Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:18 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:09 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:52 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:50 pm
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?
Alex McFarlane bought a £20 one, which passed Trial by Andy Howie, who is an expert on such things.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Nick Ivell » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:43 pm

At last! A proper discussion about cheating.

Good to see Danny posting on the forum. We need people who have worked with engines properly, and who understand the game.

There could scarcely be a more important issue. In fact it threatens to ruin the integrity of the game, just as my beloved general knowledge quizzes of the 1990s were ruined by easy access to the internet...

I'm reminded of athletics. If a performance is too good to be true, it probably isn't true.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:02 pm

Nick Ivell wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:43 pm
I'm reminded of athletics. If a performance is too good to be true, it probably isn't true.
As to athletics, I'm old enough to remember the 1968 Olympic long jump when Bob Beamon broke the world record by almost two feet with a distance many regarded as impossible. There's no question about its authenticity because of the number of witnesses but, if an identical jump had been made at an out-of-the-way sporting event with few witnesses, Nick would - not unreasonably - have been sceptical. Among performances by cheats and fraudsters, there are infrequent occasions when legitimate events such as Beamon's long jump occur which are statistically total outliers.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7545
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:12 pm

Anyway there should be protocols for reporting and reacting to too-good-to-be-true performances, surely? (Do FIDE have such things already?)
Last edited by JustinHorton on Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Mick Norris
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:14 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:18 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:09 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:52 pm


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?
Alex McFarlane bought a £20 one, which passed Trial by Andy Howie, who is an expert on such things.
Do Arbiters courses cover the use of such equipment?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:21 pm

Mick Norris wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:14 pm
Do Arbiters courses cover the use of such equipment?
The ECF course covers anti-cheating periperhally. The FIDE course covers the FIDE anti-cheating guidelines and how to work with those.

I don't remember delivering a course where we actively scanned someone by means of a demonstration, but now that you mention it, I do think that's going to be an essential thing to add to future courses.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:46 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:02 pm
Nick Ivell wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:43 pm
I'm reminded of athletics. If a performance is too good to be true, it probably isn't true.
As to athletics, I'm old enough to remember the 1968 Olympic long jump when Bob Beamon broke the world record by almost two feet with a distance many regarded as impossible. There's no question about its authenticity because of the number of witnesses but, if an identical jump had been made at an out-of-the-way sporting event with few witnesses, Nick would - not unreasonably - have been sceptical. Among performances by cheats and fraudsters, there are infrequent occasions when legitimate events such as Beamon's long jump occur which are statistically total outliers.
Off on a bit of a tangent, but as an athletics fan, Jonathan Edwards 18 metres 16cm triple jump in the 90's is another one. He broke the world record by a considerable margin, but the evidence is there to see - perfect technique, balance and a peak in performance after years of improvement. If Jonathan had appeared out of nowhere, and broken the world record at say a local Lancaster and Morecambe league meeting, of course people would be scratching their heads. A lot of people wouldn't believe it and he'd be called on it.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Nick Ivell » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:48 pm

I actually liked Matt's 'non-apology apology.' As elegant an 'apology' as could have been given in the circumstances, I feel.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Nick Ivell » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:49 pm

You don't get good at chess from nowhere. And Bob Beamon didn't come from nowhere, however amazing his leap (and it's one of the first things I remember).

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5827
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:50 pm

Can we keep these posts neutral on the specific issue please
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

NickFaulks
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:06 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:50 pm
Can we keep these posts neutral on the specific issue please
It is clear to me that these comments are legitimate, but belong in a general "Chess Cheating" thread. Perhaps we have even reached the point where it deserves its own section.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3862
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:35 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:58 am
There is of course the other common battleground in English chess, which is that independent organisations in general would rather the ECF bugger off and leave them to it, and not interfere with their events. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue is any different from all the other issues where the ECF has been told that.
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:18 pm
True, but in this case there is an overriding reputational issue which the ECF simply cannot ignore.
I have been out for much of the day and the thread has moved on, but I want to respond on the above.

I don't see why the ECF Board won't think that they can get away with ignoring the reputational issue. They have done so up to now.

Unless the Board finally take some action before the next ECF Council Meeting in April 2020, then I think that the necessary number of requisitionists should table a motion for Council instructing them to do so.

Alex says that "independent organisations in general would rather the ECF bugger off and leave them to it". If such a motion were carried, that would refute that as far as this issue is concerned.

And if the motion were defeated, then at least we would know that nothing was ever going to be done.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7545
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:58 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:35 pm

Unless the Board finally take some action before the next ECF Council Meeting in April 2020
Do you have anything in particular in mind?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:04 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 8:35 pm
I don't see why the ECF Board won't think that they can get away with ignoring the reputational issue. They have done so up to now.

Unless the Board finally take some action before the next ECF Council Meeting in April 2020, then I think that the necessary number of requisitionists should table a motion for Council instructing them to do so.
I'm not at all sure I agree with David here. I suspect that, like the rest of us, the ECF Board can see there's an increasing problem as regards cheating [or, just possibly, the detection rate for instances and suspected instances of cheating is higher] but the problem is in finding the appropriate solution. I'm not here as an apologist for the Board but finding a solution doesn't seem simple, as the contributions to this thread would seem to confirm, and ECF Board members can't reasonably be expected to have magic wands.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5628
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:25 pm

A formal acceptance that "a problem exists and it's our job to do something about it" would be a start. Perhaps I've missed something.

Locked