Stephen Moss

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely it is obvious that chess as an international sport is fighting for its life now.

Do you mean online, OTB or both? External consultation has always been straightforward online, whilst difficult and requiring subtefuge OTB. Online playing environments that resemble telescreens, Big Arbiter is watching, may be necessary. OTB environments are mostly secure by their very nature and the long standing generally respected prohibition of external assistance during play.

[Brian Valentine]

Before pronouncing on this, I'd first like to know whether Mr Moss's games were rated or unrated and whether against humans or bots....

I do not have access to earlier records, but there are no ECF rated online results for Mr Moss since 1st June 2021. There appears to have been no rated activity in 2021 and 2022.

Brian Valentine
Manager ECF Rating

[Brian Egdell]

Surely it is obvious that chess as an international sport is fighting for its life now.

Do you mean online, OTB or both? External consultation has always been straightforward online, whilst difficult and requiring subtefuge OTB. Online playing environments that resemble telescreens, Big Arbiter is watching, may be necessary. OTB environments are mostly secure by their very nature and the long standing generally respected prohibition of external assistance during play.

Precisely because of what you write, OTB was seen as the saviour of chess as a sport. "Never mind online play and all its cheating, we still have OTB." Now that the integrity of OTB is being seriously brought into question by the world champion's actions and remarks, that get-out has been called into question and international chess is in crisis.

[Roger Lancaster]

Aside from the extraordinary shameless admission in the article, I'm also astonished that the author seems to imply that he thinks the Niemann affair is good for chess because of the extra publicity. He might be writing tongue-in-cheek, but that is not clear and he ought to make it clear. Surely it is obvious that chess as an international sport is fighting for its life now. I don't think anyone was encouraged to take up competitive cycling as a result of the various doping scandals in that sport, and chess is no different in that respect.

I'm inclined to agree while accepting there may be another school of thought following the "All publicity is good publicity" maxim.

[John Upham]

I believe that the theme of SMs article is that of irony.

Knowing Stephen and his IT competence as I do I'd suggest there wasn't a snowflake's chance in hell that he would be able to organise a chess engine to assist him with online chess.

The word "bluff" springs to mind.

[SMoss]

You have a point about my IT competence John, but what I write is true. What I wouldn't be able to do is consult an app in a toilet and remember what I'd just learned by the time I got back to the board

[SMoss]

I am flattered to be the subject of this thread. To have a section devoted to me on the universally admired and always instructive English Chess Forum is not just the apogee of my chess "career" but perhaps of my journalistic "career" as well. To answer one prominent question raised on this thread: the games in question were indeed all random games – nothing of any consequence was at stake. I would never cheat if I was playing in a team competition or OTB. They were online rated games, but (a) who really cares about their online rating?, and (b) playing an opening well did not assist me in winning the games. I don't recall any games where I got a truly decisive advantage out of the opening. Many of the games I went on to lose, and my online ratings remain insipid.

I just wanted to test out openings, especially King's Gambit, which I'd started playing with zero understanding and wanted to get a feel for. I found it helpful to play complex and very messy opening positions with machine assistance and then see how a human opponent would respond. Once we were out of the opening, I would give up the engine and just play.

Someone else here castigated me for saying the Niemann kerfuffle was good for chess. I would say look at the acres of coverage – the numbers this week on the Guardian for our chess pieces (especially Sean Ingle's feature on "rock and roll" chess and the ongoing news stories by Sean and Bryan Armen Graham in the US) have been huge, and my piece is currently the second most read piece on the Guardian Comment site after Marina Hyde, who is a bit of a grandmaster when it comes to generating online traffic. This, by the way, is before the US wakes up. Once chess-curious America springs to life, I am hoping for a slew of new readers for my piece. Now, admittedly, you might say that not all publicity is good publicity, and Malcolm Pein in this month's CHESS Magazine wonders what sponsors will think. But sponsors want attention and media coverage. Most will love it.

As for Hans Niemann, he is well on his way to becoming a global superstar. The sport should hug him close, not be scared of him. Yes, he cheated online when he was young, but he has apologised and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. There is zero evidence he has ever cheated OTB. The onus is very much on Carlsen to produce some, but so far nothing. This is very unfair to Niemann, and Carlsen really does need to put up or shut up.

Chess should now be looking to capitalise on all the attention. Let's get chess back on television for a new Master Game. Imagine the global audience for a televised event with Niemann, Carlsen, Wesley So and all the other elite GMs who seem terrified that Niemann is going to wreck their cosy and lucrative little world. We need Hans!

[Paul Cooksey]

Good to have Stephen's view.

I am definitely not in the all publicity is good publicity camp. I was thinking about the scapegoating of Hans, and in some ways I think whoever thought of the sex toy cheating theory had as much impact as Magnus. It is that which crossed over into the mainstream.

I think the juxtaposition of chess with something entirely different also explains the massively disproportionate media coverage of chess boxing. I know some people view it as an opportunity to get involved in something fun that creates publicity. But I feel laughed at as a chess player.

[SMoss]

Elon Musk upped the ante for sure. But think of Fischer and the amount of negativity around his behaviour. Yet once he – and the cold war – were gone, chess lost its cultural cachet, became just a game that too few people understood. After she read it, the editor I dealt with at the Guardian said "Hmmm, might be time to dust off my chessboard." People are paying attention again. How much mainstream coverage did this year's British championship get? What percentage of the population could name the current British champion? Nigel Short, in his pomp 30 years ago, might ring a bell on a good day. Were there crowds of spectators at Torquay? Did sponsors flock to back the event, revelling in its splendidly reserved and scandal-free atmosphere? Reading the report in CHESS, it felt like the event was a little lacklustre. Anyway, enough from me.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[John Upham]

Good to have Stephen's view.

whoever thought of the sex toy cheating theory

'twas Elon Musk who enjoys stirring the pot as we all know.

[Paul Cooksey]

He picked it up but he was quoting an anonymous account

[Brian Egdell]

[...]To answer one prominent question raised on this thread: the games in question were indeed all random games – nothing of any consequence was at stake. I would never cheat if I was playing in a team competition or OTB. They were online rated games, but (a) who really cares about their online rating?, and (b) playing an opening well did not assist me in winning the games. I don't recall any games where I got a truly decisive advantage out of the opening. Many of the games I went on to lose, and my online ratings remain insipid.
[...]

This was the main issue which caused Justin to start this thread. It is a serious one. The other issue about publicity was a distraction which maybe I should not have raised.

Who really cares about their online rating? I think nearly all online players do. Certainly if they don't play much OTB as well.

Playing an opening well did not assist you in winning? Come on. So many games are decided by an error in the opening.

The issue here is that you seem to have written an article for a respected national news outlet in which you downplay the importance of cheating in online chess. Readers will think: he has cheated, he thinks it doesn't matter, I'll do the same. It's neither a good example to aspiring (online) players, nor a great advertisement for the wider readership of the integrity of chess as a sport. I guess you really think it doesn't matter, but in that opinion you are at serious odds with mainstream thinking which puts cheating, and more crucially the fear of playing a cheating opponent, in the category of the most serious threat to the online game.

[JustinHorton]

I am flattered to be the subject of this thread. To have a section devoted to me on the universally admired and always instructive English Chess Forum is not just the apogee of my chess "career" but perhaps of my journalistic "career" as well.

Well that's put us all in our places

They were online rated games, but (a) who really cares about their online rating

Fantastic stuff, Stephen, amazing

[JustinHorton]

I believe that the theme of SMs article is that of irony.

Knowing Stephen and his IT competence as I do I'd suggest there wasn't a snowflake's chance in hell that he would be able to organise a chess engine to assist him with online chess.

The word "bluff" springs to mind.

Or not