Cheating in chess

[NickFaulks]

At the recent World Seniors in Italy, where I was playing in the 50+ Open, the daily routine to get into the tournament hall included the Fair Play person squeezing my wallet.

At a previous World Seniors, in Sicily, I had a different experience. Before the first round I went through the usual processes of metal detectors and patting down. Sitting at my board during the interminable opening remarks I reached into my trouser pocket and found... my phone. Turned on, obviously. Fortunately I was able to escape before the clocks were started.

[NickFaulks]

In other words, everything was pointing in the same direction.

But what if one piece of the jigsaw is missing? You have been getting unusally good results, you're caught with a phone in your underpants, it is turned on and analysing your current position, but the Regan analysis doesn't show anything significant about your moves.

I think you're still just as guilty and it looks as though you have found a way to fool the system, although I admit that you probably need to be a decent player in the first place to do that.

[Alex Holowczak]

In other words, everything was pointing in the same direction.

But what if one piece of the jigsaw is missing? You have been getting unusally good results, you're caught with a phone in your underpants, it is turned on and analysing your current position, but the Regan analysis doesn't show anything significant about your moves.

I think you're still just as guilty and it looks as though you have found a way to fool the system, although I admit that you probably need to be a decent player in the first place to do that.

I would hope that such a player would indeed be found guilty of cheating, or at the very least, attempting to cheat. The absence of statistical results would probably lead to the defence of "it was my first time in this game", which would reduce the length of any ban that might be administered.

But actually, this is exactly the sort of thing I would like FPL to be working on and sorting out. This is the role I think it should have - prosecuting these cases.

[Joey Stewart]

At the recent World Seniors in Italy, where I was playing in the 50+ Open, the daily routine to get into the tournament hall included the Fair Play person squeezing my wallet.

At a previous World Seniors, in Sicily, I had a different experience. Before the first round I went through the usual processes of metal detectors and patting down. Sitting at my board during the interminable opening remarks I reached into my trouser pocket and found... my phone. Turned on, obviously. Fortunately I was able to escape before the clocks were started.

I can only assume the fair play arbiter was so focused on more important rules violations such as wrongly matched socks or microchipped pens that such a trivial thing was easily overlooked....

[Roger de Coverly]

This was a 1600 player who suddenly scored +10 =1 -0 against 1730 opposition. If you are happy for a player to be put on watch after "a remarkable string of results" ( which I am, although I don't just mean 4/4 ) then you don't need Regan analysis to back it up.

There was a player in a 7 round Minor who had already won the tournament before the last round. It was a junior who had been in the bottom half of the pairings. The player was excluded from the pairings of round 7 and all results treated as losses. The arbiters presumably found something although they never said what it was, in public at least. You may not have to improve that much to dominate a Minor tournament, although it's highly plausible that other players have also become sharks making it more difficult

There was also that teenager shortly before Covid who had a remarkable run in local tournaments and league play. If the emergence of a new talent was plausible, serious doubts were raised when the player had a complete failure in a major Blitz tournament.

[John Townsend]

I would seriously question whether it can be right to make decisions concerning ethics which are based solely on unexpectedly good or bad performances.

[NickFaulks]

I would seriously question whether it can be right to make decisions concerning ethics which are based solely on unexpectedly good or bad performances.

That depends upon which decisions you mean. In a perfect world arbiters would keep an eye on every player who leaves the playing area between moves, but when that is not possible I don't mind them concentrating their attentions on those who have been producing remarkiably good results.

[John Townsend]

Nick, I understand your motives, but the threat of falling under suspicion could feel like punishment for success to some and, in an extreme case, could make a player afraid to win, or, worse still, afraid to enter. Suspicions without proof can, I assume, be wrong. It would be better, in my opinion, to treat all the contestants alike, rather than attempt to mastermind the anomalies in their performance.

[Alex Holowczak]

Nick, I understand your motives, but the threat of falling under suspicion could feel like punishment for success to some and, in an extreme case, could make a player afraid to win, or, worse still, afraid to enter. Suspicions without proof can, I assume, be wrong. It would be better, in my opinion, to treat all the contestants alike, rather than attempt to mastermind the anomalies in their performance.

If you were under suspicion you wouldn't know it, if the arbiter was doing their job properly. I know some people might think "Why is that arbiter hanging around in the corridor not doing anything?" ... Well, maybe, just mayyyyybe, they're doing something ...

[Ian Thompson]

If you were under suspicion you wouldn't know it, if the arbiter was doing their job properly. I know some people might think "Why is that arbiter hanging around in the corridor not doing anything?" ... Well, maybe, just mayyyyybe, they're doing something ...

I played in an event recently where an arbiter was permanently positioned in the corridor, near the toilets, with a stool to sit on. I assume he was:

1. Making sure that only players went in the toilets.
2. Watching for players spending an abnormally long time in the toilet.
3. Watching for players visiting the toilet more often than normal.
4. Looking out for players acting suspiciously as they entered or left the toilet.
5. Maybe looking out for the same pairs/groups of players repeatedly visiting the toilets at the same time.

[Mike Truran]

Maybe he just had a weak bladder?

[Graham Borrowdale]

These arguments always come down to the same thing to me (weak bladders aside), which is that you either think the end justifies the means or you do not. In the same way that I do not like being filmed at a supermarket self-checkout on the assumption that I might be shoplifting, I would not like to be followed to the toilets during a chess game on the assumption that I might be cheating. Mind you, my moves would never arouse suspicion.

[Paul Cooksey]

If you were under suspicion you wouldn't know it, if the arbiter was doing their job properly. I know some people might think "Why is that arbiter hanging around in the corridor not doing anything?" ... Well, maybe, just mayyyyybe, they're doing something ...

Many people think arbiters are mostly bumbling middle aged men. But they are in fact all MI6 trained spooks who did counterespionage in East Berlin in 1962.

[John Townsend]

What happens about the female players? Do their visits to the toilet come under similar scrutiny?

[Alex Holowczak]

If you were under suspicion you wouldn't know it, if the arbiter was doing their job properly. I know some people might think "Why is that arbiter hanging around in the corridor not doing anything?" ... Well, maybe, just mayyyyybe, they're doing something ...

I played in an event recently where an arbiter was permanently positioned in the corridor, near the toilets, with a stool to sit on. I assume he was:

1. Making sure that only players went in the toilets.
2. Watching for players spending an abnormally long time in the toilet.
3. Watching for players visiting the toilet more often than normal.
4. Looking out for players acting suspiciously as they entered or left the toilet.
5. Maybe looking out for the same pairs/groups of players repeatedly visiting the toilets at the same time.

I don't know what the event was, but ... for my tastes, that's too much.

If you were under suspicion you wouldn't know it, if the arbiter was doing their job properly. I know some people might think "Why is that arbiter hanging around in the corridor not doing anything?" ... Well, maybe, just mayyyyybe, they're doing something ...

Many people think arbiters are mostly bumbling middle aged men. But they are in fact all MI6 trained spooks who did counterespionage in East Berlin in 1962.

Oi - I resent the "bumbling".

What happens about the female players? Do their visits to the toilet come under similar scrutiny?

Typically when staffing events, I always try to have a mix of men and women on the arbiter team. It's not always possible due to availability, alas.