Sanctions for those proven to have cheated?

[Jonathan Bryant]

This is a little similar to what medical licencing bodies do as a "teaching tool". They give anonymous "case histories" of misconduct ....

I do understand the concern here, but in practice I am only aware of the one case that has been referred to the ECF, and a number of people are aware of the incident already, so the scope for "anonymity" in any such case history would be somewhat limited.

Andrew, firstly may I second David's comments and say thank you for contributing to this thread/putting a point of view from within the ECF.

I'm sure Austin doesn't need me to speak on his behalf, but I don't think he meant a case history was necessary in this case. He was just drawing an analogy. That's how I took it anyway.

I certainly agree that the ECF has a duty towards the young person (I'm no lawyer either, but for me the issue isn't a legal one anyway - 'Naming and shaming' juniors is just not the right thing to do), but it also has a duty towards rank and file chess players in this country who have a right to know that cases like these are being treated appropriately. I'm not saying you should be making any specific comment on this point right now, but as a matter of principle, I would expect some idea of what the outcome is.

More generally - and this is more important than any one particular case - once your review of processes available to the ECF is complete, it seems a good idea that everybody should know what the 'disciplinary' (for want of a better word) process is, in what circumstances it can be invoked, the range of measures available according to 'offence' (ditto) etc.

J

[Andrew Farthing]

I certainly agree that the ECF has a duty towards the young person (I'm no lawyer either, but for me the issue isn't a legal one anyway - 'Naming and shaming' juniors is just not the right thing to do), but it also has a duty towards rank and file chess players in this country who have a right to know that cases like these are being treated appropriately. I'm not saying you should be making any specific comment on this point right now, but as a matter of principle, I would expect some idea of what the outcome is.

More generally - and this is more important than any one particular case - once your review of processes available to the ECF is complete, it seems a good idea that everybody should know what the 'disciplinary' (for want of a better word) process is, in what circumstances it can be invoked, the range of measures available according to 'offence' (ditto) etc.

I have no argument with any of this. I'm not qualified to comment on the legal issues, but I agree anyway that it simply wouldn't be right to name and shame a junior. I also agree with the principle that actions taken against cheating should be publicised in order to deter others.

The proposed code that I mentioned in my first post should cover all of the aspects mentioned and it would of course be a public document.

I hope that it goes without saying that I have no wish to see incidences of cheating in any English chess event. As an active amateur player who competes for the fun of it and doesn't worry about winning prizes - and who believes that this is true for the vast majority of other players - I am also keen to ensure that whatever code we may introduce balances effectiveness in deterring cheating with maintaining a friendly, relaxed environment at amateur chess events. At the professional level, of course, more formal anti-cheating precautions could be expected.

[AustinElliott]

Yes, as Jonathan Bryant says (thanks Jonathan), I meant it as an analogy - it is helpful to see anonymised examples of "what happens" so that:

(i) people can be reassured that any cases that do arise get dealt with, and can therefore have confidence in the process and the sanctions;
(ii) people that might not be clear about the limits of acceptability can see what they are;
(iii) people that might cheat can see what will happen if they get nicked;

- but that doesn't mean either that one should automatically do this with all "real" cases, or that cases that are used as examples should be wholly "real" (as in "details unchanged except for removing names/dates/places").

As Andrew says, if "anonymity" wouldn't really mean anonymity in practise (since the details, though anonymised, would make someone identifiable), then it clearly wouldn't be appropriate to use a case history that way. But one can change details, and use stories / histories from other "jurisdictions". I've written illustrative examples for student misconduct, for instance, based on real incidents but with enough details altered to make them non-specific.

Obviously if cheating is as uncommon as everyone reading here fervently hopes it is, it decreases your scope for using "real life incidents" in this way, again as Andrew already alluded to.

[Roger de Coverly]

Obviously if cheating is as uncommon as everyone reading here fervently hopes it is, it decreases your scope for using "real life incidents" in this way, again as Andrew already alluded to.

For over the board chess, it should be black and white. You don't consult anyone or anything during play. You can get debate around the edges, for example it shouldn't be a problem to have a mobile phone that you've forgotten to switch off provided it's neither seen nor heard. In amateur play, the odd conversation during the game is usually tolerated.

The Feller case demonstrates at least one weakness where players could be accused of cheating even if they weren't. Namely that a non-playing match captain should not have access both to players and computers/phones. The same certainly applies to seconds/trainers and might have to be applied to spectators if you are really paranoid.

[Paul McKeown]

There was also the Willem Moene case too, in the Netherlands. He was banned by the KNSB in 2007 for three years from participation in any official competition for using Pocket Fritz in one specific game, although his rating record made it clear that many games over three seasons were suspicious. He has now returned to competition, so forgiveness remains a human virtue.

However, the ECF should certainly have a policy.

It should be borne in mind that most chess competitions involve the award of financial prizes for performance, so criminal fraud could be thought to be involved in the use of an engine during a game. At some level of prize money it would seem necessary to consider passing the details on to the police. I would have thought that if someone were to pick up £10K by using an engine that that decision would be clear cut, possibly others might disagree. Some day someone is going to try to win the British by using an engine; it's inevitable.

[Sean Hewitt]

criminal fraud could be thought to be involved in the use of an engine during a game.

Alex keeps telling the Birmingham league this in his quest to abolish adjournments.

[Alex Holowczak]

criminal fraud could be thought to be involved in the use of an engine during a game.

Alex keeps telling the Birmingham league this in his quest to abolish adjournments.

Reports of the lengths I would go to to abolish adjournments are an exaggeration.

It's up for discussion again this year, and not even proposed by me. We'll see what happens...

[Paul McKeown]

Sean,

You organise many tournaments, so must have given the subject some thought. What is your thinking regarding penalties for cheating?

[Ben Purton]

Id personally only ban Feller for 1-2 years, but then go right, take his title away, set his rating to 2200 and say "now you have to do it all over again"........Bonne Chance.

[Alan Walton]

Id personally only ban Feller for 1-2 years, but then go right, take his title away, set his rating to 2200 and say "now you have to do it all over again"........Bonne Chance.

I agree removing his titles, but to lower his rating would be a bad idea, would you like to play this person if he was 2200, I wouldn't

The removal of titles means he would have some kind of disgrace, and may limit his conditions for a period of time

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree removing his titles, but to lower his rating would be a bad idea, would you like to play this person if he was 2200, I wouldn't

The result at the Euros suggests his titles were quite legit. Presuming the Olympiad allegations are correct and the suspicions about some other tournaments are justified, the rating on the other hand isn't ( although only by what 50 points?).

But, yes, removing titles so they had to be earned again would be a sanction.

[Sean Hewitt]

You organise many tournaments, so must have given the subject some thought. What is your thinking regarding penalties for cheating?

Not really. If someone is caught cheating in any event (inclduing an e2e4 one) the laws of chess give the arbiter the power to deal with it. That power includes disqualification from the event and I would imagine this would be the penalty applied in most cases.

Beyond that, I don't think it's a matter for the event but rather one for the national (ECF) or international (FIDE) governing body. e2e4 for example would abide by any decision made by such a body.

[Rob Thompson]

You organise many tournaments, so must have given the subject some thought. What is your thinking regarding penalties for cheating?

Not really. If someone is caught cheating in any event (inclduing an e2e4 one) the laws of chess give the arbiter the power to deal with it. That power includes disqualification from the event and I would imagine this would be the penalty applied in most cases.

Beyond that, I don't think it's a matter for the event but rather one for the national (ECF) or international (FIDE) governing body. e2e4 for example would abide by any decision made by such a body.

Would i be right in thinking that you wouldn't accept the entry of anyone who had been found to be cheating at one of your events in the past?

[Martin Crichton]

I heard the story from one of my chess friends last night that a 14 year old junior was caught red handed cheating at a recent e2e4 event... I was told that his opponent became very suspicious of the perfect moves he was playing when he got up from the board every single time that it was his move and that he told the arbiter...(presumably Sean Hewitt) and that the kid was followed into the toilets and found to have the exact duplicate position on a pocket fritz programm.... What happened immediately after that is unknown (ps I will have no problem is publishing the kids name if I find out!)
Apparently the matter was reported to the ECF and the ECF sent the kid a WARNING LETTER!
A nice message indeed (its ok to cheat but 3 strikes and you're out?)
charming.

[Ian Thompson]

Apparently the matter was reported to the ECF and the ECF sent the kid a WARNING LETTER!
A nice message indeed (its ok to cheat but 3 strikes and you're out?)

Not in Australia - do it there and you get a 2 year ban - http://www.auschess.org.au/newsletter/issue/443.html - even if you are only 14 or 15 years old.