the beginning but I'm not sure as to how much the player involved has actually won in prize money. Surely that's the only real motive for anybody to cheat in chess and it's negated by the fact that if you go up and up into higher sections (and eventually stricter playing conditions) you will be caught out.

Of course if there has been money involved then technically it's fraud and a criminal offence. Maybe a few hours in a police cell under investigation may have the desired effect - a fifteen year old boy is likely to be put off chess for life. Of course nobody is suggesting that for one minute (hopefully) which is why some people should be more careful what they say.

As with the sandbagging allegations of a few years ago, perhaps congress organisers should be encouraged to be stricter about forcing players to play `up` based on recent form.

[Matt Bridgeman]

£300 from winning the Dorset Open outright in October. The two other outright wins are the Dorset blitz (£50 minimum) and the ten second buzzer competition, which may have had some money attached in September. Other than the 11 round blitz in London (December), and an unrated local junior competition in February 2019 (where he scored 3 out of 6), these to my knowledge are the only chess tournaments he’s ever competed in, outside of the 15 division one Dorset club games, (14.5/15) between September and December.

[John McKenna]

Phil N, you must be talking Skype.

Andrew Z, if you think everyone who cheats at chess is only interested in winning money you fail to appreciate that some want to boost their egos more than their bank balance (though they prefer both if poss).

Matt B, thanks for those facts, man.

Daniel Gormally wrote: I think the other issue here that people are ignoring is the opponents- who are protecting them?

My Q: Are you suggesting that opponents of cheats are colluding in some way - by keeping quiet, for example?

Your A: No i'm not suggesting that at all. In fact I find it strange that you're even suggesting as much. I simply...

I simply misread your question, in conclusion, all I can say is - sorry for the confusion.

[Mick Norris]

I've not followed this discussion right from the beginning but I'm not sure as to how much the player involved has actually won in prize money. Surely that's the only real motive for anybody to cheat in chess and it's negated by the fact that if you go up and up into higher sections (and eventually stricter playing conditions) you will be caught out.

It may be all about the money in Yorkshire, but it isn't this side of the Pennines

[Roger Lancaster]

As a matter of interest, what type of scanner are we talking about here and does anyone know the approximate cost?

[Alex Holowczak]

As a matter of interest, what type of scanner are we talking about here and does anyone know the approximate cost?

These were the ones we used at 4NCL, and in London and the Isle of Man: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Garrett-10051- ... 0683&psc=1

Version V is better than Version IV, because V can have the sound off.

[Roger Lancaster]

As a matter of interest, what type of scanner are we talking about here and does anyone know the approximate cost?

These were the ones we used at 4NCL, and in London and the Isle of Man: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Garrett-10051- ... 0683&psc=1

Version V is better than Version IV, because V can have the sound off.

Thanks, Alex, who has [unless I've misunderstood] clarified that we're talking metal detectors rather than something detecting, say, radio waves.

Alex's recommendation, and I'm sure he and others will have researched this, costs around £150 which is probably more than most clubs would wish to afford. On the other hand, there are other metal detectors on Amazon - presumably not so good or 4NCL et al would have purchased them - retailing for £20 or less. I suspect that, were I a cheat, I might well be deterred by knowledge of a metal detector of any type [I probably wouldn't want to ask, "Is your metal detector really good quality?"] which maybe suggests a solution within the price-range of most clubs. There's then the separate issue of those who refuse to submit to a metal detector test and maybe leagues would have to frame their rules accordingly. Thoughts?

[Carl Hibbard]

A good example this thread I return home from work and....