Originally posted by Peter McKillop
View Post
My first cheating case came at the beginning of the pandemic when everything had moved online, the CFC had established a rule for cases of cheating and we had our first test of the rule and I had my first encounter with chess.com's handling of alleged cheating. Chess.com had suspended the youngster (1900 CFC) who had beat a 2100 FIDE player in a game where the higher rated player had made many mistakes culminating in a blundered piece. The opening was a queen pawn open centre meaning that two pawns were exchanged on each side. I had studied this pawn structure with Victor Gavrikov, (my chess coach until he had passed away in 2016). I had also taught this pawn structure to several of my advanced students.
The youngster had worked with multiple grandmaster coaches one of whom had worked with him on this particular opening structure. He played well but not perfectly. I could find improvements to his play based on what Viktor had taught me and what I had taught my students. There was nothing special about his play in any of the other games in the CFC tournament. Chess.com was not offering any evidence that he had cheated. They just said that he had violated fair play rules at some point in the past. There was nothing indicating that he had cheated in the games that would be of interest to the CFC. He was the first in a series of cheating cases that we would have brought to our attention over the course of the next two years. The panel that looked at this case could not come to an agreement and it was kicked up to the executive of the CFC. The CFC executive weighed the arguments and in the absence of evidence we had to conclude that we did not believe that he had cheated in those CFC games. He was not suspended and later at the request of his mother I wrote a letter to that effect.
He was the first instance of an improving junior that beat a higher rated player in a spurt of chess improvement that was suspended by chess.com.
There were several other cases where I looked at the games where I concluded that the player was cheating or not cheating. In the instances where I concluded the player was cheating there was usually a confession.
I was involved in discussions with chess.com about several cases and where some evidence was presented which was quite problematic including grandmaster opinion that was clearly nonsensical. Aris was also privy to some of that same information.
Chess.com had me sign a non-disclosure and explained details of its anti-cheating protocols and procedures. I can't talk about any of that and I won't beyond saying that they have a robust system for detecting cheating.
There are cases where I can't talk about details because of non-disclosure agreements. Chess.com offered me the opportunity to sit on an arbitration panel but I didn't think that was advisable as one of the players was someone that I knew fairly well and whose parents were friends. I did act as a expert for the defense in that case. I can't talk about that case.
I had previously been granted standing as an expert witness in a case involving a computer that had maliciously been wiped of its data which I was able to recover and determine when the computer had been wiped and how.
I had also once acted as an expert witness doing some financial analysis concerning business valuation some years ago when I was teaching finance at the University of Windsor in the early 1990s.
I have always been pretty good with computer troubleshooting, creating complex financial spreadsheets that interacted with databases, and getting finicky automation software to work. Most of my work life has been as a computer consultant, a system analyst, IT coordinator or a software specialist for automation software.
I am a national master, a national arbiter, a FIDE instructor. I had multiple computer certifications and one or two certifications in the area of factory automation software. I had a few courses in statistics where I usually got an A+. I have read several books on statistics. I am good at reading the fine print. When I go to court or to tribunals I always win with only one or two exceptions which required refiling the paperwork and winning a month later.
I was consulted in a case at the Canadian Open where an unknown player upset several known players. I looked at the games and concluded that there was nothing suspicious about the games. I gave a similar report to the one Ken Regan made a few hours later and I was pleased that we came to identical conclusions.
I attended the FIDE Fair Play Commission meeting in Chennai, India this past summer.
Comment