Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg (Read 4140 times)
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 360
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #33 - 10/17/20 at 14:15:32
Post Tools
Hi.

cathexis wrote on 10/17/20 at 13:13:42:
But it also seems to say: if I beat the cheater my results stand, but if the cheater beats me? That his results will not stand but I, the loser will have my score as loser unchanged.

Ye. In most circumstances.

The overall moral of the story is: always play round-robin events. They are best Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 360
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #32 - 10/17/20 at 14:11:30
Post Tools
Hi.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/17/20 at 04:12:45:
Kasimi should have mentioned his IM title to the arbiter.

This is my thinking. If you tell way beforehand there could never be any guarantee some strong-willed person of the organising group wouldn't successfully object to the participation no matter how formally eligible to participate the player really is. That's why I find it hard to criticise him for not doing so.

Rausis telling the arbiter is sort of different. I have to say I would have liked to see that on some sort of common decency ground. Basically the arbiter has to handle a possible ****storm when other players notice a convicted cheater is playing so giving some advanced warning seems nice. Downside is if the arbiter is hostile and kicks you out of the tournament immediately.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/17/20 at 04:12:45:
For pairing purposes it's grossly unfair for a middling player to be paired as an unrated. In certain rounds it can mean the difference between being paired down instead up, and for early rounds it's easy to calculate the difference. But for the top-rated player to be so paired makes no practical difference. For example, in round one the top-rated is paired vs top-below-median, the unrated is paired vs bottom-above-median. It's the same for every round. So in fact an unrated player who wins every game faces slightly stronger opposition than a top-rated player who does the same. There are some pseudo-random pairing decisions that are decided by which player is higher-rated, but they are structured not to favor (or disfavor) the higher-rated.

For competition purposes every player deserves to know how strong their opponent is -- both the one they are paired against and the one near them in the crosstable they are jockeying against. Knowing or not knowing the direct opponent, in the case of the top-rated, amusingly may not matter once again. True, the round one opponent may play some rubbish against an unrated that they wouldn't try against an experienced player. And this would hurt them in most cases. But the reality is against the top-rated they probably would lose anyway. And as the rounds grind on, and more players get to observe the unrated's game from all directions, the truth will out. Even if nobody figures out who the "mystery unrated" is, they will just assume it's some foreign IM having a good day. I saw it many a time in small events in New York City and Boston back in the day. There's a good reason why the Continental Chess Association tournaments strictly limit the prizes unrateds can win.

I like your separation between pairing purposes and competition purposes.

One of the key functions for the Fide-swiss pairing is to basically help stronger players progress to late stages of the tournament with points by not giving them hard matchups early on. Obviously this pairing support gets lost to a Rausis on zero rating so directly he stands to gain little from being zero rated. Instead you want to avoid grossly misrated players in the pairings because it can be a disruptive experience to face them for other participants. Both because they will probably lose when they otherwise probably would have won and the risk of playing worse than normal when suddenly facing a substantially stronger player than what would be expected.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/17/20 at 04:18:01:
"Whatever this means it seems like a seriously vague answer from Fide."
At first this was exactly what I thought. But having slept on it, I now think it's a legal answer, because the FIDE Handbook does in fact authorize arbiters in unknown circumstances to decide according to the "spirit" of the rules. Here we have an event that was designed to be FIDE rated, an effort was made to register with FIDE, and despite failing that was probably in every other respect conducted according to FIDE rules. So "technically" Kasimi was eligible to play, but in "spirit" he was not.

That is quite possibly the meaning but there is still some interpretation going on I feel.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cathexis
Full Member
***
Offline


No matter where you go,
there you are.

Posts: 166
Joined: 03/03/20
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #31 - 10/17/20 at 13:13:42
Post Tools
@CbT,

Thanks you for trying to answer my question! The best I can pick out of the rules gobbledygook is: Even though you "lost due to cheating by opponent," FIDE is not going to convert those losses into wins and thereby allow you to claim a GM title. However, any other achievements you did earn at that tournament will not be striped from you unless they were acquired as a result of team play where the offender was a member of your team. A mouthful! So you can't achieve GM title because you only needed the 2 losses to the GM cheater to be wins instead in order to qualify.

But it also seems to say: if I beat the cheater my results stand, but if the cheater beats me? That his results will not stand but I, the loser will have my score as loser unchanged.

Quote:
Each of the offender’s games shall be considered a loss, but the score for the opponent shall remain unchanged .
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 787
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #30 - 10/17/20 at 13:11:49
Post Tools
Nice to see chess being covered in the Sports section of The Guardian; pity about the subject matter. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/16/chesss-cheating-crisis-paranoia-ha...
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 935
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #29 - 10/17/20 at 04:18:01
Post Tools
Continued...

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 10/16/20 at 21:14:18:
Neiksans may have mistakenly thought the tournament was Fide-rated. That perhaps explains the direct methods (he then likely would have thought it was very obvious Rausis should not be there). Talking to the the arbiter is formally speaking a lot more correct. If the social outrage against Rausis was part of the calculation it would have made sense to do it the way it was done though.

I think kind of the opposite of your thinking here. If it was "very obvious" Rausis should not be there, that's when he should not approach Rausis but speak to the arbiter first. In general it's difficult to know when to speak to a competitor first or when to speak to an arbiter first, same difficulty when it's my current opponent. Sometimes it comes down to who the actual opponent is, relative to who the actual arbiter is. In real life it's better not to involve the officials at first, because the consequences can be devastating for the individual(s) involved. The police in particular carry deadly force and frequently use it. But if in real life the individual might also be carrying deadly force, then the choice is easy.


Confused_by_Theory wrote on 10/16/20 at 21:14:18:
trw wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:19:26:
And FIDE did have an official response: https://twitter.com/EmilSutovsky/status/1314986256582021121
Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:
Well, it is not clear when Sutovsky writes 'officially as FIDE' or unofficially, as he seems to use personal FB and Twitter pages. Which is not very clever.

Typically people might have designated special accounts, email addresses etc (and chairs Wink ) for speaking ex cathedra.

“I'd expect the organizers of such tournaments to treat it according to the spirit of a decision. “ Whatever this means it seems like a seriously vague answer from Fide. What should organizers do exactly? Granted it can be hard to set official policy rapidly and probably without any formal group discussion inside Fide but some kind of guidance would be nice.
Funnily the tweet clocks in on 279 characters including spaces btw. so the max length of a tweet may well have had effect on how long this (presumed quite official - I agree) communication got to be this time Roll Eyes.

"Whatever this means it seems like a seriously vague answer from Fide."
At first this was exactly what I thought. But having slept on it, I now think it's a legal answer, because the FIDE Handbook does in fact authorize arbiters in unknown circumstances to decide according to the "spirit" of the rules. Here we have an event that was designed to be FIDE rated, an effort was made to register with FIDE, and despite failing that was probably in every other respect conducted according to FIDE rules. So "technically" Kasimi was eligible to play, but in "spirit" he was not.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 935
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #28 - 10/17/20 at 04:12:45
Post Tools
I've never had to split a post before. Probably I had to this time because of the extensive quoting of CbT.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 10/16/20 at 21:14:18:
Hi again.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/14/20 at 03:36:57:
The actual case is quite interesting. Reading the discussion on chess24.com, I couldn't see any of the parties acting incorrectly.

Not majorly so at least.

My take is that it seems highly unlikely that Rausis notified the federation/rating commissioner/organizer (according to chess.com interview he contacted all three) of his previous chess career. Read between the lines and it seems like what he was focused on in the contacts was to get confirmation the event was not Fide rated. I find it hard to fault him for not bringing up his past in such a situation.

100% agree with your take. But Kasimi should have mentioned his IM title to the arbiter. It was the correct action and respectful towards the arbiter. Notably, according to him, it was bound to be realized eventually anyway. An ex-GM can calculate many moves ahead to realize that a shaky gambit might backfire, but a solid and correct opening leaves a playable position no matter what.

As an aside, I give information to the arbiter the way I give information to my boss. My ultimate purpose is not to tell the boss everything, but to tell them enough. When my boss is in a meeting with their boss, and some business question arises, I want my boss to be able to say truthfully, yes I'm aware of that and we are working on it. The news isn't always good, but if my boss is never surprised then my life is better. The analogy with an arbiter isn't perfect, but I can't help thinking if Kasimi had been more open when registering, then later, assuming he had still been allowed to start, he wouldn't have been asked to leave.


Confused_by_Theory wrote on 10/16/20 at 21:14:18:
I also think a former GM sitting on 0 rating in the (Swiss)pairings is bad. It is very doubtful an arbiter should allow that given he/she actually knows about that situation; basically irregardless if it has happened accidentally for a few rounds (I presume that's the case here). In general using provisional rating, meaning usually the player's standard rating or best estimate, is much preferable compared to zero-rating players imo.

For pairing purposes it's grossly unfair for a middling player to be paired as an unrated. In certain rounds it can mean the difference between being paired down instead up, and for early rounds it's easy to calculate the difference. But for the top-rated player to be so paired makes no practical difference. For example, in round one the top-rated is paired vs top-below-median, the unrated is paired vs bottom-above-median. It's the same for every round. So in fact an unrated player who wins every game faces slightly stronger opposition than a top-rated player who does the same. There are some pseudo-random pairing decisions that are decided by which player is higher-rated, but they are structured not to favor (or disfavor) the higher-rated.

For competition purposes every player deserves to know how strong their opponent is -- both the one they are paired against and the one near them in the crosstable they are jockeying against. Knowing or not knowing the direct opponent, in the case of the top-rated, amusingly may not matter once again. True, the round one opponent may play some rubbish against an unrated that they wouldn't try against an experienced player. And this would hurt them in most cases. But the reality is against the top-rated they probably would lose anyway. And as the rounds grind on, and more players get to observe the unrated's game from all directions, the truth will out. Even if nobody figures out who the "mystery unrated" is, they will just assume it's some foreign IM having a good day. I saw it many a time in small events in New York City and Boston back in the day. There's a good reason why the Continental Chess Association tournaments strictly limit the prizes unrateds can win.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 360
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #27 - 10/16/20 at 21:14:18
Post Tools
Hi again.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/14/20 at 03:36:57:
The actual case is quite interesting. Reading the discussion on chess24.com, I couldn't see any of the parties acting incorrectly.

Not majorly so at least.

My take is that it seems highly unlikely that Rausis notified the federation/rating commissioner/organizer (according to chess.com interview he contacted all three) of his previous chess career. Read between the lines and it seems like what he was focused on in the contacts was to get confirmation the event was not Fide rated. I find it hard to fault him for not bringing up his past in such a situation.

I also think a former GM sitting on 0 rating in the (Swiss)pairings is bad. It is very doubtful an arbiter should allow that given he/she actually knows about that situation; basically irregardless if it has happened accidentally for a few rounds (I presume that's the case here). In general using provisional rating, meaning usually the player's standard rating or best estimate, is much preferable compared to zero-rating players imo.

Neiksans may have mistakenly thought the tournament was Fide-rated. That perhaps explains the direct methods (he then likely would have thought it was very obvious Rausis should not be there). Talking to the the arbiter is formally speaking a lot more correct. If the social outrage against Rausis was part of the calculation it would have made sense to do it the way it was done though.

trw wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:19:26:
And FIDE did have an official response: https://twitter.com/EmilSutovsky/status/1314986256582021121
Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:
Well, it is not clear when Sutovsky writes 'officially as FIDE' or unofficially, as he seems to use personal FB and Twitter pages. Which is not very clever.

Typically people might have designated special accounts, email addresses etc (and chairs Wink ) for speaking ex cathedra.

“I'd expect the organizers of such tournaments to treat it according to the spirit of a decision. “ Whatever this means it seems like a seriously vague answer from Fide. What should organizers do exactly? Granted it can be hard to set official policy rapidly and probably without any formal group discussion inside Fide but some kind of guidance would be nice.
Funnily the tweet clocks in on 279 characters including spaces btw. so the max length of a tweet may well have had effect on how long this (presumed quite official - I agree) communication got to be this time Roll Eyes.

cathexis wrote on 10/15/20 at 13:42:47:
Just as an hypothetical example: I am closing in on my final GM norms. I need just two victories against a GM. I lose these two games vs. Rausis in an official tournament, but he is determined to have cheated whilst at this tournament. Am I going to be awarded a GM title if the game results are reversed?

As far as I can determine it is still the 2014 cheating guidelines that is the only document explicitly saying what to do as an organiser in such a situation. This is fundamentally a bit weird because this document appears to have evolved to the anti-cheating regulations implemented in 2018. The only problem is I can't find anything about guidelines for tournament organisers anymore. Conceivably that section could be moved to some other document even though I really can't find it or the 2014 text is simply what we have on the matter. This is what it says anyway:

2 . Effect on the games of the tournament where a breach of the anti-cheating regulations has occurred.

The ACC recommends that for events where a breach of anti-cheating regulations has been proven (either during the tournament itself, immediately after the end of the appeals procedure, or upon waiver of appeal by the defendant), the FIDE Qualifications Commission should implement the following policies: All games by the offender in the tournament shall not be rated, with exception that in cases where a forfeit was assessed during a game, pending the further process, the rating of the game as a victory for the opponent shall stand .  Additionally the following shall apply:In an individual Round Robin event, all games by the offender shall be counted as having been lost, and counted as unplayed wins for all opponents . The tournament shall remain valid for norms .In an individual Open tournament, the offender shall be excluded from the final ranking . Each of the offender’s games shall be considered a loss, but the score for the opponent shall remain unchanged .All games shall be reported as unplayed .In a Team event, the team of the offending player shall be excluded from the final rankings . The results for the opposing teams shall remain unchanged . Each of the offender’s games shall be con-sidered a loss, but the score for the opponent shall remain unchanged . All games shall be reported as unplayed. Any title norms that would have been achieved by the offender shall be disregarded.


You get the points from the game in round robin (though not necessarily in an open tournament or team one) but it is unclear to me if you can count the cheater's rating towards your rating average (which is often important).

TopNotch wrote on 10/15/20 at 02:14:36:
You made some good points there and some of the facts I was unaware of, still stripping players of FM IM GM titles retroactively opens a pandora's box of potential issues. We all abhor cheating and cheaters but we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease, also more attention needs be paid to ensuring that the players cheated against receive some form of tangible reparation.

The statue of limitation for bringing up old cases appears to be 8 years. This would be relevant information for some I guess.

Have nice day.
/ CbT
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1365
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #26 - 10/15/20 at 16:07:38
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 10/15/20 at 14:37:47:
trw wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:13:36:
Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:
Well, it is not clear when Sutovsky writes 'officially as FIDE' or unofficially, as he seems to use personal FB and Twitter pages. Which is not very clever.

Typically people might have designated special accounts, email addresses etc (and chairs Wink ) for speaking ex cathedra.




I agree. It is totally bizarre. But so it is having the President of a professional players' rights organization also be a VP of the organization they are supposed to be protected against... kinda a conflict of interest... It's bizarro chess world.



One often sees the most competent chess organisers as being decent enough players who have had regular jobs of some kind. Say the 2100-2200s who did well and are semi-retired, or are promoted enough now to be comfy, have spare cash and time on their hands, and are willing and kind enough to help.

The problem with pro chess players is that they are pro chess players. And more often than not, in being pro, have not done anything else. Studying and playing chess a lot will likely make you better at chess, and that's great on the 64 squares, but is unlikely to give you anything else that is useful beyond the board. Useful work skills are lacking - that one gains from employment away from a board game.

That said, I guess strong GMs who try to get involved in admin deserve some credit for their efforts.

This is not meant to be snarky. No. It's just to note that for administrative positions, people with relevant useful work skills and experience will likely make better hires. And will do the respective jobs more competently. And lifelong pro GMs will lack such work skills and experience. Ho hum.

***

Oh, and for TPFKAS (Pronounced tupf-kaz; The Player Formerly Known As Rausis), it is all just terribly sad really.  He cheated, that's terrible, he got busted embarrassingly, and sanctioned appropriately severely.  But one always hopes that people can sort their lives out, somehow, and that he may find some kind of redemption, happiness and peace, in time.



Of course, I agree with you and don't dispute anything you said. However, I think you will find this article around the ACP's formation interesting: https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-school-drop-out-a-world-class-gm-and-a-ceo-2-2

GM Joel Lautier attributes his position as ACP President to learning a ton of the skills necessary to run a company such as people management. So I think we are talking about such smart, gifted and generally hard working people that it is entirely possible to gain those skills that they missed in life by pursuing the chess path. However, it is not some given.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2174
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #25 - 10/15/20 at 14:37:47
Post Tools
trw wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:13:36:
Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:
Well, it is not clear when Sutovsky writes 'officially as FIDE' or unofficially, as he seems to use personal FB and Twitter pages. Which is not very clever.

Typically people might have designated special accounts, email addresses etc (and chairs Wink ) for speaking ex cathedra.




I agree. It is totally bizarre. But so it is having the President of a professional players' rights organization also be a VP of the organization they are supposed to be protected against... kinda a conflict of interest... It's bizarro chess world.



One often sees the most competent chess organisers as being decent enough players who have had regular jobs of some kind. Say the 2100-2200s who did well and are semi-retired, or are promoted enough now to be comfy, have spare cash and time on their hands, and are willing and kind enough to help.

The problem with pro chess players is that they are pro chess players. And more often than not, in being pro, have not done anything else. Studying and playing chess a lot will likely make you better at chess, and that's great on the 64 squares, but is unlikely to give you anything else that is useful beyond the board. Useful work skills are lacking - that one gains from employment away from a board game.

That said, I guess strong GMs who try to get involved in admin deserve some credit for their efforts.

This is not meant to be snarky. No. It's just to note that for administrative positions, people with relevant useful work skills and experience will likely make better hires. And will do the respective jobs more competently. And lifelong pro GMs will lack such work skills and experience. Ho hum.

***

Oh, and for TPFKAS (Pronounced tupf-kaz; The Player Formerly Known As Rausis), it is all just terribly sad really.  He cheated, that's terrible, he got busted embarrassingly, and sanctioned appropriately severely.  But one always hopes that people can sort their lives out, somehow, and that he may find some kind of redemption, happiness and peace, in time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cathexis
Full Member
***
Offline


No matter where you go,
there you are.

Posts: 166
Joined: 03/03/20
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #24 - 10/15/20 at 13:42:47
Post Tools
Quote:
...,also more attention needs be paid to ensuring that the players cheated against receive some form of tangible reparation.


An important point. Is there currently any method for doing this? Would any know how such "reparations" are handled?

Just as an hypothetical example: I am closing in on my final GM norms. I need just two victories against a GM. I lose these two games vs. Rausis in an official tournament, but he is determined to have cheated whilst at this tournament. Am I going to be awarded a GM title if the game results are reversed?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 935
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #23 - 10/15/20 at 03:34:27
Post Tools
An interesting symmetry in Rausis's case is that the length of his ban is the same as the length of time he is suspected of cheating, according to the rating trajectory.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1365
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #22 - 10/15/20 at 02:35:25
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 10/14/20 at 20:45:05:
TopNotch wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:15:48:
I will end this post by saying that Rausis' 6 year ban and public humiliation was quite sufficient for his first time offense, but by retroactively stripping him of the GM title begs the question why was French GM Sébastien Feller title not similarly revoked for his cheating offence.


Except that Rausis was not a first time offender.  At the FIDE hearing, he confessed to using his phone to cheat on two other occasions and to pre-arranging a game in his favor.  In addition, a Ken Regan analysis of 60 tournaments that Rausis played between October 2014 and April 2019 showed what the FIDE Ethics Commission called an "astronomical likelihood of cheating overall, albeit not in every event and certainly not in every game."

Nobody has claimed that Rausis cheated to get the GM title.  Agree there, but unfortunately for Rausis, that's not the standard.  Under the current FIDE regs, FIDE can revoke the GM title not only if they find you obtained it illegally, but also if they find that you have used it or your FIDE rating to "subvert the ethical principles of the title or rating system."    

The Feller case was, of course, a different case, which was decided in different times and under different FIDE rules. I also think that Feller was shown leniency because he was 19 years old and had been influenced by his team captain.  But, regardless, the fact that FIDE did not strip Feller of his GM title does not excuse Rausis or mean that Rausis gets to keep his.

 



Some interesting points and facts that I was also not aware of. However, I don't think arguing it was a different FIDE and different time is legitimate. While the different punishments may still be fair in light of the facts you cite, I still believe there is grounds for public standardization of what the punishment and/or punishment ranges can be so that not everything becomes ad hoc one off cases. What if it is a 16 year old? Does this change things? An 90 year old? I don't want to accept an age argument in one place and not another for example.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2057
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #21 - 10/15/20 at 02:14:36
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 10/14/20 at 20:45:05:
TopNotch wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:15:48:
I will end this post by saying that Rausis' 6 year ban and public humiliation was quite sufficient for his first time offense, but by retroactively stripping him of the GM title begs the question why was French GM Sébastien Feller title not similarly revoked for his cheating offence.


Except that Rausis was not a first time offender.  At the FIDE hearing, he confessed to using his phone to cheat on two other occasions and to pre-arranging a game in his favor.  In addition, a Ken Regan analysis of 60 tournaments that Rausis played between October 2014 and April 2019 showed what the FIDE Ethics Commission called an "astronomical likelihood of cheating overall, albeit not in every event and certainly not in every game."

Nobody has claimed that Rausis cheated to get the GM title.  Agree there, but unfortunately for Rausis, that's not the standard.  Under the current FIDE regs, FIDE can revoke the GM title not only if they find you obtained it illegally, but also if they find that you have used it or your FIDE rating to "subvert the ethical principles of the title or rating system."    

The Feller case was, of course, a different case, which was decided in different times and under different FIDE rules. I also think that Feller was shown leniency because he was 19 years old and had been influenced by his team captain.  But, regardless, the fact that FIDE did not strip Feller of his GM title does not excuse Rausis or mean that Rausis gets to keep his.


You made some good points there and some of the facts I was unaware of, still stripping players of FM IM GM titles retroactively opens a pandora's box of potential issues. We all abhor cheating and cheaters but we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease, also more attention needs be paid to ensuring that the players cheated against receive some form of tangible reparation.
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cathexis
Full Member
***
Offline


No matter where you go,
there you are.

Posts: 166
Joined: 03/03/20
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #20 - 10/14/20 at 22:19:56
Post Tools
IMHO,

The real lesson here is he was only caught (and photographed!) because it was an OTB tourney. Allow cash hungry promoters to monetize chess by allowing subbing on-line for OTB ("for reasons of COVID" or other bunk) and this will skyrocket.

BTW, that photo gives new definitions to the "duties of a second."  Roll Eyes Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1498
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Igor Rausis caught cheating in Strasbourg
Reply #19 - 10/14/20 at 20:45:05
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:15:48:
I will end this post by saying that Rausis' 6 year ban and public humiliation was quite sufficient for his first time offense, but by retroactively stripping him of the GM title begs the question why was French GM Sébastien Feller title not similarly revoked for his cheating offence.


Except that Rausis was not a first time offender.  At the FIDE hearing, he confessed to using his phone to cheat on two other occasions and to pre-arranging a game in his favor.  In addition, a Ken Regan analysis of 60 tournaments that Rausis played between October 2014 and April 2019 showed what the FIDE Ethics Commission called an "astronomical likelihood of cheating overall, albeit not in every event and certainly not in every game."

Nobody has claimed that Rausis cheated to get the GM title.  Agree there, but unfortunately for Rausis, that's not the standard.  Under the current FIDE regs, FIDE can revoke the GM title not only if they find you obtained it illegally, but also if they find that you have used it or your FIDE rating to "subvert the ethical principles of the title or rating system."    

The Feller case was, of course, a different case, which was decided in different times and under different FIDE rules. I also think that Feller was shown leniency because he was 19 years old and had been influenced by his team captain.  But, regardless, the fact that FIDE did not strip Feller of his GM title does not excuse Rausis or mean that Rausis gets to keep his.

 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo