Chess fraud in New Zealand

[Michael Jones]

Actually Michael, there's no mention in the definition (well, the norm requirements) of a WGM that says you have to be female.

That reminds me of the elections regulations at Warwick SU, which stated that in order to be eligible to hold or vote for the position of Women's Campaigns Officer, it was only necessary to "self-define" as female. So if I'd felt like it I could have declared myself to be a woman and, by doing so, made myself eligible to stand for the position

(Not that I had any particular desire to do so...)

[Roger de Coverly]

the first instance in the BUCA tournament of brothers playing on opposite sides?

'

If you include the BUCA in the BH Wood days, then the late Simon Webb was playing for London University in 1970 whilst his younger brother Roger was playing for Cambridge.

[Alex Holowczak]

Incidentally, for a bit of trivia - is Warwick vs UCL (the Vases) the first instance in the BUCA tournament of brothers playing on opposite sides? I remember a few years ago the Eckersley-Waiteses did so in the Varsity match (in 2007 there were two on the same side - the Chakravortys for Sheffield).

They were in different teams last year, but never played. We were quite concious of the tournament situation, and the fact that UCL played Warwick in the Final Round.

One half of the Vas family was very upset with the realisation that UCL had to play Warwick. Indeed, the arbiter was all-but accused of fixing the draw. Warwick had lost to Aston in the previous round, and wanted to know why they, on 4 points seeking black, played UCL on 6 points, seeking white and downfloating. The fact that Warwick were the only black-seeking 4-point team didn't factor into the argument. The complaint was that Warwick were on a higher board than Aston, given Aston won against them. Again, the fact that Aston had been on 2 points before playing Warwick (who were on 4), and were seeking white, didn't factor into the argument.

We were advised that in future, if we were going to deviate from the laws of Swiss pairing, we should publish as much.

Cherniaev will have to up his game; it seems he has a rival.

[Michael Jones]

Thanks for the info Roger.

Alex - oh dear, I thought Victor and Peter got on fairly well; I wouldn't have expected there to be any fuss, particularly since they weren't playing on the same board. Victor does occasionally whinge a bit but he should know better than that!

[Alex Holowczak]

Thanks for the info Roger.

Alex - oh dear, I thought Victor and Peter got on fairly well; I wouldn't have expected there to be any fuss, particularly since they weren't playing on the same board. Victor does occasionally whinge a bit but he should know better than that!

Oh, the Vases got on perfectly well. It was a bit of a whinge. To be fair, he'd only drawn against me in the previous round. That's enough to make anyone lose the plot.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

I decided to ask the horse:

Lara Antonia Sofie Stock 05 March at 00:52 Report
actually .. i just wanted to play chess without media or any "special treatment". Just be a normal chessplayer not a wgm ..

[LozCooper]

I decided to ask the horse:

Lara Antonia Sofie Stock 05 March at 00:52 Report
actually .. i just wanted to play chess without media or any "special treatment". Just be a normal chessplayer not a wgm ..

I'm not sure playing under a false name and winning a tournament is the best way to remain anonymous

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

I decided to ask the horse:

Lara Antonia Sofie Stock 05 March at 00:52 Report
actually .. i just wanted to play chess without media or any "special treatment". Just be a normal chessplayer not a wgm ..

I'm not sure playing under a false name and winning a tournament is the best way to remain anonymous

Well I'd agree with the second part of your statement loz, be hard not to be anon without playing under a false name mind

[Roger de Coverly]

Well I'd agree with the second part of your statement loz, be hard not to be anon without playing under a false name mind

In over the board chess, there's so much that depends on ranking players in order of strength, that non-disclosure of a player's strength and experience is sharp practice at the very least. That particularly applies when an event is supposedly restricted to less skilled players and offers prizes.

The only events where it would be fair on the other players to take part as Anon would be ones where there were no entry restrictions, no prizes based on rating and which used random pairings. Historically this describes the situation before ratings, but hardly any, if any at all, take place with these conditions. The nearest you might get is an on-line event where all players are using handles and none are disclosing who they are or their OTB titles.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Well I'd agree with the second part of your statement loz, be hard not to be anon without playing under a false name mind

In over the board chess, there's so much that depends on ranking players in order of strength, that non-disclosure of a player's strength and experience is sharp practice at the very least. That particularly applies when an event is supposedly restricted to less skilled players and offers prizes.

The only events where it would be fair on the other players to take part as Anon would be ones where there were no entry restrictions, no prizes based on rating and which used random pairings. Historically this describes the situation before ratings, but hardly any, if any at all, take place with these conditions. The nearest you might get is an on-line event where all players are using handles and none are disclosing who they are or their OTB titles.

I quite agree RdC, I just thought you'd all like to hear from the horse's mouth.

[LozCooper]

I decided to ask the horse:

Lara Antonia Sofie Stock 05 March at 00:52 Report
actually .. i just wanted to play chess without media or any "special treatment". Just be a normal chessplayer not a wgm ..

I'm not sure playing under a false name and winning a tournament is the best way to remain anonymous [/quote]

Well I'd agree with the second part of your statement loz, be hard not to be anon without playing under a false name mind [/quote]

[Gavin Strachan]

I thought of entering some rapid in Hendon under the name of Adam Woof and seeing if it was picked up. I would have to be barking to try it.

[AustinElliott]

How about a semi-hypothetical scenario:

Suppose I have not played competitive chess (and actually hardly even a casual game) for thirty-five years. Then suppose I play a few games with the kids or online and start to get the bug back a bit. The last time I played competitively, as a teenager long ago, I had an ECF grading in the 170s. [NB All this is broadly accurate]

Now, suppose I were to decide to take the plunge and enter a weekend congress event, say an under-160. Should I tell the organiser I used to have a grading higher than that back in 1978-9 ...??! If I did, would I be allowed in the under-160? Or in an under-150? After all, I don't suppose there would be any way to predict what level I might be able to play at now, and it would (I'm guessing) hardly be likely to be anything like the level I was at as a fanatically keen junior.

Anyway, I know this isn't an "anonymity" scenario, but wonder whether versions of things like this could explain (being generous) at least some of the "players in categories they are too strong for". I guess my feeling is that, in the scenario outlined, I think it would be dishonest NOT to say that you'd once had a grading... but if it were me, I would probably be disappointed if I then got told "oh well, you can't play in the grading limited event, then".

Anyone had real experience of this scenario?

[LozCooper]

How about a semi-hypothetical scenario:

Suppose I have not played competitive chess (and actually hardly even a casual game) for thirty-five years. Then suppose I play a few games with the kids or online and start to get the bug back a bit. The last time I played competitively, as a teenager long ago, I had an ECF grading in the 170s. [NB All this is broadly accurate]

Now, suppose I were to decide to take the plunge and enter a weekend congress event, say an under-160. Should I tell the organiser I used to have a grading higher than that back in 1978-9 ...??! If I did, would I be allowed in the under-160? Or in an under-150? After all, I don't suppose there would be any way to predict what level I might be able to play at now, and it would (I'm guessing) hardly be likely to be anything like the level I was at as a fanatically keen junior.

Anyway, I know this isn't an "anonymity" scenario, but wonder whether versions of things like this could explain (being generous) at least some of the "players in categories they are too strong for". I guess my feeling is that, in the scenario outlined, I think it would be dishonest NOT to say that you'd once had a grading... but if it were me, I would probably be disappointed if I then got told "oh well, you can't play in the grading limited event, then".

Anyone had real experience of this scenario?

I would say honesty is the best policy. It would then be up to their discretion which section you were allowed to play in. I suspect if it's a tournament with a big prize fund eg Blackpool then they are less likely to let you play in a section which you were once graded too high for.

[Sean Hewitt]

You tell the organiser and he decides, based on that information, which section he is prepared to let you play. Armed with that, you decide if you want to enter or not.

It happens regularly, and we won't let any ungraded player play without some idea of their playing history and strength.