Another cheating scandal

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Another cheating scandal

I prefer to look at it from a probabilistic point of view: there is a high probability (I think) that in this case, the wins involved direct cheating but there is no proof. Whether the tournament organizers had the right to request a search, I don't know... Fair warning: if I ever get such results, I will not agree to a search! :)

Noted. :)

I looked at the last game they showed. The Sicilian B80. I realize white is a high rated player but he has to attack. He didn't attack on the king side like he should have done. When you castle on opposite sides of the board you're not supposed to wait for your opponent to come get you. That 2600+ player had only himself to blame for his loss.

Here's how I attack in the B80 as white. My opponent here is a GM now but this loss cost him his final norm in this event.

[Event "John Jordan Memorial"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2004.03.04"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ruben, Gary"]
[Black "Pugh, John"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B80"]
[WhiteElo "2449"]
[BlackElo "2493"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventType "corr"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. g4
Nfd7 9. Qd2 Nb6 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. Nb3 N8d7 12. Na5 Qc7 13. Nxb7 Qxb7 14. Bd4
Rc8 15. Bd3 Ne5 16. f4 Nbc4 17. Qe2 Nxd3+ 18. Qxd3 b4 19. Nb1 e5 20. b3 Be7 21.
bxc4 exd4 22. h4 O-O 23. Nd2 Bd8 24. g5 Bb6 25. h5 f6 26. gxf6 Rxf6 27. h6 g6
28. f5 Kh8 29. Rdg1 Rg8 30. Rh3 Qf7 31. Rhg3 Rf8 32. Nf3 Rc8 33. Ng5 Qxc4 34.
Qxc4 Rxc4 35. Nxh7 Kxh7 36. fxg6+ Rxg6 37. Rxg6 d3 38. Rg7+ Kh8 39. R1g2 1-0

[Hal Bond]

Re: Another cheating scandal

But the main culprit here is chess community at large that neglects the issue of cheating (with the help from a comuter of another player).

What do you propose? I have worked 3 World Championships and a Challenger's Match, and in all cases the prospect of cheating was far from neglected. They ranged from signal jammers in the venue to airport style metal detection searches and all electronic devices, including cameras, were banned from the hall for players. So saying, cheating remains the biggest threat to the game. Tech keeps advancing so cheating gets easier to do.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Another cheating scandal

The more severe the penalties are for those caught cheating, the less likely cheating will become. If the penalties are not severe, then there will be little disincentive for unscrupulous persons. Perhaps a ban for life the first time you are caught would be in order, so long as the case could be proven. If you do not ban caught and proven cheaters for life the first time, then unscrupulous persons might try it until they are caught enough times to reach the limit. Many people are without shame, and therefore only a lifetime ban for the first reasonably proven case will be a real disincentive. I think the onus is on chess federations to address this issue. There are people not playing in tournaments, or only playing as amateurs for reduced entry fees, in order to avoid being cheated. All of chess will suffer unless this issue is dealt with very firmly.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Another cheating scandal

Absolutely. It's one of the most intriguing tournaments on the calendar to me, regarding the special norm opportunities as well as the WC spots. I'm very interested!

I will forward your name - along with those of the other interested parties - to the powers that be, indicating your interest.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Another cheating scandal

Perhaps a ban for life the first time you are caught would be in order, so long as the case could be proven.

A life ban in chess would be equivalent to a death penalty. There are many reasons to reject such an extreme line of thought. First of all not all kinds of cheating are equal. Would fixing a draw in a last round game deserve a life ban ? Secondly "justice" is imperfect. More than one innocent person have found themselves on death row in "proven" cases.

[Laurentiu Grigorescu]

Re: Another cheating scandal

Hal, the last people I expect to use extra help are the people involved in those matches. However, Topalov might have been - at the moment of playing the games against Kramnik - under some psihological durress - why Kramnik was going out so often? That might have affected his play somewhat. In retrospect, my guess is that even Topalov does not believe Kramink was receiving extra help. But the damage was done- even involuntarily.
Receiving computer help during a game is not the only way of cheating. Consulting trainers, more knowledgeable friends, or briefly consulting notes are a few of other forms.

I am also against radical punishments like life bans. I am also against accusing players on suspicion only - this is embarrasing for the accuser and could damage the accused for long time (respectability, confidence, etc). Measures have to be taken so there is no suspicion. In this respect, I would propose more discipline imposed to players - no leaving of the playing hall for the first hour or 20 moves for example, no digital devices, no smoking (sorry, nobody can hire extra people to police players outside the venue), etc. Again, we are the only ones that are allowed "liberties" during a game.
I understand that due to the big number of players at some events would be difficult to impose dicipline, but over time players will buy into more discipline I think - weren't they smoking at the board in the '80s? :-). Plus, discipline benefits stronger players who spend countless hours to prepare and want to play "for real".

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Another cheating scandal

The more severe the penalties are for those caught cheating, the less likely cheating will become.

And your evidence for this claim is?

There are, on the other hand, many studies of criminal behaviour that indicate that it is the surety of being caught, rather than the severity of the penalty that acts most effectively to deter.