Cheating in chess

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I have played in events where you needed to notify the arbiter when going to the toilets (possibly being escorted there, I do not remember), possibly because you had to exit the official playing area to reach the toilets. I am not sure how common that is now (this was about 10-15 years ago).

[Ian Thompson]

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

In the event I was referring to the male and female toilets were next to each other so both could be watched by one person. The arbiter doing the watching was sometimes male and sometimes female. Probably male most of the time because there were more male than female arbiters in total at the event.

Women are more likely then men to take a bag with them to the toilet, so, if anything, they ought to be scrutinised more closely than men. At this event there was metal detector screening and bag checks every time anyone who'd left the playing area re-entered it, which included every time anyone went to get refreshments or to the toilet.

[Tim Spanton]

I have played in events where you needed to notify the arbiter when going to the toilets (possibly being escorted there, I do not remember), possibly because you had to exit the official playing area to reach the toilets. I am not sure how common that is now (this was about 10-15 years ago).

That was the rule in the upstairs tournament hall at the recent Meliá event in Benidorm, although I do not know how rigorously the rule was enforced.
Incidentally, I still haven't received my 125-euro prize from that tournament ...

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

Most of the cases where someone has been caught are variations of the phone in the toilet method. By its very nature wouldn't the engine consulation be intermittent? So there would be engine matching but perhaps only assessments and in critical positions.

A recent report noted that a GM had won a game where he was following his analysis past move 30. That's not unusual and in the pre computer days, Peter Clarke drew a lengthy game at Hastings where the annotator was able to say that almost the whole game had been played before.

But how does the scrutiny handle such games? It would seem likely that the GM had at the very least engine checked the analysis. So would this show up? What if someone copied the game in its entirety? How frequently is the "book" database of the scrutiny program updated as games are played. What about theory that's been published but not played yet?

Those advocating Regan analysis would no doubt refuse to answer such questions, but they have to be accountable for their methods to have credibility particularly if they are advocating making accusations based on a single game.

I looked down the list of those with Fair Play titles. There are just two SCO and one ENG. One might presume that anti-cheating witchhunts and nonsence like wallet bans will not become a feature of British or English events. Or is that being too optimistic?

[Alex McFarlane]

One might presume that anti-cheating witchhunts and nonsense like wallet bans will not become a feature of British or English events.

There is a move to have quite strict security at national championships. Whether that will happen is open to debate.

FIDE has a plan to introduce higher FP training at FA seminars. This will be given to arbiters. However when that will happen officially is not certain. Roger correctly points out there are only 3 people in Britain with a FP qualification. I would say that there are 2 others without the qualification who know enough to be at a fairly senior level. There could be more. Indeed one of them co-authored the training materials. The materials for FA seminars has been used at some FA and IA seminars. Arbiter Lecturers are to be given some training in the near future so that it can be used at all seminars.

I have more confidence in the Regan software detection than Roger however. A couple of years ago Prof Regan sent me analysis from the Hastings event. It showed one GM with suspicious results but those were caused by short games. Regan himself suggested it was a false positive. I'll let you guess the GM, but his son is at the other end of the spectrum! I emailed back saying that I wish he had been monitoring the event a few years previously. With no other info he correctly identified the player that we had had under observation. His software had not put him in what I call the "catch this cheat" category but did put him in the "watch carefully" one. Since then I have been a believer in the software, at least for over the board games. You might point out that the Hastings arbiter team is stronger than some and therefore might be expected to identify suspicious games but it was good to have some confirmation and for less experienced arbiter teams it might confirm that a player should be under extra surveillance.

[Alex Holowczak]

I looked down the list of those with Fair Play titles. There are just two SCO and one ENG. One might presume that anti-cheating witchhunts and nonsence like wallet bans will not become a feature of British or English events. Or is that being too optimistic?

The Fair Play title system is widely unpopular, and generally discredited. It has been the subject of one of the largest campaigns against a FIDE policy direction that I can ever remember. Having this title is a stone of shame rather than a stone of triumph. The nonsense you describe will not become a feature of English or British events, at least while I am the Director responsible for them.

FIDE has a plan to introduce higher FP training at FA seminars. This will be given to arbiters. However when that will happen officially is not certain. Roger correctly points out there are only 3 people in Britain with a FP qualification. I would say that there are 2 others without the qualification who know enough to be at a fairly senior level. There could be more. Indeed one of them co-authored the training materials. The materials for FA seminars has been used at some FA and IA seminars. Arbiter Lecturers are to be given some training in the near future so that it can be used at all seminars.

In a meeting with them, after it had all kicked off, I was informed I should "probably" be given one of their titles. I told them I did not want such a title and would refuse it if offered.

[NickFaulks]

Are they like Arbiter titles, where you have to pay upfront and then again every year if you actually want to use them?

[Alex Holowczak]

Are they like Arbiter titles, where you have to pay upfront and then again every year if you actually want to use them?

This isn't how arbiter titles work. With arbiter titles, you pay again if you never use them, although I've never seen this policy enforced.

[NickFaulks]

With arbiter titles, you pay again if you never use them, although I've never seen this policy enforced.

Perhaps I should keep quiet, then.

[Roger de Coverly]

[A couple of years ago Prof Regan sent me analysis from the Hastings event. It showed one GM with suspicious results but those were caused by short games. Regan himself suggested it was a false positive. I'll let you guess the GM, but his son is at the other end of the spectrum!

The GM in question has a reputation for spending a lot of time on analysis. Without knowing his methods it may be a reasonable speculation that it includes a fair amount of engine analysis. Therefore for at least part of his games, he is following what he might regard as theory. Previous disclosures and method descriptions indicate that "theory" is excluded from Regan comparisons, but I don't think it is disclosed how far into the middle game the theory available to the testing method will extend.

[Reg Clucas]

Kramnik takes FIDE to court

[Alex Holowczak]

Kramnik takes FIDE to court

https://x.com/davidllada/status/2005961309091725634

Given Ukraine already has one case going on against FIDE in CAS, and have expressed their intention to take FIDE to CAS again, now Kramnik, and that tweet ... It seems FIDE's lawyers may be in for a financially rewarding 2026.

[NickFaulks]

The advantage of the CAS route is that they have a history of making FIDE pay the full costs of defending itself, even after dismissing quite ridiculous cases. Their logic is that FIDE has easy access to an infinite pool of money, through the taxation of member federations. That was the basis of the attempt by European federations, in Kirsan's time, to bankrupt FIDE through lawfare.

It doesn't sound as though Kramink has to worry about the cost of funding his case.

[Roger de Coverly]

That was the basis of the attempt by European federations, in Kirsan's time, to bankrupt FIDE through lawfare.

The ECF joined in with that in secret.

If it wants to again, at least this time you might hope it would be open about it.
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4463

https://worldchess.com/news/english-che ... sian-teams

[NickFaulks]

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4463

https://worldchess.com/news/english-che ... sian-teams

That 2012 thread is worth re-reading.

I particularly liked

Can I congratulate Gerard on his scoop? As far as I can see this forum had the story first, and that thanks to him.

Thanks, where else would you even look of course