World Youth Championships

[JustinHorton]

Could you definitely convince a court of that, absent any demonstration of the alleged method? I do not think you could.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I would doubt there would be a court case, but at some point wouldn’t the ECF convene a panel? Wouldn’t they at least have the power to suspend a membership?

[Roger de Coverly]

Could you definitely convince a court of that, absent any demonstration of the alleged method?

I would rather suspect it's the case that you couldn't, even on balance of probabilities. If on the other hand, you were a selector, either for a team or for a representative competition, would you want to risk a selection?

Wouldn’t they at least have the power to suspend a membership?

Given that the ECF doesn't formally require membership as a condition of being allowed to play, that wouldn't have as much effect as you might think.

It could also open the ECF up to counter claims unless it had direct evidence. The Telford case was left unresolved as the player concerned banned himself by retiring from play, so the powers, if any, of the ECF to take action were left unresolved.

[Paul Cooksey]

The ECFs role as a governing body is less prominent in strategy now than it was under Phil Ehr's leadership. But presumably it is still how it sees itself to some extent. So grading is really important, because it is how the ECF ensures its standards for official, competitive chess are met.

Players tend to view the grade as something that is provided as a service to them. But it has its roots in organisers determining eligibility for competitions, and for the most part games are submitted for grading by the organisations running events.

So anti-cheating best practice might be something the ECF would require of the organisations these running leagues, to ensure their competitions are run with proper integrity. Albeit this an area where the governing body might help. If I understand the Ukraine case Roger has posted, that is the approach FIDE take.

Ultimately the ECF has the power to not grade an organisations events, although that is a nuclear option I hope we are far from at this stage.

If you wanted to take a cheap shot at the ECFs handling of the Telford case, you could say it did nothing for a few months, and then said it was too late to do anything now. But I decided that was a cheap shot, since on the facts, that case much less serious than this one. Probably Telford was not a good case to define the rules for anti-cheating. I think this one is serious enough to justify establishing a process.

[Ian Thompson]

I think this one is serious enough to justify establishing a process.

The ECF has a process. It can be summarised as saying that the ECF will take action if it is provided with proof of cheating. The actions are a ban from playing (although how that would be enforced is not stated for events not run by the ECF), refusal of entries to ECF-run events, not being selected for ECF teams and optionally revocation of ECF membership, refusal of renewal of ECF membership and refusal to grade games played while banned.

Notably, the policy doesn't place any specific obligations on organisers to have robust anti-cheating measures in place, merely saying they should be vigilant and might choose to use electronic equipment detection devices.

[JustinHorton]

I am not sure that document is very helpful in the present circumstances. (I don't mean to get on the backs of anybody who wrote it, all this stuff is necessarily a work in progress, but it doesn't seem to me to provide sufficient guidance for the current situation.)

[Paul Cooksey]

Ian is right of course. I should have said I do not think the ECF process he links is sufficient. As Justin clarifies, not that it is bad, just that we need to do more.

I'd also say there is an important distinction between different levels. I do not think anyone should be calling the police if someone presses the clock with the wrong hand, even with malice aforethought. But winning money covertly using a computer, I would report.

From the point of view of the non-chess authorities, I'd expect they would want to see some distinction between things that are banned and attract a penalty, but are part of the game and things which would be in the same area as obtaining a financial advantage by deception. By analogy to cricket, the difference between using sandpaper on the ball and match fixing,

[NickFaulks]

merely saying they should be vigilant and might choose to use electronic equipment detection devices.

Even that would be a considerable advance. I suspect that in many leagues, no matter how suspicious a player's behaviour, it would be considered insufferably rude to ask them whether they had a phone in their pocket.

In one way this is of course a commendable attitude, but it is not consistent with stamping out cheating.

[Alex Holowczak]

Notably, the policy doesn't place any specific obligations on organisers to have robust anti-cheating measures in place, merely saying they should be vigilant and might choose to use electronic equipment detection devices.

Cheating would be trivial in league chess if someone wanted to cheat, and I do not know of a league that has a process in place to deal with it when it happens; let alone proactively take measures to prevent it. I would be pleased to be wrong.

My experience of raising the matter of anti-cheating in evening leagues is one of complete apathy and uninterest. At best, people might acknowledge it is a problem, consider that they can do nothing about it, and so they do nothing. Against that background, what exactly can the ECF at Board level do about it? One can only spend so much time involved in punch ups with evening leagues.

[Roger de Coverly]

My experience of raising the matter of anti-cheating in evening leagues is one of complete apathy and uninterest.

The expectation would be that games are played in accordance with 11.3.1

11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

That's the boundary line between over the board play and various forms of what used to be called "correspondence chess".

Generally speaking they are observed. You don't find players in a difficult position asking the top board player for help, or looking up a variation in a book they might have with them.

It should be relatively easy to detect or prevent the form of cheating which consists of sneaking away to consult a device or even trainer in privacy. What's more challenging is pre-meditated cheating. I would define that as turning up either with an accomplice to perform the analysis on the device and signal the resulting moves and assessments, or concealed devices that enable moves to be input and received and thus enable a cheating player to operate solo without having to leave the board.

[Adam Ashton]

Could you definitely convince a court of that, absent any demonstration of the alleged method?

I would rather suspect it's the case that you couldn't, even on balance of probabilities. If on the other hand, you were a selector, either for a team or for a representative competition, would you want to risk a selection?

Wouldn’t they at least have the power to suspend a membership?

Given that the ECF doesn't formally require membership as a condition of being allowed to play, that wouldn't have as much effect as you might think.

It could also open the ECF up to counter claims unless it had direct evidence. The Telford case was left unresolved as the player concerned banned himself by retiring from play, so the powers, if any, of the ECF to take action were left unresolved.

I'd actually assumed his case would be hopeless in a civil court on a balance of probabilities.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'd actually assumed his case would be hopeless in a civil court on a balance of probabilities.

I agree.

The ECFs role as a governing body is less prominent in strategy now than it was under Phil Ehr's leadership. But presumably it is still how it sees itself to some extent.

Against that background, what exactly can the ECF at Board level do about it? One can only spend so much time involved in punch ups with evening leagues.

I was wrong, apparently.

[JustinHorton]

I'd actually assumed his case would be hopeless in a civil court on a balance of probabilities.

I agree.

I find myself unable to agree with this, simply because I can't work out whether people mean the prosecution of the case or its defence.

[John McKenna]

It is patent to the mob,
That my being made a nob
Was effected by a job.

Then consider the mechanics of the law -

https://www.2harecourt.com/training-and ... n-sultana/

[NickFaulks]

https://www.2harecourt.com/training-and ... n-sultana/

Thanks, this is fascinating, particularly the second part which starts

"The statute provides that a private prosecutor is entitled to his/her costs regardless of outcome."

As a distinct non-expert, I would have to wonder whether this could possibly be true, but I expect the writer knows her stuff. Can private prosections really be such a free punt?