Italian cheating case

Lucena

Sparks wrote: »

Folks, is it at all possible that NotCominBack might not have been completely serious about reporting a 9-year-old to the Gardai, her school, her future schools and colleges and employers for cheating in a board game, but might have been employing gentle humour to highlight the difficulties inherent in an extreme approach?

If so, let us know and we will of course ban him and the next three generations of his family and all of his friends. We don't hold with that ungodly communist practice at all!

I took it to mean cheats in general, especially ones using electronic assistance.

I doubt s/he wanted any such punishment for a 9-year-old.

Lucena

sinbad68 wrote: »

You obviously haven't read shakespear's sonnet number 29

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/29

A word commonly used in the past .Google " bootless "

Ah, of course, Shakespeare's Sonnet number 29! I'm kicking myself for missing that!

wine and final destination

Hard to know who the truly bootless party was there!

cdeb

NotCominBack wrote: »

How was it my fault, the same position didn't repeat itself 3 times, I could still move to an different position, she said I had moved to same position 3 times, either miscounting or cheating, she was 9 and could play chess (not very well though as I was winning) so I know she could count, therefore she cheated

Just for the record, that's why you write your moves down - so you can check for yourself.

Not cheating.

Hard to know how to solve the issue of cheating though. And indeed how prevalent it is or what percentage of cheaters get caught out?

NotCominBack

Actually my story is true, and I too was about 9 years old so we weren't writing moves down, but strangely enough I don't remember a lot about playing chess growing up, other than greatly enjoying playing, but I do have a clear memory of that game, or rather the result.

I guess my point is that cheating in chess is absolutely pointless and is so uncommon that it really can be treated as a bit of a joke...

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

You obviously haven't read shakespear's sonnet number 29

No, I always thought shakespeare was a hack who didn't know how to spell his own name, and that Shelley was by far the better writer.

A word commonly used in the past .Google " bootless "

Yeah, not that commonly. Unless you mean "back when we all spoke middle english", and while I'm no spring chicken, I'm not immortal either.

Either way though, I still don't know if you're talking about Bunratty, the NCC, or either of the Galway events...

Lucena

NotCominBack wrote: »

Actually my story is true, and I too was about 9 years old so we weren't writing moves down, but strangely enough I don't remember a lot about playing chess growing up, other than greatly enjoying playing, but I do have a clear memory of that game, or rather the result.

I guess my point is that cheating in chess is absolutely pointless and is so uncommon that it really can be treated as a bit of a joke...

Technically, for your opponent to make a 3-fold repetition claim, the moves would need to be written down. Or have an arbiter observing the whole thing. But generally in large tournaments with lots of young and inexperienced players, arbiters don't have time to do much other than note down the results.

reunion

Lucena wrote: »

Technically, for your opponent to make a 3-fold repetition claim, the moves would need to be written down. Or have an arbiter observing the whole thing. But generally in large tournaments with lots of young and inexperienced players, arbiters don't have time to do much other than note down the results.

To make a claim for 3 fold repetition: before you repeat the position a third time, you stop the clock and call over the arbiter. You inform them of your intended move and that it would be 3 fold repetition and they may have to go through the game to verify your claim (the position has to occur 3 times, not in a row).

Just to note that isn't cheating. That is an incorrect claim that you agreed with. That would be your ignorance of the rules. You could have called the arbiter and said it was a false claim and the arbiter would determine a ruling.

brilliantboy

NotCominBack wrote: »

I guess my point is that cheating in chess is absolutely pointless and is so uncommon that it really can be treated as a bit of a joke...

I don't know about that. It may seem like a bit of a joke to you but a lot of people spend a lot of time and resources on pursuing chess as a hobby and have every right to be sore when it happens.
And as for pointless, how can it be pointless when there is prize money and rating points on offer? A recent high profile cheat was a multiple time Georgian champion, and while no one can say for sure whether he used assistance to win his titles, if he did then he was handsomely rewarded for it. Until he got caught of course, but when the method of cheating was no more sophisticated than a mobile phone hidden in a bathroom stall that was bound to happen.

Sparks

And as for pointless, how can it be pointless when there is prize money and rating points on offer?

Yes, but now you're introducing that whole proportionality of response thing which is, as we all know, GODLESS COMMUNIST WRONGTHINK THAT MUST BE STAMPED OUT LEST OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS BE CORRUPTED.

*ahem*

why yes, I was rewatching classic movies lately, why do you ask?

Lucena

brilliantboy wrote: »

I don't know about that. It may seem like a bit of a joke to you but a lot of people spend a lot of time and resources on pursuing chess as a hobby and have every right to be sore when it happens.
And as for pointless, how can it be pointless when there is prize money and rating points on offer? A recent high profile cheat was a multiple time Georgian champion, and while no one can say for sure whether he used assistance to win his titles, if he did then he was handsomely rewarded for it. Until he got caught of course, but when the method of cheating was no more sophisticated than a mobile phone hidden in a bathroom stall that was bound to happen.

Cheating in chess is a serious issue, if the general perception becomes that the game is full of cheats, no-one will want to touch it (sponsors, government funding...)

Thing is, lads popping in and out of the jacks every five minutes when it's their move is fairly obvious. Imagine what happens if he arrives in the jacks and the stall where the phone is is already taken. Nightmare!:pac:

pawntof4

As a smoker these cheaters are a pain in the arse! I'm always afraid of being accused of cheating when all I'm doing is going for a smoke!

L1m1tless

As long as you go for a smoke when it's your opponents move, its fine. Nothing worse though than getting up to go for one and your opponent quickly moves.

sinbad68

Neo_Ninja wrote: »

As long as you go for a smoke when it's your opponents move, its fine. Nothing worse though than getting up to go for one and your opponent quickly moves.

Technically speaking, If strict interpretation of, being your opponent move when you are allowed to leave the venue room applied, you could be forced to stay and play your entire game without being able to leave, if opponent moves immediately after you do,. Easy solution is, when you are planning to leave after your move, to stand up and then play the move which would indicate your intention to leave and there is no confusion. The problem with fide& icu rules are, that they were written by men with too many grey hairs and not enough grey matter in their skulls to plan for variety of possible scenarios & problems .

Sparks wrote: »

No, I always thought shakespeare was a hack who didn't know how to spell his own name

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/loss_for_words.gif

ComDubh

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what the "venue" is. "The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter."

Middle Man

NotCominBack wrote: »

How was it my fault, the same position didn't repeat itself 3 times, I could still move to an different position, she said I had moved to same position 3 times, either miscounting or cheating, she was 9 and could play chess (not very well though as I was winning) so I know she could count, therefore she cheated

Did you not check your notes before agreeing?

Edit: I read in a later post that you didn't write down your moves and neither did your opponent. As far as I'm aware, if ye were playing to any standard time such as 1:30, 1:45 or Fischer etc in a regulation game, players are required to write down their moves - must check the FIDE regulations sometime. What time control were you using?

Middle Man

Chess_Coach wrote: »

All cheaters should be named and shamed .Every single one of them

Certainly for anyone caught using a chess engine during a competitive game from age 13 upwards...

Middle Man

reunion wrote: »

<snip>
Just to note that isn't cheating. That is an incorrect claim that you agreed with. That would be your ignorance of the rules.
</snip>

Agree!

NotCominBack

Middle Man wrote: »

Agree!

Actually both of you are incorrect, I did not agree, I never agreed