PDA

View Full Version : Aust Open (NCC U1600) Expulsion



Basil
07-01-2009, 05:47 PM
In case anyone is wondering why there is a Bye in the U 1600 draw now, it is sad to report that a player had to be expelled from the tournament for cheating. That player appealed the decision of the arbiter which appeal was dismissed by the appeals committee, upholding the arbiter's decision by a 3-0 vote.
I start this thread in the interests of newsworthiness and general interest. I'm hoping it will have value long after the morbidity and sensationalism (if any) has died down.

I would appreciate an official statement if possible to clarify the situation. I would appreciate an unofficial statement from anyone, as long as it is made in absolute good faith and there is a genuine belief that the facts cited are accurate, and further on the understanding that any statement is indeed limited to facts, albeit some of them may be missing.

Basil
07-01-2009, 05:53 PM
Does anyone know of any other events where an expulsion has occurred due to a charge of cheating? Both Aust and International.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2009, 05:53 PM
He was caught using computer assistance whilst in the toilet.
The arbiter expelled him from the tournament.
He appealed the severity of the punishment.
His appeal was unanimously dismissed by the appeals committee.

Basil
07-01-2009, 05:55 PM
He was caught using computer assistance whilst in the toilet.
The arbiter expelled him from the tournament.
He appealed the severity of the punishment.
His appeal was unanimously dismissed by the appeals committee.
Thank you Bill. What a damn shame for everyone concerned. Is he an adult or a junior? I ask because I will severely curtail (be circumspect) any comment I make if he is a junior (and encourage others to do likewise).

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2009, 05:57 PM
Thank you Bill. What a damn shame for everyone concerned. Is he an adult or a junior? I ask because I will severly curtail any comment I make if he is a junior (and encourage others to do likewise).14 year old junior.

ER
07-01-2009, 05:58 PM
:clap: umpire :clap: appeals committee! This tournament is too prestigious and brillliant to be marred by an, albeit sad, incident like this! Let's get on with it!
CAGLES

Phil Bourke
07-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Excellent job by the arbiters and all involved. What, if any, further sentence will be imposed? Similar incidents OS have attracted up to a 10 year ban from playing in tournaments.

arosar
07-01-2009, 07:46 PM
The game is currently available on the blog!

AR

Rincewind
07-01-2009, 07:46 PM
It's a terrible shame that this has happened. However, I'd like to point out that the Thread title is a little misleading. The player was expelled from then U1600 tournament which is called

The Norths Chess Club Centenary Year Under 1600 Tournament

Not the Australian Open.

CameronD
07-01-2009, 07:55 PM
Complex stuff.

Have their being any similar situations in ACF history?

Was wondering why anyone would bother to cheat at a U1600 tournament, but a 14 year old would make sense.

Difficult case for the NSWCA considering the case

1) Disciplinary action
2) Ratings affect (against previous opponents, even previous periods)
3) if FIDE rated, could they get involved.

The ACF have my sympony.

Adamski
07-01-2009, 07:56 PM
It's a terrible shame that this has happened. However, I'd like to point out that the Thread title is a little misleading. The player was expelled from the U1600 tournament which is called

The Norths Chess Club Centenary Year Under 1600 Tournament

Not the Australian Open.Rincewind is right. Re the question on further action, the situation will be referred to the NSWCA and the ACF.

Incidentally, today's appeal had to wait until RW's game was finished to be heard, as his opponent Peter Abbott was on the appeals committee. Their game was drawn in the ending. Earlier, I thought RW had the better of it.

RW or another mod, can you change the thread title to something like "NCC Centenary U 1600 Expulsion"? Ta.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2009, 08:04 PM
Rincewind is right. Re the question on further action, the situation will be referred to the NSWCA and the ACF.

Incidentally, today's appeal had to wait until RW's game was finished to be heard, as his opponent Peter Abbott was on the appeals committee. Their game was drawn in the ending. Earlier, I thought RW had the better of it.

RW or another mod, can you change the thread title to something like "NCC Centenary U 1600 Expulsion"? Ta.I saw the thread title not as referring so much to a specific tournament but to the event.

The event is the Australian Open Championships.

Rincewind
07-01-2009, 08:19 PM
Incidentally, today's appeal had to wait until RW's game was finished to be heard, as his opponent Peter Abbott was on the appeals committee. Their game was drawn in the ending. Earlier, I thought RW had the better of it.

Yeah I think if I had been a little sharper I could have done something with the c-file. I needed to avoid the exchange of rooks and/or somehow give infiltration squares for my king in the ending. In the end though I was happy to have played a reasonable game without too many blunders.

Rincewind
07-01-2009, 08:21 PM
I saw the thread title not as referring so much to a specific tournament but to the event.

The event is the Australian Open Championships.

You raise a good point Bill so I have left "Aust Open" in the title but added "(NCC U1600)".

Desmond
07-01-2009, 08:57 PM
Completely warranted to expel him from the tournament, in my opinion.

Alexrules01
07-01-2009, 09:06 PM
Very sad day for Aussie Chess :(

I quickly punched the game into Fritz 10, and it seems his computer wasn't helping him much :) White seemed to be better the whole game, and he still was when black forfeited.

Rincewind
07-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Very sad day for Aussie Chess :(

To paraphrase Clinton:

There is nothing so wrong with Aussie Chess that cannot be fixed by what is right with Aussie Chess.


I quickly punched the game into Fritz 10, and it seems his computer wasn't helping him much :) White seemed to be better the whole game, and he still was when black forfeited.

Regardless of whether the player received any assistance, the act of trying to get such assistance is a crime worthy of expulsion. I cannot see how anyone could reasonably argue that the punishment was too severe. The only grounds I could see for appeal would be to deny the charge.

Miranda
07-01-2009, 09:19 PM
I think if you're caught cheating you should definately be expelled from the event! It's against the laws of chess and it's a very obvious, planned, act which the person chose to do.

Everyone knows that computers are obviously stronger than their opponents, and the entire point of chess is to win on your skill, rather than using a little box of wires!

deanhogg
07-01-2009, 09:20 PM
The cheating scandal involving a young junior is unfortuate it's something
you never here about in australia much .l just hope for junior in question
does not get harsh penalty as this could have dire affects on his
self-confidents in future .But l understand they authorities need to send
clear message to chess community this cant be tolerated not just at
junior level but at senior level too . - just little sideline to this.

l'm very interested to know how long before authorties pick this up (computer
assistance) and was it happening in the earlier rounds ?

Deanhogg:)

Miranda
07-01-2009, 09:24 PM
Although he is a junior, he's the same age as me. I think he should be duly punished.... perhaps not with a life ban, but a VERY long one.

I mean, it's obvious that you're not allowed to use a computer to cheat. If you use one, you should get the same penalty that an adult would get.

Saragossa
07-01-2009, 09:29 PM
I feel sorry for the kids that lost to him earlier that would suck.

CameronD
07-01-2009, 09:30 PM
I feel sorry for the kids that lost to him earlier that would suck.

They hould demand a 1 point bye in its place

Adamski
07-01-2009, 09:38 PM
The cheating scandal involving a young junior is unfortuate it's something
you never here about in australia much .l just hope for junior in question
does not get harsh penalty as this could have dire affects on his
self-confidents in future .But l understand they authorities need to send
clear message to chess community this cant be tolerated not just at
junior level but at senior level too . - just little sideline to this.

l'm very interested to know how long before authorties pick this up (computer
assistance) and was it happening in the earlier rounds ?

Deanhogg:)His opponent got suspicious and notified the Deputy Arbiter (after about the 6th visit to the toilet in less than 20 moves). The Deputy Arbiter went to investigate in the said area and found the said player in the cubicle with a hand held device with the program "Chess Master" open. Definitely grounds for expulsion and probably a ban for a period from NSWCA/ ACF events - but that is yet to be determined. BTW thanks Amiel for the annotations! There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether the same assistance was used in previous rounds, though the player denied it.

CameronD
07-01-2009, 09:39 PM
Although he is a junior, he's the same age as me. I think he should be duly punished.... perhaps not with a life ban, but a VERY long one.

I mean, it's obvious that you're not allowed to use a computer to cheat. If you use one, you should get the same penalty that an adult would get.

When you get older Miranda (say 15 years), you'll understand the foolishness of the teen years and the stupid things we all do. Age generally installs mercy into people for insignificant things like chess.

arosar
07-01-2009, 09:51 PM
His opponent got suspicious and notified the Deputy Arbiter (after about the 6th visit to the toilet in less than 20 moves). The Deputy Arbiter went to investigate in the said area and found the said player in the cubicle with a hand held device with the program "Chess Master" open. Definitely grounds for expulsion and probably a ban for a period from NSWCA/ ACF events - but that is yet to be determined. BTW thanks Amiel for the annotations! There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether the same assistance was used in previous rounds, though the player denied it.

The annotations were provided by FM Tindall.

AR

Miranda
07-01-2009, 09:59 PM
When you get older Miranda (say 15 years), you'll understand the foolishness of the teen years and the stupid things we all do. Age generally installs mercy into people for insignificant things like chess.
True, we all do stupid things. But really.... well, I just expect that someone of my age (or even younger) would be able to understand that you can't cheat in chess.

deanhogg
07-01-2009, 10:03 PM
thanks adam for that news .l really appreciate that !:)

lemonruski
07-01-2009, 10:10 PM
The annotations were provided by FM Tindall.

AR

The annotations were actually written by the cheated player's father, to demonstrate the events and how they affected the moves of the game.

They were just passed on to you by FM Tindall

Basil
07-01-2009, 11:58 PM
Completely warranted to expel him from the tournament, in my opinion.
No question. No room for question. Don't even think about an alternative. Don't even think about thinking of an alternative. Any variance from this line of thinking requires 5 minutes of being slapped with a wet hippy-drippy towel.

As it happens I don't think anyone is disputing same.

Carry on!

Metro
08-01-2009, 12:13 AM
His opponent got suspicious and notified the Deputy Arbiter (after about the 6th visit to the toilet in less than 20 moves). The Deputy Arbiter went to investigate in the said area and found the said player in the cubicle with a hand held device with the program "Chess Master" open. Definitely grounds for expulsion and probably a ban for a period from NSWCA/ ACF events - but that is yet to be determined. BTW thanks Amiel for the annotations! There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether the same assistance was used in previous rounds, though the player denied it.

When will the organising committee make an official statement ?

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2009, 12:19 AM
When will the organising committee make an official statement ?It could be said that they have in the post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=225131&postcount=230)

Metro
08-01-2009, 12:30 AM
It could be said that they have in the post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=225131&postcount=230)
The author of the post,Jonathan Adams,is on the organising committee however there is no mention that this is an official statement.

Metro
08-01-2009, 12:36 AM
His opponent got suspicious and notified the Deputy Arbiter (after about the 6th visit to the toilet in less than 20 moves). The Deputy Arbiter went to investigate in the said area and found the said player in the cubicle with a hand held device with the program "Chess Master" open.
Who is the Deputy Arbiter?

Adamski
08-01-2009, 06:36 AM
Who is the Deputy Arbiter?Ronald Scott.

Bill is right - you can take posts from me on the entire Aus Open event as being official from the time that I noted that I had joined the Organising Committee. I am the Communications Officer. The exception is when I state personal impressions of games, which are my views only and could be wrong!

My posts on all other subjects are made as an individual and not on behalf of any other committee, club or organisation.

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2009, 06:03 PM
According to the Arbiter the device in question was a PSP (Playstation Portable).

It is my understanding the program being used was Chessmaster.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 09:09 PM
I too agree that the player should be expelled. Personally, it is scary to think that my opponents could be using a computer. While (given Naumov's age) 2 year disqualification may be a punishment too harsh, it should be a lesson not only to the young player but also to all the potential cheaters of the future.

By the way, would be interesting to know how the arbiter spotted the cheating. Surely not all of the players are being followed to the toilet.

Garvinator
08-01-2009, 09:31 PM
By the way, would be interesting to know how the arbiter spotted the cheating. Surely not all of the players are being followed to the toilet.
Post 23 of this thread:


His opponent got suspicious and notified the Deputy Arbiter (after about the 6th visit to the toilet in less than 20 moves). The Deputy Arbiter went to investigate in the said area and found the said player in the cubicle with a hand held device with the program "Chess Master" open. Definitely grounds for expulsion and probably a ban for a period from NSWCA/ ACF events - but that is yet to be determined. BTW thanks Amiel for the annotations! There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether the same assistance was used in previous rounds, though the player denied it.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 10:12 PM
Post 23 of this thread:

Thx. So how did the arbiter see over the door? ;)

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Very sad day for Aussie Chess :(
.

I do not see this cheating incident as an indicator fo Auzzie chess having some problem. It is just a stand-alone incident.

However, in future - as technology is becoming increasingly advanced - we better be prepared!

Adamski
08-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Yesterday's arbiter has sent an official report on behalf of the organising committee regarding the incident to key people in the ACF, NSWCA and NSWJCL. It is up to those bodies if Edward suffers further penalty.

I confirm that he has been expelled from the U 1600 tournament.

Jonathan Adams
Communications Officer
Organising Committee
Australian Open 2009

Ian Murray
08-01-2009, 10:17 PM
Yesterday's arbiter has sent an official report on behalf of the organising committee regarding the incident to key people in the ACF, NSWCA and NSWJCL. It is up to those bodies if Edward suffers further penalty.

Suspension is inevitable - just a question of how long

Adamski
08-01-2009, 10:23 PM
Thx. So how did the arbiter see over the door? ;)The Deputy Arbiter was tall enough to see over the cubicle door.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 11:40 PM
The Deputy Arbiter was tall enough to see over the cubicle door.

I can only imagine what would happen if the suspicions would prove to be wrong :)

Metro
08-01-2009, 11:47 PM
I too agree that the player should be expelled. Personally, it is scary to think that my opponents could be using a computer. While (given Naumov's age) 2 year disqualification may be a punishment too harsh, it should be a lesson not only to the young player but also to all the potential cheaters of the future.

If the player is guilty then I think a "ban" of 12 months would be warranted.Perhaps 2 years is too severe(given he is 14 years of age).I would think the public embarassment or humiliation will be severe,particularly if it is publicised in the news media.

Garrett
09-01-2009, 06:45 AM
The Deputy Arbiter was tall enough to see over the cubicle door.

It would be good if there was a better way to do it than that.

Adamski
09-01-2009, 07:32 AM
It would be good if there was a better way to do it than that.It would be good if there was a practical alternative to confirm or deny suspicions, but there isn't.

Garrett
09-01-2009, 07:55 AM
It would be good if there was a practical alternative to confirm or deny suspicions, but there isn't.

yes unfortunately not.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 11:13 AM
If the player is guilty then I think a "ban" of 12 months would be warranted.Perhaps 2 years is too severe(given he is 14 years of age).I would think the public embarassment or humiliation will be severe,particularly if it is publicised in the news media.

In a way i feel sad for a 14 yo to be exposed to all this...but again...its life...

Garvinator
09-01-2009, 11:31 AM
In a way i feel sad for a 14 yo to be exposed to all this...but again...its life...
He brought it on himself. Why should you feel sad?

Jim_Flood
09-01-2009, 03:43 PM
In a way i feel sad for a 14 yo to be exposed to all this...but again...its life...

My sympathy is for his parents.

Basil
09-01-2009, 04:47 PM
My sympathy is for his parents.
Indeed - as long as
a) they weren't party to it, and
b) they didn't put so much pressure that he felt he had no alternative
(in which case I would feel sorry for the player).

I have no reason to believe either of these is the case, and in absence of knowledge to the contrary, I share Jim's POV.

Adamski
09-01-2009, 04:51 PM
Indeed - as long as
a) they weren't party to it, and
b) they didn't put so much pressure that he felt he had no alternative
(in which case I would feel sorry for the player).

I have no reason to believe either of these are the case, and in absence of knowledge to the contrary, I share Jim's POV.Right on both counts, gunner. No parental involvemnt.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 08:21 PM
He brought it on himself. Why should you feel sad?

I strongly support punishing him so others do not try emulating the practice of cheating but still 14 yo is 14 yo.

Oepty
09-01-2009, 09:36 PM
He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have been doing it the toilet otherwise.

He was considered experienced enough to play in an adult tournament and play against adults so I think there should only be slight reduction in penalty because of his youth.
Scott

Ian Murray
25-01-2009, 08:01 PM
...he said that he used the device for about 2 moves in every game...i dont think that if a player is going to the toilet often then the arbiter can follow and investigate him...
So he admits he was cheating in every round. Obviously the arbiter was justifiably suspicious - if he has been given two years, then he got off pretty light

Mischa
25-01-2009, 08:37 PM
My son is 14 and if I found out that he was cheating I would ban him myself !!

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2009, 08:43 PM
I happen to be a good friend of naoumov.i am shocked that he was involved in this. talking to him after, he said that he used the device for about 2 moves in every gameAs you are an anonymous poster here it is impossible to know if you have any ulterior motive to make this claim.

In his statement to the arbiter he denied using the device in any game other than the round 7 game.

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2009, 08:50 PM
So he admits he was cheating in every round.Only to this anonymous poster, not to the arbiter.

Obviously the arbiter was justifiably suspiciousAs far as I understand it, there was no suspicious behaviour prior to the game in round 7. The suspicons started in the round 7 game due to the number of toilet visits.
When the arbiter questioned all his opponents from the previous rounds on the day of the offence all of them said they had observed nothing suspicious.

if he has been given two years, then he got off pretty lightDue process is being followed by the ACF Executive.
No penalty has as yet been handed out.

lochness88
25-01-2009, 08:51 PM
Tough lesson for him, but I guess it is a lesson he had to have.

When I start tournament chess I guess I will have to notate my opponent's nature calls on the score sheet.

I'd like to congratulate the arbiters and officials for taking the correct course of action. And I wish the young man to not feel too disheartened and be a better, stronger person for it.

Loch.

ER
25-01-2009, 11:05 PM
My son is 14 and if I found out that he was cheating I would ban him myself !!

I am sure Mischa, James wouldn't even dream of doing such as thing let alone cheating not only in chess but in everyy aspect of his life!
After all he presents indications that he is a computer himself, :) look at the way he plays and his excellent results! :clap:

CameronD
22-02-2009, 03:46 PM
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/

2 Year ban for the offence.

Garvinator
22-02-2009, 03:56 PM
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/

2 Year ban for the offence.
As has been noted on that blog, it is extremely poor form and poor taste to broadcast notice of any official decision in any open forum before the player themselves has been informed of the decision.

I think CameronD's post should be removed until the player has been informed of the ban. Whether Shaun chooses to do that on his blog is up to him, but to not do is so extremely poor form.

CameronD
22-02-2009, 04:02 PM
As has been noted on that blog, it is extremely poor form and poor taste to broadcast notice of any official decision in any open forum before the player themselves has been informed of the decision.

I think CameronD's post should be removed until the player has been informed of the ban. Whether Shaun chooses to do that on his blog is up to him, but to not do is so extremely poor form.

Bill has confirmed online that this decision has occured, a better question would be why ACF email rulings can not be kept confidential!!

Secondly, this information is now in the public domain.

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2009, 04:27 PM
Bill has confirmed online that this decision has occured, a better question would be why ACF email rulings can not be kept confidential!!

The answer to that question being that a relatively new association delegate (not an Exec member) immediately sent an email to various people informing them of the decision and expressing a wish that recipients reflect on the need to discourage this sort of behaviour. I don't know whether Shaun Press was a direct recipient of this email or not but suspect he was. There was no explicit encouragement to republish the ruling but in any case, within 17 minutes (by my calculations) of that email being sent, the matter appeared on Shaun's blog.

Whether the delegate intended or considered that Shaun would publish the matter is unknown to me although for anyone with any experience of Shaun's tendencies on these sorts of things it is completely obvious he would do that.

MichaelBaron
23-02-2009, 08:54 AM
Given the way media works today, It is Shaun's responsibility that the information became public. if other people/media channels copy the news, they can hardly be held accountable.

Garvinator
23-02-2009, 10:55 PM
Given the way media works today, It is Shaun's responsibility that the information became public. if other people/media channels copy the news, they can hardly be held accountable.
Surprised no one responded to this before now. I think the first question is, how did Shaun get the information in the first place? Was it from confidential communication?

Bill Gletsos
23-02-2009, 11:28 PM
Surprised no one responded to this before now. I think the first question is, how did Shaun get the information in the first place? Was it from confidential communication?An ACF State Delegate posted the ACF President's email declaring the email vote to the public ACT chess mailing list. No doubt Shaun saw it there.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-02-2009, 08:39 AM
Bill has confirmed online that this decision has occured, a better question would be why ACF email rulings can not be kept confidential!!


Why should they be kept confidential?

Ian Rout
24-02-2009, 09:57 AM
Why should they be kept confidential?I may be wrong but I don't believe there is an intention to keep the decision secret. I think the concern was that the result was announced before the player was informed. While there is some point in this argument, many people would not accept that the rights of the perpetrator trump the rights of the victim, which in this case is the entire Australian chess community. In any case after a few hours everybody will know and the exact order shouldn't be a major issue.

It would be rather difficult to enforce the decision if nobody was told about it. In fact there is a section listing Banned Players on the ACF web site though it seems to be somewhat out of date.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2009, 11:46 AM
I may be wrong but I don't believe there is an intention to keep the decision secret. I think the concern was that the result was announced before the player was informed.

Absolutely correct. Indeed, the decision has to be announced publicly once the player has been informed so that organisers will know they should not admit this player to their tournaments.


It would be rather difficult to enforce the decision if nobody was told about it. In fact there is a section listing Banned Players on the ACF web site though it seems to be somewhat out of date.

Yes; this is being followed up to have it fixed.

Denis_Jessop
24-02-2009, 11:56 AM
I may be wrong but I don't believe there is an intention to keep the decision secret. I think the concern was that the result was announced before the player was informed. While there is some point in this argument, many people would not accept that the rights of the perpetrator trump the rights of the victim, which in this case is the entire Australian chess community. In any case after a few hours everybody will know and the exact order shouldn't be a major issue.

It would be rather difficult to enforce the decision if nobody was told about it. In fact there is a section listing Banned Players on the ACF web site though it seems to be somewhat out of date.

Ian's assumption about the concern is right.

But his assertion that many people would not accept that proposition is palpably false.

It is totally unfair that a person should learn of a penalty imposed on him from some indirect source before having been directly notified by the body imposing it and that others should know of it before he does. Unfortunately some people have little time for fairness.

It is also true that the entire chess community is the victim but of the premature disclosure, not the action of the person penalised. That disclosure was not in the best interests of the ACF or of Australian chess. The comment that in a few hours everyone will know is not only probably untrue but is pure sophistry. Within a few hours of what?

The proper course in this matter was for the person against whom the action was taken to be officially informed by the ACF and then for an executive officer of the ACF to make an official announcement.

DJ

Basil
24-02-2009, 12:00 PM
The proper course in this matter was for the person against whom the action was taken to be officially informed by the ACF and then for an executive officer of the ACF to make an official announcement.
Of course. Apart from issues raised above, there is also the simple matter of class (as in Gunner Duggan is all ..., and not as in David 'I have more class issues than a high school review board' Beaumont).

Rincewind
24-02-2009, 01:32 PM
The proper course in this matter was for the person against whom the action was taken to be officially informed by the ACF and then for an executive officer of the ACF to make an official announcement.

Hear, hear.

Ian Rout
24-02-2009, 02:11 PM
I'm well aware of what the protocol is. However the reality is that no matter how eloquently it is explained to people that they shouldn't be told there will be some who don't believe it, or regard the timing as unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

I think the ACF Council is to be congratulated on taking a firm stand on this matter, I'd like to see more emphasis on that.

ER
24-02-2009, 05:41 PM
I think the ACF Council is to be congratulated on taking a firm stand on this matter, I'd like to see more emphasis on that.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Phil Bourke
24-02-2009, 09:13 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Agreed.

Basil
24-02-2009, 09:40 PM
I think the ACF Council is to be congratulated on taking a firm stand on this matter, I'd like to see more emphasis on that.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


:clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Adamski
24-02-2009, 09:52 PM
It seems to be unanimous. I think 2 years was the right decision by the ACF. Anything less sends the wrong messsage and anything more is too much given that the offender is a teen and very unlikely to be a repeat offender in >= 2 years.

sleepless
24-02-2009, 10:12 PM
An aside ...check out http://www.auschess.org.au/ACFBannedPlayers.html

It appears that once the miscreant has done his time everyone will be reminded of it for some years to come on the ACF website.

Basil
25-02-2009, 12:22 AM
It appears that once the miscreant has done his time everyone will be reminded of it for some years to come on the ACF website.
Not such a terrible by-product of either an officer neglecting to diarise an expiry or the vacancy of an officer. With every new class of clown comes a new set of things for other people to have to remember to do.

But then again, champions and awardees of good things aren't scrubbed from the annals on expiry of the gong. OK I didn't mean that.

Yes, miscreants should be allowed peace in their lifetime - perhaps a fitting final twist be that they should be the ones to have to remember to write to the webmaster to have their names expunged from the naughty book. OK, I didn't mean that. Naughty ACF, and now I revert back to the top of my post ... not such a terrible by-product etc ...

bobby1972
25-02-2009, 03:24 PM
2 years at 14 is a very long time,i mean its like saying no more chess for you ever at that age.

Basil
25-02-2009, 04:23 PM
2 years at 14 is a very long time,i mean its like saying no more chess for you ever at that age.
I can appreciate the observation. Do you support the decision? If not, could you suggest an alternative?

Bill Gletsos
25-02-2009, 04:47 PM
2 years at 14 is a very long time,i mean its like saying no more chess for you ever at that age.It is a lot less than 4-5 years which is what an adult would likely have received under the same circumstances.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 04:52 PM
2 years at 14 is a very long time,i mean its like saying no more chess for you ever at that age.

Yes. It is not something to be done lightly as the impact on the offender's chess career will be very serious (if not terminal), and this was certainly discussed in making the decision. But that's the way it goes. Players of all ages need to know that computer-cheating in OTB tournaments is an extremely serious offence and if people are caught doing it their chess careers will be seriously affected; it is not something anyone of any age should expect to escape with a slap-on-the-wrist type penalty for.

As Bill notes, if an adult did it they could expect to get at least twice as long.

Metro
25-02-2009, 06:09 PM
2 years at 14 is a very long time,i mean its like saying no more chess for you ever at that age.
He still has plenty of playing options now:playing with friends and family,loads of internet options.As for playing in an unrated Club event(if it was me)I would be too embarassed:oops:

Miranda
25-02-2009, 06:19 PM
He still has plenty of playing options now:playing with friends and family,loads of internet options.As for playing in an unrated Club event(if it was me)I would be too embarassed:oops:
Yes, if he was serious about chess he could still easily be playing on the internet. Even if he gets brilliant at chess and once his ban is over, enters tournaments... there's going to be a shadow cast over hisname for a while.

Metro
25-02-2009, 06:24 PM
Yes, if he was serious about chess he could still easily be playing on the internet. Even if he gets brilliant at chess and once his ban is over, enters tournaments... there's going to be a shadow cast over hisname for a while.
I figure it will take a good 20 years to put the slur behind him(up to a point).

Basil
25-02-2009, 06:34 PM
I figure it will take a good 20 years to put the slur behind him(up to a point).
I don't think so. If it were me and I did want to get back into chess and desired acceptance, I'd make a fullsome and open apology. I'd deliver it to the ACF for e-circlation. I'd state it at my chess club to a full house. I'd post it here.

People would welcome that and the matter would be done with - saving the odd joke every time the guy went to the loo ;)

CameronD
25-02-2009, 09:14 PM
the one big thing in his favor is that hes 14. So hes banned till 16, cope some slack for a few years. I'd say 19 the reputation would disappear, people will just think he was 14 at the time and did something stupid.

Metro
25-02-2009, 09:18 PM
I don't think so. If it were me and I did want to get back into chess and desired acceptance, I'd make a fullsome and open apology. I'd deliver it to the ACF for e-circlation. I'd state it at my chess club to a full house. I'd post it here.

People would welcome that and the matter would be done with - saving the odd joke every time the guy went to the loo ;)
Not so simple.People won't 'forget' easily.Apologising will help his cause but it will take years to mend his reputation.

bobby1972
25-02-2009, 09:24 PM
Do you support the decision? :yes
could you suggest an alternative :no
and there being no alternative is what makes this very bad ,bad for the kid and bad for chess.

CameronD
25-02-2009, 09:28 PM
Do you support the decision? :yes
could you suggest an alternative :no
and there being no alternative is what makes this very bad ,bad for the kid and bad for chess.

I support the decision, but I would have reworded it to send a statement, say 10 years with 8 years suspended due to his age.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 10:49 PM
Not so simple.People won't 'forget' easily.Apologising will help his cause but it will take years to mend his reputation.

I reckon most people will give him a chance given that he did it when he was young. However, there may be quite a lot of suspicion for his first few tournaments when he comes back (if he does). But if people see that he is playing normal chess and not doing anything apparently suss in a few events then people will hopefully cut him some slack, especially if he follows Gunner's suggestion of an apology at the time.

I remember firegoat commenting that people still judge him by the Doeberl Cup fight he was involved in in 2000. But that's different - firstly he did that as an adult, and secondly he tends to make excuses for that behaviour rather than apologising.

Miranda
25-02-2009, 10:52 PM
I seriously wonder if he will ever return to chess though..

Basil
25-02-2009, 10:58 PM
I seriously wonder if he will ever return to chess though..
That, like the original sin, is entirely a matter for him.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 11:03 PM
I seriously wonder if he will ever return to chess though..

Indeed; it's very possible such a ban would cause a player to give up entirely.

I really hope that doesn't happen - but at the same time it was a risk I was willing to see the ACF take to make sure we strongly discourage this form of cheating.

ER
25-02-2009, 11:46 PM
Before I made a comment in this very important and sensitive matter I put myself to THE test!
Everyone who knows me can testify that I am a softy with kids and loyal to my mates!
So, I took imaginary cheating case involving a) myself, b) my best mate(s) and c) my favourite closest relative(s) or friend's family(s) member.
After laboriously thnking about it I reached the conclusion that as far as the ACF's approach in regards to
I) the thoroughness
II) the elaboration
III) the wording and finally
IV) the decision itself
was the right one!
This is one more reason to further solidify my respect and appreciation to our supreme authority!
Chess is a sport and the term apart from it's competition attributes carries with it an amazing spectrum of values, ethics and morality that must be respected, cherished and safeguarded by all involved.
ACF exhibited a commendable amount of professionalism, sensitivity and fairness in their dealing with this matter and set a fine precedent and example for our future administrators.
That was the base of my initial :clap: :clap: :clap: in response to the decision!
I am sure that the same professionalism, sensitivity and fairness on behalf of our supreme authority will be exhibited in any further continuation of this particular case (appeal etc) or related future incidents.

Ian Rout
26-02-2009, 08:56 AM
Two years or thereabouts is the standard penalty, which perhaps not coincidentally is the typical suspension for a first offence of using performance-enhancing drugs in physical sports.

I don't know the player concerned and don't have any particular wish to see him suffer. For all I know he is kind to his mother, loves animals, helps old ladies across the street, has never done this before etc. Very likely he plays in school sports teams where players are congatulated for getting away with something sneaky. But the principle that players are on their own and are playing each on the same terms is fundamental to the game, it becomes unplayable if we cannot be confident that our opponents are playing fairly.

In addition to its pernicious effect on the game computer cheating is difficult to detect and prove so it is essential that there be a strong deterrent.

I don't think too much should be made of the fact that the player is a junior. We are not talking about a naughty seven-year-old. About half the players in Australian tournaments and a proportion of those in international GM events are juniors. Moreover the event in question is not a minor tournament but a side event to the Australian Open; some of the other competitors had travelled from interstate and paid for ten days accommodation to compete and even locals would in some cases have used up half their annual leave to play.

On the other hand players in other sports (and in real life for that matter) serve suspensions and come back having done their time. As noted by others if the player is seen to be remorseful and to not offend again there is no reason why it shouldn't happen here.

Miranda
26-02-2009, 09:02 AM
I suppose the penalty is reasonable...

Basil
26-02-2009, 10:11 AM
I liked your post Ian.

bobby1972
26-02-2009, 10:44 AM
what about "Mamedyarov withdraws from Aeroflot Open" i imagine aeroflot will be thinking about next year after this fiasco,imagine this at the SIO or doeberl cup it would really hurt our game.maybe a rule about a ban computers in the playing area or something like that.toilet gates are not common and there is no way to know what takes place in the loo with a mobile device.maybe no leaving board when its your move rule should be introduced,then again what if you HAVE to go.i am always suspicious of adults who improve rapidly,why now in the age of the mobile,i mean some players have been playing all their lives and only passed 2000 in the mobile age maybe coincidence.

Adamski
26-02-2009, 11:22 AM
Before I made a comment in this very important and sensitive matter I put myself to THE test!
Everyone who knows me can testify that I am a softy with kids and loyal to my mates!
So, I took imaginary cheating case involving a) myself, b) my best mate(s) and c) my favourite closest relative(s) or friend's family(s) member.
After laboriously thnking about it I reached the conclusion that as far as the ACF's approach in regards to
I) the thoroughness
II) the elaboration
III) the wording and finally
IV) the decision itself
was the right one!
This is one more reason to further solidify my respect and appreciation to our supreme authority!
Chess is a sport and the term apart from it's competition attributes carries with it an amazing spectrum of values, ethics and morality that must be respected, cherished and safeguarded by all involved.
ACF exhibited a commendable amount of professionalism, sensitivity and fairness in their dealing with this matter and set a fine precedent and example for our future administrators.
That was the base of my initial :clap: :clap: :clap: in response to the decision!
I am sure that the same professionalism, sensitivity and fairness on behalf of our supreme authority will be exhibited in any further continuation of this particular case (appeal etc) or related future incidents.Good post, JaK. I agree with all of it!:clap:

ER
26-02-2009, 11:24 AM
Thanks Jonathan, I appreciate your response!

Rincewind
26-02-2009, 11:51 AM
maybe no leaving board when its your move rule should be introduced

The current rule is that

"The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."

My understanding is the playing area is normally just the tournament hall does not normally include the restrooms.

Phil Bourke
26-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Indeed; it's very possible such a ban would cause a player to give up entirely.

I really hope that doesn't happen - but at the same time it was a risk I was willing to see the ACF take to make sure we strongly discourage this form of cheating.
Is there any form of cheating the ACF would encourage :P

Phil Bourke
26-02-2009, 12:50 PM
The current rule is that

"The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."

My understanding is the playing area is normally just the tournament hall does not normally include the restrooms.

My understanding is that the playing area, or venue, includes the rest rooms, areas for eating, smoking etc, or any other areas the arbiter/s designate to be part of the playing venue.

Rincewind
26-02-2009, 12:56 PM
My understanding is that the playing area, or venue, includes the rest rooms, areas for eating, smoking etc, or any other areas the arbiter/s designate to be part of the playing venue.

The rules distinguish the "playing venue" as comprising the playing area, restrooms, etc and thus imply the playing area is just the area where play occurs (AKA tournament hall) and so does not include the restrooms. This is all in Law 12.5 which reads...

12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the `playing venue` without permission from the arbiter. 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.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

* emphasis added

Rincewind
26-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Is there any form of cheating the ACF would encourage :P

Perhaps some need to be discouraged more actively than others. In general it is good to strongly discourage new forms of cheating as there may be a perception that they are permissible or at least tolerated due to the absence of precedent penalties for offenders.

Ian Rout
26-02-2009, 01:45 PM
A point that should be thrown in is that most famous cheating cases don't involve using hand-held computers, in the toilet or elsewhere. This is relatively inefficient as there is a time overhead to type in the position or moves, there is a risk of the machine being seen or the player being caught with it in their possession, and they aren't as strong or quick as PC programs. More effective is to have an accomplice run the program or database and communicate the recommendations in some way.

Leaving the playing area expedites communication but it isn't essential. Several practitioners have used earpieces or headphones of some sort and haven't needed to leave the board at all.

bobby1972
26-02-2009, 02:11 PM
pocket fritz is much stronger than any 2200+ player thats just a fact,and its sopposed to be very fast.it takes a few seconds to enter a position thats also a fact and thats just one program i played one and its very strong very very strong tactical monter .chess genius is also strong not many players in oz could beat either of these programs also true.plus all the phone programs ,in a few very few years a mobile program will be as strong as fritz11.maybe a new rule "loo santion" rule.our game is very hard sometimes the smallest thing can make you win or lose so any help even using one of these things as only a board and moving even one move ahead without having to visualise can make a player much stronger in rating so these better be worked out or the game is in danger ,every time one of this things happens i wonder how many go undetected?

ER
26-02-2009, 04:06 PM
Ascaro, although I understand your concerns I also think that no matter how fast technology advances, it also advances for the administrators, arbiters etc. In the market there are already aparati which can not only detect minute electronic equipment such as wireless earpieces, but can point toward their direction as well.
Don't be surprised if soon we 'll have introduction of rules disallowing bringing all electronic equipment into the playing hall, penalty being automatic expulsion for the violators.
Also there is the capability of the arbiter and the other players to detect and report cheating.
I know of at least three DOPs who give the impression that they are on the ball all the time and they are able to follow what's going on in the playing area at all times!
Ian's worrying about collaboration b/n people is more alarming since it is difficult to detect and prove actual cheating techniques be they gestures or other means of communication.
Anyway, I do not believe that the prestige of the sport is threatened by cheating. After all other sports including Olympic events have lost none of their appeal to the public just because a few greedy and idiotic cheats thought it was easy or clever to exercise their despicable actions!

bobby1972
26-02-2009, 04:14 PM
the truth is this equipment is far too expensive ,its very very expensive,this is beyond any turny in oz budget,i mean even digi boards are few due to money.our game lacks money and such an expense is sci-fi for the near future.and who in oz chess green earth is going to run such equipment no non no.really.

bobby1972
26-02-2009, 04:17 PM
i forgot "collaboration b/n people" not in a common language like english thats a beauty also.

Phil Bourke
26-02-2009, 04:30 PM
How about a stupid, or blatant cheater, whispering moves loud enough whilst standing as an observer. Is he helping a friend, or a blithering idiot? Have had it happen to me! What can the arbiter do, remove the offender, but what about the game he just saved for someone else!

antichrist
26-02-2009, 06:36 PM
How about a stupid, or blatant cheater, whispering moves loud enough whilst standing as an observer. Is he helping a friend, or a blithering idiot? Have had it happen to me! What can the arbiter do, remove the offender, but what about the game he just saved for someone else!

What about at Canterbury Club, I was behind and did 5 sacs to force a draw - but on the last one his mate watching let out a supposed laugh. I reakon it was a warning to his mate - he reakoned he was just awed by my sacs.

Phil Bourke
26-02-2009, 10:02 PM
The rules distinguish the "playing venue" as comprising the playing area, restrooms, etc and thus imply the playing area is just the area where play occurs (AKA tournament hall) and so does not include the restrooms. This is all in Law 12.5 which reads...

12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the `playing venue` without permission from the arbiter. 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.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

* emphasis added
Thanks for the clarification. Now see it a bit better I hope. Players may not leave the playing venue, except that those players whose turn it is to move are further restricted to the playing area, without the permission of the arbiter in both cases.

Bill Gletsos
27-02-2009, 12:18 AM
An aside ...check out http://www.auschess.org.au/ACFBannedPlayers.html

It appears that once the miscreant has done his time everyone will be reminded of it for some years to come on the ACF website.The ACF banned player webpage has been updated with the latest ban.