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.
Of course, this is US law. The brainwashed victims of US television can be forgiven for assuming that Canadian law is identical to US law. It isn't.
If you steal a chocolate bar it is still theft and you can wind up in jail for it. I remember when one of my tenants made a desperate call to me when he went to a Canadian Tire just behind our apartment building and started munching on a bag of chips and drinking a pop only to find when he got to the cashier that he didn't have any money nor did he have his wallet on him. He needed something like three dollars but by the time I got there it was too late and he had already been arrested. I believe that there is a criminal charge of theft under $1000. Anyway not having three dollars cost him something like $1000 in lawyer's fees and a day or two in jail while he waited to get to court. He even had to plead guilty for the theft charge as part of a plea deal.
Nigel, where in the CFC handbook or rules is "cheating" defined or addressed?
I think 12.1 and 12.3 a) and 12.3 b) of the FIDE rules cover the situation.
Article 12: The conduct of the players
12.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
12.3
a] During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard
b] Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
I think 12.1 and 12.3 a) and 12.3 b) of the FIDE rules cover the situation.
Article 12: The conduct of the players
12.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
12.3
a] During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard
b] Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
Of course, in this situation we are discussing the inability to prove any help has been given or used. The value added term "cheating" does not appear in what you posted.
One could argue that a player who makes a charge of cheating without any proof and with nothing found is in violation of article 12.1.
You have the right idea that complaints are made in regards to specific articles of the rules. A "value added" terms like "cheating", which is not in the rules inflames the situation. Now if we can get to the point where some hard proof has to exist there will be progress.
The way it works is today one person may be falsely accused and tomorrow it might be you or me. That's why there has to be some burden of proof.
Quote Originally Posted by Paul Bonham
...you are welcome to purchase a one-way ticket to Moscow and enjoy a life where chess is much further advanced and civil liberties are much more curtailed
lol. American dissident and whistleblower Edward Snowden would disagree with you. Perhaps you think his legitimate concern about being tortured (or worse) is without merit?
Anyway, you're welcome to noisily continue to defend cheaters. I'm sure it's a matter of principle, although which principle is unclear ...
Explicit cheating during chess games represents an emerging threat to the viability of mass-participation tournaments with large cash prizes. We believe it is imperative that the USCF, tournament organizers, and the chess world as a whole, start drawing up anti-cheating policies that will become widely accepted and can be put in place on a broad scale, before chess suffers its equivalent of baseball’s steroids scandal.
signed by Craig Gross (amateur competitor)
Jon Jacobs (amateur competitor)
Dr. Danny Kopec (chess educator, author, IM)
Peter Minear (amateur competitor)
Travis Patay (amateur competitor)
Andy Soltis (author, Chess Life columnist, GM)
If I may say a word on Paul Bonham's behalf, I don't for one second believe that it's his objective "to defend cheaters." I think Paul has made it very clear that he is opposed to any form of cheating in chess. However, Paul has also made it very clear that he opposes someone being labelled a cheater, and then punished, without acceptable evidence that the alleged cheating took place. In other words, Nigel, Paul isn't defending cheaters, rather, he's opposing people like you.
By the way, in your capacity as moderator (which seems to overlap to an unhealthy degree with your capacity as a poster on this board) I see that you've sent me a private warning for calling you
Finally, in the bit of text you've provided that was apparently signed by Messrs. Soltis et al, reference is made to "explicit cheating." I assume they're referring to people actually being caught cheating. You might wish to consider this.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 13th August, 2013, 03:48 PM.
Reason: personal abuse
"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
If you steal a chocolate bar it is still theft and you can wind up in jail for it. I remember when one of my tenants made a desperate call to me when he went to a Canadian Tire just behind our apartment building and started munching on a bag of chips and drinking a pop only to find when he got to the cashier that he didn't have any money nor did he have his wallet on him. He needed something like three dollars but by the time I got there it was too late and he had already been arrested. I believe that there is a criminal charge of theft under $1000. Anyway not having three dollars cost him something like $1000 in lawyer's fees and a day or two in jail while he waited to get to court. He even had to plead guilty for the theft charge as part of a plea deal.
I wonder how long ago that was? Unless your tenant had left the store, I do not believe he can be charged. Then again, I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
I wonder how long ago that was? Unless your tenant had left the store, I do not believe he can be charged. Then again, I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
I believe it was 2005 though it could have been 2004. I was told by a police person at the scene (over the phone) that if I brought three dollars the tenant would not go to jail. When I arrived about five minutes later with the money I was told that it was too late by a different police officer. I think there were four or five officers there. It is possible that he attempted to leave the store to retrieve the money. The store in a strip mall was just behind the apartment building. I thought that given the circumstances that he could have fought the charge in court and won but the lawyer and crown made an arrangement where he pleaded guilty and received time served as a sentence. At the time I thought it was a ridiculous use of police and court resources particularly in light of the original phone call.
I believe it was 2005 though it could have been 2004. I was told by a police person at the scene (over the phone) that if I brought three dollars the tenant would not go to jail. When I arrived about five minutes later with the money I was told that it was too late by a different police officer. I think there were four or five officers there. It is possible that he attempted to leave the store to retrieve the money. The store in a strip mall was just behind the apartment building. I thought that given the circumstances that he could have fought the charge in court and won but the lawyer and crown made an arrangement where he pleaded guilty and received time served as a sentence. At the time I thought it was a ridiculous use of police and court resources particularly in light of the original phone call.
It is quite a shame that he would end up with a criminal record - that is the worst part of it all. Hindsight is wonderful, but he should have handled it better!
I certainly would not accept that sort of plea bargain arrangement...
You're proposing to punish someone without knowing the means, with only a guess at the motive (although in chess self-aggrandizement/ego would be a pretty good guess), and with opportunity being the only certainty. C'mon lad, you can do better than that, can't you?
The BCF chose not to go that route, instead banning Ivanov for insulting remarks about his fellow players and countrymen. But only long
enough to set up a cheating test, which Ivanov dodged. So even without proof, most TDs will probably now bar him from their tournaments.
All unjustified perhaps, but failing every federation becoming its own NSA in electronic detection, the only pragmatic course of action.
I wonder how long ago that was? Unless your tenant had left the store, I do not believe he can be charged. Then again, I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
He can't. At the time he ate the snacks (but what adult does this before checking out, c'mon!), he was not guilty of intent (mens rea).
I have been witness to several takedowns at grocery stores, and they always wait for the offender to leave with the goods (ingested or not!).
Unfortunately there is nothing to prove no intent if he tried to leave, or if he said something else incriminating to the police. No one is 'too late' to be inncocent of a crime.
Last edited by Ed Zator; Tuesday, 13th August, 2013, 03:47 PM.
Reason: sp
The BCF chose not to go that route, instead banning Ivanov for insulting remarks about his fellow players and countrymen. But only long
enough to set up a cheating test, which Ivanov dodged. So even without proof, most TDs will probably now bar him from their tournaments.
All unjustified perhaps, but failing every federation becoming its own NSA in electronic detection, the only pragmatic course of action.
Not entirely unjustified.
I've noticed that simply making the argument for banning players like Borislav Ivanov makes me open to all sorts of personal abuse from some posters on ChessTalk. In fact, merely mentioning this problem will undoubtedly evoke more personal abuse directed my way. Some people are incapable of arguing points on their merit. lol.
However, it's worth mentioning that with respect to legal interpretations and so on, it's worth mentioning that for serious criminal matters the criteria of evidence is typically "beyond a reasonable doubt"; for less serious matters, the term that is used is "on the balance of probabilities" or words to that effect. Frankly, I don't see how difficult it would be to argue in a court that, in this particular case, Borislav is "probably" cheating. And that''s all that would be required. I have seen cases here in Canada where parents have had their children apprehended by state authorities simply "on the balance of probabilities" that harm will come to the child or that the parents will be unsuitable. Anyone who followed the O.J. Simpson murder trial knows that he was not convicted in the murder trial but was found guilty in the civil case that followed for the simple reason that the criteria of evidence was less demanding there.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 13th August, 2013, 04:00 PM.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
The BCF chose not to go that route, instead banning Ivanov for insulting remarks about his fellow players and countrymen. But only long
enough to set up a cheating test, which Ivanov dodged. So even without proof, most TDs will probably now bar him from their tournaments.
All unjustified perhaps, but failing every federation becoming its own NSA in electronic detection, the only pragmatic course of action.
Ed, no disrespect intended towards you, but I'm not going to get into another discussion on this topic just to keep saying the same things that I've already said. I've copied below a post by Wayne Komer which you may not have read yet. It appears that an 'Administrative Court' in Sofia ruled in Ivanov's favour with respect to his suspension by the BCF. I don't know what an administrative court is in Bulgaria, but apparently they had the authority to overturn the BCF's suspension of Ivanov.
So, it's an issue that gives rise to strong opinions. We can certainly see that in this thread.
Ivanov is taking part in the "Open Republic" Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria
Posted: Aug 6.2013
Controversial Bulgarian chess player Borislav Ivanov is returning to the game. He had received a no-play penalty of 4 months. The National Chess Federation stopped the playing rights of Ivanov, who became famous in the last half year. He was accused of using unregulated technical assistance in his games. Then, the 25-year-old FIDE master was attacked by the Ethics committee of the Bulgarian Chess Federation on the grounds that he broke sports morale and damaged the reputation of the BCF and chess figures in the media.
The Administrative Court in Sofia, however, cleared him, which effectively reestablished his rights. As a result of his suspension, Borislav Ivanov missed the opportunity to participate in the first two of the three most powerful international tournaments in Varna, which are under the auspices of the BCF.
Ivanov has now received the approval of the organizers and will participate in the traditional tournament "Open Republic". The contest starts on Saturday, and so far 99 players from Bulgaria, Russia and Serbia have been signed up. A curious fact is that among them is the latest addition to the "Marek Union-Ivkoni" - International Master Alex Nikolov of the newspaper "Struma".
The 55-year-old Sofia resident is among the fiercest opponents of the FM B. Ivanov and several times has openly declared in the media that the Blagoevgrad player uses unauthorized outside help, most likely from a computer. As is known, S. Nikolov became the first player in the chess history of Bulgaria, in a Swiss, to twice deliberately fail to attend a game with the same opponent - in this case Ivanov in the Tournament "Old Capital" in Veliko Tarnovo this past spring.
Because of the inclusion of blagoevgradchanina (Ivanov) in the "Open Republic" tourney, the leadership of the BCF cannot rate it with a Bulgarian ELO. The prize fund of the tournament is nearly 2,000 Levs, 800 of which are destined for the winner.
There is a photo of Ivanov with two young ladies accompanying this article.
+++++++++
The article is in Bulgarian. Ivanov is called by the name “blagoevgradchanin”. I assume it is a sort of pet name combined with his town’s name.
800 Bulgarian Lev equal about $570 Canadian.
Note Added: Referenced on the same page as the above is this statement:
Sasho Nikolov created a precedent in chess history, by not appearing twice in the same tournament (Old Capital VT) against Borislav Ivanov, and later compared the student teacher at the South "West University" with Hitler and called him a "petrified dinosaur turd "in the national TV channels.
Strong language Nikolov! However, this was not spotted by the Ethics Committee of the BCF, which really casts a shadow over the impartiality of its members.
+++++++++++
A Bulgarian understatement!
"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
It is quite a shame that he would end up with a criminal record - that is the worst part of it all. Hindsight is wonderful, but he should have handled it better!
I certainly would not accept that sort of plea bargain arrangement...
You wouldn't accept that sort of arrangement because you have something to lose whereas he really didn't. I believe he already had a criminal record though not for stealing stuff more along the lines of getting into loud arguments with his ex-wife and probably some related charges for disorderly conduct. He was a nice guy as long has he stayed away from alcohol (which seemed to lead to paranoia) and always paid the rent on time though the apartment was rented by his much younger live in girlfriend. I think he eventually got things together.
One way to inflate your conviction rate is to get people to plead guilty for minor offences for time served. It just seemed idiotic to use all those police, crown attorney, judicial and correctional resources for less than three dollars worth of merchandise especially when someone was willing to pay the three dollars. I'm sure his meals in jail cost more than the stuff he was accused of stealing.
You wouldn't accept that sort of arrangement because you have something to lose whereas he really didn't. I believe he already had a criminal record though not for stealing stuff more along the lines of getting into loud arguments with his ex-wife and probably some related charges for disorderly conduct. He was a nice guy as long has he stayed away from alcohol (which seemed to lead to paranoia) and always paid the rent on time though the apartment was rented by his much younger live in girlfriend. I think he eventually got things together.
One way to inflate your conviction rate is to get people to plead guilty for minor offences for time served. It just seemed idiotic to use all those police, crown attorney, judicial and correctional resources for less than three dollars worth of merchandise especially when someone was willing to pay the three dollars. I'm sure his meals in jail cost more than the stuff he was accused of stealing.
Yes, true enough, but your argument presumes some interest in the overall outcome which is not usually on the menu for those folks.
I see that the A.G. in the US is now (only now!?!) realizing that punishing every single case with an iron hand is not working... amazing insight.
The trouble is that most places (and the US in particular) is way too short of people with common sense and solid principles.
My wife used to teach courses at a local college. She caught many cheaters by creating projects which required that people input some user-specific data (e.g. their name or student number) at some point in the middle of the project. It was amazing how often the people would just copy an entire project without even checking any of it and get caught. Her observation makes me think that perhaps FIDE should ask the major computer chess programmers to add a special bug in their machine so that if the opponent plays a very specific set of moves then the computer will spew out some good-looking but horrible answer and they will get crushed quickly. Supply major organizers with the bug-key and have them give it to the suspected cheaters' opponents when appropriate. With every new version, change the buggy continuations.
BTW, when two people were caught making identical spelling and grammatical errors on projects, even though this may not be considered "ironclad proof" to some, they failed my wife's course. She told me she never lost an appeal.
If you've ever read Freakonomics you may recall the statistical arguments that discovered rampant cheating in Sumo as well as standardized testing.
If I may say a word on Paul Bonham's behalf, I don't for one second believe that it's his objective "to defend cheaters." I think Paul has made it very clear that he is opposed to any form of cheating in chess. However, Paul has also made it very clear that he opposes someone being labelled a cheater, and then punished, without acceptable evidence that the alleged cheating took place. In other words, Nigel, Paul isn't defending cheaters, rather, he's opposing people like you.
By the way, in your capacity as moderator (which seems to overlap to an unhealthy degree with your capacity as a poster on this board) I see that you've sent me a private warning for calling you
Finally, in the bit of text you've provided that was apparently signed by Messrs. Soltis et al, reference is made to "explicit cheating." I assume they're referring to people actually being caught cheating. You might wish to consider this.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
While I find this discussion to be very entertaining, I feel obligated to point out that it's very difficult to catch someone cheating in the act. If you think about it, it's actually pretty easy to cheat and not get caught. Simply have a friend who comes by and takes a look at your games, plugs the moves into houdini or something (there must be a computer lying around somewhere) and then while you go for a smoke break, or washroom break, they talk to you in your own language about the game, gives you some ideas on what you should be looking for and provide a move or two and your playing strength will rise dramatically. Obviously even before these accusations, Ivanov was a 2200-2300 so he knows a thing or two about the game. It shouldn't take more than 5 or 6 moves at crucial positions to completely demolish some of the players he's played.
Obviously it's one thing to jump a hundred points, quite another to start performing like a 2600-2700 altogether and then performing like a 1900 another tournament. How would anyone even be able to figure out if the suspected player cheats or not? Maybe if you do it by yourself with methods like grabbing your phone, plugging it into pocket fritz or something and going to the washroom to "poop" while blaming it on the Mexican food you had for lunch but even if caught, as long as you have a friend or two, simply hand the phone over to them and if they have no proof, what can the organizers do? A good friend of mine down in Houston actually told me of a case of this asian kid, 12 or 13 years of age, a suspected cheater who does exactly that. Many players have complained about him but the organizers can never do anything because whenever they search him, there's no phone. When they ask his parents, they have no clue either but my friend tells me his parents are in on the act. Talk about setting a good example!
So even though I just love seeing Nigel the moderator getting destroyed online, I have to say he might be more right than wrong in this specific case. I don't see how Borislav can play like a 2600 GM one day and trash everyone while playing like a 1900 another day (I've checked his tournament results too) when he was a 2200-2300 player for years. It simply is too uncommon to be practically possible. I've also spoken to many strong chess players and they all share the same opinion. Chess is a very difficult game, it takes years to get from beginner to 2200 and even longer to get from 2200 to 2500 (unless you're a boy genius). It's not like poker where it takes maybe a year or two to go pro and then after a hot streak, you're one of the hottest players around and Pokerstars wants to sign you to represent them. I would be amazed if a brand new chess player makes it to 2000 after a year or two of hard study. And that is why the chances of something like Borislav Ivanov happening is too slim to not suspect cheating.
Tweet
Comment