Cheating in chess

[JustinHorton]

Managing a rating downwards is a possibility.

I think all three games are non-rated

[Ian Thompson]

While I'm here, tell me what you think this player, presently rated 2392, is doing

What strikes me about the player is that they have a rapid rating of 2392 based on 111 games and a puzzle rating of 1797 based on 210 puzzles, with a rating difference which is difficult to explain if they are playing to the best of their ability in both cases.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Any ECF comment on the England allegations?" (Glorney Cup)

Assuming the allegations are justified...

I don't expect one - there has been a long BCF/ECF tradition of keeping quiet about unpleasantness. The problem here is that it is said that two of the players were caught cheating. Anyone can find out who the team members were. So if you play any of them in the future, you might very well wonder (probably unfairly) if they were guilty... I have actually encountered three of the players, and wouldn't think they would cheat. But I am not automatically accusing the ones I don't know!

It may be of course that ECF are (entirely correctly) trying to discover the truth before issuing any comment.

[Roger de Coverly]

Anyone can find out who the team members were.

Until the team results disappear.

If the match scores have been adjusted by setting the results of the suspended individuals to zero, that gives an identification clue. Also if the game scores are released, inconsistencies between the games as played and the results as recorded may become apparent.

In the physical sports there's a long list of banned substances or those which require prior medical clearance. If an under 18 player had been detected using something off the list, what are the consequences?

[JustinHorton]

While I'm here, tell me what you think this player, presently rated 2392, is doing

What strikes me about the player is that they have a rapid rating of 2392 based on 111 games and a puzzle rating of 1797 based on 210 puzzles, with a rating difference which is difficult to explain if they are playing to the best of their ability in both cases.

Well yes. What I can't pin down is quite when they're not playing to their ability.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I can't pin down is quite when they're not playing to their ability.

Games can be viewed
https://lichess.org/@/nuwaa/search?perf=6

But I expect you know that.

I imagine it's against the lichess terms and conditions, but could it be a question of account sharing? So you have a player of 2300-2400 strength allowing a near beginner to also use the account on an unrated basis.

[Matt Bridgeman]

In the physical sports there's a long list of banned substances or those which require prior medical clearance. If an under 18 player had been detected using something off the list, what are the consequences?

Having a quick scan of UKAD (UK Anti-Doping), I think their bans start at 4 years, but are commonly mitigated down to a 2 year or 1 year ban. I don't think the offender being under the age of 18 makes any huge difference to them. In world athletics a 17 year old Kenyan was banned for 4 years last December for doping.

[JustinHorton]

could it be a question of account sharing? So you have a player of 2300-2400 strength allowing a near beginner to also use the account on an unrated basis.

This occurred to me, though I don't know that I believe it. Other possibilities: that it's a strong player, who is nevertheless using a program a bit and wants to disguise this by losing some games, or a rank near-beginner who's almost entirely using a program which, similarly, they wish to disguise.

In any of these instances there's also the weird habit of playing a lot of stuff like 1...e6 and 2...Ke7, which could be consistent with any of the above explanations.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think the offender being under the age of 18 makes any huge difference to them. I

Although are they named and shamed? Chess organisations have been most reluctant to do this where external assistance has been identified in over the board play by under 18s. In online play in the absence of a confession or direct evidence, external assistance remains a conjecture no matter how high the correlation with leading engines or dubious behaviour whilst playing.

[Matt Bridgeman]

They aren't named by the doping authorities, they usually just give the age and length of ban for juniors. I'm not sure what then ends up being reported in publications such as Athletics Weekly. I'm a bit out of touch with the athletics world, although I was a keen follower back in the 80's and 90's. The Carl Lewis/Ben Johnson saga was particularly memorable. In the sporting world, and particularly in the case of juniors, it will often be the coach who is named, shamed and fired!

[Mick Norris]

Without naming them, are any of the juniors banned by lichess playing in the ECF county Championship on chess.com?

Is the Controller aware of who has been banned?

We have 2 weeks until the finals, and we know there was some cheating in the group stage. 1 of my teammates only played the semifinal as Surrey graciously agreed to use Zoom for the game

Thinking about it, I should add we have lost a strong player before the knockout phase because he was accused of cheating, in another competition, by his own captain

I've not encountered any cheating myself, and am confident my 6 opponents have been playing fairly, and I'd expect our final against Norfolk in the u1825 challengers to be entirely on the level too

[KMcCarthy]

Sadly cheating is also rife in County Online although not too much being said about it - I have been sleuthing on Chess.com last few weeks and have reported 21 players so far of whom 18 have been banned (not all ECF Online by any means) - This includes a couple from my own County and several from our opponents...I fully expect 2 or possibly 3 from yesterdays matches to add to this list over the next week...along with the one banned the day before the semi-finals.....players outperforming their ECF grade by 70-80 points particularly in the key matches ...130 graders with sub-1000 blitz and over 1900 rapid and 2800+ puzzle rating...u100 players knocking out 99.5% games for fun...now we have a table of example rating/performance constants to compare to the cheats stand out like sore thumbs despite trying to hide it.

[Wadih Khoury]

..130 graders with sub-1000 blitz and over 1900 rapid and 2800+ puzzle rating...

On this specific example, can you expand on what is unusual?
For a junior, 130/1900 is very plausible, and I would not be shocked by 2500+ on puzzle on chess.com. As for blitz, some players hate blitz and suck at it.

[KMcCarthy]

..130 graders with sub-1000 blitz and over 1900 rapid and 2800+ puzzle rating...

On this specific example, can you expand on what is unusual?
For a junior, 130/1900 is very plausible, and I would not be shocked by 2500+ on puzzle on chess.com. As for blitz, some players hate blitz and suck at it.

Obviously far more than that general info was checked ..idea being ..2850 plus on chess.com puzzles requires Stockfishing...sub-1000 rating in blitz is a real 'tell' on the comparison charts ...we ignore bullet and 960 etc ..https://www.chess.com/club/matches/live/55982 a recent 2020 league match with only IM Roberson above 2000 rapid ...I am not talking 1900 fide here ..

[Wadih Khoury]

..130 graders with sub-1000 blitz and over 1900 rapid and 2800+ puzzle rating...

On this specific example, can you expand on what is unusual?
For a junior, 130/1900 is very plausible, and I would not be shocked by 2500+ on puzzle on chess.com. As for blitz, some players hate blitz and suck at it.

Obviously far more than that general info was checked ..idea being ..2850 plus on chess.com puzzles requires Stockfishing...sub-1000 rating in blitz is a real 'tell' on the comparison charts ...we ignore bullet and 960 etc ..https://www.chess.com/club/matches/live/55982 a recent 2020 league match with only IM Roberson above 2000 rapid ...I am not talking 1900 fide here ..

While there may indeed be further evidence that corroborates your opinions, I actually disagree with quite a few of the statements or causalities implied above:

• 2850 puzzle rating on chess.com requiring stockfishing: this statement has no ground. 2850 puzzle rating does not equate 2850 Fide and hence Magnus+ level. Especially for juniors, puzzle ratings are routinely several hundred points above their play rating. And then chess.com ratings are inflated Vs Fide. Given time, top U10s can solve 3000 puzzles on chess.com. I routinely saw them playing together in between games and solving 2500 puzzles easily. I could expand a bit more on this if needed.
• Blitz rating may or may not be relevant. A 70+ player will generally be much worse than a 20-30 player at blitz, but still be great at rapid or slower. Other may only play blitz occasionally. I didn't allow my son to play bullet or blitz, so when he did start, he had a really bad rating compared to his slower play ratings. 6 months ago on lichess, his ratings were probably 1100 bullet, 1400 blitz, 1900+ rapid and slower, 3000 puzzle.
• An IM with 2000 chess.com rating is an anomaly. Most players at that level have a chess.com rating 100-200 higher than their Fide. 2000 blitz is a junior level in the 10-14 age bracket.