Cheating in chess

[NickFaulks]

"the FIDE Ethics Commission has returned the resolution of the case resulting from a 4NCL Congress to the ECF."

I cannot find this case on the EC website.

[Pete Heaven]

The player that Matt refers to was reported in May to the 4NCL after more than 50 perfect games. Perfect up to a point to be more accurate; the point where the game was easily winning. Yes, you read that correctly, more than 50. Nothing was done until the ban late last month at a very high-profile moment. Moving on, there are only three (rapid) games with the new account. Six inaccuracies, no mistakes or blunders in 134 moves and an average centipawn loss of about 13. Don't try this at home. How long will it drag on and will results be reversed this time? It's deja vu all over again.

[David Sedgwick]

"the FIDE Ethics Commission has returned the resolution of the case resulting from a 4NCL Congress to the ECF."

I cannot find this case on the EC website.

I think that it may have been the Fair Play Commission that returned the case.

[Alex McFarlane]

I cannot find this case on the EC website.

It was actually the Fair Play commission which returned the case. AMToo misreported the Commission based on the report it received.

(Confirming DS above)

[NickFaulks]

It was actually the Fair Play commission which returned the case. AMToo misreported the Commission based on the report it received.

(Confirming DS above)

Thanks, I have a feeling I knew that but had forgotten.

The EC view on cases which have no real international significance is set out in para 6 of this Decision.

https://ethics.fide.com/wp-content/uplo ... -final.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

The EC view on cases which have no real international significance is set out in para 6 of this Decision.

They did however name the player involved, despite being a minor. However guilt had been admitted so there was no need to subject the Regan software process to judicial review.

[NickFaulks]

However guilt had been admitted so there was no need to subject the Regan software process to judicial review.

That is this one. It takes a bit of patience but is worth a careful reading.

https://ethics.fide.com/images/stories/ ... _FINAL.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

That is this one. It takes a bit of patience but is worth a careful reading.

It's interesting that they make the point that a defence is to show that the engine matching was down to pre game preparation. That has echoes of the chess.com accusations against ejh where he was able to demonstrate that the supposed engine assistance was taken from material on his bookshelf. Being "daily" chess, akin to correspondence, this was within the rules and to an extent the point of that mode of play.

[NickFaulks]

Do you follow 12.26?

[Thomas Rendle]

I will link my post from the 4NCL thread on grounds for appeal (rather than just quoting it as it's fairly long), since it seems relevant here.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10700&start=525

[Mick Norris]

However guilt had been admitted so there was no need to subject the Regan software process to judicial review.

That is this one. It takes a bit of patience but is worth a careful reading.

https://ethics.fide.com/images/stories/ ... _FINAL.pdf

Interesting; that's saying the Regan process, as verified independently, is admissible

[JustinHorton]

I will link my post from the 4NCL thread on grounds for appeal (rather than just quoting it as it's fairly long), since it seems relevant here.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10700&start=525

Were you trying to get this

[Roger de Coverly]

Interesting; that's saying the Regan process, as verified independently, is admissible

In both cases they had plausible evidence of how the players might be consulting external sources. For someone playing at home in private without audio or video recording, no such evidence to confirm or deny external assistance is available.

I don't believe there are any OTB cases where out of the blue, an external body accused players of cheating without there being grounds for suspicion during actual play.

[Thomas Rendle]

I will link my post from the 4NCL thread on grounds for appeal (rather than just quoting it as it's fairly long), since it seems relevant here.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10700&start=525

Were you trying to get this

Yes thanks, although I felt the page would be enough for anyone who was interested enough to click on it!

[JustinHorton]

Could I also append my comments from here and here