PDA

View Full Version : Why Kennan Lose game??



samantha
05-01-2019, 09:48 PM
Rd 1 Trundle.What happened?

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2019, 09:59 PM
According to https://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/tournaments/ch/2019/wwwGeorgeTrundleMasters2019/pairs1.html Clarke - Izzat

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4 h6 5.g4 Bd7 6.Nc3 e6 7.f4 c5 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Be3 h5 10.gxh5 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nh6 12.Rh3 Be7 13.Bd3 Bxh4+ 1-0

Mobile phone? Incomplete move list?

MichaelBaron
05-01-2019, 10:15 PM
https://doubleroo.blogspot.com/2019/01/scandal-at-george.html?fbclid=IwAR2GZK5WOAivp6YRQ1lFJj8XG9oAO lNxo9QCAQ_4dcJWaLsDs_hgfsgDvao

I am pretty sure though Kannan was not trying to cheat.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2019, 11:21 PM
https://doubleroo.blogspot.com/2019/01/scandal-at-george.html?fbclid=IwAR2GZK5WOAivp6YRQ1lFJj8XG9oAO lNxo9QCAQ_4dcJWaLsDs_hgfsgDvao

I am pretty sure though Kannan was not trying to cheat.

Wow. Thanks for posting the link.

Lekko
06-01-2019, 01:21 AM
Kanans statement on the issue on social media:


Alright fellas, as expected this is getting out of hand, and people who love me so much in chess community without a doubt are onto this and trying to paint the situation in much worse colors as it was. Here is what exactly happened - I’m sure for those of you who knows me well I don’t need to defend myself, the rest can judge as they want:

I was invited for a GM norm tournament in New Zealand - a country I have never been to and was very excited to visit as a tourist. Unfortunately due to the late withdrawal of one of the foreign GMs, the tournament became only IM norm, and lost a huge chunk of significance to me, as I am hunting for my final GM norm. My hunt for the last norm has been very unsuccessful leading up to this tournament, so my passion to play chess was likewise - very low. I’ll try to keep this short for tldr purposes. I own two mobile phones. One is my relatively old Galaxy Note and a relatively new Iphone. As we all know Iphone (mine is 16gb) has memory issues, and I am planning on traveling around NZ after the tournament and taking a lot of pics. So I decided I’ll take both phones for this tournament, as partly I am visiting this country for traveling purposes too. Long story short, being a bit of a sciencey guy, I didn’t want to keep both phones in the same pocket of my shorts, as it is pretty bad for electronics, so I put the other one inside the inner pocket of my jacket ever since the airport check in. Why inner pocket? Because the outer one is too shallow and it kept popping out. Okay. So I arrive to NZ. First round begins at 2pm, my opponent Brandon Clarke and I are at a cafe nearby, having a chat and waiting for our drinks, which are taking ages to be served, so we are late for the game. It’s all good though, being late for the game is a usual thing for me. Its around 2:06pm, so we quickly rush back to the venue, I am still wearing my jacket, we both hand in our phones to the arbiter, and begin the game.

The game has begun, we are even cracking some jokes as we are playing out first few moves (yep, I know, unprofessional). Anyway, we reach some sort of a position out of the opening, where Brandon starts to think, and I get up to go for a usual walk around the boards. As I am walking, I put my hands in my pockets, and realize “Oh shit”, I still have the phone in my jacket. Okay now, before going ahead with the story, let me admit to something. In hindsight, I most definitely should have gone up to the arbiter and laid out everything as is. Why didn’t I do so? In all honesty, I was just very scared that I will be misunderstood, and it will become public and hurt my reputation (ironic). So I panicked a lot, and made a rushed decision that alright, I need to turn it off so it doesn’t make any sounds. So I decided to go outside and turn my phone off. ALRIGHT, THIS IS WHERE the false story-telling begins by Mr Alex Wohl, who already wrote a lovely post about me few years ago when I pulled out of Doeberl Cup, clearly indicating his sympathy towards me. So this is what ACTUALLY happened:

I went outside, and obviously just looked around to make sure there are no people around. Mr Alex Wohl portraying this act as “he glanced up in my direction and swiftly put it in his pocket”. If you look at the angle of those glass things on the window, how the hell can anyone from down outside even notice anybody observing me? Anyway, that’s not even an important part. Who cares. THIS IS where it gets really weird: so I turned off my phone, put it in my pocket, and as I am walking back to the playing hall, I see the arbiter walking up in my direction. Mr Alex Wohl claims “the arbiter asked him to return to the playing hall”. First of all, wtf? If the arbiter is informed I am possessing an electronic device DURING a game, why doesn’t he confront me on the spot? He has all the rights. And I bloody wish he did, then my phone could be checked and it would just be a normal forfeit without any accusations. But anyway, you know what the arbiter said to me? “Oh this is another part of the Auckland Chess Centre (pointing at the house right nearby)” and just having a good old chat about the chess centre as we are naturally walking back to the venue. LOL! I have nothing against the arbiter, seems like a good bloke, if anything he just treated the situation quite unprofessionally. So I returned back to my board, we played out few more moves, my opponent made pretty strong moves in my opinion, leading to him getting a better position out of the opening, and having a higher rating than my opponent I felt I had the right to offer a draw, which was accepted.

Alright, so let's imagine the situation from my perspective at that given time:
I just avoided a situation that could be quite unfortunate for me, I felt bad inside that it happened this way but ultimately knowing that I had no malicious intentions, I was like okay, let's make sure I just never make such mistakes again.
So, I return back to my motel room, everything is alright, and I receive an email from the organizer of the tournament Mike Steadmann. The email says: "You have been seen with a phone outside the playing venue during the game, could you please clarify this situation for me?"
When I got the email I was honest and explained the situation to the organizer. I told him I did have an electronic device and I didn't use it to cheat or intended to use it to cheat. I got a reply from Mike in couple of hours, saying that the same thing happened to him once too, and he had to forfeit the game, and that the rule is strict and it has been discussed with the arbiters, and since I admit to it, I have to forfeit the game. To which I was like okay, fair enough. Ofc I was unhappy, but hey I did breach the rule, and I gotta take full responsibility for it.

NOW, for those of you who have some basic logic, let's analyze the motives of me trying to cheat, according to the accusations of Mr Alex Wohl:

1) Everybody who knows me knows that all I care at this point of my chess career is my final norm, for which I only get 2 chances during a calendar year, which are the GM round robin events held in Adelaide and Melbourne. In both of those tournaments I performed average, having played some good and poor games. Didn't get my norms.

2) The 3rd tournament coming up after those two was Aus Open, while it was technically possible to get a norm in that event, anyone who understand chess a little bit realizes how hard it would be to score a GM norm in that field, basically requiring me to beat all the top seeds and play 3 GMs out of all 3 available, and get some luck with federation counts. Either way, I lose to much lower rated player than me in Round 3, then in Round 4 I have a completely lost position against 1900, I get lucky and win, Round 5 same story, very bad position against 2000 rated player, got lucky and won. Round 6 Yi Liu walked into my preparation, so it was quite a quick game, Round 7 was a quick draw against GM Papin. Round 8, in a crazy battle against GM Darryl everything came down to a mutual time scramble, with an evaluation going up and down with each move, I was the more fortunate one at the end. Last round I offered a quick draw to my friend Bobby Cheng, but my position was a bit worse at that point, and he rightfully refused, but turned out he had pushed a bit too had and I ended up being up a pawn and winning the game from there. Series of fortunate events, and I tired for the first place.

3) Okay, here comes NZ tournament. IM round robin event, really possesses no real significance to my chess aspirations, other than having to play yet another 9 rounds on top of 27 games already played in 1 month. But okay, the deal is a deal, can't pull out, so let's go.

Now can anybody explain to me, what kind of fool would I have to be, to decide and cheat in such an insignificant event, after having blown away all my chances for my so wanted last GM norm, yet in such idiotic fashion such as going outside in an open court and pulling out my phone to cheat in ROUND 1 OUT OF THE OPENING against someone that I am friends with? Like would it make any logical sense for me to have such intentions? Besides, IF my intention WAS TO CHEAT, why the hell would I offer a quick draw to Brandon on move 13? I did not see anyone observing me, the arbiter that could have "caught" me, just had a good old chat with me, so in my mind, if I am to cheat, I just got away with everything right? Like cmon now, I understand all of this story doesn't look good on me and all, and I sincerely apologize to my opponent that this entire situation has happened in a game against him, but if you just think logically about it, how would it make sense for me to try and cheat in this event, in the first round, OUTSIDE IN AN OPEN BLOODY LAND, then go and offer my opponent a draw. It's really obvious in my opinion that there were clearly no motives for me to cheat in this event whatsoever.

One thing that I will say is that yes, it may seem that my story seems a bit flaky, coz why would I have TWO phones on myself?? But as I have said already, it was merely an innocent mistake, and an understandable one, and once again if my intention was to cheat, I would simply deny all the accusations in first place, because there was literally no proof and no action taken by anyone at the time. I decided to be honest about this and take the full responsibility for the mistake I made. AND YES, I SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE ARBITER. Yes. I know. But understandably, I got scared that it could be misunderstood, especially given I have never met the arbiter before and it's a different country. I was wrong, I admit, but I panicked, did not want my reputation to suffer from it, so made a wrong judgement. However, all I am standing up here for is that there was no malicious intent whatsoever, and according to the FIDE rules 11.3, I breached the rule of "not possessing any electronic device" for which I was rightfully penalized by receiving a loss for that game. Cheating involves a level of maliciousness and intent. I had no intent and I deny any such accusations.

In conclusion, everyone who knows me somewhat well and has played any type of quick chess with me (blitz or rapid or allegro) knows that my chess strength is around 2500 mark, so it really wouldn't make sense for me to try and cheat in order to beat people who are lower rated than me, given I am the top seed in this event.

Thanks

ER
06-01-2019, 04:52 AM
Settle it over a game! :) I take bets!

3718

Interesting position this one! :D :P

Frank
06-01-2019, 07:57 AM
"Kanans statement on the issue on social media":

A personal comment from afar, on this gracious and humble declaration: It makes me scared even to think of playing in a club game, given my forgetfulness on mobiles, before I would pull myself together.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2019, 08:14 AM
Kanans statement on the issue on social media:

And thanks very much for posting this. It is very good to have both sides of the story on here.

Desmond
06-01-2019, 08:58 AM
Did Izzat's opponent get half a point or a full point with the forfeit?

Lekko
06-01-2019, 09:05 AM
As far as I know, he was given the full point.

Altecman
06-01-2019, 09:44 AM
The comments in response to Kanan's social media post show that this matter has likely been blown out of proportion. There is also a comment from Kanan's opponent from the game supporting him.

My thoughts, which I also raised to Mr Wohl in response to his blog post:

1. From, admittingly, only a cursory read of the Fide handbook it would appear Mr Izzat has breached Article 11.3(b). However, I cannot see a definition of cheating in the handbook so the word must be given its ordinary meaning. In this context I would expect that to be "cheating" requires purposeful intent to use some sort of information or device to obtain an unfair advantage. Further, if you read deeper into 11.3(b) it would appear the arbiter has handed down the recommended punishment;

2. It is dangerous to just approach these circumstances as black and white. I disagree with the argument that just because someone has an electronic device instantly means they are a cheater. I have experienced, as well I am sure many others have in the chess community, mobile phones of other players ringing or beeping during events. This is also a clear breach of Article 11.3(b) but we don't consider these individuals "cheaters". We just consider them people who forgot to turn their phone off; and

3. I expect the arbiters and organisers don't want the event to be ruined by such a controversy. Now that the recommended penalty has been handed down by the arbiters as prescribed in the rules I think the matter has run its course.

The comments in response to Kanan's post highlight that this event should bring into question journalist ethics and reporting standards. One such comment reads

"When I first read about this it made me sick, angry and embarrassed (to be part of the chess community), knowing that there are people out there ready to snitch on their fellow chess players for a minor infraction of the rules. This was reported to Kanan's opponent, the arbiters, to FIDE, even random players in the tournament, and if that wasn't enough, put up on a blog! What a a disgusting way to treat someone and tarnish their reputation."

I have no doubt that this event has caused Kanan a lot of angst over the past few days which is not fair. Kanan has the right for this matter to be dealt with privately rather than for it to be widely publicised in a blog advertised as "mistake or intentional cheating". This is just poor journalism as it provides only one side of the argument from an individual who only witnessed an event and did not have to hand off the necessary facts to provide an informative and objective piece.

Lekko
06-01-2019, 10:02 AM
I have no doubt that this event has caused Kanan a lot of angst over the past few days which is not fair. Kanan has the right for this matter to be dealt with privately rather than for it to be widely publicised in a blog advertised as "mistake or intentional cheating". This is just poor journalism as it provides only one side of the argument from an individual who only witnessed an event and did not have to hand off the necessary facts to provide an informative and objective piece.

Agreed. I don't know if the intention was to get more views on his blog or to try and get into Kanan's head while he's competing in a very strong tournament but it's been blown out of proportion and needs to be put to bed.

From Kanan's opponent, Brandon Clarke:

From my perspective, the right punishment has occurred with him being forfeited for that game and that should be the end of it. Kanan isn’t a cheater.

slyall
06-01-2019, 10:33 AM
It seems to me that the problem was the the phone situation wasn't addressed immediately. Izzat, Clarke and Wohl all express surprise that the organisers didn't take it more seriously. This caused Clarke and Wohl to escalate it until that found somebody who did.

I suspect if the Arbiter had asked to see the phone, confirmed that it wasn't being used to cheat and then forfeited the game we'd all just be shaking our heads at the silly player who forgot they were carrying their phone and lost a game.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2019, 11:18 AM
Checking the phone is very easy. This could have been done by the arbiter on the spot. Can easily check download history, sites accessed etc. Not sure about checking time of access on a Galaxy phone though but I think can be done and should have been done.

But let's assume the person is innocent unless proven guilty! I keep being reminded by fellow chesschatters about ''innocent Sudanese children etc.'' who have not been prosecuted (or not prosecuted just yet).



What surprises me most is that when told that a participant has a phone on him that is turned on, the arbiter did not act upon this straight away. ''The phone issue'' has been around for some years now and the arbiters should clearly be prepared to deal with it. Curiously, Alex Wohl's Fb post includes passage where he discuses how his phone was on and when he realised it he approached the arbiter...and was 'forgiven''.

timothyha
06-01-2019, 01:27 PM
I suspect if the Arbiter had asked to see the phone, confirmed that it wasn't being used to cheat and then forfeited the game we'd all just be shaking our heads at the silly player who forgot they were carrying their phone and lost a game.

I really hope by the end of the tournament this incident will be peacefully resolved between Alex and Izzat...

MichaelBaron
06-01-2019, 02:14 PM
Hopefully, the story is coming to an end:
Kanan posted on Fb few min ago:
Thank you everyone for the support. I really appreciate it a lot, and it is truly nice to see that clear logic and personality trust still hugely prevails in our society, despite all the attempts from others who dislike me or want to paint me in worst colors imaginable. I would like to inform everyone as well that Alex Wohl came up to me today after the game, and pretty much expressed his regrets that the situation turned out the way it did. He tried to explain his position from his point of view, and was majorly upset and shocked by the lack of interest expressed from the organizers and associated people, despite him informing them repeatedly and seeking for some actions to be taken. Given he is being honest and genuine about all of this, I can understand his frustration with nobody doing anything about it. He told me he held off a day from blogging about this but couldn’t take it any longer due to lack of action taken by the tournament officials. While it’s both true and not so much (action was being taken but yes it wasn’t the quickest it should have been), I told him that it was very premature for him to make it so public without any further clarifications on the matter, and that he should have been more patient and waited for it to be sorted officially, as he had already notified a FIDE member about it, and that person got the ball rolling. Either way, he conceded it was a premature act on his behalf, but also asked me to understand his position and feelings. I try to see the best in people and am just going to give him the benefit of doubt in his intents entailing no maliciousness. He wished me all the best and said that he hopes I don’t have any hard feelings against him as he has none against me. I asked him to make another post that would clarify the issue to the public, which he promised he will. SO, It’s all over and it was just a silly mistake on my behalf for which I apologize again and I got forfeited as I should have been! Thanks everyone again for your support, very pleased to have received this from you all!

Lekko
06-01-2019, 02:14 PM
From Kanan:


Thank you everyone for the support. I really appreciate it a lot, and it is truly nice to see that clear logic and personality trust still hugely prevails in our society, despite all the attempts from others who dislike me or want to paint me in worst colors imaginable. I would like to inform everyone as well that Alex Wohl came up to me today after the game, and pretty much expressed his regrets that the situation turned out the way it did. He tried to explain his position from his point of view, and was majorly upset and shocked by the lack of interest expressed from the organizers and associated people, despite him informing them repeatedly and seeking for some actions to be taken. Given he is being honest and genuine about all of this, I can understand his frustration with nobody doing anything about it. He told me he held off a day from blogging about this but couldn’t take it any longer due to lack of action taken by the tournament officials. While it’s both true and not so much (action was being taken but yes it wasn’t the quickest it should have been), I told him that it was very premature for him to make it so public without any further clarifications on the matter, and that he should have been more patient and waited for it to be sorted officially, as he had already notified a FIDE member about it, and that person got the ball rolling. Either way, he conceded it was a premature act on his behalf, but also asked me to understand his position and feelings. I try to see the best in people and am just going to give him the benefit of doubt in his intents entailing no maliciousness. He wished me all the best and said that he hopes I don’t have any hard feelings against him as he has none against me. I asked him to make another post that would clarify the issue to the public, which he promised he will. SO, It’s all over and it was just a silly mistake on my behalf for which I apologize again and I got forfeited as I should have been! Thanks everyone again for your support, very pleased to have received this from you all!

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2019, 02:35 PM
Did Izzat's opponent get half a point or a full point with the forfeit?

Note that it's a default not a forfeit (a default is a rated game, a forfeit isn't.) The site shows it as 1-0 so I assume it's the full point. (This is standard for mobile phone situations. Even if your opponent's phone rings and you have only a king remaining, you still win, because of the possibility that the phone was used for cheating earlier in the game.)

Frank
06-01-2019, 10:45 PM
"I would like to inform everyone as well that Alex Wohl came up to me today after the game, and pretty much expressed his regrets that the situation turned out the way it did. He tried to explain his position from his point of view, and was majorly upset and shocked by the lack of interest expressed from the organizers and associated people, despite him informing them repeatedly and seeking for some actions to be taken."

The painstaking way the two parties have articulated their concerns and have resolved them have been most impressive and have in my opinion increased their stature in the chess world.

It must have been at great psychic cost to the accuser to have raised these issues (at the behest of fair play rather than from self aggrandisement), and utterly terrifying for a professional chess player to have to meet these accusations aired in a public forum (for reasons stated) and the innuendos read into them by those who crave instant titillation.

What has become clear from the statements of IM Izzat above, and in the 2 blogs of IM Wohl on the 5th & 6th January, is that there is no suggestion of cheating, and that the integrity of both masters have emerged with their integrity intact.

A truly sad happening which may have been avoided if the authorities had acted more swiftly, but an advice of perfection which will in truth rarely be met in the real world let alone in the traditionally friendly environment of New Zealand.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2019, 11:50 PM
"I would like to inform everyone as well that Alex Wohl came up to me today after the game, and pretty much expressed his regrets that the situation turned out the way it did. He tried to explain his position from his point of view, and was majorly upset and shocked by the lack of interest expressed from the organizers and associated people, despite him informing them repeatedly and seeking for some actions to be taken."

The painstaking way the two parties have articulated their concerns and have resolved them have been most impressive and have in my opinion increased their stature in the chess world.

It must have been at great psychic cost to the accuser to have raised these issues (at the behest of fair play rather than from self aggrandisement), and utterly terrifying for a professional chess player to have to meet these accusations aired in a public forum (for reasons stated) and the innuendos read into them by those who crave instant titillation.

What has become clear from the statements of IM Izzat above, and in the 2 blogs of IM Wohl on the 5th & 6th January, is that there is no suggestion of cheating, and that the integrity of both masters have emerged with their integrity intact.

A truly sad happening which may have been avoided if the authorities had acted more swiftly, but an advice of perfection which will in truth rarely be met in the real world let alone in the traditionally friendly environment of New Zealand.

This why it would be best resolved without the blog posts...

ER
07-01-2019, 04:45 AM
This why it would be best resolved without the blog posts...

LOL forum posts ok? :D

Well, don't knock the blogs! Without Wohl's blog posting we 'd know nothing about the whole thing :D

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2019, 11:02 AM
This why it would be best resolved without the blog posts...

I think it was important that this matter was discussed publiclty as, unpleasant as it is for all concerned, there is a lot that can be learned from it. That doesn't mean I necessarily endorse every single choice of wording in Alex's original post, but this is an important incident that deserves to be discussed publicly so that people know what to do next time.

Firstly as is very clear in the FIDE guidelines for computer-cheating incidents, an accusation that a player has a mobile phone on them is not, by itself, an accusation of computer-cheating or cheating of any other kind. So if the arbiter just has a player come up to them and say 'I saw player X outside using a mobile phone' then the arbiter can investigate that and default the player without having to fill out an Appendix A form. Of course the arbiter should also investigate what the player has been doing with the phone, which might then become a cheating investigation, but in a lot of cases won't.

However if the player says 'player X is using a mobile phone and I am worried that he might be trying to use an engine' then that becomes more serious. The player must fill out the Appendix A form and a report will then go to FIDE and the Fair Play Commission (formerly Anti-Cheating). A situation where there is "a complaint about possible cheating" requires such treatment. Also when people are making accusations/insinuations about engine-cheating (especially publicly) they need to be very careful what they say because that in turn can result in complaints and penalties if the claims are unwarranted.

For players - it looks like Kanan well and truly realises it but if a player finds themselves in possession of a mobile phone during the game then just turning it off and keeping it on their person is not good enough. Such a player is continuing to violate the Laws (having discovered they were doing so unintentionally) and it could be suspected that this is deliberate and their intention is not solely to avoid bad publicity but also to avoid being defaulted. Any deliberate breach of the Laws if proven is a serious matter, even when it isn't engine-cheating. An arbiter might impose a more severe penalty than just defaulting the game.

This does raise the question of whether FIDE should require players who find themselves to be unintentionally in breach of the mobile phone rule to self-incriminate.

MichaelBaron
07-01-2019, 11:15 AM
I think it was important that this matter was discussed publiclty as, unpleasant as it is for all concerned, there is a lot that can be learned from it. That doesn't mean I necessarily endorse every single choice of wording in Alex's original post, but this is an important incident that deserves to be discussed publicly so that people know what to do next time.

Firstly as is very clear in the FIDE guidelines for computer-cheating incidents, an accusation that a player has a mobile phone on them is not, by itself, an accusation of computer-cheating or cheating of any other kind. So if the arbiter just has a player come up to them and say 'I saw player X outside using a mobile phone' then the arbiter can investigate that and default the player without having to fill out an Appendix A form. Of course the arbiter should also investigate what the player has been doing with the phone, which might then become a cheating investigation, but in a lot of cases won't.

However if the player says 'player X is using a mobile phone and I am worried that he might be trying to use an engine' then that becomes more serious. The player must fill out the Appendix A form and a report will then go to FIDE and the Fair Play Commission (formerly Anti-Cheating). A situation where there is "a complaint about possible cheating" requires such treatment. Also when people are making accusations/insinuations about engine-cheating (especially publicly) they need to be very careful what they say because that in turn can result in complaints and penalties if the claims are unwarranted.

For players - it looks like Kanan well and truly realises it but if a player finds themselves in possession of a mobile phone during the game then just turning it off and keeping it on their person is not good enough. Such a player is continuing to violate the Laws (having discovered they were doing so unintentionally) and it could be suspected that this is deliberate and their intention is not solely to avoid bad publicity but also to avoid being defaulted. Any deliberate breach of the Laws if proven is a serious matter, even when it isn't engine-cheating. An arbiter might impose a more severe penalty than just defaulting the game.

This does raise the question of whether FIDE should require players who find themselves to be unintentionally in breach of the mobile phone rule to self-incriminate.

Kevin, I absolutely agree … I (as you know) very open when it comes to going public about things I am passionate about. Furthermore, I understand that some people believe Kanan was cheating. Would his phone been checked, and proof of cheating found - I would be the first person to agree that he is a cheat. But to accuse an individual implicitly of such a serious offense - even an outspoken person like me would feel that clear evidence is required. I would also include the evidence into the same message/blog post etc. along with the accusations.

We had plenty of losses due to phone ringing etc before. I can recall it happening to Solo etc. It is always unfortunate. But on all other occasions - There were no reputational losses to the person losing a game.

Lekko
07-01-2019, 12:35 PM
This does raise the question of whether FIDE should require players who find themselves to be unintentionally in breach of the mobile phone rule to self-incriminate.

Just out of curiosity, what are we supposed to do in such a situation? Inform the arbiter? Give the phone to a friend that might be watching (and not playing)? If the player does inform the arbiter, is it at the arbiter's discretion if the game is defaulted or is there a law that says it will be or won't be defaulted? If the phone is given to a players friend, is he still continuing to violate the laws?

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 01:05 PM
Just out of curiosity, what are we supposed to do in such a situation? Inform the arbiter? Give the phone to a friend that might be watching (and not playing)? If the player does inform the arbiter, is it at the arbiter's discretion if the game is defaulted or is there a law that says it will be or won't be defaulted? If the phone is given to a players friend, is he still continuing to violate the laws?The relevant laws are: (https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article)


11.3
During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

A player has already violated this law just by having the mobile phone. Getting rid of it wouldn't help. And not telling the arbiter about it could be a more serious offence - if you're caught.

It's not the arbiter's choice what happens, unless the rules of the competition have given him discretion.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 01:46 PM
Just out of curiosity, what are we supposed to do in such a situation? Inform the arbiter? Give the phone to a friend that might be watching (and not playing)?

I think we all agree that it is a difficult situation for a player to find themselves in. Kevin posted that this kind of situation begs the question of whether players who find themselves to have unintentionally breached this law should be required to self-incriminate. My own view is that the laws should require them to do so. I view sport as an ideal world where the rules are absolute and not to be broken. As such, any known breach of a rule is worse than one that goes unrecognised, even if the breach was unintentional. In any event of known breach, there is the known potential for the offender to be caught and for the story to be published. This carries the risk of damage to the public image of chess, particularly if there is any suggestion of deliberate cheating. In this case it is clear (to me at least) that Kanan was not trying to cheat, but conspiracy theories always abound.


If the player does inform the arbiter, is it at the arbiter's discretion if the game is defaulted or is there a law that says it will be or won't be defaulted?

The arbiter has no discretion in regard to breaches of 11.3.2.2. Even if it is specified in the tournament rules that there is a lesser penalty, that penalty must still be applied.


If the phone is given to a players friend, is he still continuing to violate the laws?

The player is not continuing to violate the laws, but has already done so.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2019, 01:48 PM
A player has already violated this law just by having the mobile phone. Getting rid of it wouldn't help. And not telling the arbiter about it could be a more serious offence - if you're caught.

It's not the arbiter's choice what happens, unless the rules of the competition have given him discretion.

What I wonder about is a case where the player just gets rid of the phone as soon as they realise they have it (drops it in the bin or whatever), but is seen doing so. I'm not sure they've actually broken any more rules than the player who reports the issue to the arbiter as soon as they realise they have it. I don't think there's a rule against failing to tell the arbiter that you've broken the rules.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 01:57 PM
It's not the arbiter's choice what happens, unless the rules of the competition have given him discretion.

I don't think this is correct. The tournament rules can specify a less severe penalty, but the FIDE Laws do not give the arbiter any discretion. The arbiter has to apply the penalty.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2019, 02:00 PM
Moderation notice - posts taken offline

I have removed 10 posts because the line of argument in some of them was potentially defamatory, depending on facts that are unknown to me. Others were blameless and in some cases very well considered. I might put one or two of the posts back later, perhaps with some minor snipping.

If someone wants to make claims that are even likely to be read (including between the lines) as allegations of actual engine-cheating then they need to support those claims with publicly available evidence in the same post. No little birdies, no offers to contact people offline, no cryptic crossword clues, just direct, clear and credible public evidence.

If anyone wishes to discuss this matter please do so in the Help and Feedback section only and not in this thread.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 02:02 PM
What I wonder about is a case where the player just gets rid of the phone as soon as they realise they have it (drops it in the bin or whatever), but is seen doing so. I'm not sure they've actually broken any more rules than the player who reports the issue to the arbiter as soon as they realise they have it. I don't think there's a rule against failing to tell the arbiter that you've broken the rules.Wouldn't that be covered by 11.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? Concealing an infraction of the laws would seem to be qualify.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 02:09 PM
The relevant laws are: (https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article)


11.3
During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.


This is from the 2014 rules, which have been superseded.

Article 11.3 from the 2018 FIDE Laws of Chess is as follows:



11.3.1

During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

11.3.2.1



During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.

However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter.

11.3.2.2

If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The regulations of an event may specify a different, less severe, penalty.

11.3.3

The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player, and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

11.3.4

Smoking, including e-cigarettes, is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 02:12 PM
Wouldn't that be covered by 11.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? Concealing an infraction of the laws would seem to be qualify.

Yes, under the proviso that the offender is caught. If the player is not caught, and there is no suggestion or evidence of wrongdoing, then there is no disrepute. The public image of chess would not be damaged.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2019, 02:14 PM
Wouldn't that be covered by 11.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? Concealing an infraction of the laws would seem to be qualify.

An arbiter might interpret it that way. The disrepute rule is very vague.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 02:15 PM
I don't think this is correct. The tournament rules can specify a less severe penalty, but the FIDE Laws do not give the arbiter any discretion. The arbiter has to apply the penalty.I was allowing for the possibility that the competition rules could give the arbiter the discretion to apply different penalties, depending on whether the arbiter thought that the presence of the phone was accidental or deliberate. But I think you're correct that this type of arbiter discretion wouldn't be allowed under the laws, and the penalties would have to explicitly specified.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 02:30 PM
This is from the 2014 rules, which have been superseded. Article 11.3 from the 2018 FIDE Laws of Chess is as follows:Thanks. It seems that a direct link to the online FIDE Handbook doesn't take you to the new Laws :(

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 02:44 PM
Yes, under the proviso that the offender is caught. If the player is not caught, and there is no suggestion or evidence of wrongdoing, then there is no disrepute. The public image of chess would not be damaged.An interesting ethical question. I would argue that the player could still bring the game into disrepute by concealing the infraction, even if he isn't caught. For example, he might hypothetically boast about it on a blog many years after the incident.

However if nobody except the player ever becomes aware of what happened, then 11.1 can't be applied.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 03:06 PM
An interesting ethical question. I would argue that the player could still bring the game into disrepute by concealing the infraction, even if he isn't caught. For example, he might hypothetically boast about it on a blog many years after the incident.

However if nobody except the player ever becomes aware of what happened, then 11.1 can't be applied.

I agree. If a player boasts about his crime then it becomes known, and the game is brought into disrepute by virtue of the crime becoming known.

We also agree that if a player commits wrongdoing and is not caught, and nobody ever finds out, then the game is not brought into disrepute.

In sport, the ethics are fairly absolute. Conforming to the rules is right, and breaking them is wrong. In my post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17434-Why-Kennan-Lose-game&p=444214&viewfull=1#post444214 I argued that in the case where a player discovers that they have broken a rule, inadvertently or otherwise, the ethical thing to do is to self-incriminate, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.

If they self-incriminate to the arbiter, in most cases they should be able to do so in confidence, and very few people need to know the details or divulge them to outsiders. I think the game is brought into disrepute by people who publish unnecessary details and/or unfounded rumours that bring no benefit to anyone.

If we agree that failing to self-incriminate adds more gravity to a crime, then I guess it would make sense to have a rule that requires players to self-incriminate, thus formally defining such cases as more serious. In cases where an offender is not caught and stays silent, then they not in breach of 11.1 but are still in breach of the law requiring them to self-incriminate.

Garvinator
07-01-2019, 03:19 PM
I have just read all the comments here and tried to work out what has occurred and the laws that apply. In my view, I think there needs to be a modification to this section of the mobile phone rule.

As it stands, unless the tournament has specified that a lesser penalty can be applied, then as soon as a player brings the mobile phone into the playing venue, or keeps the mobile phone in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter, then the 'offending' player is completely toast as soon as they realise they have brought the mobile phone into the playing venue.

Most sports have a rule where if you are approached by illegal bookmakers or other dodgy characters, there is a window to self-report these interactions and no further actions will be taken.

So, in this case here, as soon as Kanan Izzat realised he had a turned on mobile phone in the playing venue, there was no way to get out of being defaulted for the game. As Kanan has said, in hindsight he should have self reported, but as the rules reading has shown, this would not have saved him from being defaulted.

And I am of the opinion that this is where there is a missing segment of the rules that should be adding. As the rules stand, Kanan Izzat, by self reporting, would have gained no advantage by self reporting. The actions he took didn't help by trying to turn the phone off, but had he played the rest of the game with the phone on and it not made a sound, he might have 'gotten away with it', so to speak.

And I do not think this is the type of behaviour the rules should be trying to encourage. I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence. How to punish a second offence would need to be worked out? Default one game or both games so the punishment is equal for both games?

But I think chess would be better off by encouraging good behaviour by self reporting and letting the arbiters sort it out, rather than what has occurred with possible paranoid theories and counter claims of various merits.

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 03:21 PM
I agree. If a player boasts about his crime then it becomes known, and the game is brought into disrepute by virtue of the crime becoming known.

We also agree that if a player commits wrongdoing and is not caught, and nobody ever finds out, then the game is not brought into disrepute.

In sport, the ethics are fairly absolute. Conforming to the rules is right, and breaking them is wrong. In my post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17434-Why-Kennan-Lose-game&p=444214&viewfull=1#post444214 I argued that in the case where a player discovers that they have broken a rule, inadvertently or otherwise, the ethical thing to do is to self-incriminate, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.

If they self-incriminate to the arbiter, in most cases they should be able to do so in confidence, and very few people need to know the details or divulge them to outsiders. I think the game is brought into disrepute by people who publish unnecessary details and/or unfounded rumours that bring no benefit to anyone.

If we agree that failing to self-incriminate adds more gravity to a crime, then I guess it would make sense to have a rule that requires players to self-incriminate, thus formally defining such cases as more serious. In cases where an offender is not caught and stays silent, then they not in breach of 11.1 but are still in breach of the law requiring them to self-incriminate.

And the proposed rule also has some practical value besides definition of unconfessed crimes as more serious. If a player commits a wrongdoing that is clearly known to them, and that player is caught red-handed by the arbiter, then the proposed law requiring them to self-incriminate can be applied, without needing 11.1. Thus, more severe penalties may be applied, without there being any requirement that the game be brought into disrepute. (This does not necessarily apply to cases of suspected cheating, which are required to be reported to Fair Play.)

Andrew Hardegen
07-01-2019, 03:35 PM
I have just read all the comments here and tried to work out what has occurred and the laws that apply. In my view, I think there needs to be a modification to this section of the mobile phone rule.

As it stands, unless the tournament has specified that a lesser penalty can be applied, then as soon as a player brings the mobile phone into the playing venue, or keeps the mobile phone in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter, then the 'offending' player is completely toast as soon as they realise they have brought the mobile phone into the playing venue.

Most sports have a rule where if you are approached by illegal bookmakers or other dodgy characters, there is a window to self-report these interactions and no further actions will be taken.

So, in this case here, as soon as Kanan Izzat realised he had a turned on mobile phone in the playing venue, there was no way to get out of being defaulted for the game. As Kanan has said, in hindsight he should have self reported, but as the rules reading has shown, this would not have saved him from being defaulted.

And I am of the opinion that this is where there is a missing segment of the rules that should be adding. As the rules stand, Kanan Izzat, by self reporting, would have gained no advantage by self reporting. The actions he took didn't help by trying to turn the phone off, but had he played the rest of the game with the phone on and it not made a sound, he might have 'gotten away with it', so to speak.

I agree with you that we should look to identify ways of encouraging players to self-report. However, I don't see any problem with the current mobile phone rule. Kanan expressed that he doesn't either, and nor does any other strong player that I know of. In fact I can't recall any club player expressing to me that they are unhappy with the current rule.


And I do not think this is the type of behaviour the rules should be trying to encourage. I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence. How to punish a second offence would need to be worked out? Default one game or both games so the punishment is equal for both games?

But I think chess would be better off by encouraging good behaviour by self reporting and letting the arbiters sort it out, rather than what has occurred with possible paranoid theories and counter claims of various merits.

The rule is there to prevent wrongdoers from cheating. If the rule were to be softened by allowing a `get-out' clause like the one you suggest, then what would stop a player from bringing a phone into the venue with them, using it to refer to opening databases and engines for the first hour of the game, and then wiping the phone and handing it in once they have attained a won game?

lost
07-01-2019, 03:53 PM
Thanks. It seems that a direct link to the online FIDE Handbook doesn't take you to the new Laws :(

Here is the direct link to the 2018 Laws of Chess: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article

lost

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2019, 04:39 PM
I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence.

I think that's risky. For instance suppose a player actually is cheating, but they come to suspect (without being sure) that another player might have noticed that they have a mobile on them. So, aware that they will be defaulted if the other player's suspicions become concrete enough to contact the arbiter first, they simply erase the evidence that they have cheated and then hand in the phone, thereby getting away with a warning.

For major events I prefer the stick approach in this instance. Make it an extra offence for a player to fail to admit to having a mobile phone illegally in their possession during the game once aware of it, so that there is a clear option to fine the player or expel them from the tournament.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2019, 06:17 PM
For major events I prefer the stick approach in this instance. Make it an extra offence for a player to fail to admit to having a mobile phone illegally in their possession during the game once aware of it, so that there is a clear option to fine the player or expel them from the tournament.For major events, I agree with this. But I would also like to see a requirement in the Laws that arbiters warn players about handing in or turning off their mobile phones at the start of each round. That might have avoided this incident, although it seems the players arrived late anyway. If a player is warned, but still fails to hand in their mobile phone, then I have little sympathy for them.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2019, 02:35 PM
Posts moved

Posts about possible new cheating technologies have been moved to Arbiters Corner.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2019, 02:56 PM
Many legal systems, the best known of which is the American, regard it as a fundamental right that a person should never be forced to incriminate himself.

ER
08-01-2019, 02:58 PM
who's Kennan anyway? :D :P

Patrick Byrom
08-01-2019, 03:55 PM
Many legal systems, the best known of which is the American, regard it as a fundamental right that a person should never be forced to incriminate himself.But many sports - golf is the most obvious - rely on the player incriminating themselves.

Desmond
08-01-2019, 03:59 PM
Many legal systems, the best known of which is the American, regard it as a fundamental right that a person should never be forced to incriminate himself.Yet it's not illegal to confess, and confession may lead to reduced sentence.

Vlad
08-01-2019, 06:00 PM
The fundamental feature of the American legal system is that if you confess you go under the witness protection program and so get almost no punishment, while your mates are in big trouble. Same is true in most other developed countries including Australia.

Andrew Hardegen
08-01-2019, 09:14 PM
Many legal systems, the best known of which is the American, regard it as a fundamental right that a person should never be forced to incriminate himself.

I support this, in the real world. In criminal cases, there is also a fundamental standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt being sufficient -- absolute proof is not required in the real world. I believe that the motivation for this fundamental right -- not being required to self-incriminate -- is to protect innocents who find themselves in ambiguous circumstances from having to give evidence that can be used unfairly against them.

In chess, however, my thought is that an innocent player should seldom need such protection, as no penalty would ever be imposed unless there is absolute proof that the player broke the rules. Certainly a penalty resulting from 11.3.2.2 (the mobile phone rule) requires absolute proof that the player possesses (or possessed) an unauthorised device.

ER
09-01-2019, 04:00 AM
… if you confess you go under the witness protection program and so get almost no punishment, while your mates are in big trouble. …

Problem is that usually those "mates" unlike certain chess players and/or officials have long-term memory spans! :D :P

Garvinator
09-01-2019, 05:44 PM
I think that's risky. For instance suppose a player actually is cheating, but they come to suspect (without being sure) that another player might have noticed that they have a mobile on them. So, aware that they will be defaulted if the other player's suspicions become concrete enough to contact the arbiter first, they simply erase the evidence that they have cheated and then hand in the phone, thereby getting away with a warning.

For major events I prefer the stick approach in this instance. Make it an extra offence for a player to fail to admit to having a mobile phone illegally in their possession during the game once aware of it, so that there is a clear option to fine the player or expel them from the tournament.
I know I am replying a bit late and some posts have been moved. I have not read the moved posts, but since my original post is still here, I will reply here :)

With my suggested change, this is the most likely version of events. Player A realises in the middle of the playing venue they have a turned on mobile phone on them. Then they have two choices:

1) Self report and show the turn on mobile phone to the chief arbiter. The chief arbiter can examine the phone as much as they want under the current rules. The player gets a warning
2) Player decides instead to leave the playing venue and goes somewhere else, be it toilet, outside the playing venue, where ever. Does not matter. They then lose any protection from scenario 1.
3) Scenario 3, a player realises they have a turned on mobile phone in the playing venue decides to try and hide this fact by turning it off quickly in the playing venue. This is going to be pretty obvious to some of the other players in the playing venue. They would then lose the self report option and would immediately be defaulted as per the rules.

I do not have any issue at all if the rules and arbiters want to do is call for the stick all the time, as seems to be the case here, more of it I say, just like I am calling for the stick in major events for no 'on the day' entries, but I think in this type of incident, having a self report clause would have avoided a lot of issues with this incident.