No problems.

Most of Fide regulations are gathered together anyway:
https://handbook.fide.com/

Have a nice day.

Jupp53 wrote on 08/30/20 at 07:44:36:

You should post more often.

Could a next document about anti-cheating be recommendations for major online chess platforms!? A framework for online play will always be needed and Fide hasn't exactly got a huge market share with their inhouse Fide arena project.

cathexis wrote on 08/29/20 at 12:58:05:


There the problem stands with both feet in a dark, fluid, stinking crop of b***s***. Private sites don't give access to their judgement process and FIDE uses a private site for tournaments. Even on the own site there is no clear access to the way the evidence is processed.

Never to forget: The behavior in the web influences the behavior in onverall society.

To try a summary of law by a non-lawyer, you can think of the legal process for criminal law as 3 things: 1. The Evidentiary & Discovery process. 2. The Adjudication process (the trial, etc.) 3. The Appellate process. (I realize you can quibble on that, but for discussion's sake). The REAL purpose of the Appellate process is to cover capriciousness, bias, or malice during the Adjudication process that may have resulted in an unfair trial or an unjust verdict. At least, that's my understanding of how it should work ideally. 

I googled the lostontime blog for myself and the obvious problem the blogger encountered was a lack of number 3, as detailed above. As much as I feel for the blogger, a privately operated web-site is not an essential Public Utility and so cannot be held accountable in the same manner (which the blogger as much as said). Nor should it be, for in my opinion that would open the door to government monitoring and interference that would imperil yet another of our diminishing personal liberties. 

I continue to feel that the only formally defined chess, for both FIDE/USCF, etc. ratings, titles, and prizes, ought to be strict OTB play only in monitored tournaments with experienced, accountable Peer-Arbitration. But the reliability of what constitutes monitoring (its tools, etc.) and the public and accountable process of Peer-Arbitration is key. I recognize there are many ways to play a game of chess besides tournament play. But to combat cheating I think what I've suggested above is the surest path to follow.

No regrets, but decided to delete my post that occupied this particular reply you are reading as it was too much of a rant, even if sincerely felt.  It does not contribute to my growth as a player which was why I asked to join in the first place.

Nobody should be convicted just from finding their DNA on a murder victim. What if their DNA was found on several victims ? No player will be penalized by a single game.
"Probability is virtually ubiquitous. It plays a role in almost all the sciences. It underpins much of the social sciences -" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I played many games with someone having an avatar on a chess server. Six months ago he remarkably improved. Naively I assumed he was studying openings. Our last game vanished. Discovered he had been banished. 
Without controls cheating will become rife.

hicetnunc wrote on 08/27/20 at 11:46:01:


Well, it's a lottery. If my odds of victory against Magnus Carlsen in a single game is 1%, then my odds of going 12-0 against Magnus Carlsen in a 12-game match is 0.01^^12. Yet, despite being highly unlikely, this is possible.

Everybody who runs a lottery knows you can't analyze the "fairness" of the lottery ex post facto based on the numbers drawn, nor on who won. In a pick-6 lottery, the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6 are just as likely as any other single combination. If the brother of the guy who coded the lottery algorithm buys a lottery ticket, he is just as likely to win as any other single ticket-holder.

The only way to ensure the lottery is fair is by examining the equipment (or algorithm) before the game, holding the drawing in public, auditors observing the drawing of the numbers to make sure the equipment is actually used correctly, and then examining the equipment again after the game. The equipment is stored securely in between games, everything is audited all the time, an so on.

Online events want to skip any attempt at an audit, and use ex post facto logic to ban players. Fine. Do that. Just admit that it's a shambles, and don't pretend there's any real fairness to it.

Edited: