Cheating

brilliantboy

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

The ICU have confirmed the punishment for the incident in Cork is a 4 month suspended ban for the player who cheated. They also say that they couldn't overturn the subcommittees decision, something which doesnt really sound believable since the ICU have overturned subcommittees decisions before even without giving any reason for doing so.

What a complete farce :mad:
I don't suppose we'll ever find out what these mysterious circumstances that led the subcommittee to such a ridiculous decision were.

I hope there's a big turnout for the Irish Blitz Championships on the 29th of September

EnPassant

brilliantboy wrote: »

What a complete farce :mad:
I don't suppose we'll ever find out what these mysterious circumstances that led the subcommittee to such a ridiculous decision were.

I presume the committee took into account the events that occurred at the tournament and the resulting publicity. In cases like this, getting found out is the main punishment. Whatever penalty the ICU imposes is very much secondary.

brilliantboy wrote: »

I hope there's a big turnout for the Irish Blitz Championships on the 29th of September

From arbiter Guert Gijssen at ChessCafe.Com:
"I am always wary of issuing new rules based on a specific incident. The danger is that these new rules will be overly zealous." http://chesscafe.com/text/geurt122.pdf

I don't think the AGM should rush into imposing a schedule of draconian punishments. A standard penalty, graduated by age, would make life simpler for future committees but I don't think it should be excessive. Perhaps the ICU Executive itself should propose what they think is the appropriate penalty?

RQ_ennis_chess

EnPassant wrote: »

I presume the committee took into account the events that occurred at the tournament and the resulting publicity. In cases like this, getting found out is the main punishment. Whatever penalty the ICU imposes is very much secondary.

Hmm maybe athletics and cycling shouldnt punish drug cheats then since 'in cases like this, getting found out is the main punishment'. Are you serious?

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Hmm maybe athletics and cycling shouldnt punish drug cheats then since 'in cases like this, getting found out is the main punishment'. Are you serious?

I think what he meant was that the player was found guilty via the media before even a fair hearing was even called by the ICU. I still wouldn't agree that should heavily impact any sanction.

I do have a question: If you suspect your opponent is cheating, what exactly are you meant to do?

Is it looking into cubicles at people using the toilet (what if the minor was using the toilet)? Is it trying to grab the device? Is it forcing a cubicle door open and pulling someone out of a toilet and "overreacting"?

Or is it informing the arbiter and letting them investigate?

People seem to think, the player admitted the offence and that's all that matters. (Judging from the statement to the Limerick post), I don't know when the arbiters saw the minors using a device? Everything from the P.I. work of the opponent to an actual investigation (by either the arbiters or disciplinary committee) should and has to be considered.

(Limerick Post article)

Sparks

From the ICU website:

First Disciplinary Committee Concludes
by ICU Executive (August 2013)

The Irish Chess Union received an allegation of cheating at a tournament that took place in Ireland in April. The ICU take such allegations extremely seriously, and, in accordance with its Constitution, and code of Conduct, the Executive Committee of the ICU appointed a Disciplinary Sub-committee to investigate the matter. The Disciplinary Sub-committee found that the player had indeed cheated at the tournament, by consulting a programme on an electronic device outside the playing area whilst the game was in progress. The player admitted the offence. Because the player is a minor, the player is not being named by the ICU. The Disciplinary Committee decided that, taking all the circumstances into account, the player should be subject to a four-month ban on playing in tournaments rated by the Irish Chess Union, starting from 21 April 2013, with the ban suspended during the same period.

The Executive Committee of the ICU discussed the Disciplinary Committee’s report at their meeting of 25 August, and agreed, without dissent, on the following statement:
“Since the Disciplinary Committee is independent we cannot alter its decision, but the ICU Executive want to state that we regard this sentence as excessively lenient, and will put steps in place to ensure more appropriate sanctions in future. When FIDE introduce guidelines on such matters, the ICU will ensure that its procedures are in full accordance with them"

That doesn't say that the ICU can't overturn the decision, it says that they can't order the subcommittee to return a specific finding (if they could, it'd be a farce).

It also says they disagree with it. There's nothing there that says they can't overturn this tomorrow, or even that the new committee after the upcoming AGM can't do the same.

Frankly though, the incoming committee (and the outgoing one) have two much bigger issues to deal with than this specific incident:

How to avoid financial ruin if the family of the minor involved sue because he was named in a blog post by the ICU vice-chairman - any such lawsuit would be taken against the individuals on the ICU committee personally because of its structure; and
1. How to cope with future incidents so that anyone volunteering for the ICU committee isn't volunteering to risk financial ruin because one person out of 21 breaks with the best practice and common sense established by every single sports club and NGB in the country after long consideration and consultation with legal experts.

Bluntly, if the ICU does not incorporate, get some legal insurance, and completely rewrite their procedures, someone is going to find themselves right up the creek without a paddle at some point in the future. And they probably don't have time to wait on FIDE to come up with rules (and they shouldn't wait anyway -- FIDE won't draft those rules with the specifics of Irish law in mind!).

Sparks

EnPassant wrote: »

I don't think the AGM should rush into imposing a schedule of draconian punishments. A standard penalty, graduated by age, would make life simpler for future committees but I don't think it should be excessive. Perhaps the ICU Executive itself should propose what they think is the appropriate penalty?

Utterly right that they shouldn't create a draconian schedule of punishments, but really the problem won't be fixed by having them create any such schedule. If they want to make their life easier in the event of future incidents, they have a lot more work to do than just decide on punishments ahead of time when the rest of the system in place now is utterly unable to enforce a punishment in the event that the accused person decides to get nasty and sic a solicitor on them (by my reckoning, there's already been so many breaches of the protection of children rules surrounding this case that they'd really want to have engaged a solicitor already).

And people might want to get a grip as well - the ICU is a legally just an unincorporated association. Three lads standing at a bar and talking about the football have got the same legal standing that the ICU does at the moment.

Any chess player who's expecting that the ICU can ride in on a white horse, tell solicitors to bleep off when they show up to a hearing, compel people to testify, investigate the case in the style of Dirty Harry and then sentence a minor to any punishment they want... well, that player would be seriously out of touch with reality. The ICU is not the Gardai, the DPP or the courts.

Realistically, all the ICU can do is avoid being sued into oblivion, establish (maybe) what happened, and if they decide the person was cheating, refuse them permission to play in ICU-rated matches for a period of time. They can't kick the person out of their chess club, they can't stop them playing chess, they can't denounce them in the media or even to other ICU members, and they can't fine them. Our laws do not permit private people to police other private people. And if that sounds like responses to cheating will always be insufficient or at best unsatisfying, then you've got a pretty good handle on what the rest of the sports NGBs have been grappling with in this country for well over a decade now.

Pete Morriss

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

The ICU ... say that they couldn't overturn the subcommittees decision, something which doesnt really sound believable since the ICU have overturned subcommittees decisions before even without giving any reason for doing so.

That's because, technically, a Disciplinary Committee is not a sub-committee of the Executive: a Disciplinary Committee is set up under the ICU's Code of Conduct (http://www.icu.ie/icu/code_of_conduct.php), and sub-committees aren't. The Code of Conduct implies (though it does not specifically say) that the Executive cannot overturn a Disciplinary Committee's findings.

In order to remove ambiguity about this, I have already submitted a motion for consideration at the AGM to change the Procedures section of the Code of Conduct in a number of ways, including allowing the Executive to appeal against a Disciplinary Committee's findings. I'm not sure that that is, on balance, a good idea, but I think the members should have an opportunity of expressing their views on the idea.

pdsparky

Four months seems very lenient (some explanation would be nice), but I'm much more concerned with the result of the other committee. I had been intending restarting a junior club, but if the ICU don't impose a very lengthy ban for the admitted privacy invasion of a minor I can have no confidence in their child protection policies, and would actively point parents to this incident as a reason not to have their children involved. And that would be a major pity given the substantial voluntary work some have put in in recent years.

Myrddin

Cmod Note:

Please do not speculate as to the legal procedure & outcomes of what you feel might be a potential legal situation, in particular the ICU & minor scenario. For example, it's fine to say something like "My belief is there are legal implications when you ban a minor for [insert action here]", but leave it at that please. Unqualified speculation thereafter is not permitted, nor will it be tolerated here either.

Please stick to the facts. Warnings/infractions & then bans will follow if this persists.

Cheers

RQ_ennis_chess

1. How to avoid financial ruin if the family of the minor involved sue because he was named in a blog post by the ICU vice-chairman - any such lawsuit would be taken against the individuals on the ICU committee personally because of its structure; and

Dont see why this would be the case, the ICU have not endorsed Irish Chess Cogitations or indicated its an official blog of the ICU. Any opinions expressed on it are the authors own and not official ICU thinking therefore I do not see why any member of the ICU committee would need to be worried about anothers posting on an unrelated forum.

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Dont see why this would be the case, the ICU have not endorsed Irish Chess Cogitations or indicated its an official blog of the ICU. Any opinions expressed on it are the authors own and not official ICU thinking therefore I do not see why any member of the ICU committee would need to be worried about anothers posting on an unrelated forum.

The post has been changed and the minor's name removed; no need to speculate anymore about what could have happened

Zugszwang

Neither the ICU nor its subcommittee are at fault here. The ICU is an amateur organisation and does not have the procedures in place to deal wit this sort of thing, nor the funds for the legal backup required to manage disciplinary action properly. I work in a large company where I deal with disciplinary issues from time to time. As well as strict guidelines vetted by our solicitors, we know to immediately terminate a disciplinary meeting where someone appears with their solicitor, and will only continue when our solicitor is also present (though this has never happened in my experience, even though far more than chess ban is at stake).

In my opinion, the person who cheated at the chess tournament cheated a second time by bringing a solicitor to the meeting with the ICU. This breached the "gentleman's agreement" of going along with the ICU's disciplinary procedures and introduced a not-very-subtle threat of civil action against each of the disciplinary committee's members. Any sensible person on the disciplinary committee would have just rolled over and gone home at that stage. The game isn't worth the candle. The cheater, and his/her advisors, have behaved disgracefully in this affair, in my opinion.

littletoe7

@zugzewang . gentlemen don't cheat & cheats are not gentlemen. ICU & fide long time ago should have decided on automatic course of action (sentence ) should any one get caught cheating and not waited for the event to happen . ICU members could have voted on line ( gave us something to do )for an appropriate sentence . obama went to the whole congress for decision on syria

Sparks

littletoe7 wrote: »

obama went to the whole congress for decision on syria

The President of the United States of America might have slightly more legal authority than the committee of the ICU

littletoe7

<snipped>

Please do not engage in speculation as to the viability or outcome of a legal scenario of which you have no involvement in. Thank you

Ciaran

littletoe7 wrote: »

@ sparky . icu website has voting facility where members can vote .icu could have let the members decide what punishment a cheat deserves ( after all we live in a democracy ? )

Oh come on, should we have a referendum on the sentence for every controversial court case? This is something that the committee should look after and hopefully will be better prepared for in future.

Sparks

littletoe7 wrote: »

ICU members could have voted on line ( gave us something to do )for an appropriate sentence

Oddly, most sports -- actually, all sports -- governing bodies have opted not to use American Idol as their model for how to run a disciplinary process.

Pherekydes

Sparks wrote: »

Oddly, most sports -- actually, all sports -- governing bodies have opted not to use American Idol as their model for how to run a disciplinary process.

But Chess is only a game.

RQ_ennis_chess

Pherekydes wrote: »

But Chess is only a game.

Exactly, in just the same way that football is only a game

mikhail

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Exactly, in just the same way that football is only a game

To paraphrase Shankley, it's not a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

From the ICU website:

That doesn't say that the ICU can't overturn the decision, it says that they can't order the subcommittee to return a specific finding (if they could, it'd be a farce).

It also says they disagree with it. There's nothing there that says they can't overturn this tomorrow, or even that the new committee after the upcoming AGM can't do the same.

And according to the Cork Chess Club, that's exactly what's now happened. From twitter:

Cork Chess Club wrote:

ICU to release a statement on the sanction imposed ref 2013 incident.. Not the heaviest of sanctions...

And when asked if that was a new statement (or if their account had somehow tweeted something wierd):

Cork Chess Club wrote:

Yes. Appeals committee met. New statement due out. Sanction applied.

Nothing on the ICU website yet, but it's only been an hour...

Sparks

Seems to have been a misunderstanding somewhere, the statement is now released to ICU members (copyright laws in Ireland don't allow the republication of stuff without permission so I'm not quoting it) but it refers to the second case related to cork, not the first, so it's not a revisiting of the original sanctions in the first case.

Interesting reading; and it's not just a statement on the cork case, but also on the reviewing of the ICU code of conduct and constitution, and the financial accounts for 2012-13.

Sparks

From twitter:

Cork Chess Club wrote:

ICU post decision & found force used on a minor to be proved. 10 month ban with 7 months suspended. 3 year ban from any ICU position

reunion

It would seem that these documents have nothing to do with cheating.

Maybe a new thread discussing these documents might be in order? Well maybe one for each topic.

1. Accounts for our financial year 2012-13
2. The ICU Code of Conduct
3. Review of the Constitution
4. Second Disciplinary Case

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

It would seem that these documents have nothing to do with cheating.

Well, #4 was related. And originally I just thought #4 was the only one being released (I didn't understand CCC's tweet accurately enough, my bad).

Maybe a new thread discussing these documents might be in order? Well maybe one for each topic.

Brilliant idea, but since those docs are ICU member's only, copyright means we'd need them to okay posting the docs themselves (though frankly, for #2 and #3 at least, it could probably be helpful to them to say yes and get more discussion going). Thank Minister Sherlock for that nugget of dross...

You're the mod though, you ask 'em

reunion

Well that's if we wish to reproduce the documents in it's entirety.

We can link to the documents on the ICU website and state that people must be logged in to access them.

A summation of the points or a discussion about the documents would be allowed. With 1 email permitted about some items, I think a discussion might be beneficial

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Well that's if we wish to reproduce the documents in it's entirety.

Or any ten words from them.
Copyright law in Ireland is properly stupid.

We can link to the documents on the ICU website and state that people must be logged in to access them.

Yup, but you guys are going to be stuck checking every post for any quotes that break the ten word limit (and even that isn't set in statute law, but case law, so it could change in the future).

A summation of the points or a discussion about the documents would be allowed. With 1 email permitted about some items, I think a discussion might be beneficial

I strongly agree, but I think it might be easier all round if we just got permission from the ICU to sidestep the copyright malarky.

cdeb

For the record, I've checked with the ICU, and for the moment, we don't have permission to reproduce the post as it's behind a membership paywall (or whatever you'd call that)

We can discuss what's publicly out there via twitter and the way.

If we link to the ICU documents, I think the link just wouldn't work unless you're logged in, so I don't see a problem with that?

Sparks

As far as I know, links are still okay, it's content is the issue.

cdeb

So link away, and mods will moderate posts if needs be.

Edit - with my mod hat on, do take this as a warning that quoting or reproducing the report will have their post deleted and will pick up an infraction. It's member-only for a reason; let's respect that. Anyone who is a member of the ICU should have no problems logging onto the site and reading it there.

Discussion of the topics is allowed - within the usual reasonable limit - but no direct quotes

Please and thanks

Past sell by Date

OMG Gabriel in the papers again ,this time only page 2 of the herald

Past_Pawn_99

Past sell by Date wrote: »

OMG Gabriel in the papers again ,this time only page 2 of the herald

can you give a link to the article?

Sparks

http://www.herald.ie/news/teen-caught-in-chess-cheat-row-is-banned-30127759.html

That's one confused article, it doesn't seem to understand that there were two disciplinary actions resulting from the one event, it seems like they're reporting on them as seperate actions from seperate events.

cdeb

That doesn't necessarily look like Mirza's doing this time in fairness.

Sparks

Up on Susan Polgar's blog as well (but it's quoting the herald article in full so we can't quote it here).

mikhail

The Indo (I think - I didn't buy it; could have been the Irish Times) also ran this story.