Sanctions for those proven to have cheated?

[John Upham]

What sanctions / penalties / fines does the ECF have at its disposal when it has been proven that a player has cheated in an event in England that is FIDE rated (or not)?

Do we know of any past instances of sanctions being applied?

[David Sedgwick]

What sanctions / penalties / fines does the ECF have at its disposal when it has been proven that a player has cheated in an event in England that is FIDE rated (or not)?

Do we know of any past instances of sanctions being applied?

In the light of the French case, I recently suggested to Andrew Farthing that the Board should review what the ECF procedures would be in the event of an alleged similar occurrence here.

The ECF Articles contain a provision to the effect that a person can be removed from membership in accordance with the provisions of a Bye Law or Regulation, but it's not apparent to me that any such Bye Law or Regulation currently exists.

Rightly or wrongly, the ECF doesn't tend to be very open about such things. For instance, it never made public what action, if any, it took following the Gormally incident in Turin. (That of course was not a cheating case.)

[Jonathan Bryant]

What sanctions / penalties / fines does the ECF have at its disposal when it has been proven that a player has cheated in an event in England that is FIDE rated (or not)?

Good question. I've been wondering that myself.

Similarly, we might ask what procedures the ECF has in place with respect to (a) decide whether a person is proven to have cheated or not (b) assess mitigating or aggravating factors etc.

Rightly or wrongly, the ECF doesn't tend to be very open about such things.

Wrongly. Justice needs to be seen to be done. Aside from anything else, only fair on the 'convicted' that the punishment is clearly stated . No other way to 'rehabilitate' people unless you do that.

I think Jonathan Rogers makes a similar point in a post on the French Olympiad thread
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=210

For juniors I would possibly consider it appropriate for names not to be named, however (perhaps with exceptions made for particularly egregious cases should any ever occur).

[Andrew Farthing]

What sanctions / penalties / fines does the ECF have at its disposal when it has been proven that a player has cheated in an event in England that is FIDE rated (or not)?

Do we know of any past instances of sanctions being applied?

The answer to the first question is a lot less clear than I'd like. The formal advice that I have received indicates that "the ECF does not have any legal mechanism" to punish players for cheating. Sanctions are possible within the specific event (in accordance with the laws of chess), but more far-reaching sanctions - such as a fine or a ban - appear to be problematic.

There are various complicating factors, including the fact that the large majority of English players are not members of the ECF and almost all English events are not run by the ECF. Jurisdiction is therefore a consideration. The French Federation (FFE) is in a clearer position because all French players have to be members and, as I understand it, all events are officially deemed to be under FFE jurisdiction.

If the hypothetical cheating occurred in the British Championships (say) or, as in the French case, within the national team at an Olympiad, the ECF would presumably have considerable scope for action as far as future participation in those events was concerned. I'm not sure that the ECF could legitimately ban a player from competing in privately run weekend congresses, for instance. Even the situation regarding the British Championships is not completely clear to me at present, because it is possible that the overseeing responsibility of the British Isles Coordination Committee for eligibility for the championships would be a factor.

It has recently been suggested to me that something like an ECF Code of Ethics should be introduced, which would clarify the situation and which could be applied (presumably with the organisers' consent) to non-ECF events graded by the ECF. I'm looking into this.


Re disclosure of past offenders: I agree with the comment that names should be withheld in the case of any juniors. My understanding is that the restrictions under Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply. I'd like to think that the ECF would be as open as the FFE if cheating were alleged in the English national team or within an event organised by the ECF.

Re disclosure of sanctions: It will be appreciated from what I've already written that the situations in which the ECF is legally empowered to take sanctions may be very limited. Where instances of cheating are drawn to the ECF's attention - and I am aware only of one, involving a junior - there would currently have to be a degree of mutual consent in the sanction imposed, strange as that may sound.

Speaking for myself, without the benefit of discussion with the Board, this situation is unsatisfactory and needs to be clarified. Fortunately, as far as I'm aware, instances of alleged cheating have been blessedly rare.

[Mick Norris]

Andrew

The ECF clearly need to do something, then - is this a matter for the board, or do Council need to be involved?

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew

The ECF clearly need to do something, then - is this a matter for the board, or do Council need to be involved?

My assumption would be that this would need approval by Council. Realistically, the most practical route would be for something to be drafted in time for the AGM in October 2011.

[Mick Norris]

6 months before it can be implemented (at best, if Council passes something), you must find this frustrating

[Adam Raoof]

It's usually inversely proportional to the amount of money at stake.

If you want to see how they deal with it on the other side of the pond;

http://www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com/2.html

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure that the ECF could legitimately ban a player from competing in privately run weekend congresses, for instance.

Congresses usually retain the rights to refuse entry to any player. If a player had been found to be systematically cheating whether by signalling spectators or otherwise, you might expect organisers to back the ECF. If the ECF were misusing its powers, say by attempting to ban players who were critical of the ECF or its directors and officers, then organisers, you might hope, would be less sympathetic.

You can get the same problem in a local league, the most you often really have is a request to the club not to select the player in matches. In the one case we had a few years ago, the club agreed that the player's behaviour merited a sanction.

[John Upham]

Fortunately, as far as I'm aware, instances of alleged cheating have been blessedly rare.

One of the reasons for that alleged rareness is, until the last couple of years, it was harder to cheat. In older times some of the methods would have been :

• Discuss the game whilst in progress with others
• Analyse it in the analysis room
• Visit the bookstall
• Use notes in your scorebook from previous games
• Retract moves whilst no-one was looking
• Visit the commentary room and ask questions
• Get someone else to play the game for you
• Throwing games

Now it is much easier to walk away from the game and analyse on your mobile 'phone, Nintendo DS, PSP, Game Boy or whatever comes in handy.

I've yet to see the outcome of a recent alleged case of this but, if proven, then the ECF must publicise their sanctions widely as a means of deterrent.

If it gets brushed under the carpet (we like to pretend that cheating does not happen : this is the English way of doing things) then an opportunity will be lost.

If the player is a junior then naming them is not wise but demonstrating a robust attitude with cheating is crucial.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now it is much easier to walk away from the game and analyse on your mobile 'phone, Nintendo DS, PSP, Game Boy or whatever comes in handy.
.

Portable chess playing devices aren't new, they were around twenty five years ago. Admittedly they weren't much good then. Even Fritz is getting on for twenty years old.

What is new is credible evidence as to how cheating can take place at the highest levels. So you have the high tech bit, which is a player analysing with a computer engine using the live game feed. This player can be thousands of miles away. The analysis results are then texted (or otherwise) to a non-player at the venue. The non-player then becomes a spectator and transmits a move or square to a player. The transmission could just be a low tech approach of standing in a particular place. This approach only works if the player is otherwise competent enough to play 95% of the game without external assistance.

[John Upham]

Admittedly they weren't much good then.

I have been told of a weak junior who was using a chess program on a Nintendo DS in the toilet cubicle.

It turns out that the strength of the program was around 1400 and a little weaker than the junior!

The program made his position worse. Hence my recommendation to snuff this out by publicizing it widely.

Personally, I am less concerned about this style of cheating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUElKW6D6gc (that RDdC alludes to) but more concerned about the simple use of a mobile device in a weekend Swiss.

[Andrew Farthing]

I'm not sure that the ECF could legitimately ban a player from competing in privately run weekend congresses, for instance.

Congresses usually retain the rights to refuse entry to any player. If a player had been found to be systematically cheating whether by signalling spectators or otherwise, you might expect organisers to back the ECF. If the ECF were misusing its powers, say by attempting to ban players who were critical of the ECF or its directors and officers, then organisers, you might hope, would be less sympathetic.

You can get the same problem in a local league, the most you often really have is a request to the club not to select the player in matches. In the one case we had a few years ago, the club agreed that the player's behaviour merited a sanction.

I agree with all of this, hence my earlier reference to a degree of mutual consent. In the absence of a clear and binding code, it is not only a matter of the organisers' cooperation. The ECF would also have to consider the risk of legal action by the individual being sanctioned.

[Roger de Coverly]

but more concerned about the simple use of a mobile device in a weekend Swiss.

There's the traditional one about not leaving the board whilst it's your move. You could say as well that you don't use an electronic device whilst away from the board even if it is only a Wii .

It's alarming sometimes, just how many non-players you see with portable computers near the playing area. At Sunningdale, this seems particularly noticeable, perhaps because of the layout of the building.

[Sean Hewitt]

Presumably a ban would be simpler to enforce in a compulsory membership environment? Failing that, you would need the ECF to sanction events in advance for grading, a condition of which would not be to allow banned players to play.