Cheating in chess

[Roger de Coverly]

Has the ECF ever done anything so far?

There was the case where the ECF tried to gain FIDE's interest, only to find after a delay that it was thrown back to them as being a domestic issue. In the event, the ECF took no further action, a stance possibly explained by the factors that the likely length of ban had almost expired and that the player concerned had seemingly self-banned by not taking part in any graded chess.

The ECF or arguably its abiters have applied the premise that when a phone is in a bag, that bag doesn't leave the vicinity of the board for peril of the game being defaulted.

What's lacking in current rules, as perhaps illustrated in the Polish case, is a mechanism of warning players who are frequently absent from the playing room that their conduct might be seen as suspicious.

[Matthew Turner]

"What's lacking in current rules, as perhaps illustrated in the Polish case, is a mechanism of warning players who are frequently absent from the playing room that their conduct might be seen as suspicious."

What on earth are you talking about?
The player is accused of having a phone and playing computer moves, not walking around a bit.

[John Upham]

Has the ECF ever done anything so far? As far as I'm aware some organisers have caught players cheating. Neither the organisers nor the ECF has ever named the players involved or disclosed any sanctions applied, other than disqualification from the event the player was caught cheating at.

The ECFs general policy on not dealing with any contentious or demanding issue would appear to be :

"This matter is not within our jurisdiction"
or
"We prefer not to got involved"
or
"This is someone else's problem (SEP)"
or
"We do not have the resources to investigate"
or
"We'd rather pass the buck on this matter"
or
some other weak excuse for non-action.

I'm reminded of the attitude of Bartleby, the Scrivener (short story by Herman Melville) whose life motto was "I would prefer not to" to any reasonable request from his employer.

[Joey Stewart]

I would have thought the onus of punishment would fall more naturally not on the ECF but rather on tournament organisers in whose best interests it would be to deny cheats entry to their events.

[John Upham]

I would have thought the onus of punishment would fall more naturally not on the ECF but rather on tournament organisers in whose best interests it would be to deny cheats entry to their events.

The ECF is the FIDE approved NGB (National Governing Body) for chess in England.

One of the requirements of being a governing body is to govern and that implies regulating events it approves of and regulating its members.

Applying an Admiral Nelson style approach is insufficient.

[Roger de Coverly]

What on earth are you talking about?
The player is accused of having a phone and playing computer moves, not walking around a bit.

The initial suspicion was that she was frequently absent from the board. There may be the threat to a player achieving exceptional results of jealous rivals, so players wishing to avoid false accusations should avoid being absent from the board and out of sight.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would have thought the onus of punishment would fall more naturally not on the ECF but rather on tournament organisers in whose best interests it would be to deny cheats entry to their events.

The problem comes that sometimes it isn't known who has been caught cheating.

It might have to be deduced from missing results and apparantly anomolous Swiss pairings as well as gossip on this forum.

There was allegedly a player caught in the London or Middlesex Leagues and London based tournaments using the Rausis method . Would organisers in other parts of the country know who it was?

[John Upham]

Are we able to able to reach a point where we could provide a definition of a "computer move" ?

It is enough to say that

a computer move is a legal move that any human being would never play not matter how strong they were or

a computer move is a legal move that any human being under 2500 would never play

or perhaps

a computer move is a legal move that any human being under 2000 would never play?

Can we firm this definition up?

In a court of law it would be reasonable for the defending barrister to request a concrete definition of a computer move that all could agree upon.

On that basis deciding a player's guilt or otherwise could be effected.

Perhaps MT could kick-off this definition?

[Roger de Coverly]

Can we firm this definition up?

I doubt it. Even a move selected almost at random has a chance of matching an engine suggestion. Basically you have to catch a player consulting the engine during the game or have at the very least, reasonable circumstantial evidence.

[JustinHorton]

I would have thought the onus of punishment would fall more naturally not on the ECF but rather on tournament organisers in whose best interests it would be to deny cheats entry to their events.

But they will say it is not for them to say who is a cheat if no official sanction has been declared.

[John Upham]

Can we firm this definition up?

I doubt it. Even a move selected almost at random has a chance of matching an engine suggestion. Basically you have to catch a player consulting the engine during the game or have at the very least, reasonable circumstantial evidence.

Are you saying (and I do not disagree) that the term "computer move", banded liberally around in this place, is not possible to define?

[Matt Bridgeman]

I’m not totally buying that the ECF would have had the same reaction as the Polish Chess Federation. You had a player caught cheating and banned from the Glorney Gilbert Online International who was selected less than 2 months later for the European Youth Online Championship.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"On a superficial reading, the Polish Federation's approach seems broadly similar to Chess Scotland policy."

I'm informed by an English friend that lived in Scotland for some years that there is a strong moral code there.

I can understand silence from governing bodies possibly due to the fear of legal action, (and you have to be right of course), but this really doesn't help potential players. If you think that someone is cheating in a competition and nothing appears to be done, you might well vote with your feet (or whatever the electronic equivalent is).

An interesting case study from some years ago. A fellow arbiter informed me that player X had been caught in the analysis room during a game where X's father had the current position running on Fritz. X left the tournament and the arbiter reported what had happened. Silence ensued. I was then arbiter at an event where X played, so I and my colleagues carried out checks, and followed X and father about, hopefully without looking too creepy. Nothing untoward was detected. Then X won a prize somewhere else and I commented to some friends, "Oh good, X can afford a new version of Fritz." and was greeted with gales of laughter, so obviously people knew... But as far as I know, X was never named and shamed or served any ban. Not all arbiters knew though.

[Brian Egdell]

Can we firm this definition up?

I doubt it. Even a move selected almost at random has a chance of matching an engine suggestion. Basically you have to catch a player consulting the engine during the game or have at the very least, reasonable circumstantial evidence.

Are you saying (and I do not disagree) that the term "computer move", banded liberally around in this place, is not possible to define?

An individual "computer move" cannot normally be identified, but the concept of "computer movishness" can, and different moves will have different degrees of it. Statistical analysis of the occurrence of "computer movishness" in a sufficiently large sample of complete games can produce evidence that a player has cheated.

The "computer movishness" of a move can be measured in terms of its deviation from the way a human will decide on a move in the context of a competitive game. Measuring characteristics are necessarily vague but can be worded as the degree of departure from normal human heuristics like safety , tangible purpose, and tactical simplicity. Humans don't play a tactically sound but very complicated move when there's a simple-for-humans alternative move leading to the same result.

[Tim Spanton]

I would have thought the onus of punishment would fall more naturally not on the ECF but rather on tournament organisers in whose best interests it would be to deny cheats entry to their events.

In the long term, yes, as long as honest players might avoid tournaments where cheats are allowed. In the short term, however, entry fees are rather attractive to organisers. One told me, after catching an adult cheat, that he would allow the person to play again at some point as that is what he would do in the case of a junior cheat.