Cheating at Chess

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Cheating at Chess

    'Twould appear Arcangelo Ricciardi was combining both new and old (Samuel Morse, 1791-1872) technologies ):

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34184940

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Cheating at Chess

      Originally posted by Kenneth Regan View Post
      Of all the possible aspects I could have led off with, the one I chose to mandate at top level is that there shall be a distinction between a screening test and a full test.
      Very good point.

      When you play a lot of chess, it's almost inevitable that one of your games will end up matching what Houdini would have done. The problem is when you do it 3-4-5 times in a row... against much stronger opposition... while wearing very large shoes.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Cheating at Chess

        Cheating at Chess

        September 16, 2015

        Chessbase reports:

        This year international media such as the BBC and the Telegraph reported the Imperia Chess Festival in Italy. Sadly, the reason was a case of alleged cheating.

        The player suspected of foul play is Arcangelo Ricciardi from Italy who is 37 years old and has a rating of 1829. After seven rounds he was leading the tournament with 6.0/7 and had aroused the suspicion of International Arbiter Jean Coqueraut.

        "In chess, performances like this are impossible", the arbiter told the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

        Coqueraut had watched Ricciardi closely and noticed that the Italian behaved in a suspicious way. As the arbiter observed, Ricciardi did not once get up during the game and constantly had his hand under his armpit. He was also "batting his eyelids in the most unnatural way". Finally, the arbiter decided to check Ricciardi with a metal detector and it turned out that the player had a camera hidden in a pendant around his neck. The camera was connected to a small box under his armpit.

        Ricciardi claimed that the pendant was a "lucky charm" but the organisers decided to ban him from the tournament and declared all his games as lost by default because of the forbidden electronic equipment he had on him.

        They assumed that Ricciardi's equipment was used to transmit moves to someone with a chess computer who used Morse code to transmit the computer moves back to the player. Arbiter Coqueraut suspected that Ricciardi "was deciphering signals in Morse code" when he blinked.

        http://en.chessbase.com/post/another-case-of-cheating

        The Games, Rounds 1 to 6

        57th Imperia, Round 1, Aug. 30, 2015
        Ferrari, Nicola (1979) - Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829)
        A58 Benko Gambit Accepted

        1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 e6 6.Nc3 Nxa6 7.e4 Bb7 8.Nf3 exd5 9.exd5 Bd6 10.Be2 O-O 11.O-O Re8 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.Bg3 Qb6 15.Qd2 Bxg3 16.fxg3 Ne4 17.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Kh1 Nb4 19.a3 Rae8 20.Rfe1 Nxd5 21.Bd3 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 23.Nxe1 Nf6 24.h4 gxh4 25.gxh4 Qe6 26.Qf2 Ng4 27.Qg3 f5 28.Nf3 f4 29.Qxf4 Bxf3 30.Qxf3 Qe1+ 31.Bf1 Qxh4+ 0-1

        57th Imperia, Round 2, Aug. 31, 2015
        Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829) – Nastro, Federico (2029)
        C68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation, Alapin Gambit

        1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 10.d4 Bd6 11.Kf1 Nf4 12.hxg4 hxg4 13.Ng1 g3 14.Ndf3 gxf2 15.Kxf2 O-O-O 16.Bxf4 Qxf4 17.Qc1 exd4 18.e5 Qxc1 19.Raxc1 Bc5 20.Kf1 Rhe8 21.Rcd1 Ba7 22.Nh3 c5 23.Nf4 b5 24.e6 fxe6 25.Nxe6 Rd7 26.Nf4 Rh8 27.Kf2 c4 28.Ne5 d3+ 29.Kg3 g5 30.Nfg6 Rhd8 31.Nxd7 Rxd7 32.cxd3 cxd3 33.Ne5 d2 34.Re2 Re7 35.Rdxd2 Kb7 36.Kg4 Re8 37.Kxg5 Kc8 38.g4 1-0

        57 Imperia, Round 3, Sept. 1, 2015
        Zach, Andreas (2326) – Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829)
        A45 Trompovsky Attack

        1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.f3 Qa5+ 5.c3 Nf6 6.d5 Qb6 7.b3 e6 8.e4 exd5 9.exd5 Bd6 10.Be3 O-O 11.Bc4 Re8 12.Kf2 Qa5 13.a4 Na6 14.Ne2 b5 15.Bxb5 Nc7 16.c4 Nxb5 17.cxb5 Qd8 18.Nec3 Rxe3 19.Kxe3 Be5 20.Re1 Bd4+ 21.Kd3 Bb7 22.Ra2 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Nc3 Bxc3 25.Kxc3 Qf6+ 26.Kc2 Qg6+ 27.Kc1 Be6 28.Rd2 Qf6 29.Qc2 Qa1+ 30.Qb1 Qc3+ 31.Qc2 Qa1+ 32.Qb1 Qc3+ 33.Qc2 Qa1+ 1/2-1/2

        57th Imperia, Round 4, Sept. 2, 2015
        Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829) – Legky, Nikolay, A. (2407)
        C42 Petrov’s Defence

        1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Be2 d5 6.O-O Qd8 7.Re1 Be7 8.d3 Nf6 9.Nc3 O-O 10.d4 c6 11.Bf4 Bf5 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nbd7 14.Re2 Bb4 15.Nd1 Nh5 16.Bg3 Nxg3 17.hxg3 g6 18.Ne3 Re8 19.c3 Bf8 20.Rae1 Nf6 21.Ng4 Rxe2 22.Nxf6+ Qxf6 23.Qxe2 Rd8 24.g4 Rd7 25.g5 Qd6 26.Ne5 Re7 27.Qd2 Bg7 28.Nd3 Qd8 29.Rxe7 Qxe7 30.f3 f6 31.gxf6 Bxf6 32.Kf2 Kg7 33.Nc5 b6 34.Nd3 Qd6 35.f4 Qe6 36.Qe2 Kf7 37.Qf3 h5 38.Ne5+ Kg7 39.b3 c5 40.g3 Be7 41.Qd3 Bd6 42.Qa6 Bxe5 43.dxe5 Qd7 44.Qd3 Kf7 45.Qf3 a5 46.Qd3 Qc6 47.f5 Kg7 48.Qf3 gxf5 49.c4 Qe6 50.Qxd5 Qg6 51.Qd7+ Kg8 52.e6 f4 53.Qd8+ Kg7 54.Qe7+ Kh6 55.gxf4 Qc2+ 56.Ke3 Qc3+ 57.Ke4 Qe1+ 58.Kf5 h4 59.Qf6+ Kh7 60.Qf7+ Kh8 61.Kg6 Qg3+ 62.Kh6 Qg8 63.Qf6+ 1-0

        57th Imperia, Round 5, Sept. 2, 2015
        Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829) – Mazur, Stefan (2378)
        C68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation

        1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Ne7 6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Qh5 g6 8.Nf3 Qxe4 9.Qa5 Qf4 10.d3 Qd6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 12.g4 Nd5 13.Nc4 Qf6 14.Bg5 Qg7 15.gxf5 gxf5 16.Rae1+ Kd7 17.Re5 b5 18.Kh1 f6 19.Rxd5+ cxd5 20.Bf4 Kc6 21.Rg1 Qe7 22.Re1 Qd8 23.Nd4+ Kb7 24.Re8 Bb4 25.Rxd8 Bxa5 26.Nxa5+ Kb6 27.Rd7 Kxa5 28.Bxc7+ Ka4 29.Bd6 b4 30.Rb7 a5 31.Nb5 1-0

        57th Imperia, Round 6, Sept. 3, 2015
        Passerotti, Pierluigi (2264) – Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829)
        A02 Bird’s Opening

        1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 d5 6.O-O Bg7 7.c3 O-O 8.Qe1 Qb6 9.Kh1 Re8 10.Na3 e5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.fxe5 Rxe5 13.Bf4 Rh5 14.Qd2 Bh3 15.Bxh3 Rxh3 16.Rf2 Re8 17.Rg2 h6 18.Be3 Ng4 19.Bg1 Qc6 20.Qf4 h5 21.Rf1 Qd7 22.Nc2 Bh6 23.Qf3 Re5 24.e3 h4 25.d4 Rh5 26.dxc5 Nxh2 27.Bxh2 hxg3 28.Rxg3 Rxh2+ 29.Kg1 Qf5 30.Re1 Qxc2 0-1

        A wonderful variety of openings!
        Last edited by Wayne Komer; Wednesday, 16th September, 2015, 04:02 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Cheating at Chess

          Originally posted by Wayne Komer View Post
          Cheating at Chess

          September 16, 2015

          Chessbase reports:

          This year international media such as the BBC and the Telegraph reported the Imperia Chess Festival in Italy. Sadly, the reason was a case of alleged cheating.

          The player suspected of foul play is Arcangelo Ricciardi from Italy who is 37 years old and has a rating of 1829. After seven rounds he was leading the tournament with 6.0/7 and had aroused the suspicion of International Arbiter Jean Coqueraut.

          "In chess, performances like this are impossible", the arbiter told the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

          Coqueraut had watched Ricciardi closely and noticed that the Italian behaved in a suspicious way. As the arbiter observed, Ricciardi did not once get up during the game and constantly had his hand under his armpit. He was also "batting his eyelids in the most unnatural way". Finally, the arbiter decided to check Ricciardi with a metal detector and it turned out that the player had a camera hidden in a pendant around his neck. The camera was connected to a small box under his armpit.

          Ricciardi claimed that the pendant was a "lucky charm" but the organisers decided to ban him from the tournament and declared all his games as lost by default because of the forbidden electronic equipment he had on him.

          They assumed that Ricciardi's equipment was used to transmit moves to someone with a chess computer who used Morse code to transmit the computer moves back to the player. Arbiter Coqueraut suspected that Ricciardi "was deciphering signals in Morse code" when he blinked.

          http://en.chessbase.com/post/another-case-of-cheating

          The Games, Rounds 1 to 6


          57th Imperia, Round 4, Sept. 2, 2015
          Ricciardi, Arcangelo (1829) – Legky, Nikolay, A. (2407)
          C42 Petrov’s Defence

          1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Be2 d5 6.O-O Qd8 7.Re1 Be7 8.d3 Nf6 9.Nc3 O-O 10.d4 c6 11.Bf4 Bf5 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nbd7 14.Re2 Bb4 15.Nd1 Nh5 16.Bg3 Nxg3 17.hxg3 g6 18.Ne3 Re8 19.c3 Bf8 20.Rae1 Nf6 21.Ng4 Rxe2 22.Nxf6+ Qxf6 23.Qxe2 Rd8 24.g4 Rd7 25.g5 Qd6 26.Ne5 Re7 27.Qd2 Bg7 28.Nd3 Qd8 29.Rxe7 Qxe7 30.f3 f6 31.gxf6 Bxf6 32.Kf2 Kg7 33.Nc5 b6 34.Nd3 Qd6 35.f4 Qe6 36.Qe2 Kf7 37.Qf3 h5 38.Ne5+ Kg7 39.b3 c5 40.g3 Be7 41.Qd3 Bd6 42.Qa6 Bxe5 43.dxe5 Qd7 44.Qd3 Kf7 45.Qf3 a5 46.Qd3 Qc6 47.f5 Kg7 48.Qf3 gxf5 49.c4 Qe6 50.Qxd5 Qg6 51.Qd7+ Kg8 52.e6 f4 53.Qd8+ Kg7 54.Qe7+ Kh6 55.gxf4 Qc2+ 56.Ke3 Qc3+ 57.Ke4 Qe1+ 58.Kf5 h4 59.Qf6+ Kh7 60.Qf7+ Kh8 61.Kg6 Qg3+ 62.Kh6 Qg8 63.Qf6+ 1-0



          A wonderful variety of openings!
          I took a quick look at the round four game. The opening - by Black! - looked pretty weird and I didn't understand why Black couldn't trade Qs at move 50. Is trading somehow bad? If I had been Black in that game (not withstanding the opponent's strange behaviour) I would not have guessed he was using a computer.
          Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Wednesday, 16th September, 2015, 03:25 PM.
          "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Cheating at Chess

            Cheating at Chess

            Evidently the best line for Black is 50...Qxd5 51.cxd5 b5 52.e6 Kf6 53.Ke3 Ke7 54.Kf4 Kf6 55.Ke3 . Everything else appears to lose.

            This really is a pawn ending to spend some time on.

            I think it is important to look at the perp’s games in conjunction with any other evidence you have of cheating!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Cheating at Chess

              Cheating at Chess

              April 28, 2016

              There is a fascinating video, which presents the circumstantial evidence for Bulgarian player Radi Danov cheating at chess.

              I actually listened to the whole thing, all 37 minutes, which describes how the narrator believes that an older analytical engine was used to win and draw tournament games so that Danov’s rating would steadily rise.

              The article can be seen at:

              http://en.chessbase.com/post/new-cas...ating-in-chess

              and is entitled New Case of Cheating in Chess? By Valeri Lilov.

              It is convincing in its conclusions but nothing is said as to how the moves are inputted to the engine and how they are received by the player to be acted upon.

              I am in complete agreement with Roger de Coverly who wrote this:

              It remains my belief that you need to detect the method of inputting the moves to the engine and receiving suggested replies back, before throwing accusations around. In many cases, the circumstantial evidence is obvious enough, that a player had a device in their possession or hidden somewhere to which they had access and periodically appeared to retire to consult it. They may only have been reading their emails or checking the football scores, but such behaviour during a game is now outlawed.

              The article raises the question as to whether computer matching should also test use engines from twenty or twenty five years ago. Something I've wondered is whether a test using a modern engine can detect whether a game played by an old engine was computer or human.

              Seizing on individual moves as engine inspired may be correct, but doesn't prove cheating as pre game preparation can reach similar positions even if the position itself hasn't appeared in published analysis or an actual game.

              http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic....179485#p179485

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Cheating at Chess

                Originally posted by Wayne Komer View Post
                Cheating at Chess

                April 28, 2016
                It is convincing in its conclusions ....
                really?

                Lets see:

                he asks if it is reasonable that somebody plays well in one game and then later in the tournament plays badly against someone. - yeah, it's happened to me more times than I can count.

                he asks if it is reasonable that somebody misunderstands a theme like Fischer's Nh5 in a Benoni and plays the idea in a position in which it doesn't work. - yeah, its happened to me more times than I can count.

                he asks if it is reasonable that somebody can play quickly and well. yeah - I understand Anand in his youth used to do that. Fortunately it was before computers were strong enough that he could be accused of cheating.

                he suggests that suddenly playing at a higher level is suspicious and then suggests that gradually improving to a higher level is also suspicious. Pretty much covers all the bases.

                And then, there is the facile statement that he is not suggesting that this particular player is cheating. BS. If you produce a video that is entirely about cheating in a particular way and then spend considerable time discussing a particular player's games as an example, yes you are accusing someone of being a cheat.

                Does he have any evidence to back him up? Nothing - no suspicious behaviour, no computer matching of moves, bupkis, nada, zilch.

                It was irresponsible of ChessBase to publish such an accusation without a scintilla of evidence.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Cheating at Chess

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  really? ...

                  It was irresponsible of ChessBase to publish such an accusation without a scintilla of evidence.
                  I wouldn't say there was no evidence, but it was extremely scanty, imo. No way ChessBase should have published this. There are a bunch of alternate explanations but here's one possibility: maybe Mr. Danov is/was taking prescription medication that made his play erratic.
                  "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                    I wouldn't say there was no evidence, but it was extremely scanty, imo. No way ChessBase should have published this. There are a bunch of alternate explanations but here's one possibility: maybe Mr. Danov is/was taking prescription medication that made his play erratic.
                    I think the evidence is overwelming after you read this: "In the fourth round of the Dupnitsa Memorial Lyuben Konstantino tournament Radi Danov beat Ivaylo Enchev. The arbiters asked to check Danov's shoes, but the player refused, whereupon the result of the game was changed in favor of Enchev, and Danov was expelled from the tournament – which he accepted, rather than allow the checking of his shoes!"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                      Originally posted by Louis Morin View Post
                      I think the evidence is overwelming after you read this: "In the fourth round of the Dupnitsa Memorial Lyuben Konstantino tournament Radi Danov beat Ivaylo Enchev. The arbiters asked to check Danov's shoes, but the player refused, whereupon the result of the game was changed in favor of Enchev, and Danov was expelled from the tournament – which he accepted, rather than allow the checking of his shoes!"
                      I agree that the thing with the shoes is suspicious, but that isn't the evidence that Lilov presents. Instead, he presents a bunch of speculation, lots of talk about patterns. Ones he has to constantly adjust to fit his narrative. He really sounds like a guy who already had made up his mind before doing his investigation.

                      BTW, Danov has an indirect tie-in w/Ivanov:

                      http://en.chessbase.com/post/experts...ormance-060613

                      From the comment section (emphasis mine):

                      "Peter Jameson
                      This article alleging that Ivanov is a cheat provides no real evidence. How does he cheat even in rapid games watched by a horde of observers? And what are we to make of the two other amazing players in the table displayed after nine rounds? Lyubomir Danov ranked 16th initially sits in seventh place above many titled players! Even more dramatic is Radi Danov who sits in sixth place though initially seeded 28th! And above many titled players. His performance is remarkable too, possibly puts Ivanov in the shade! And both of these players with very lowly ratings. So is your correspondent Alex Karaivanov now demanding an investigation of these players too? If not why not? Or has Alex Karaivanov shot himself in both feet?"
                      "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                        Originally posted by Louis Morin View Post
                        I think the evidence is overwelming after you read this: "In the fourth round of the Dupnitsa Memorial Lyuben Konstantino tournament Radi Danov beat Ivaylo Enchev. The arbiters asked to check Danov's shoes, but the player refused, whereupon the result of the game was changed in favor of Enchev, and Danov was expelled from the tournament – which he accepted, rather than allow the checking of his shoes!"
                        I would say that is not probative. That kind of refusal is not considered probative in a court of law for refusing to let a policeman to search you, your car, or your house. Why would it be probative in a chess court? If I were to be in that situation, I too would refuse to take off my shoes unless I perhaps had the opportunity to throw them at the head of the accuser.

                        The problem is, if I take off my shoes the accuser is not then going to say " Oh I guess I was wrong - you are innocent and I withdraw my accusations completely". He's going to say " well he must have something hidden under his shirt or in his pants" and if I do a full Monty, "he must have an accomplice".

                        Under the circumstances there is no upside to agreeing to take off one's shoes.
                        Last edited by Roger Patterson; Thursday, 28th April, 2016, 11:43 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                          Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                          I would say that is not probative. That kind of refusal is not considered probative in a court of law for refusing to let a policeman to search you, your car, or your house. Why would it be probative in a chess court? If I were to be in that situation, I too would refuse to take off my shoes unless I perhaps had the opportunity to throw them at the head of the accuser.

                          The problem is, if I take off my shoes the accuser is not then going to say " Oh I guess I was wrong - you are innocent and I withdraw my accusations completely". He's going to say " well he must have something hidden under his shirt or in his pants" and if I do a full Monty, "he must have an accomplice".

                          Under the circumstances there is no upside to agreeing to take off one's shoes.
                          The point is not about refusing any kind of body search, even something as trivial as removing your shoes. The fact is, the guy agreed to be expelled from the tournament. Without even trying to argue in any way about the whole process.

                          If you're not guilty of anything, you contest both the shoe inspection AND the tournament disqualification. Nodding at the accuser and saying 'I'm sorry' just won't cut it. You will look guilty no matter what.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re : Re: Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                            Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                            And what are we to make of the two other amazing players in the table displayed after nine rounds? Lyubomir Danov ranked 16th initially sits in seventh place above many titled players! Even more dramatic is Radi Danov who sits in sixth place though initially seeded 28th! And above many titled players. His performance is remarkable too, possibly puts Ivanov in the shade! And both of these players with very lowly ratings.
                            This suggests that Borislav Ivanov, Luybomir Danov and Radi Danov were cheating at the same time... they were presumably in the same team of cheaters, with several accomplices... full scale organized cheating... This is really scary, and should be addressed seriously by the authorities.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Cheating at Chess

                              Cheating at Chess

                              May 8, 2017

                              What if a player in a tournament says another player is cheating and the accusation turns out to be unfounded?

                              Readers might remember that about this time of year in 2015 the European Women’s Championship was taking place in Chavki, Georgia.

                              After seven rounds, the Romanian player Mihaela Sandu was standing second with 6.0 points. See posts nos. 31 and 32 in this thread.

                              She had started with 5/5. When the transmission of a game was delayed, she lost and when it wasn’t, she won. Two letters were signed by the participants implying that she was cheating. When the tournament finished, she was not in the top finishers, she was 26th.
                              _______

                              The FIDE Ethics Commission has been meeting in Madrid and took up this case along with others.

                              http://www.fide.com/component/conten...in-madrid.html

                              The texts of the two letters signed by participants and the answer from the organizer are given verbatim at:

                              http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-et...ban-to-zhukova

                              Part of what the organizer wrote:

                              During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.

                              The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player (11.3 FIDE Law of Chess).

                              So if you suspect, during the play, that your opponent is cheating you may announce this to the arbiter. Arbiter should observe your opponent and may decide to control him. But in case of a false accusation you may be penalized by the arbiter according to the Article 12.2 and 12.9 of the Laws of Chess (from warning to expulsion from the competition).

                              Albert Silver who wrote this article said that at the time:

                              Needless to say, this led to a flurry of analysis by players, grandmasters, and experts. The author of these lines also checked and saw nothing out of the ordinary other than a large number of fatal mistakes by her opponents. In other words, the accusers would find the culprit for their losses by looking in the mirror.
                              ________

                              The letter from the FEC to Ms Sandu on April 24, 2017:

                              FIDE ETHICS COMMISSION

                              24 April 2017

                              To: The Complainant, Ms. Mihaela Sandu

                              And to: The Respondents

                              The provisional finding of the Ethics Commission is as follows:

                              Respondents 1-15 are all guilty of a breach of art. 2.2.11 of the FIDE Code of Ethics for making reckless and unjustified accusations of cheating against WGM Michaela Sandu, thereby injuring and discrediting her reputation as a honest player.

                              The Ethics Commission intends to impose the following sanctions:

                              Respondent no. 1:

                              Ms Natalia Zhukova

                              A three (3) month ban from playing chess in any tournament. The sanction is wholly suspended for a period of one (1) year, on the condition that she is not found guilty of making reckless or unjustified accusations of cheating against any other chess player during the period of suspension.

                              Respondents no. 2-10:

                              Ms Alisa Galliamova
                              Ms Lanita Stetsko
                              Ms Anastasia Bodnaruk
                              Ms Dina Belenkaya
                              Ms Jovana Rapport (nee Vojinova)
                              Ms Svetlana Matveeva
                              Ms Marina Guseva
                              Ms Anna Tskhadadze
                              Ms Tatiana Ivanova

                              A reprimand (severe expression of disapproval and warning of consequences if conduct is repeated)

                              Respondents no. 11-15:

                              Ms Natassia Ziaziulkina
                              Ms Anastasia Savina
                              Ms Evgenija Ovod
                              Ms Melia Salome
                              Ms Ekaterina Kovalevskaya

                              A warming (caution to avoid a repeat of the same conduct).

                              The making of reckless and unjustified accusations of cheating is a serious offence which will normally attract severe punishment. In the present case the proposed sanctions were mitigated, amongst other things, by the inappropriate handling of the situation by the officials as well as the long time delay (relating to the formal establishment of the ACC) since the happening of the incident.

                              The differentiation between the sanctions proposed for the three groups of players is justified by the fact that Respondent no. 1 played a leading role in obtaining the signatures of the other players. Respondents no. 2-10 did not show remorse for their actions by withdrawing their signatures or giving an apology, whereas Respondents no. 11-15 did show the necessary remorse by withdrawing their signatures or apologizing for their conduct.

                              Note: The findings are subject to confirmation on May 10, subject to challenge prior, upon which the sanctions will be made official.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Cheating at Chess, the FIDE ACC Rules

                                Everybody should know the Rules, not just the IA, even though the latter can register for a lecture on the subject of Anti-Cheating as I did.

                                Section 3 - Complaints
                                Handling complaints is a sensitive phase of the anti-cheating effort . The ACC acknowledges that a proliferation of complaints from players is not desirable . In order that complaints are grounded on direct evidence rather than hearsay, the ACC undertakes to formulate requirements that must be met by anyone submitting an allegation of breach of AC regulations . This applies both for the in-tournament and the post-tournament complaint procedures itemized here described below, while the ACC also proposes that a sanction system be put in place to deter serial submission of unfounded accusations . For these reasons, during a tournament the arbiter shall have a duty to require submission of a written record of each and every allegation of breach of AC regulations by a FIDE-rated player. Therefore, a person cannot “informally” tell an arbiter that they suspect that another player is in breach of AC regulations . This also applies to any other person having a FIDE Identity Number. Instead, a formal complaint must be filed . All written complaints and any written communications related to such complaint(s) shall be duly recorded by the arbiter and subsequently presented to the ACC .

                                Part A: In-Tournament Complaints
                                Potential breaches may be observed during play directly by a tournament arbiter. They can also be reported to the arbiter by a player, a spectator or, indeed, the ACC (e .g ., based on statistical analysis or on-site inspection) .If the report is based on possible breaches of Article 11 .2 or 11 .3a, then the arbiter shall investigate the breach in the usual manner, with reference to Article 12 .9 for possible penalties .If the complaint is specifically about possible breach of AC regulations, then the Chief Arbiter shall, in the first place, identify the complainant and invite him/her to fill out a Complaint Form (Appendix A) . The Chief Arbiter shall inform the complainant about the penalty for filing a false complaint . The complainant shall provide to the arbiter the reasons why the complaint is being made, and shall sign the form on completion . However, if the complainant is tense, the arbiter shall record the name of the complainant and ask for his/her signature, and only at a later time require him/her to fill in the form, but no later than the end of the round . If the complainant fails to fill out the Complaint Form by the aforementioned deadline, then the complainant can receive a warning by the Chief Arbiter, whereupon his name will be added to a special “Warning database” maintained by the ACC.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X