On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
... and this was a team event where his actions impacted
other players.
Maybe GM Kramnik is right about the amount of cheating in the
game? I know his recent 'crusade' is more about games online
but still, if GM's have to 'cheat' in OTB tournaments then
it calls in to question how they got their title in the
first place.
I heard about it today at Gothamchess, and it seems so
incredibly hamfisted that it is hard to believe. On the other
hand, I also heard that the GM was away for 10 minutes at a
time, multiple times, and that is also weird. If you're that
sick, why go to the game? You won't perform well anyway. Well,
on the other hand, I am not a GM so what do I know? ;)
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/kirill-shevchenko-expelled-spanish-team-championship
... and this was a team event where his actions impacted other
players.
Maybe GM Kramnik is right about the amount of cheating in the
game? I know his recent 'crusade' is more about games online but
still, if GM's have to 'cheat' in OTB tournaments then it calls
in to question how they got their title in the first place.
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:https://www.chess.com/news/view/kirill-shevchenko-expelled-spanish-team-championship
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
... and this was a team event where his actions impacted
other players.
Maybe GM Kramnik is right about the amount of cheating in the
game? I know his recent 'crusade' is more about games online
but still, if GM's have to 'cheat' in OTB tournaments then
it calls in to question how they got their title in the
first place.
I heard about it today at Gothamchess, and it seems so
incredibly hamfisted that it is hard to believe. On the other
hand, I also heard that the GM was away for 10 minutes at a
time, multiple times, and that is also weird. If you're that
sick, why go to the game? You won't perform well anyway. Well,
on the other hand, I am not a GM so what do I know? ;)
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last week.
($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik - are having a
good look at those games now!
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
... and this was a team event where his actions impacted
other players.
Maybe GM Kramnik is right about the amount of cheating
in the game? I know his recent 'crusade' is more about
games online but still, if GM's have to 'cheat' in OTB
tournaments then it calls in to question how they got
their title in the first place.
I heard about it today at Gothamchess, and it seems so
incredibly hamfisted that it is hard to believe. On the
other hand, I also heard that the GM was away for 10
minutes at a time, multiple times, and that is also weird.
If you're that sick, why go to the game? You won't perform
well anyway. Well, on the other hand, I am not a GM so
what do I know? ;)
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last week.
($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik - are having
a good look at those games now!
Oh yes... I imagine all historical games will be unraveled. I
also would expect them to find plenty in any players history
if you statistically massage the games enough.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
I heard about it today at Gothamchess,
D wrote:
https://www.chess.com/news/view/kirill-shevchenko-expelled-spanish-team-championship
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
A young Grandmaster was kicked out of tournament in Spain
yesterday after a mobile phone was found in the toilet.
... and this was a team event where his actions impacted
other players.
Maybe GM Kramnik is right about the amount of cheating
in the game? I know his recent 'crusade' is more about
games online but still, if GM's have to 'cheat' in OTB
tournaments then it calls in to question how they got
their title in the first place.
I heard about it today at Gothamchess, and it seems so
incredibly hamfisted that it is hard to believe. On the
other hand, I also heard that the GM was away for 10
minutes at a time, multiple times, and that is also weird.
If you're that sick, why go to the game? You won't perform
well anyway. Well, on the other hand, I am not a GM so
what do I know? ;)
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last week.
($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik - are having
a good look at those games now!
Oh yes... I imagine all historical games will be unraveled. I
also would expect them to find plenty in any players history
if you statistically massage the games enough.
The statistics are wery intereztin...
GM Kramnik's current YouTube videos ("New Investigation" Parts
1-3: all posted in the last two days) are mainly about GM Daniel
Narodistky's suspicious games, but he'll surely get around to Mr
Shevchenko at some stage.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last
week. ($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik -
are having a good look at those games now!
Oh yes... I imagine all historical games will be
unraveled. I also would expect them to find plenty in any
players history if you statistically massage the games
enough.
The statistics are wery intereztin...
GM Kramnik's current YouTube videos ("New Investigation"
Parts 1-3: all posted in the last two days) are mainly about
GM Daniel Narodistky's suspicious games, but he'll surely
get around to Mr Shevchenko at some stage.
Doesn't it usually boil down to the alleged cheaters playing
too perfectly?
I find that shaky proof, because it means that somewhere you
have to draw a subjective line.
Let's say the world best player plays 1 game perfectly, and
the rest not. No one would care. Let's say he plays 2, no one
cares. What about 50 in a row, highly suspicious.
Where do you draw the line?
The second question is, regardless of this perfect play, isn't
it then fair to ask for proof of how the person cheated and
then convict?
Regardless of how strange or implausible perfect play seems, I
still like the idea of actually presenting proof of how the
cheating was done, alternatively, to change the format of the
game, instead of convicting people based on purely statistical
indications.
D wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last
week. ($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik -
are having a good look at those games now!
Oh yes... I imagine all historical games will be
unraveled. I also would expect them to find plenty in any
players history if you statistically massage the games
enough.
The statistics are wery intereztin...
GM Kramnik's current YouTube videos ("New Investigation"
Parts 1-3: all posted in the last two days) are mainly about
GM Daniel Narodistky's suspicious games, but he'll surely
get around to Mr Shevchenko at some stage.
Doesn't it usually boil down to the alleged cheaters playing
too perfectly?
I find that shaky proof, because it means that somewhere you
have to draw a subjective line.
Let's say the world best player plays 1 game perfectly, and
the rest not. No one would care. Let's say he plays 2, no one
cares. What about 50 in a row, highly suspicious.
Where do you draw the line?
The second question is, regardless of this perfect play, isn't
it then fair to ask for proof of how the person cheated and
then convict?
How can you prove with 100% certainty that a person on the
internet is using Stockfish in a chess game at his end? If only
it was that easy.
As for mobile phones in toilets for OTB games, that's the height
of stupidity... GM's are supposed to be clever!
Regardless of how strange or implausible perfect play seems, I
still like the idea of actually presenting proof of how the
cheating was done, alternatively, to change the format of the
game, instead of convicting people based on purely statistical
indications.
In a perfect world, yes we'd all like proper proof of that sort
of thing. When it boils down to it though, only one person knows
for sure if a person is cheating in an online chess game, that's
the person doing it... or not doing it!
I know Chess.com, Lichess, ICC (etc.) use some sort of algorithm
for online games played on their servers but even that can't
really be 100% definitive. At best, it's a highly educated guess
based on statistics and the balance of probabilities.
And I used to think my son moving pieces when I went to the
kitchen to make some tea was as bad as cheating in chess got!!!
Doesn't it usually boil down to the alleged cheaters playing too
perfectly?
I find that shaky proof, because it means that somewhere you have to
draw a subjective line.
Let's say the world best player plays 1 game perfectly, and the rest
not. No one would care. Let's say he plays 2, no one cares. What about
50 in
a row, highly suspicious.
Where do you draw the line?
The second question is, regardless of this perfect play, isn't it then
fair to ask for proof of how the person cheated and then convict?
Regardless of how strange or implausible perfect play seems, I still
like the idea of actually presenting proof of how the cheating was done, alternatively, to change the format of the game, instead of convicting
people based on purely statistical indications.
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:36:19 +0000, D wrote:
Doesn't it usually boil down to the alleged cheaters playing too
perfectly?
Is there such a thing as perfect play ? Any chess player is capable of a great move, whilst every chess player is also capable of blundering. The
key to being good or great at chess is consistency. Accuracy of moves as
a stat on its own isn't always a great indicator. Someone with a really
good memory with access to an engine could, in theory, memorize a few
top lines. At GM level how can anyone know who has memorized a certain opening or variation from an engine or is, in fact, using the engine to
make the move ?
I find that shaky proof, because it means that somewhere you have to
draw a subjective line.
Let's say the world best player plays 1 game perfectly, and the rest
not. No one would care. Let's say he plays 2, no one cares. What about
50 in
a row, highly suspicious.
Where do you draw the line?
The second question is, regardless of this perfect play, isn't it then
fair to ask for proof of how the person cheated and then convict?
Regardless of how strange or implausible perfect play seems, I still
like the idea of actually presenting proof of how the cheating was done,
alternatively, to change the format of the game, instead of convicting
people based on purely statistical indications.
Allegations are fine but how do you prove inconclusively that a player
has cheated ? Even a cell phone being found in a rest room doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Player A has actually used the said phone
to make moves in the game he's playing. Without a confession of cheating
an allegation or suspicion cannot be proved conclusively. With Krill Shevchenko denying everything how do F.I.D.E. prove that he was
cheating?
And now a chess Grandmaster has been expelled from the US Chess
Championships in Saint Louis for his bad behaviour, with the
Police called. Just WTF is happening with chess these days?
https://x.com/STLChessClub/status/1846772429189693607
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
Funnily enough, GM Shevchenko won "Titled Tuesday" last
week. ($1,000 prize) I bet chess.com - and GM Kramnik -
are having a good look at those games now!
Oh yes... I imagine all historical games will be
unraveled. I also would expect them to find plenty in any
players history if you statistically massage the games
enough.
The statistics are wery intereztin...
GM Kramnik's current YouTube videos ("New Investigation"
Parts 1-3: all posted in the last two days) are mainly about
GM Daniel Narodistky's suspicious games, but he'll surely
get around to Mr Shevchenko at some stage.
Doesn't it usually boil down to the alleged cheaters playing
too perfectly?
I find that shaky proof, because it means that somewhere you
have to draw a subjective line.
Let's say the world best player plays 1 game perfectly, and
the rest not. No one would care. Let's say he plays 2, no one
cares. What about 50 in a row, highly suspicious.
Where do you draw the line?
The second question is, regardless of this perfect play, isn't
it then fair to ask for proof of how the person cheated and
then convict?
How can you prove with 100% certainty that a person on the
internet is using Stockfish in a chess game at his end? If only
it was that easy.
As for mobile phones in toilets for OTB games, that's the height
of stupidity... GM's are supposed to be clever!
Regardless of how strange or implausible perfect play seems, I
still like the idea of actually presenting proof of how the
cheating was done, alternatively, to change the format of the
game, instead of convicting people based on purely statistical
indications.
In a perfect world, yes we'd all like proper proof of that sort
of thing. When it boils down to it though, only one person knows
for sure if a person is cheating in an online chess game, that's
the person doing it... or not doing it!
I know Chess.com, Lichess, ICC (etc.) use some sort of algorithm
for online games played on their servers but even that can't
really be 100% definitive. At best, it's a highly educated guess
based on statistics and the balance of probabilities.
I was watching a g/10 between a 2500 player and a 2700 with a new rating when suddenly it was announced that the 2700 had been forfeited for cheating.
I thought they were both playing rather badly (you know how weak spectators like myself see everything!) and stockfish agreed.
Despite much pondering, I couldn't see a reason for the forfeit - and he was losing anyway.
William Hyde
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
Wow! Crumpling up a score card I can understand, perhaps an
emotional outburst or two (like Magnus) but why on earth would
he hit an innocent bystander? Wouldn't it be more logical in
that case, to hit the opponent? ;)
D wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
Wow! Crumpling up a score card I can understand, perhaps an
emotional outburst or two (like Magnus) but why on earth would
he hit an innocent bystander? Wouldn't it be more logical in
that case, to hit the opponent? ;)
Why hit anyone?! This is chess, not Hockey!!!
Whatever happened to shaking hands and saying GG?! ;-)
And now a chess Grandmaster has been expelled from the US Chess
Championships in Saint Louis for his bad behaviour, with the
Police called. Just WTF is happening with chess these days?
https://x.com/STLChessClub/status/1846772429189693607
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
Wow! Crumpling up a score card I can understand, perhaps an
emotional outburst or two (like Magnus) but why on earth would
he hit an innocent bystander? Wouldn't it be more logical in
that case, to hit the opponent? ;)
Why hit anyone?! This is chess, not Hockey!!!
Whatever happened to shaking hands and saying GG?! ;-)
Only time I ever "behaved badly" was when in a club speed tournament
my opponent forked my rooks and I immediately resigned.
Only to have the TD ask me why I had resigned since the fork was due
to an illegal move (the bishop that forked the rooks had jumped over a
pawn) and he told me he was about to stop the clocks and restore the
position but that my resignation ended the game and justified his
decision saying that a game could be ended by resignation any time
including even move 1!
I'm pretty sure that was a bad ruling - but it was a club speed
tournament where we had paid $1.00 each to enter and my opponent
DIDN'T win the winner take all prize so no cash or rating points were involved so I didn't pursue it.
D wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
And now a chess Grandmaster has been expelled from the US Chess
Championships in Saint Louis for his bad behaviour, with the
Police called. Just WTF is happening with chess these days?
https://x.com/STLChessClub/status/1846772429189693607
And to think, once upon a time chess was seen as boring...
Wow! Crumpling up a score card I can understand, perhaps an emotional
outburst or two (like Magnus) but why on earth would he hit an innocent
bystander? Wouldn't it be more logical in that case, to hit the opponent?
;)
Of course such behaviour is unacceptable.
But people often react in the strangest way to a loss.
I don't take it too hard myself - probably I'd be a better player if I did - but some people take it personally, and get very weird ideas.
One opponent accused me of dragging the game out, of "torturing" him after I won the exchange. This called for a bit of chutzpah, as he was 400 points below me. I pointed out that after I won the ex, he had potentially serious counterplay. I don't think he believed me, though.
(It's surprising how often, after losing the exchange, you have serious counterplay. I in fact had a history of losing or drawing games where I won the ex, and didn't want it to happen this time.)
Another player was furious when a friend played a gambit against him. He thought this was a mark of disrespect, and was even more angry when he lost. But it has never been shown that the gambit in question loses.
Another friend takes some losses very badly. But it's not his opponent that he's mad at, it's himself. No wonder he's 200 points stronger than I am. Scoresheet crumpling has happened, but the only thing hit was a brick wall.
In the recent game, the stronger player deliberately entered an endgame in which he was technically down in material, giving up the exchange for a not particularly threatening pawn, plus the bishop pair. He did this because to maintain material equality would result in a very simple level position.
Although Tarrasch declared that a rook and two bishops are not in general much inferior to a two rooks and a knight, the young player may have felt insulted that his stronger opponent chose to take on a material deficit in order to produce a more complex game in which his greater skill would give him winning chances.
And the more so when it worked.
Not that this is any excuse, of course.
William Hyde
Although Tarrasch declared that a rook and two bishops are not inAs ever, it all depends on the position, but it is commonly the
general much inferior to a two rooks and a knight, [...].
Another friend takes some losses very badly. But it's not his opponent
that he's mad at, it's himself. No wonder he's 200 points stronger than
I am. Scoresheet crumpling has happened, but the only thing hit was a
brick wall.
As ever, it all depends on the position, but it is commonly the
case that RBB is /at least/ equal to RRN. There is an obvious exception
if the N can be established somewhere important and the BB are blocked.
The normal main problem with RBB comes if there are swaps. If the player >with RRN can swap a pair of Rs, then he is just an exchange up. Or, if
he can sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, then he is simply up by a pawn.
The resulting subtleties tend to make this a rewarding material balance
for the stronger player.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:21:12 GMT, "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news>
wrote:
Wow! Crumpling up a score card I can understand, perhaps an
emotional outburst or two (like Magnus) but why on earth would
he hit an innocent bystander? Wouldn't it be more logical in
that case, to hit the opponent? ;)
Why hit anyone?! This is chess, not Hockey!!!
Whatever happened to shaking hands and saying GG?! ;-)
Only time I ever "behaved badly" was when in a club speed tournament
my opponent forked my rooks and I immediately resigned.
Only to have the TD ask me why I had resigned since the fork was due
to an illegal move (the bishop that forked the rooks had jumped over a
pawn) and he told me he was about to stop the clocks and restore the
position but that my resignation ended the game and justified his
decision saying that a game could be ended by resignation any time
including even move 1!
FIDE did not have speed rules when speed tournaments became a weekly
event in Toronto, where the following rules were established (mainly to
delay long and loud arguments in Serbo-Croatian and/or Hungarian).
Mate on the board beats a flag claim. Apparently this rule was also in
force in Texas, as I won a game in that way.
An illegal move loses, but must be called by the opponent, who must not
make a move in reply. Otherwise it stands.
It was understood that resignation, or stopping of the clocks, by a
player ends the game.
It was very gentlemanly of you to resign down only a rook in a speed
game. I used to do that until I noticed how many of my opponents
played on, and once in a while actually won.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 18:13:55 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:
As ever, it all depends on the position, but it is commonly theUh this is in positions without pawns right?
case that RBB is /at least/ equal to RRN. [...]
Wow, thank you for sharing! What I don't understand is why they continue
playing chess, and perhaps even more of a puzzle, how did they manage to
become good? It is my understanding, that in order to become good in chess, >> you have to lose a lot, and if you react like that when you lose it seems
like the emotional toll would not make it worth it?
Many simply stop playing. Others get over it, venting briefly. Or as
Nimzowitsch said:
"Gegen diesen Idioten muss ich Verlieren!"
Where the "idiot" in question was, I've been told, GM Saemisch.
In the case of my friend, the score sheet was crumpled and thrown, the wall was hit, and he stormed off.
A day later I found him analyzing the position calmly. Over the next year he gained a class.
Truly hating to lose can inspire further work, once you've calmed down. I imagine the loser of the above game will be studying similar positions very closely in the next few months.
A master I knew had a favourite opponent, a strong player he regularly denigrated and was quite rude to. One of those things that is funny but really not funny. Wouldn't be tolerated today.
One day the opponent won, in a serious tournament game, and people expected the master to blow up. To the contrary, when we analyzed the game he was quite calm and objective, praising his opponent's good moves. When it came to the serious business of becoming a better player, all that emotional nonsense was discarded.
The opponent too became a much stronger player, perhaps inspired by the animosity. He's the only person I know of who had to miss winning a tournament because he was on shift work, and had to withdraw before the last round. I hope that they gave him some prize for his 5/5 (later 5/6) result.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
I >SHOULD< have done the decent thing and resigned on the
spot and since it was the last round before Christmas (this
was a one round a week event) wished my opponent a Merry
Christmas and shaken her hand.
Long ago when this group was more populated, there was a
rather heated discussion as to when one should resign.
Instead I hung in there for another two hours before
resigning and hated myself on the 45 minute drive home for
being so ill-mannered.
As I said before, you play like a gentleman. And we could
use more of those.
As I said before, you play like a gentleman. And we could
use more of those.
Gentlemen in chess seem to be a thing of the past. People
nowadays play on for ages in mad losing positions or just walk
away and let the time run out. (This seems to happen a lot on
Lichess.) I don't like losing but we can't all be entitled
arseholes who think we should win every game. You have to lose
to win. (Well, that's what I was always told anyway.)
Many simply stop playing. Others get over it, venting briefly. Or as >Nimzowitsch said:
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 06:54:41 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,819 |
| Posted today: | 1 |