Cheating

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
    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
    The incompetence of whomever was responsible to have an extra queen alongside that board should have been enuff for the CFC Appeals Committee to do the right thing. After all this was their own national event! But again, we're talking about cheating and brand attachment right?


    GMCLUTCH.gif



    Much more convenient / sanitized to place the blame on Sambuev's opponent.



    .
    Last edited by Neil Frarey; Friday, 31st December, 2021, 06:10 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Information on cheaters should be shared quickly amongst organizers and arbiters .
      Some years ago , I contacted some Spanish tournament organizers a day before the start of games where the famous European banned by his own national organization and not yet by FIDE was ready to play and paired . I was just following up on month old news when I discovered this fellow's entry.
      Last edited by Mario Moran-Venegas; Friday, 31st December, 2021, 07:25 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

        I really want to see this become a viral meme:

        "behaving suspiciously at a chess tournament".
        LOL! I'd like to see that too. Posters should develop a list of what behaving suspiciously at a chess tournament would look like.
        "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
        "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
        "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Alex Ferreira View Post

          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
          This seems like a very good idea, such a good idea that it's a bit disappointing it doesn't already exist. What would be the process for bringing this into existence?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
            The incompetence of whomever was responsible to have an extra queen alongside that board should have been enuff for the CFC Appeals Committee to do the right thing..
            Good point, add this to his negligence and to his lies in attempting to weasel his way out of his blunder. I know that the rules call for the player to stop the clocks and go to the TD in this type of situation. But the point here is that there was no TD to go to, he was for all intents and purposes NOT THERE. The rule in question assumes/implies that the TD will be an honest person doing his/her job, and not an incompetent liar. Common sense should have prevailed.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
              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
              Thanks for that Brad. I never did read (until now) a thorough description of the 1995 incident. Like I said before all the organizations of chess that affect tournament play need to get on board and support each other.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hans Jung View Post
                Thanks for that Brad. I never did read (until now) a thorough description of the 1995 incident. Like I said before all the organizations of chess that affect tournament play need to get on board and support each other.
                Thanks Hans, the fiasco that ensued would have been avoided if the Appeals Committee had supported my decision. I will not give their names now, but they are on record, they are all completely honourable gentlemen, and their decision was not unanimous.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                  .....
                  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.
                  ....

                  Here is the Sambuev game, you decide:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBNEcRgHkvE
                  Brad, I agree with you that the TD was woefully incompetent. It was our national championship. How difficult would it have been to have a couple of extra queens available and within easy reach of the players? For several moves it was apparent that one or both players would promote a pawn. How difficult would it have been to mentally note this fact and then immediately look to make sure both players had a queen within reach? If the TD felt that he needed to keep his attention 100% on the game, then how difficult would it have been, before the game even started, to delegate the queen task to a helper? It was a big screw up and I hope the CFC never again lets this TD run an important tournament.

                  However, did the TD lie during the period covered during the video? I don't think that's clear. Sambuev put the queen and some other pieces down while people were talking and trying to pause the clock and then some helper/spectator pointed out the queen to the TD. I don't think it's even clear that Sambuev knew, at that moment, that he had had his opponent's queen in his hand. Did Sambuev disgrace himself? I think he did, but afterwards, when he could have issued a public statement regretting the part he unwittingly played.
                  "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                  "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                  "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post
                    However, did the TD lie during the period covered during the video?...Did Sambuev disgrace himself? I think he did, but afterwards, when he could have issued a public statement regretting the part he unwittingly played.
                    First, yes the TD absolutely lied, you can hear him say referring to the Queen, "it was there". But it was NOT there, it was in Sambuev's hand at the time. It only got "there" later, it was not there when Sambuev's opponent first looked for it, could not see it, and thus grabbed a Rook and inverted in on the board. Second, as noted I am willing to give Sambuev the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of deliberately hiding the Queen in his hand in the first place (though he may have), but he chose not to speak up at the time, in fact you can note the look on his face when he realizes the scam he might just be able to get away with. And you can also see Sambuev sneak the Queen back "there" once the disagreement erupted. And sure, he could have spoken up later but did not. He is a disgraceful cheating scoundrel.

                    Also as noted, I realize that the rules call for the player to stop the clocks and go to the TD when unclear situations arise. On these grounds I assume the Appeals Committee rejected the appeal. But this rule in my opinion only applies when you have a competent and honest TD. Common sense should have prevailed instead of strict adherence to the letter of a rule that did not exactly apply to the situation in question. Just my opinion.
                    Last edited by Brad Thomson; Tuesday, 4th January, 2022, 03:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that the opponent of Sambuev had stopped the clocks and gone to the TD (who was not watching at the time) as the rules suggest he should have. What would have happened? Given Sambuev's actual conduct during what did happen, it is safe to assume that he would have sneaked the Queen back to where it belonged and then played dumb rather than admit the truth. The TD, given his conduct during this stinking affair, may well have believed Sambuev, since by then the Queen WOULD be "there", and therefore penalized the opponent for unnecessarily stopping the clocks, a move which Sambuev and the TD could argue was a cheap trick designed to give the opponent more thinking time and a chance to catch his breath and calm down. Again, common sense should have prevailed. The opponent got shafted by a cheater, an incompetent liar, and an Appeals Committee that I presume was composed of honourable individuals who simply got it wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                        Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that the opponent of Sambuev had stopped the clocks and gone to the TD (who was not watching at the time) as the rules suggest he should have. What would have happened? Given Sambuev's actual conduct during what did happen, it is safe to assume that he would have sneaked the Queen back to where it belonged and then played dumb rather than admit the truth. The TD, given his conduct during this stinking affair, may well have believed Sambuev, since by then the Queen WOULD be "there", and therefore penalized the opponent for unnecessarily stopping the clocks, a move which Sambuev and the TD could argue was a cheap trick designed to give the opponent more thinking time and a chance to catch his breath and calm down. Again, common sense should have prevailed. The opponent got shafted by a cheater, an incompetent liar, and an Appeals Committee that I presume was composed of honourable individuals who simply got it wrong.
                        Let us suppose: the TD explained major rules to both players, put Q/B queens on the board clearly, mentioned if another pieces would be needed - stop the clock and ask; no king capturing etc.
                        It was the last game of the match after a grueling long day of play. Both players did habitual things in blitz - one was playing with the piece in the hand, other put the reversed rook. Both concentrated on a game not on rules. The TD went by the rulebook when the reversed rook appeared on the board.
                        No rules specified where captured pieces are kept. Though there are specific rules what happens when the promoted piece is not available or a reversed rook appears on the board.

                        I hope that the situation taught many players and arbiters.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                          No rules specified where captured pieces are kept.... I hope that the situation taught many players and arbiters.
                          First, exactly, no rules for the given situation, thus commons sense should have prevailed, not adherence to the letter of a rule that did not govern the specific situation. Second, yes, let us hope so, and add Appeals Committees to the list.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

                            Let us suppose: the TD explained major rules to both players, put Q/B queens on the board clearly, mentioned if another pieces would be needed - stop the clock and ask; no king capturing etc.
                            It was the last game of the match after a grueling long day of play. Both players did habitual things in blitz - one was playing with the piece in the hand, other put the reversed rook. Both concentrated on a game not on rules. The TD went by the rulebook when the reversed rook appeared on the board.
                            No rules specified where captured pieces are kept. Though there are specific rules what happens when the promoted piece is not available or a reversed rook appears on the board.

                            I hope that the situation taught many players and arbiters.
                            Adding to the incompetence tournament Orgs ... they saw fit to use plastic chess sets and even cheaper boards.

                            Our national pride ... Canadian chess community's national pride ... and this is what the leadership of the Chess Federation of Canada provided and/or condones? What the FQE was permitted? Cheap plastic chess sets and even cheaper chess boards. LOOL!!!

                            FYI Egi ... DGT also provides extra queens ... just sayin'.



                            .
                            Last edited by Neil Frarey; Tuesday, 4th January, 2022, 07:41 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              All a nice sentiment, but the problem is nowadays that even if someone is absolutely 100% no doubt confirmed guilty, they can claim damage if you share that information, and I assume its much worse if the player is a minor. There was a situation in Alberta a few years ago; a fairly strong player was suspected of cheating for a variety of reasons, and after being caught with their phone in the bathroom, refused to unlock it to prove they were not cheating. This was deemed sufficient enough evidence to disqualify them and enact a ban of a certain time period from ACA events.

                              However, is this rock solid proof? If the player wanted to go to court and sue, would the organization win? Would any arbiter be willing to be potentially legally liable for making this decision?

                              Once you start sharing this information (and you'll note I am not naming the player here!), you only amplify your potential liability. Even had this player been caught at the board with his phone on and stockfish running with the current game position on the table, if I as an arbiter were to report this to FIDE or the USCF or other organizations, and they barred him from playing, is there potential liability?

                              In today's world, you just have to protect yourself. As much as I'd love to help FIDE, USCF, chess.com, CMA, FQE, CFC or whoever keep the game free of cheating, it's not worth my personal risk.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Now a days with computer technology it would be very easy to just have every organization notified that a Player has been banned from playing chess for 5 years. You don't need to say why ,you just have it pop up on the organization website a list of banned players with starting date to ending date. The players games will not be rated and that player cannot play in any tournament for 5 years.
                                If the player who tries to ask why I'm banned it will say no reason just that they are banned. The player knows why they are banned anyway. But no one else needs to know. That should solve legal problems.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X