Cheating

[Larry Bevand]

A Canadian youngster was recently caught cheating at the North American Junior Championship in North Carolina. This may have made news somewhere, but I have not seen it. I have no idea what the organizers have decided with regards to banning or other punishment for this behaviour. Nor have we (the Chess'n Math Association) been officially notified of this....not sure if the CFC or the FQE have been notified nor what they intend to do...perhaps they can post something here.

The Canadian Chess Challenge is the pride and joy of the Chess'n Math Association. At our online finals this year, we caught a player cheating and suspended this person for 1 year. Suspensions are less for less important events.

Do you think the CFC or the FQE respected our ban or did they simply say that they would follow this individual in future events?

For me, it is hard to think of collaboration between various chess organizations in this country when we can't even agree on simple things like this...just saying...

For the record, if the Chess'n Math Association (CMA) is informed of a player being banned for cheating by any reliable organization, we will respect that ban....and we want organizers to inform us of what transpired etc..

Cheating is a serious matter!

When will we treat it that way?

Larry

[Erik Malmsten]

Larry, is there a published list of caught cheaters? Something that is circulated among Arbiters? An asterisk next to their name on the various rating pages? The CFC used to have no rating next to those who didn't pay membership (such as bounced cheques). In the cma magazine is there a framed portrait picture with the title Cheater of the Month Award?

[Vlad Drkulec]

We are aware of the situation. We have received a detailed report from the organizer on or around December 23rd when CFC youth coordinator Christina Tao asked about the situation. The situation has been reported to FIDE and the USCF and will be a subject for discussion at the next meeting of the CFC board of directors in early January. I attempted to communicate with the FQE by telephone about the situation but they may be taking a few days off due to the holidays or perhaps COVID. The player is entitled to due process. We do have to follow our discipline rules which lay out the procedures that must apply. The player is under the age of 18. It is unlikely that we will make any public announcements on this situation. The laws of the U.S. and the rules of FIDE may be different from the laws that we operate under in Quebec and Canada and there may be more information forthcoming from them.

We do take allegations of cheating seriously but we do have rules that we have to follow and laws that we have to adhere to.

[Vlad Drkulec]

In the common-law provinces (all provinces except Québec), truth is an absolute defence. If the defamatory material can be shown to be substantially true, the defendant will not be held liable, even if the defendant published the material in order to harm the person defamed. In Québec, truth is only a defence if the material is in the public interest and there is no malice.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....cle/defamation

I do recall reading a case in Quebec where a true statement was deemed defamatory because it harmed the reputation of a lawyer. The lawyer was awarded damages in the $200,000 range.

[Hugh Brodie]

How did the player cheat? How was the player caught?

There were only four Canadians in the event(s), so unless the cheater's scores were removed (or the flag next to the player's name is wrong), we should soon know who it was. All the Canadians are shown as having played all their games, so was the cheating claimed/discovered after the tournament (or was there no penalty at the time)?

[Hans Jung]

A Canadian youngster was recently caught cheating at the North American Junior Championship in North Carolina. This may have made news somewhere, but I have not seen it. I have no idea what the organizers have decided with regards to banning or other punishment for this behaviour. Nor have we (the Chess'n Math Association) been officially notified of this....not sure if the CFC or the FQE have been notified nor what they intend to do...perhaps they can post something here.

The Canadian Chess Challenge is the pride and joy of the Chess'n Math Association. At our online finals this year, we caught a player cheating and suspended this person for 1 year. Suspensions are less for less important events.

Do you think the CFC or the FQE respected our ban or did they simply say that they would follow this individual in future events?

For me, it is hard to think of collaboration between various chess organizations in this country when we can't even agree on simple things like this...just saying...

For the record, if the Chess'n Math Association (CMA) is informed of a player being banned for cheating by any reliable organization, we will respect that ban....and we want organizers to inform us of what transpired etc..

Cheating is a serious matter!

When will we treat it that way?

Larry

I agree with you Larry - cheating is a serious matter and its not going away. Notice has to be given and all organizations in chess should pay attention. Measures taken by one orgnization should be supported and followed up by others.

[Vlad Drkulec]

How did the player cheat? How was the player caught?

There were only four Canadians in the event(s), so unless the cheater's scores were removed (or the flag next to the player's name is wrong), we should soon know who it was. All the Canadians are shown as having played all their games, so was the cheating claimed/discovered after the tournament (or was there no penalty at the time)?

The player has been removed from the tournament. I don't think their wins appear in the crosstable. Anyone who played all the games was not the individual removed from the tournament. The player completed four games and was confronted in game five.

The suspended player had electronic equipment. He was wearing a winter hat and the required mask in the tournament room and behaving suspiciously. When the player was searched, bluetooth headphones and a phone and computer on do not disturb mode were found. The explanations offered did not match the evidence.

[Neil Frarey]

.

Suspensions are less for less important events.

Cheating is a serious matter!

When will we treat it that way?

Larry

So cheating is less serious for less serious events ... LOOL!

Typical.

Cheating will be treated serious when you get serious about cheating, ha!

[Brad Thomson]

For "less important events" read "events that make less money".

[Neil Frarey]

Also about exposure and brand recognition / attachment to that exposure.

LOL!!!

[Frank Dixon]

I've been writing about cheating in chess on this board for 20+ years.

I think, right now, with no adjournments, there are three main categories for players' cheating:
1) Technical assistance, from device(s), during games. We have seen many instances, and the one I am most familiar with, I, as a staff arbiter, reported at Minneapolis HB Global Challenge U2200 2005, final round; it was investigated, found to be true, and the player was disqualified, losing a chance, as a strong contender, at the $20k (U.S.) first prize. In this case there was also an accomplice involved. I have previously described this incident at greater length on this site.
2) Inappropriate interpersonal discussion and / or interaction, during a game.
a) At the Ontario HS Championship, Kingston 1996, as an organizer in another section, I sat on an Appeals Committee which examined in great depth a witnessed incident where a spectator discussed a move with a player during a game. The player, who was a teammate of the person assisting illegally, was forfeited. The teammate was warned.
b) At the Canadian Championship, Ottawa 1995, round 3, I was a spectator, when contestant CGM Bob Kiviaho awakened sleeping IM Bryon Nickoloff during BN's game with FM Glenn Johnstone. The resulting arguments, debate, and appeals virtually wrecked the event.
3) Other:
a) I would include GM Bator Sambuev's behaviour in the 2017 Zonal playoff in this category, although there was nothing formal decided against him, following very lengthy discussion. I made a suggestion, on this site, that a new rule be inaugurated, forbidding a player from touching his opponent's captured pieces. Not sure if anything has been done about this.
b) Another example was the 'two moves taken on one turn' by Samuel Lipnowski, Canadian Open, Kapuskasing 2004, round 10. I was a staff arbiter there, but was not involved in the incident, or subsequent appeals. Lipnowski was eventually forfeited in the game, and was also suspended for six months, through actions decided by the CFC's National Appeals Committee.
c) The long-running Kingston Chess Club situation, stopped for 15 years now, after running for something close to ten years, falls into this category. I won't get into details here. Certain individuals who have served as CFC President have received a full report from me on the matter.

[Pargat Perrer]

....He was wearing a winter hat and the required mask in the tournament room and behaving suspiciously.....

I really want to see this become a viral meme:

"behaving suspiciously at a chess tournament".

[Alex Ferreira]

I've been writing about cheating in chess on this board for 20+ years.

I think, right now, with no adjournments, there are three main categories for players' cheating:
1) Technical assistance, from device(s), during games. We have seen many instances, and the one I am most familiar with, I, as a staff arbiter, reported at Minneapolis HB Global Challenge U2200 2005, final round; it was investigated, found to be true, and the player was disqualified, losing a chance, as a strong contender, at the $20k (U.S.) first prize. In this case there was also an accomplice involved. I have previously described this incident at greater length on this site.
2) Inappropriate interpersonal discussion and / or interaction, during a game.
a) At the Ontario HS Championship, Kingston 1996, as an organizer in another section, I sat on an Appeals Committee which examined in great depth a witnessed incident where a spectator discussed a move with a player during a game. The player, who was a teammate of the person assisting illegally, was forfeited. The teammate was warned.
b) At the Canadian Championship, Ottawa 1995, round 3, I was a spectator, when contestant CGM Bob Kiviaho awakened sleeping IM Bryon Nickoloff during BN's game with FM Glenn Johnstone. The resulting arguments, debate, and appeals virtually wrecked the event.
3) Other:
a) I would include GM Bator Sambuev's behaviour in the 2017 Zonal playoff in this category, although there was nothing formal decided against him, following very lengthy discussion. I made a suggestion, on this site, that a new rule be inaugurated, forbidding a player from touching his opponent's captured pieces. Not sure if anything has been done about this.
b) Another example was the 'two moves taken on one turn' by Samuel Lipnowski, Canadian Open, Kapuskasing 2004, round 10. I was a staff arbiter there, but was not involved in the incident, or subsequent appeals. Lipnowski was eventually forfeited in the game, and was also suspended for six months, through actions decided by the CFC's National Appeals Committee.
c) The long-running Kingston Chess Club situation, stopped for 15 years now, after running for something close to ten years, falls into this category. I won't get into details here. Certain individuals who have served as CFC President have received a full report from me on the matter.

Hi Frank,

Lots of good examples here, of 'case scenarios'.

---

1 - One point I'd add to #1 (computer assistance), which is up there as far as cheating seriousness goes, is related to consequences. We've heard of a couple of cases about a couple of GMs receiving a suspension by FIDE in the past.

1 - a - Are chess organizations (CFC?) and all arbiters - equipped to dealing a proper ban on a player for cheating, be it with computer assistance (including accomplices if there are any), or the case provided by Frank in 3.b (making 2 moves in a row deliberately) - ? - Where would this be posted, and to whom would it be accessible to?
1 - b - what are laws surrounding juniors and bans? --- I remember reading about a case in Ireland, where a junior was using his phone in the washroom for computer assistance. His identity was not released, although keen-eyes could figure it out from the crosstables. Either way, the ban needs to be applied as well in my opinion. Irrespective of Privacy Laws. How to balance that?

---

2 - Those happen and they're unacceptable (2.a - confiding, move recommendation, interference). I have mixed feelings on waking up a player, as far as seriousness of offense. My recommendation for any player, if they wish to wake another player up, would be to tell the arbiter about the situation, who will then make that decision / take that action.
Either way, these may result in a tournament expulsion, but probably not a ban, unless it's a regular theme by the same person at various events.

---

3 - There are obviously many cases that would fit in "other" that can be serious enough to warrant a temporary ban. (ie Schleifer incident - Ottawa 2005).
The event surrounding 3.a (Sambuev - Noritsyn playoff), was not, and could not, be proved as ill-intended or cheating. It is common for chess players to hold captured pieces, especially in stressful situations, and the optimal improvement was on the arbiters' to be providing additional promotion pieces. In my opinion it should not be listed here, but it's certainly an excellent case-scenario.

Something that you didn't cover is arranging results. One thing is to arrive at the board and offer a draw on move 1, or 10, and the opponent accepting it, without prior agreement. This can be seen as poor sportsmanship, which is not always so clear-cut since sometimes it provides a favourable outcome in the overall standings, to one or both players.
But throwing games, buying games, fabricating games, pre-arranging draws in advance, depending on the scenario, should warrant serious penalties.

There was an interesting scenario that happened in the Americas Zonal several years back. 7 players tied for first place (or lowest place that had qualification spot still on the line), but there were only 6 spots to qualify for the World Cup knock-out. One of the participants was a young junior who, by rating, was outclassed by all other 6 players by some 300 points, but had the tournament of his life, making it that far in it. A 7 player rapid Round Robin took place, to essentially eliminate one player. The games were played shortly after the last classical round, not the next day. The youngster got eliminated. There were many accusations back and forth, between the Brazilian & Argentinian camps (where most if not all of these 7 players were from) about picking on the youngster, while agreeing to short draws among everyone else. After all, +1 would qualify). Sort of what Fischer used to accuse the Russians of doing, except in this case it was impromptu, without preparation.

---

Many cases, cheating or otherwise, may warrant a warning, expulsion, or ban. It's probably insane to attempt to cover it all in a RuleBook, but perhaps a compilation of (past) case-scenarios would be very helpful as a consultation manual for arbiters and organizers.

Alex Ferreira

[Erik Malmsten]

---

Many cases, cheating or otherwise, may warrant a warning, expulsion, or ban. It's probably insane to attempt to cover it all in a RuleBook, but perhaps a compilation of (past) case-scenarios would be very helpful as a consultation manual for arbiters and organizers.

Alex Ferreira

As an organizer/Arbiter wouldn't you like to have a document outlining the bad history of entrants:
- bounced cheques
- forfeited games, withdraws without informing the Arbiter
- incidents of parent's phone ringing
- violations of touch move or not recording moves or recording results
- incidents of disturbing the tournament such as loudly swearing after losing to a kid, or throwing a clock across a room.
- suspicious activity like repeatingly disappearing at a critical moment, comes back and plays a brilliancy.
- medical issues like having an epileptic attack, need to be close to a washroom, doesn't shower, sleeps in tournament hall, or a frequent smoker. Or makes offensive sexist comments to female players or aggressively racist. Wears a Trump or Putin hat.

[Brad Thomson]

Because of all of the possibilities that Erik notes, and the fact that there are an infinite number more of them that might come up, there is/was/should be an overriding rule that suggests that above all the TD, or Appeals Committee, should use common sense in making decisions that may or may not be precisely covered by a specifically articulated rule or guideline. Sometimes this principle is forgotten in reality. Frank mentioned both an incident with Nickoloff and an incident with Sambuev. In my opinion, in both cases common sense was overridden by decisions based upon rules, or possibly a lack thereof, that were taken despite the fact that the rules or lack thereof did not exactly cover the situation.

Nickoloff did not fall asleep, he passed out drunk. Kiviaho slugged him when he had about five minutes left to play almost the entire game to move 40. This was the third game in a row that Nickoloff had been drunk. But until this game no player had complained about it, and until this game Nickoloff had remained conscious. Nickoloff not only passed out but he was in a posture that partially covered the board and he was drooling on it. After Kiviaho slugged him, Nickoloff left the room and came back about three minutes later expecting to blitz out the game. The TD (myself) had decided in the meantime to disqualify Nickoloff from the game. Nickoloff appealed and won his appeal on the grounds that there is no rule in the books saying that a player cannot pass out drunk, drool on the board, get slugged by a fellow competitor to be brought back to consciousness, and then finish the game.

Sambuev may be given the benefit of the doubt when he had his opponent's queen in his hand in a position where the opponent was queening a pawn. In haste due to a severe time shortage and because he could not see his Queen, Sambuev's opponent grabbed a rook and put it upside down on the board. Then he was told by the TD that it had to remain a rook. The opponent said that his queen was not there. The TD lied through his teeth and said it was there, but it was not it was in Sambuev's hand. Thus the TD was not watching the time scramble and then lied about it. Sambuev absolutely disgraced himself by not speaking up for his opponent and admitting the truth to the incompetent liar who masqueraded as a TD. The opponent lost his appeal on the grounds that he should have stopped the clock and spoken to the TD who was not even watching.

Both of these decisions were in my opinion wrong and both border on ridiculous. Common sense should have prevailed in both cases. The Appeals Committee should have supported the decision of the TD to disqualify Nickoloff from that game, and the opponent of Sambuev should have won his appeal. Again, this is only common sense.

Here is the Sambuev game, you decide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBNEcRgHkvE