If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
With sentences which are actually proportionate to the crime committed?
Are you suggesting that rapists shouldn't get house arrest and judges pontificating on what their victims were wearing? Two years of watching tv at home, that'll teach him.
probably this song should answer any questions you have regarding cheating but if not you can always just listen to an LP of the bible (some guy told me if you play it backwards it says "jesus is dead")
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
You are completely turning this around. I said "Cheating like this" and you are contradicting my statement by using examples that are not "like this"...
We were talking about someone taking a bathroom break on nearly every move. Obviously someone who only cheats once in a game is going to be much more difficult to catch. But that is a different and less obvious problem.
Wasn't sure what 'like this' meant exactly. In any case I wasn't saying that the cheating might necessarily be done just once a game, either. There is a large hazy middle ground between that and cheating 'nearly every' move, a middle ground which I wasn't sure if you were excluding.
[edit: another possibility is, what if, assuming a player cheats nearly every move, that player often picks the computer's second or third best choice for a move to play?]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Monday, 7th March, 2011, 03:47 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I've read the thread up to here and would like to mention two posts.
First, Aris most directly addressed stopping the type of supsicious/cheating behaviour that Gordon described by quoting the relevant rule: Laws of Chess, Article 12, which includes:
"The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."
If this rule is followed then the scenario described in the first post would not occur.
A second issue is what counts as proof or evidence of cheating. If a player is reminded of the rule above but continues to leave the playing area without permission then that alone is sufficient proof of cheating (not of computer assisstance, but of breaking Article 12, above).
How about evidence of consulting a computer? Clearly something like a photo or multiple unbiased witness reports of the suspect using a computer or cellphone during the game would be the stongest evidence. But how many people are willing to risk the following story:
PEEPING TOM ARRESTED
"I thought he might be cheating", pervert claims.
"Is there no safe place for children?!", cries young boy's telegenic mother.
Because of the risk and difficulty of catching a cheater in-the-act I think evidence of computer cheating will mostly be gathered after-the-fact. Tom O's post about asking the player to explain his moves is an excellent way to do it: If a player can't explain why he played the moves he did and rejected others then it is likely he didn't think of them and choose them himself. (It's essentially a Turing Test of chess thinking.)
This is not a foolproof method of detecting cheaters --- a player could play a long string of excellent moves just by accident or luck and be unable to explain any of them [I suspect this is a common fantasy among weak players who like to think that "on a good day" they could beat the World Champion] ---- but it ought to be enough to meet the burden of proof.
I've read the thread up to here and would like to mention two posts.
First, Aris most directly addressed stopping the type of supsicious/cheating behaviour that Gordon described by quoting the relevant rule: Laws of Chess, Article 12, which includes:
"The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."
If this rule is followed then the scenario described in the first post would not occur.
Hi John
Assuming you didn't miss an earlier post of mine on this page, where I wrote of the following hypothetical situation:
player X loiters in the tournament hall near an exit, looking at his opponent player Y thinking about what move to make (assuming their board is visible from where player X is standing). Player X waits for Y to move, sees the move, and then goes out to the loo.
Can you or anyone else say how might the rule Aris quotes be applied in a foolproof manner to ensure that player X never gets away with acting as stated?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
player X loiters in the tournament hall near an exit, looking at his opponent player Y thinking about what move to make (assuming their board is visible from where player X is standing). Player X waits for Y to move, sees the move, and then goes out to the loo.
Can you or anyone else say how might the rule Aris quotes be applied in a foolproof manner to ensure that player X never gets away with acting as stated?
Nothing foolproof. But if the TD sees the player leaving just as it becomes his turn then the TD has the right (maybe duty?) to warn that player to return immediately to the playing hall or risk forefiet.
If the player had been doing that sort of thing enough to raise his opponent's suspicions then the TD might already be alerted to look out for it.
Of course, that's not foolproof and it doesn't ensure a cheater never gets away with it: the TD might be busy with other tournament business, or there could be so many exit doors no human could keep an eye on all of them...
I'm not so bothered by the lack of a foolproof rule against cheating, since, AFAIK, no rule prevents people from violating itself. (see: "ten Commandments" :))
Last edited by John Upper; Monday, 7th March, 2011, 09:21 PM.
If the player had been doing that sort of thing enough to raise his opponent's suspicions then the TD might already be alerted to look out for it.
You nailed it John. The solution is simply to report suspicious behaviour to the TD. Once the TD is on the lookout, this type of cheating will become obvious. If you think your circumstantial evidence is not strong enough, have the washrooms closed temporarily for cleaning. :D
You nailed it John. The solution is simply to report suspicious behaviour to the TD. Once the TD is on the lookout, this type of cheating will become obvious. If you think your circumstantial evidence is not strong enough, have the washrooms closed temporarily for cleaning. :D
Cheating is a harsh word and not one for an arbiter to use lightly. I can't recall ever using it to a player.
Arbiters should be concerning themselves with infractions to specific rules and not inflaming a situation with value added terms.
The solution is simply to report suspicious behaviour to the TD. Once the TD is on the lookout, this type of cheating will become obvious.
Well... "hypothetically" we did report it. And the TD was aware of the suspicious behaviour. The problem is that without a photo or a physical search (which none of us --- "hypothetically", remember --- had the stomach for) it is still just very suspicious behaviour, not proven cheating.
My point is that once Article 12 is made clear to all players, the question about finding evidence that the suspect is using a comptuer or other aid is moot: you can't leave when it's your move even if you are not cheating.
Well... "hypothetically" we did report it. And the TD was aware of the suspicious behaviour. The problem is that without a photo or a physical search (which none of us --- "hypothetically", remember --- had the stomach for) it is still just very suspicious behaviour, not proven cheating.
My point is that once Article 12 is made clear to all players, the question about finding evidence that the suspect is using a comptuer or other aid is moot: you can't leave when it's your move even if you are not cheating.
Yes John, you are correct. I would guess the reason for Article 12 was to give the TD any easy alternative to having to prove cheating. My point was that it is necessary to alert the TD, since it isn't practical for him to enforce article 12 on all players. :)
The situation originally posted by Gordon was clearly a cheating situation, and the kid should have been thrown out of the tournament instantly. I believe the TD has that authority, and let the Chicago lawyers worry about it later. I wouldn't think there would be an issue.
"Arbiters should be concerning themselves with infractions to specific rules and not inflaming a situation with value added terms."
Another bit of nonsense from Ruben... arbiters should do the job dammit, I rather doubt Gary knows what value added terms means. I don't!
Sorry to introduce some concepts from the real world......
If Harper is not going to use the new prisons for cheating kids then I am sure that he can use them as assistants when they get older. They can help him with his fraudulent in-and-out schemes or for doctoring paperwork after it is signed off, for lying, etc. etc.
These kids probably think that if Harpers Government can get away with this stuff then they may as well try it themselves.
I believe consulting Fritz in the bathroom is an infraction to a specific rule.
Cheating is the appropriate term.
Consulting Fritz is an allegation. Unproved.
Even if you could prove it, there are rules which could be used without deteriorating the situation.
Simply because a player says his opponent is kicking his butt so he must be using a computer doesn't mean it's happening. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. An arbiter has to be impartial enough to consider the point made by both players and no formal complaint seems to have been put to the one who was thought to have offended. It appears he was not approached with the allegations made by the accuser.
The prime objective is to try to correct problems in such a way as not to lose members.
Tweet
Comment