Cheating

Sparks

So, the elephant in the room. Avoiding discussion of any specific events, both because (as mentioned earlier) the topic of cheating in an amateur sport is a defamation minefield; and because it's not as useful to discuss individual events instead of general principles -- but what do people think should be done to combat cheating in competitive chess?

And when it's detected, what should be done about it? Should there be graduations in what we think of as cheating or a binary you-are-or-you-aren't approach? What about graduations for punishment?

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

So, the elephant in the room. Avoiding discussion of any specific events, both because (as mentioned earlier) the topic of cheating in an amateur sport is a defamation minefield; and because it's not as useful to discuss individual events instead of general principles -- but what do people think should be done to combat cheating in competitive chess?

And when it's detected, what should be done about it? Should there be graduations in what we think of as cheating or a binary you-are-or-you-aren't approach? What about graduations for punishment?

I think there is no one fits all scenario, however in principle everyone will agree cheating = bad and should be stopped.

I honestly don't think cheating is that common in local Irish tournaments and to introduce a policy that adversely affects the common player will only serve to decrease a small active playing population.

Ciaran

reunion wrote: »

I honestly don't think cheating is that common in local Irish tournaments and to introduce a policy that adversely affects the common player will only serve to decrease a small active playing population.

I'd agree with that. I've never once worried that an opponent of mine was cheating and an overly intrusive anti-cheating regime at tournaments would put me off more than the small chance that I'd lose a game unfairly. Most of us play for fun and too much hassle around games would be more of a problem than rare cases of cheating.

On punishment, a one-year ban for a first offence and permanent on a second offence seems reasonable to me. Obviously, it'd need to be proven.

RQ_ennis_chess

The ICU and tournament organisers need to take cheating seriously. I would suggest that at the beginning of the round all mobile devices are switched off and left on the table at the players side or are held by tournament organisers (once you post your results you get your phone back). Any player seen with a mobile device while games are in progress gets defaulted (whether its turned on or not). Anybody leaving the playing hall repeatedly while their game is in progress should be subject to additional scrutiny.

brilliantboy

Ciaran wrote: »

On punishment, a one-year ban for a first offence and permanent on a second offence seems reasonable to me. Obviously, it'd need to be proven.

I'm of the opinion that a one year ban would be far too lenient. When a lot of people only play in 3 or 4 events per year, if that, is a one year ban going to be enough of a deterrent?

I can understand the necessity of having reduced bans for a first offence in athletic sports where it's possible to take a supplement without realizing it contains a banned substance for example, but in chess, where cheating can be nothing but the result of a pre-calculated plan to get one over on your opponent by receiving outside assistance, I think we need more stringent measures. Having said that, people make mistakes and the death sentence of a permanent ban is perhaps a bit too much for a first offence, especially in the case of juniors.

So, my own thinking would be more along the lines of a 2-3 year ban for juniors, 4-5 years for adults, and a permanent ban in all cases for repeat offenders.

Of course more important right now is that detection measures and procedures to follow should be made clear, and I trust that the ICU will do so when the investigation into the Cork incident is wrapped up.

Ciaran

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

The ICU and tournament organisers need to take cheating seriously. I would suggest that at the beginning of the round all mobile devices are switched off and left on the table at the players side or are held by tournament organisers (once you post your results you get your phone back). Any player seen with a mobile device while games are in progress gets defaulted (whether its turned on or not). Anybody leaving the playing hall repeatedly while their game is in progress should be subject to additional scrutiny.

That's all quite reasonable. If there was a reliable way to check suspect games (like of someone who's left the playing hall regularly) for engine use afterwards, it would be a big help but I doubt that would be doable.

brilliantboy wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that a one year ban would be far too lenient. When a lot of people only play in 3 or 4 events per year, if that, is a one year ban going to be enough of a deterrent?

Maybe it's too short. I just picked a year off the top of my head really. To be honest, the damage to the player's reputation would be worse than the ban. Would you want someone who'd been caught cheating as a member in your club?

Sparks

Ciaran wrote: »

Would you want someone who'd been caught cheating as a member in your club?

Surely any decent club wouldn't allow them to remain members?

Ciaran

Sparks wrote: »

Surely any decent club wouldn't allow them to remain members?

Exactly. The length of a ban will be secondary to the player's pariah status.

RQ_ennis_chess

Ciaran wrote: »

That's all quite reasonable. If there was a reliable way to check suspect games (like of someone who's left the playing hall regularly) for engine use afterwards, it would be a big help but I doubt that would be doable.

It could be possible Ciaran, if someone was leaving the hall repeatedly and didnt have a good reason to do so, their games could be analysed afterward with an engine to see the number of moves that corresponded. Having said that I dont know if checking with an engine at lower levels of chess would reveal anything anyway, as there could be the occasional very good (computer assisted move) mixed in with dross. At higher levels though it can be useful. There is an interesting case going on at the moment involving the Bulgarian player Borislav Ivanov. There seemed to be strong circumstantial evidence that this player was cheating however despite intense scrutiny nothing has been found. He has been performing strongly even in blitz tournaments so if he is cheating he has taken it to a new level! http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008781

Ciaran

Checking the games isn't the hard part, it's the conclusions that are difficult. How many moves that agree with computer choices (even assuming that there isn't much variation between different engines) do you need to conclude that someone is cheating? I'm often pleasantly surprised to find how many of my moves Houdini approves of (around 60% in my last game, which I didn't even win) and I'd assume the numbers would be considerably higher for top players so I'd imagine you'd need 90% or so of moves to match an engine to be sure someone was cheating. Even then, how do you discount someone just having a lucky game?

I've seen a video on youtube where someone lays out a case against that Ivanov guy based a few tournaments. It's reasonably convincing but I don't know that I'd be happy banning someone based on circumstantial evidence like that.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Surely any decent club wouldn't allow them to remain members?

Why would a club stop someone joining? A punishment is determined by pre-set rules. Further punishing someone after their punishment has ended; could bring legal trouble.

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

It could be possible Ciaran, if someone was leaving the hall repeatedly and didnt have a good reason to do so, their games could be analysed afterward with an engine to see the number of moves that corresponded. Having said that I dont know if checking with an engine at lower levels of chess would reveal anything anyway, as there could be the occasional very good (computer assisted move) mixed in with dross. At higher levels though it can be useful. There is an interesting case going on at the moment involving the Bulgarian player Borislav Ivanov. There seemed to be strong circumstantial evidence that this player was cheating however despite intense scrutiny nothing has been found. He has been performing strongly even in blitz tournaments so if he is cheating he has taken it to a new level! http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008781

If someone was repeatedly leaving the hall that isn't a proof of guilt. Asking for an explanation is a tad silly as "I was stretching my legs" answers that question.

The only way to deal with someone you suspect to be cheating is to inform the arbiter. They will deal with matter and determine the best course of action. Assuming guilt based off of circumstantial evidence is not the appropriate response.

Even playing moves in the computer to check how correlated games are is a bit of stretch. It would be interesting to see from some grandmaster games what the typical correlation between computer moves and played moves are.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Why would a club stop someone joining? A punishment is determined by pre-set rules. Further punishing someone after their punishment has ended; could bring legal trouble.

Except where the club itself has stricter rules in its rulebook, which is perfectly legally defensible. If your club has a rule that it will not permit membership of any person who was ever caught cheating, you can't take them to court because some other club has a different rule, it'd make no sense.

The real issue is proving that they were cheating in the first place. That's the stickler. Once it's proven, the gloves are off, but until that point if you treat someone as if they were a proven cheat they have some serious grounds for a defamation suit (and it wouldn't be the first time we saw such a suit taken against a sports club in Ireland, as pointed out earlier).

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

If someone was repeatedly leaving the hall that isn't a proof of guilt. Asking for an explanation is a tad silly as "I was stretching my legs" answers that question.

Yeah, I'm always leaving the room in Bunratty and Kilkenny in particular; usually to check on how other club members are doing in the other sections.

And what do we do if google glasses ever come out?

checknraise

I think you have to have a 3G connection to be able to use them but I could be wrong, you definitely shouldn't be able to wear them while play a game of chess!

There has only been one alleged incident of cheating in Ireland by using a computer but I think a way bigger problem is actually certain peoples sportsmanship with incidents occurring quite regularly. I don't see it as a problem with the vast majority of chess players but there are the same usual characters who with their behavior could easily put people off playing.

I dont think there is anyway to stop people cheating if they are determined enough and I think it has to be the arbiters job to make sure all players are obeying by the rules. I just hope the incident in Cork doesn't lead to total paranoia with the younger players baring the brunt of it.

Sparks

checknraise wrote: »

I think you have to have a 3G connection to be able to use them but I could be wrong, you definitely shouldn't be able to wear them while play a game of chess!

No, you can get fairly strong (~2500 or so?) engines running on a normal smartphone these days, all locally, no 3G needed.
Which means it's not just smartphones, but any android device (eReaders like the kindle or the nook, for example).

I think a way bigger problem is actually certain peoples sportsmanship with incidents occurring quite regularly. I don't see it as a problem with the vast majority of chess players but there are the same usual characters who with their behavior could easily put people off playing.

There's a bit of a line between the two though; maybe a new thread on sportsmanship? (Certainly some of the anecdotes I've seen and one or two things in league games would strike me as being cheap ways to play, but they're just cheap, not actually cheating).

brilliantboy

checknraise wrote: »

I just hope the incident in Cork doesn't lead to total paranoia with the younger players baring the brunt of it.

As young players are generally the most restless (not to mention tech-savvy), moving around the playing hall¹ checking on friends etc., and the single case of engine-cheating we have involved a youngster, it's only natural they're going to arouse more suspicion.

1 - As a digression I can't understand why it happens so much. There's certainly something to be said for stretching your legs and clearing your head every now and then, but after almost every move? Why is it (most) kids can sit relatively quietly at school for extended periods of time but not while doing something they enjoy?

RQ_ennis_chess

cdeb wrote: »

Yeah, I'm always leaving the room in Bunratty and Kilkenny in particular; usually to check on how other club members are doing in the other sections.

If my opponent was continually leaving the room during the game, especially if it was at times when it was his/her turn to move, it would definitely raise a red flag. Someone else said they would just tell the arbiter they 'were stretching their legs'....i dont really think that would cut it as an excuse for leaving the board continually, though that would depend on the circumstances obviously

cdeb

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

If my opponent was continually leaving the room during the game, especially if it was at times when it was his/her turn to move

Is that allowed under FIDE rules actually? Thought there was some restriction on leaving the board when it was your move.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Except where the club itself has stricter rules in its rulebook, which is perfectly legally defensible. If your club has a rule that it will not permit membership of any person who was ever caught cheating, you can't take them to court because some other club has a different rule, it'd make no sense.

The club would also have to background check every member to ensure they were never caught cheating at any other club/federation. If you impose your own ban you will be asking for legal trouble.

brilliantboy wrote: »

As young players are generally the most restless (not to mention tech-savvy), moving around the playing hall¹ checking on friends etc., and the single case of engine-cheating we have involved a youngster, it's only natural they're going to arouse more suspicion

Actually a younger player at a rating of 1100 playing at a strength of 1500 isn't too uncommon. An older player with a rating of 1100 playing at a strength of 1500 would be rare. Older players tend to improve less quickly than younger players. Leaving the board once or 100 times makes it possible for a player to cheat. As younger players leave the board more often; the likely chance they are cheating is quite low. There is more than one case in the world of cheating and not all cases involve younger players

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

If my opponent was continually leaving the room during the game, especially if it was at times when it was his/her turn to move, it would definitely raise a red flag. Someone else said they would just tell the arbiter they 'were stretching their legs'....i dont really think that would cut it as an excuse for leaving the board continually, though that would depend on the circumstances obviously

I agree about a red flag; however "stretching my legs" is an excuse and enough to cover the accused. The arbiter may follow the player (to see what they were doing) and then approach the player to tell them to stop leaving the table.

They aren't allowed (technically) to leave during their move (however if they were getting up to leave during their turn that's ok).

However there is common sense with this; if it's once that's fine (bathroom break, smoking, calm nerves, etc) however all the time isn't.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

The club would also have to background check every member to ensure they were never caught cheating at any other club/federation.

Not really. Without spelunking into the details, you just have a declaration on the membership form that the applicant has never cheated and never will, the applicant signs it before becoming a member (or when paying their annual dues for existing members if you're introducing it, though you'd have discussed it at the AGM first); and if it later emerges they did cheat before and didn't tell you (or that they cheat after joining up), then you have grounds to end their membership.

If you impose your own ban you will be asking for legal trouble.

You can't impose a ban on that person playing chess; all you can do is say they're not going to be playing chess with you (which you're perfectly entitled to do, it's the red-haired left-handers club rule).
If we were in the UK and you tried to restrict membership based on (say) race, you'd be in trouble; but even there, rules against cheating that include being kicked out of a club are still perfectly valid (so long as cheating is proven, obviously).

cdeb

Sparks wrote: »

You can't impose a ban on that person playing chess; all you can do is say they're not going to be playing chess with you (which you're perfectly entitled to do, it's the red-haired left-handers club rule).

Yep, and has happened a couple of times here (one case in the last 12 months)

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

Not really. Without spelunking into the details, you just have a declaration on the membership form that the applicant has never cheated and never will, the applicant signs it before becoming a member (or when paying their annual dues for existing members if you're introducing it, though you'd have discussed it at the AGM first); and if it later emerges they did cheat before and didn't tell you (or that they cheat after joining up), then you have grounds to end their membership.

The problem is the term "cheating" is quite broad. Reading a newspaper during a game can be classed as cheating (newspaper has chess problems/puzzles). There are loads of stupid small things that really are anal but can be classed as "cheating".

If you are caught cheating in that club; then yes merit to remove. If you are caught cheating in a different club; that should have zero impact on your current club (provided there isn't some national ban).

You would require a committee meeting and an independent panel to investigate the cheating incident and to determine an appropriate punishment. When you start adding in your own punishment based off of a different panels finding; you are exposing yourself legally. For instance a pre-arranged draw is cheating by FIDE standards; however at a club level isn't (2 players might be unable to find a suitable time and agree a draw as a comprimise).

Sparks wrote: »

You can't impose a ban on that person playing chess; all you can do is say they're not going to be playing chess with you (which you're perfectly entitled to do, it's the red-haired left-handers club rule).
If we were in the UK and you tried to restrict membership based on (say) race, you'd be in trouble; but even there, rules against cheating that include being kicked out of a club are still perfectly valid (so long as cheating is proven, obviously).

In that scenario where you don't play this opponent you would lose rating points and would count as a loss for you.

Being kicked out is a terrible legal problem. Someone has paid to become a member; again you would need your own investigation to remove this person (if you wish to avoid potential legal issues).



If person A cheats (is told moves); they are told by Club B that they are banned for X years because they cheated. In X+1 years time; being denied membership because of the cheating can cause legal issues. Even more legal issues if Club C says you are banned because you were banned by Club B.

Ciaran

Surely a club has the right to refuse membership to someone if they want to?

checknraise

I know that my club has refused membership to two people and kicked another out of the club since I have been a member.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

I know that my club has refused membership to two people and kicked another out of the club since I have been a member.

Refusing membership is less of a legal challenge. Revoking a paid membership will cause hassle. I'm not saying you can't remove someone; however I'm certain no chess club in Ireland would have the financial backing to cover legal fees that could arise from a member that was removed.

Sparks

If you just haul someone up and chuck 'em out, reunion, that would be true; but if the club has rules that specifically state (and now we're spleunking into detail) that anyone sanctioned by the ICU or FIDE for cheating (and you can define that further if you want) will be refused membership or have their membership revoked (and you can return their membership fee if you want to avoid the money angle) -- well that's not going to leave them much ground for legal appeal. The club had rules, you agreed to them when you paid your dues, you breached them, you were afforded due process, your membership was revoked and you weren't even left out of pocket; on what grounds would you sue? The club's not even open to defamation suits because it's FIDE or the ICU who make the call. And for even more cover, sign the club up to JSI so you go to arbitration in the event of a dispute instead of the courts. So long as it's in an agreed-upon set of rules, your ass is covered.

cdeb

Who'd sue a club for being expelled?

brilliantboy

It seems there was another cheating incident in a Bulgarian tournament last week where a 12 year old boy was caught analyzing on a mobile phone
http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/12407

TheKeenMachine

brilliantboy wrote: »

It seems there was another cheating incident in a Bulgarian tournament last week where a 12 year old boy was caught analyzing on a mobile phone
http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/12407

Shocking that they named him IMO, he's only 12. His name will be associated with these actions for the next 10 years at least. Still, it is a shame that cheating appears to be more widespread in chess than was originally thought.

brilliantboy

TheKeenMachine wrote: »

Shocking that they named him IMO, he's only 12. His name will be associated with these actions for the next 10 years at least. Still, it is a shame that cheating appears to be more widespread in chess than was originally thought.

I agree. I feel for the kid because who doesn't do stupid stuff at 12 years old without thinking/caring about the consequences?
But my tune would probably be different if he was further into his teens...
There comes a time when you have to start bearing a greater degree of responsibility for your actions.

bigtoe7

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sparks

bigtoe7 wrote: »

john von neumann was caught in 1993

That can't have been his real name

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.

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?

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/

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

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

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...

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

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

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.