Life In 19x19

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/17-yea ... r-cheating

Interesting article. It shows how hard it is to really act on heavy suspicions (especially if some people are interested in not rocking the boat) and how crushing the situation can be for the opponents:

Were we 100% sure that it was pure cheating? Of course not. But the way continual suspicion, irritation and a lack of reaction from the people who should have got involved affected our mental state is indescribable. I’m not talking even of crying, breakdowns and a feeling of helplessness after a round, emotions that impacted the further course of the tournament. It was never about the result. It was about the fact that each of us knew that something was wrong. And yes, the suspicions were strong, yes, they were reported. And in reply we heard that we’re jealous, that we can’t enjoy the success of a colleague and why are we wishing misfortune on her? That as Polish girls we’re a unit and we play on the same team, we should root for her, support her, clap when she stands on the podium and proudly listen to the national anthem. How many people lost medals, the chance of fair and deserved career development, the fulfilment of dreams? We felt cheated, almost unable to do anything about it, since, to put it bluntly, there was simply hardly anyone who wanted to catch her.

Interesting article, thanks.

My favorite quote:

Patrycja explained that she was planning to take on c8, but then in the toilet it occurred to her, why not play Ne3-g4! instead

(Emphasis mine.)

Here's another example of using bathrooms to cheat, but in a different context: ultra-marathoning.

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2020/06/ ... ty-cheater

mhlepore wrote:Here's another example of using bathrooms to cheat, but in a different context: ultra-marathoning.

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2020/06/ ... ty-cheater

Another quote I like:

I’m not the fastest guy on the trail but I'm pretty good at the strategic aspect of racing

I think this story shows an interesting development which is not getting through to the players, especially the young players.

Given the difficulty of detecting and proving cheating, it seems organisers are now saying not simply "you must not cheat" but "you must be entirely above any suspicion of cheating whether you cheat or not." That makes a lot of sense to me. Although it does require an honest attempt to give clear direction on what might constitutes suspicion, by its nature suspicion defies precise analysis and that in turn gives organisers the flexibility they lack when they have to prove something in a court or tribunal.

It does mean that sometimes there will be an injustice, and it's likely some people will make spurious allegations as part of psychological warfare. But to do nothing seems to mean a different form of injustice for very many more people - essentially everybody else in the same tournament.

So, to give a concrete example: you go to the toilet very often. You claim it's because you had a coke before the game. Don't drink before games. You claim it's nerves. Don't play in tournaments until you can control your nerves. Impose professional standards. Harsh? Not really. After all, no-one would tolerate a professional opera singer who stops in mid-aria for a toilet break. But also I don't think most people would tolerate an actress repeatedly disappearing in mid-speech in a play at the local amateur dramatic society.

The only problem with this that I see, as regards injustice for non cheaters, is the usual one of some people thinking it won't happen to them. It doesn't have to be with malice aforethought. It may be, for example, the simple forgetfulness or nonchalance of youth. I remember a story here a few weeks back when a young girl went clubbing on a night out with some friends, caught CV unbeknownst to her, went home with and, essentially, killed grannie. What a horrible thing to live with. But it seems to have had zero impact on thousands of others who still go out clubbing, or whatever. There seems to be a similar mindset in chess: I've got a phone in my bag but I'm not going to cheat so it doesn't matter.

John Fairbairn wrote:Impose professional standards.

In the Magnus Carlsen biopic he says that he still has a very childish humor and links this to having to be "adult" in front of the chess board since he was young. I think I also read somewhere that people complained when he turned up with his Donald Duck cartoons because they found that to be disrespectful. Though the level of competition for Magnus Carlsen when he was a young teen was way higher than that of the 17-year old. So on that level I guess standards are pretty professional.

Regarding electronic devices: In my experience in big tournaments they ban any electronic devices in the playing area or depending on the conrete playing area ban them even in the whole playing venue. Quite the hassle for players who travel alone I must say.

2 year ban for cheating?thats really nothing,is it because they were not sure about it?but banned for life is rather appropriate in my opinion if the case was 100% clear

Even an ordinary watch is an electronic device. Better dispose of it if rules speak of "electronic devices".

Frequency of visiting the toilet is no indication. Different human bodies have different needs. Thinking profits from supply with water. Doctors advise to drink enough per day. Thinking hard can greatly increase water circulation, especially in time trouble, under stress and when thinking extra hard. That is also because water contributes to regulate ions used for signalling of nerves. Some drinks cause faster water circulation. It is useful to visit the toilet before important moves to then be able to think better. Some professionals have reported to lose much weight during a long tournament game.

Infrequently, other needs can require visiting the toilet. E.g., I had my noise blood game, too, and had to wash my face every few minutes.

Install metal detectors in front of the rest room, if you want to, but do not deprive human beings of human needs and do not abandon dignity (compare §1 of the German constitution: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar.") by suspecting cheating because of them. The problem is not water circulation but the problem is any illegal means used there.

Have you already seen someone go to the toilet a dozen times during a tournament game (to pee, not because of a bleeding nose)? Or did it happen to you in the past?

if you want to, but do not deprive human beings of human needs and do not abandon dignity

Common sense applies here, too. If you have a special need (I can imagines a lot of special pee need in a seniors event!) and so realise you may arouse suspicion, you tell the referee, opponent or whomever in advance, and make yourself available for extra occasional checks. If you think that is unantastbar for your Würde I'd say you have a problem with your Würde that can easily be overcome. Not so log ago most people would have jibbed at letting strangers look inside their bags - especially ladies with handbags. But now everyone happily opens them up for security chappies at museums and so on. Airport security makes you remove shoes and belts and has a good smirk at passport photos. That can all feel pretty undignified, but people go along with it, and the sky doesn't fall in (and best of all the plane doesn't crash).

Of course, too, many sportsmen already accept having to go for a pee by order of the referee - and handle the sample!

If you really can't etwas vergeben your Würde, well, remember: noblesse oblige!

jlt wrote:Have you already seen someone go to the toilet a dozen times during a tournament game (to pee, not because of a bleeding nose)? Or did it happen to you in the past?

I drink a lot of water whilst playing and possibly do in British championship title match games which can be 6+ hours long.

Yes, I can understand that necessity for 6+ hrs games, or for older people, but for a teenager playing a chess game (probably less than 4h long), that's quite strange.

The specific chess dispute with witnesses and finding of a second smartphone can rise suspicions.

For the ordinary, non-dispute case, tolerate that different human beings are different and that age is not a requirement for being different. Age impacts average statistics but says nothing about each individual human being.

RobertJasiek wrote:The specific chess dispute with witnesses and finding of a second smartphone can rise suspicions.

Understandably, things will move the other way round: If you frequently leave the board before playing crucial moves and come back with the perfect respsonse, THAT will raise suspicion. Now people will be inclined to follow you into the toilet or ask the arbiter to check your belongings.

I think that's okay. Suspicion is not a verdict. You can still confront that suspicion openly if it bothers you or start bladder training.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/ban-lif ... ating-case

The ban was apparently overturned without prejudice.

The decision may not be available yet but it has been announced and speculation is rampant in the chess media (read the article if you are interested).