Hi.

cathexis wrote on 10/17/20 at 13:13:42:

Ye. In most circumstances.

The overall moral of the story is: always play round-robin events. They are best

@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:

Continued...

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

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:

"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.

Hi again.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/14/20 at 03:36:57:

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:
Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:

“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 .

cathexis wrote on 10/15/20 at 13:42:47:

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:

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

trw wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:13:36:



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.

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.

LeeRoth wrote on 10/14/20 at 20:45:05:


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.

TopNotch wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:15:48:


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.

 

The problem is that people find different things fun. When I was a boy I thought catching frogs was fun. It was a contest of reaction time. I always released them, and I don't think they suffered any harm, except the fright. There was another boy who thought torturing frogs was fun. I didn't like it, and it took me a few years of growing up to realize it might be best not to spend any more time around him.

So in chess. There is the fun of: playing a game; being challenged intellectually; overcoming the opponent in competition; evading detection when cheating. So I agree the cheaters are ruining my fun.

But I also realize that my hypercompetitiveness ruins the fun for many people who just want to play a game. A gentleman in a Brussels cafe once interrupted my hard thinking with "It's not amusing." Later I became strong enough, "casual" play became much simpler, as I can pretend not to care. They don't need to know I am analyzing blindfold while not looking at the board. Although I did have a young tyke, who often practiced against his father, explain to me that since I was so strong I was supposed to purposely play bad moves once in a while in order to "give him a chance". Oops, sorry, not sorry.

Kasimi suggests, in his chess.com interview (TD's second link), it was an overwhelming desire not to lose that led him to cheat. Almost against his will, he seems to imply. Competitiveness run amuck. For me, if I were to cheat, it wouldn't be winning anyway. Maybe cheaters think differently about that, or maybe their motivation is different from what they admit, even to themselves. I don't really know. But it does ruin my fun.

Bibs wrote on 10/14/20 at 06:26:53:



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.

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 ) for speaking ex cathedra.

@TD - Thanks for the links. I don't know Mr. Kasimi at all but I wouldn't be surprised if he changes his name yet again in the future.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/igors-rausis-name-isa-kasimi

https://www.chess.com/article/view/igors-rausis-isa-kasimi-interview

Hi.

That is probably true. If it was not fide rated, the national federation had no separate ban and the tournament had no rating ceiling then technically he would be allowed to play.

That sort of begs the question if Fide has had any substantial contact with the Latvian chess federation on the whole Rausis cheating and ban matter.
Imo it would make sense if the default step after a cheating penalty is a detailed brief by Fide for the national federation so they can take their own action if needed. I doubt Fide sees it like that though.

Have a nice day.

Bump.

Rausis playing again.
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/banned-chess-cheater-makes-comeback-under-alias

Anyone know what happens if you break a ban on playing?

From the quote in the link RoleyPoley provides, Rausis has only admitted to cheating in that one game during which he was caught. Perhaps this is the position he'll stick to, as there's only circumstantial evidence to suggest he was doing this regularly or consistently. Perhaps also he's wary that an apology might be construed as an admission of guilt above and beyond this one incident.

RoleyPoley wrote on 07/13/19 at 16:03:52:

Yes, his rating progress was already more than suspicious. If he had stopped at 2550 no-one would have noticed, but he just got too greedy.