Nigel Short is on the mend

[NickFaulks]

I've read that comment several times and I still can't decide if the inference is that the kid was cheating.

I think it isn't.

[David Williams]

I've read that comment several times and I still can't decide if the inference is that the kid was cheating.

I think it isn't.

I can understand playing on in a totally lost position against someone you think is a much poorer player than you, but that's not the reason given. If you are going to play on in the hope that someone's phone will ring it can only be because you suspect strongly that he has one on him, and it is switched on. Or you would never resign against anyone, ever.

[Steven DuCharme]

Aren't all combatants forbidden to have a phone?

[Geoff Chandler]

I've read that comment several times and I still can't decide if the inference is that the kid was cheating.

Hi David,

Nigel's opponent in round 2 played in round 3 ( a draw) so if he had been 'at it' then I'm pretty sure he would
not have been allowed to carry on. His mobile really did go off. Unlucky, but those are the rules.

On entry forms there is a space for mobile numbers. If I was an arbiter I would sit and dial these numbers
at random whilst the games were going on to see who I could catch. Soon word would get out and I'd never
have to announce before each round. 'Please turn off your mobiles.'

[Roger Lancaster]

I've read that comment several times and I still can't decide if the inference is that the kid was cheating.

Hi David,

Nigel's opponent in round 2 played in round 3 ( a draw) so if he had been 'at it' then I'm pretty sure he would
not have been allowed to carry on. His mobile really did go off. Unlucky, but those are the rules.

On entry forms there is a space for mobile numbers. If I was an arbiter I would sit and dial these numbers
at random whilst the games were going on to see who I could catch. Soon word would get out and I'd never
have to announce before each round. 'Please turn off your mobiles.'

LOL, if arbiters followed your procedure I suspect they would find quite a few 'on' but they'd then have to scurry around the playing area listening for sounds - very often in vain as the mobiles, while 'on', had been left in players' cars or hotel rooms. I suspect they already have enough to do.

[David Williams]

I can only say that if I had been that kid I would have been pretty upset at the comment. It's not hard to see the implication, intended or not. And I may not be the only one, because Nigel Short's Facebook page now reads.

"Yesterday I was completely outplayed by this young Italian boy, rated just 1966 (a lucky number for Englishmen). However the photo doesn't show the most important detail - his bag, which contained a mobile phone, which went off during play, and which caused him to be immediately forfeited in a totally winning position."

[Matt Mackenzie]

Yes, that makes it pretty obvious IMO - the implication is clear that he did not win "fairly".

[NickFaulks]

the implication is clear that he did not win "fairly".

I thought the exact opposite. One thing which is entirely clear is that if Nigel believed that he was clarifying his view, then he failed.

[Reg Clucas]

I didn't infer a cheating accusation in Nigel's original post. I'm sure it was simply meant as a joke.

[Chris Goodall]

It sounds like Short is mended.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I agree with Reg, Nigel was openly saying he was busted, and his only hope was a slice of luck, which he got.

I had a CC game recently, which looked quite level, although the opponent was short of time. I played on as I thought I might win on time if his computer crashed and he couldn't get it repaired quickly. I wasn't going to send him viruses (computer or airborne) to try and win...

[David Williams]

https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 022/2/1/10

On reflection. I wonder how many members of this forum would expect Nigel Short to resign a game against them in that final position? How many would take a draw on the spot if he offered it? It's all very well finding the right moves in the tactics, but actually getting it over the line against someone vastly stronger than you is a different kettle of fish. And if the phone was actually in his bag, he couldn't have been using it to cheat.

So I think you have to take the first post as an ill-judged joke, and not helped by referring to his opponent as a kid, and the feigned ignorance of grades as low as 1966. So what to do about it? If you apologise for any unintended implication that there was cheating going on, you alert people to the possibility and just end up fuelling speculation that might never have existed. Or you can reword the original comment, removing the 'joke', and leave it at that. If he'd said that in the first place I for one wouldn't have given it a second glance.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Or you could take it as saying, "I was completely lost, and was very lucky to get away with it", and regard it as a compliment.

[JustinHorton]

Of course one way to have it taken that way would be to write it that way

[Chris Rice]

There was nothing that Nigel said that wasn't factually true and he didn't ask for the kid to be searched or anything during the game but clearly he felt it was unusual for a junior of that grade to be playing as well as he did and therefore the clear implication, particularly with the phone going off, was that his opponent could have been cheating.

So was he? I've had a look at the game on Chess Bomb (see below) and after White's 12th move Stockfish evaluates the position as +0.5 better for Black. White's next 11 moves were all the first choice of Stockfish and altogether he committed three minor inaccuracies and no blunders according to the engine. Of course, as we all know that's just circumstantial evidence. Were any of his moves that suspicious? Perhaps 17 Qd4 but then again there are fairly logical reasons for playing that move.

On his FIDE profile before the pandemic he has played 342 rated games, more than enough to know to switch your mobile phone off or not bring it in at all but then again people do forget and besides if he was using it he would have had to go into his bag multiple times which is just not practical. Those players who have been caught cheating nearly always have the phone on their person so they can slip away to the toilets to look at it unobserved.

So on the evidence it looks like its been a tragedy for the kid who was on the verge of the win of his life. He seems to have recovered well enough though, winning against a 2180 in Round 3 before losing to a 2251 in Round 4 and is currently +38 Elo.

Candian, Lorenzo (ITA) - Short, Nigel D (ENG)

0-1

Vergani Cup 2022 round 02

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 h6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 cxd4 6. cxd4 dxe4 7. Nxe4 Bb4+ 8. Bd2 Qxd4 9. Bc3 Nc6 10. Nf3 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qd8 12. Bb5 Nf6 13. Bxc6+ bxc6 14. Nd6+ Ke7 15. Ne5 Bd7 16. Ndxf7 Qc7 17. Qd4 c5 18. Qf4 Rhc8 19. Rd1 Be8 20. Nd6 Nd5 21. Nxc8+ Rxc8 22. Qg3 Kf8 23. O-O Kg8 24. c4 Ne7 25. Rfe1 Nf5 26. Qa3 Nd4 27. Qh3 Bf7 0-1