Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Cheating

2

Comments

  • #32
    reunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭reunion


    bigtoe7 wrote: »
    there need to be a detail discussion of methods of cheating and how best to prevent them , forcing players to move before going to loo is a good one ,also winners of prizes if any suspicion give them 3 or more chess puzzles to solve at end of tournament to claim the prize or spot.

    That would be incredibly idiotic. You have won this but first answer me these questions 3.

    There is no way you could detail every method of cheating and determine how to prevent it. The best scenario is to inform the arbiter and let them deal with the suspicion.

    The only suggestion I would have is to get arbiters to inform the ICU about possible cheaters. If someone always pops up for the same reason than you could tell that player at the next tournament to stop whatever was causing suspicion.


  • #33
    Ciaran
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Ciaran


    bigtoe7 wrote: »
    forcing players to move before going to loo is a good one
    This has always been the case from long before you could have a strong chess engine on your phone (or even a mobile phone at all).
    ,also winners of prizes if any suspicion give them 3 or more chess puzzles to solve at end of tournament to claim the prize or spot.
    This is a bit silly. What do you do if they get them wrong? Rescind their money for cheating? That would be ridiculous.


  • #34
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Yep. If nothing else, it doesn't distinguish between players who are tactically strong and those who are solid, reach a slightly superior endgame and grind out a win.


  • #35
    TheKeenMachine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 388 ✭✭TheKeenMachine


    It's very difficult to come up with an efficient method of preventing cheating. For example, a limit on trips to the toilet would prove disastrous to players (such as myself) who drink a lot of water during the match and thus need to go to the toilet 7+ times per game. I've taken to leaving my phone on the table at the start of the game (switched off) just to assure my opponents that my numerous bathroom trips are innocent. Maybe this could be a way for arbiters to ensure no (or at least less) cheating goes on.


  • #36
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Problem with that is that you bring two phones - one a dummy just to show that it's off, and one for use in the toilets then.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    cdeb wrote: »
    Problem with that is that you bring two phones - one a dummy just to show that it's off, and one for use in the toilets then.
    Down that road leads to security staff checking players with metal detectors, searching the toilets before, during and after games, and then someone making sure nobody on the security staff is in on any possible cheating and... well, you'd swear there was serious money involved here, wouldn't you? :D


  • #38
    reunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭reunion


    Sparks wrote: »
    Down that road leads to security staff checking players with metal detectors, searching the toilets before, during and after games, and then someone making sure nobody on the security staff is in on any possible cheating and... well, you'd swear there was serious money involved here, wouldn't you? :D

    Next we will have video camera in the toilets and trackers on every player...

    People need to realise that this is Irish casual chess. This is not a world championship title match. When you bring in such ridiculous laws to try to stop 1 incident in about 10 years; that's where the casual player stops and instead plays online or with friends (or abroad). When every other tournament in the world introduces the same rules; we should. Otherwise we are shooting chess in the foot for the sake of stopping 1 incident in 10 years.


  • #39
    brilliantboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭brilliantboy


    reunion wrote: »
    Next we will have video camera in the toilets and trackers on every player...

    People need to realise that this is Irish casual chess. This is not a world championship title match. When you bring in such ridiculous laws to try to stop 1 incident in about 10 years; that's where the casual player stops and instead plays online or with friends (or abroad). When every other tournament in the world introduces the same rules; we should. Otherwise we are shooting chess in the foot for the sake of stopping 1 incident in 10 years.

    One confirmed incident, only highlighted because the victim of the cheating was daring enough to take what most people would consider extreme action.


  • #40
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    I think most people would tell you that cheating is very much the exception rather than the rule in Irish chess. Extreme measures aren't needed. Action against the cheat should put people off in the future too.


  • #41
    bigtoe7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭bigtoe7


    if you are playing like a 2400 player in a competition and then can not solve chess puzzles designed for 1800 rated player then something is wrong .i can provide links where in several tournaments suspicious organizers gave winner easy chess puzzles and could not solve them and disqualified the winner . a cheater will think twice if entering a competition knowing he has to solve puzzles at the end , not possible to play like a Grand master and then not able to solve puzzles that you should easily be able based on your performance in tournament.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    bigtoe7 wrote: »
    i can provide links where in several tournaments suspicious organizers gave winner easy chess puzzles and could not solve them and disqualified the winner
    Provide away.

    Nonsense that a tournament winner should then have to jump through hoops to get a prize.


  • #43
    bigtoe7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭bigtoe7


    @cdeb

    here is one of the links , john von neumann was caught in 1993 after failing to solve simple chess puzzles if you had your way he would have come back and would have won the next tournament. in 2002 lampertheim open tournament organizer caught a cheater by looking over the wall into a toilet cubicle .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess


  • #44
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bigtoe7 wrote: »
    john von neumann was caught in 1993
    That can't have been his real name :D


  • #45
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    The von Neumann affair seems to be different though; he seems to have been a complete patzer, who had hardly played the game before. Big difference to a 1400 cheating (or having a good tournament) and getting an 1800 rating performance. There's more here, including -
    J. von Neumann - NN [B40] Philadelphia Open, 1993: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.e5 Nd5 7.Bd2 Nxc3 8.Bxc3 Bxc3+.

    Here von Neumann thought for forty minutes, although there is only one reasonable move (pawn takes bishop). Then he disappeared for a while, came back, played 9.bxc3 and won the game. Obviously there was some communication problem that had to be solved.


  • #46
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    A point raised elsewhere (and still avoiding any specific cases for obvious reasons): the way the ICU is constructed at present, there's a small but non-zero chance of serious financial costs if they state in public that someone was cheating and that person decides to sue them for defamation (because even if you win a court case convincingly and have costs awarded, you don't get all your money back and you have to have paid your legal team up front).

    Given that, is cheating in Ireland expected to get so bad in the future that the ICU now need to have litigation insurance or even to incorporate to prevent future ICU committee officers from serious financial liability in the event of future lawsuits?


  • #47
    reunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭reunion


    Sparks wrote: »
    A point raised elsewhere (and still avoiding any specific cases for obvious reasons): the way the ICU is constructed at present, there's a small but non-zero chance of serious financial costs if they state in public that someone was cheating and that person decides to sue them for defamation (because even if you win a court case convincingly and have costs awarded, you don't get all your money back and you have to have paid your legal team up front).

    Given that, is cheating in Ireland expected to get so bad in the future that the ICU now need to have litigation insurance or even to incorporate to prevent future ICU committee officers from serious financial liability in the event of future lawsuits?

    The ICU doesn't publicly state person X is *insert insult* nor does it state person Y is a Cheat. It can state disciplinary committee Z found that person X is *insert insult* on the occasion they were investigating and that person Y cheated on the occasion they were investigating.

    No cheating won't get that bad; however chess players are that stupid that they would get lawyers to defend 1 rating point.

    Just reading speculations on a blog about a suspended 12 month sentence was the outcome of one of the committees, thoughts? - http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/blog/the-3-unwise-men/


  • #48
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    reunion wrote: »
    The ICU doesn't publicly state person X is *insert insult* nor does it state person Y is a Cheat. It can state disciplinary committee Z found that person X is *insert insult* on the occasion they were investigating and that person Y cheated on the occasion they were investigating.
    Thing is, I'm pretty certain that the latter statement could trigger a lawsuit just as easily as the first because in Talbot which we mentioned a while ago, it was a single incident -- and not even a public incident either -- that formed the basis of the lawsuit. Ask anyone who's gone through the act and the case law and they'll tell you the same thing - defamation law in Ireland is a nightmare for anyone being accused of it (unless they're rich, of course).

    And yeah, Talbot lost, and anyone taking such a case in this instance might well lose too, but like you said...
    chess players ... would get lawyers to defend 1 rating point.
    And if someone takes the case, even if it hasn't got a snowball's chance of winning, then the ICU still has to pay for a solicitor and possibly a barrister and go to court; and even if they win, they probably can't recover all their outlaw (because if costs are awarded, they aren't refunded a set amount of their solicitor's fee, which is set out ahead of time in a section 68 letter). That's the kicker, and it's why I was thinking about the litigation insurance point.

    Or, in shorter form, only the lawyers ever win in a court case :D
    Just reading speculations on a blog about a suspended 12 month sentence was the outcome of one of the committees, thoughts? - http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/blog/the-3-unwise-men/
    First thought was somewhere between "you're not wasting your time reading that dross, are you?" and an unprintable comment regarding the quality of tabloidism in internet punditry :D

    Second thought was "I'll wait to hear what the ICU actually says" -- there's people happily speculating in several places about what the ISC will say (and a very surprising amount of people making allegations about the parties involved that are completely actionable, including some in that link you posted); but commenting on it in public risks giving someone grounds for a defamation suit and really, that's just not worth it when you can just wait a while and then comment on it safely...


  • #49
    my my my
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,969 ✭✭✭my my my


    it depends who your'e playing, i used to play against a lad from london who i would usuaally scrape the win against, but for the craic i used to put 2 knights on one square at the start, he never notice , so i send one knight on a suicidal rampage and the game is tipping more quikly in my favour, all is fair in love and war


  • #50
    brilliantboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭brilliantboy


    my my my wrote: »
    it depends who your'e playing, i used to play against a lad from london who i would usuaally scrape the win against, but for the craic i used to put 2 knights on one square at the start, he never notice , so i send one knight on a suicidal rampage and the game is tipping more quikly in my favour, all is fair in love and war

    did he have any eyes?

    no, scratch that, he'd still notice even if he didn't have any eyes


  • #51
    RQ_ennis_chess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭RQ_ennis_chess


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    brilliantboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭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


  • #53
    EnPassant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 280 ✭✭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?


  • #54
    RQ_ennis_chess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭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?


  • #55
    reunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭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)


  • #56
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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!).


  • #57
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #58
    Pete Morriss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 216 ✭✭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.


  • #59
    pdsparky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1 ✭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.


  • #60
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RQ_ennis_chess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭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.


Advertisement
Advertisement