July 11, 2013 9:53

Macieja on fighting cheating in chess

Macieja on fighting cheating in chess

Polish grandmaster Bartek Macieja posted a new article on his blog yesterday about fighting cheating in chess. We decided to cross-post it in full on the home page, because many of you might have missed it:

A week ago Chessbase published an interview with two grandmasters: Irina Lymar and Oleg Korneev.
The topic was important, many valuable thoughts were included. Perhaps the only clear exaggeration was to state that cheating was not clearly prohibited by FIDE rules and there were no sanctions (see, for instance, excerpts included in Problem 5).

My first impression was that the information provided seemed to be outdated. Indeed, as shown at the bottom of that page, the interview was originally published in Chess-News on the 15th of April 2013 in Russian.
Since then, on the proposal of the ACP, the joint Anti-Cheating Committee has been formed. It consists of 5 representatives of the ACP and 5 representatives of FIDE:

ACP Representatives:
IA Laurent Freyd
IO Yuri Garrett
GM/FST Miguel Illescas
GM/FST Konstantin Landa
IM Kenneth Regan

FIDE Representatives:
IA Klaus Deventer
FM/IA/IO/FST Israel Gelfer
Michalis Kaloumenos
IM/IO George Mastrokoukos
FM/IA Shaun Press.

I hope the committee will work intensively and come into concrete conclusions reasonably soon.

Definitely, the range of activity of the committee needs to be defined. There are many possible problems:

1) The use of electronic databases and engines during a game
It is important to remember that a person can try to cheat himself or as a part of a team.

Questions:
1.1. Shall someone have the right to inspect a suspected player? What should be the procedure?
1.2. What kind of measures shall be taken? Shall metal detectors be used? How sensitive? Are the costs realistic for tournament organisers? What should be the procedure of checking? Should there be a delay in online transmission?
1.3. What shall be done for official events and what can be demanded, what only recommended and what left up to an organiser's choice for other tournaments?
1.4. Should players have the right to bring means of communication to the playing hall if they are completely switched off or not? What about spectators?
1.5. What can be considered as a prove of electronic cheating and what as a violation of the anti-cheating procedure? Definitely somebody's mobile phone not completely switched off is not a prove of electronic cheating, but it can be considered as a violation of the anti-cheating procedure.
1.6. Under which circumstances a player can be accused of cheating based solely on the moves played?
1.7. What shall be the sanctions?

Remarks:
Suggested by Irina Lymar huge metal detectors used at airports are not sensitive enough to catch some small electronic devices. I know this is a physicist, also from my personal experience. For instance it hardly ever happens that such a metal detector can detect my insulin pump, my watch never! Let's remember that many devices that can be used for cheating have uncomparably small sizes and can be build from various materials!
Such huge metal devices are used mostly to find guns and ... to scare people.
Hand metal detectors used at the airport are much more sensitive. In particular, all of them can immediately detect my insulin pump.

Let me tell you a practical example - during a tournament in Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan) in May 2013, every person entering the playing hall was checked with a hand metal detector. Not only once, but every time he/she was entering the playing hall. I had some natural doubts, but the system proved to be working smoothly in practice.

2) The use of paper books and magazines during a game
Very often books are widely available during tournaments at the playing hall or nearby. Sometimes players read them during their games. It has happened many times that such books contained information that could be useful for that particular game of a reader.

Questions:
2.1. How to fight this problem?
2.2. Shall reading books be totally prohibited while playing?
2.3. What about people that sell books during tournaments in which they are playing?
2.4. What shall be the sanctions?

3) The use of the third party help during a game
It happens often that players talk to other players or "spectators" about their current games. Sometimes it influences the result of such games.

Questions:
3.1. What shall be done to reduce/eliminate this kind of cheating?
3.2. Shall the players be allowed to talk during games about other topics or not at all?
3.3. What shall be the sanctions?

Remarks:
It is easy to defeat players for every word said, but it is not a practical solution. Every player has many friends ("gens una sumus"), it is clear a way how to greet with them is needed. People may have other practical problems - for instance they share a room with someone, but there is only one key. Therefore a reasonable rule needs to be proposed.

4) Irregular situations
Sometimes it happens that the situation runs out of control. For instance there is no electricity for 1 hour and games need to be stopped.

Questions:
4.1. What are the players allowed to do? It is practically impossible to keep them silent, staying at the playing hall (especially without light).
4.2. What shall be done in such cases to prevent cheating attempts described in previous points?

5) Prearranged results
Prearranged results may have even a bigger impact on the final standings than an electronic cheating.

Questions:
5.1. What shall be the sanctions for a prearranged resultative game?
5.2. What shall be the sanctions for a prearranged draw? Do they depend if the 30-move (or 40-move) rule is applied or not?
5.3. What shall be the sanctions for players deliberately losing games in order to reduce rating and to be able later on to fight for rating range prizes?
5.4. When can a game be declared prearranged?

Remarks:
Prearranged draws were widely spread and tolerated, though formally never allowed. Indeed, it was difficult to explain why players could freely agree to a draw after one move and couldn't earlier. Formally it was a different situation, but practically?
The situation is visibly different when the 30-move (or 40-move) rule is applied. Still, it is clear that the damage is significantly less than in the case of a prearranged resultative game. One important difference is that players agree to a draw, as they are satisfied with that result, whereas people deliberately lose games for other reasons (usually financial).

An additional problem with prearranged games is that in practice very often arbiters prefer not to do anything. It is more simple and avoids problems. Organisers (and sponsors) also prefer, if there are no scandals in their tournaments.

However, such a common approach violates FIDE rules:

FIDE Laws of Chess

Article 13: The role of the Arbiter (See Preface)
13.1. The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
13.2. The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition.
13.3. The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made and impose penalties on players where appropriate.
FIDE Tournament Rules
8.f Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the CA shall impose suitable penalties.
FIDE Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics shall be breached by a person or organization who directly or indirectly
2.1 offers, or attempts to offer or accepts any consideration or bribe with a view of influencing the result in a game of chess or election into FIDE office.
2.2 in other respects acts contrary to this Code.
Of particular importance in this respect are the following:
(...) Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments.
3. The tournament officials will take all necessary steps to ensure the proper conduct of both games and tournaments according to the Laws of Chess and the tournament regulations.

The committee definitely needs to help arbiters by providing them with a guide when they should react and when they should refrain from reacting (not less important!).
Fighting prearranged results without a help from arbiters is impossible. In order to motivate them to do their job properly, I believe that the following two questions need to be answered:
a) What kind of sanctions / disciplinary measures shall be taken against an arbiter who didn't react, although he should have been?
b) What kind of sanctions / disciplinary measures shall be taken against an arbiter who reacted, although he should have not been?

6. The role and conduct of captains
The role and conduct of captains in team competitions need to be clarified. I can see several doubtful situations, for instance:

6.1. A player asks for a permission to offer/accept a draw, then - before giving an answer - his captain consults the position with other people or chess engines.
6.2. A captain permanently consults the position with other people or chess engines and at one moment is being asked whether to offer/accept a draw.

During the Azerbaijan-Poland match at the last Olympiad, before making a move, my opponent asked his captain whether to offer a draw. It was before his 26th move. It was round 9, so everybody knew that the rules of the Olympiad didn't even allow a draw offer before move 30.
"Coincidentally" my opponent had two possibilities: to keep playing an unclear balanced position or to sacrifice a rook and finish a game with a perpetual check instantly.
In my opinion it was an obvious attempt of cheating (Problem 3: The use of the third party help during a game).

Some players ask in similar situations the same question to the captain, but at the stage when a draw offer is possible.
I hope the committee will clarify whether it shall be considered as an attempt of cheating or as the right of a player.

7. Taking back moves
Some players have been caught on taking back moves or on moving a piece other than touched. The list even includes one World Champion and one European Champion.

Question:
Shall additional sanctions (apart of forcing such a player to make a move according to the Laws of Chess) apply?

Remark:
The answer may strongly depend on the level and experience of players. Beginners often touch or take back pieces due to unawareness. With grandmasters it is usually an obvious/conscious attempt to cheat.

8. The appeals
An accusation of cheating can definitely destroy a career of a player, therefore a protection mechanism needs to be set.

The FIDE Code of Ethics already predicts some protection:

2.2.9 Players or members of their delegations must not make unjustified accusations toward other players, officials or sponsors. All protests must be referred directly to the arbiter or the Technical Director of the tournament.
2.2.10 In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.
2.2.11 Any conduct likely to injure or discredit the reputation of FIDE, its events, organizers, participants, sponsors or that will enhance the goodwill which attaches to the same.

A proper procedure of appeals needs to be set. Irina Lymar is right that it is extremely difficult for a standard judge to understand nuances of chess cheating. Perhaps an arbitrage committee would deal with a problem much better than a civil court. The verdicts will be faster, better and will not generate such costs. Perhaps the whole mechanism of appeals needs to be included into FIDE rules, whereas by joining a tournament a person will automatically agree to follow that procedure.
A compensation to a falsely accused person need to be foreseen (this is clearly missing nowadays!).

9. The disqualification and its consequences
The consequences of disqualification in each case need to be specified and contain also financial consequences (especially if by cheating players won prizes).
It is definitely more difficult as it may seem to be, as:
9.1. We have different type of tournaments (team, individual, open, round robin, etc.)
9.2. It can be found either during a tournament or after its accomplishment that a person was cheating.

So far FIDE totally fails on this field. In 2004, when 2 players from Papua New Guinea and Bermuda refused to take anti-doping tests, their personal results were modified to defeats in all games and the final standing of the Olympiad was changed accordingly. In 2010, when GM Feller was caught on electronic team cheating, the personal results were adjusted according to another, more sophisticated procedure, whereas the final standings of the team of France at the Olympiad was left unchanged!
Such an inconsequence is not acceptable and definitely does not look professional at all!
Oleg Korneev's arguments also need to be taken into account.
With my full respect to the actions taken by the French federation, I wonder if the result of France would be left unchanged if they finished on the first place...

10. The conclusion
Figthing cheating in chess is relatively easy by prohibiting everything and applying severe sanctions.
That's, however, not a practical solution, with a lot of drawbacks. The common sense needs to prevail. And that's the difficult part!

I wish the newly created Anti-Cheating Committee a fruitful work.

Bartek Macieja's picture
Author: Bartek Macieja
Chess.com

Comments

Anonymous's picture

On June 19, the Bulgarian Chess Federation organized an anti-cheating test for Borislav Ivanov. He did not show up for the test, giving notice the night before the test. The notice was written by his lawyer. It stated that at the time scheduled for the test Ivanov was going to play at the Varna Open.

Fishy's picture

No problem, do the test another time.
And no, I think he is NOT playng in the Varna Open. No tournament will allow him.

Anonymous's picture

According to Danailov, the test was expensive to organize and he implied it will not be attempted again by saying “the Ivanov case is now closed.”

Indeed, he was not among the participants at Varna.

Greco's picture

Ivanov shouldnt even take that test. His cheating is so obvious he should be banned from tournaments for life.

Stephen's picture

"obvious" is not proof neither is "common sense" nor "likely" nor "probably". If anybody provides real proof that Ivanov is cheating, and I don't mean moves coinciding with an engine, then I am sire that everybody will be happy to condemn him. Until then, "obvious" only means that he needs to be invesitgated it doesn't make him guilty.

S3's picture

He's as guilty as a whor* in church.

Anonymous's picture

He's as guilty as a fat rat in a cheese factory!

RG13's picture

Unless you can produce a human player who can mimic Houdini to an equivalent degree while under strict controls (like submitting to a medical examination immediately after producing a brilliant miniature) then I would say that he is rightly under a cloud of suspicion. Only in criminal court are you considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sporting bodies have the right to act in the best interest of their respective sport.

Anonymous's picture

But how does he cheat? At this time there is zero evidence he cheats at chess.

RG13's picture

Do you believe magic tricks at the circus simply because you do not know how they are done?

Anonymous's picture

So Ivanov is using magical powers while sitting at the chessboard to receive and access the best moves in specific chess positions when seated at the chessboard surrounded by people? When he was accused of cheating at a rapid tournament when never took his eyes off the chessboard while making almost immediate moves for the whole game should tell you he's the target/victim of of sick individuals.

RG13's picture

I didn't say "magical powers" YOU said that. What I said was "magic tricks at the circus". If you think that these two ideas are equivalent then I don't know what to say.

Crow T Robot's picture
Thomas Oliver's picture

This is all rather murky to me - even if Ivanov's behavior is also strange. What kind of test was it supposed to be? If it was an expensive test for cheating equipment, it would only work if that's permanently incorporated into Ivanov's body - else he could get rid of the evidence before the test. In that case, it makes more sense to perform such a test without prior announcement and just before or just after a competitive chess game.

If it was some sort of advanced chess exam (tough enough that GMs could fail), it isn't terribly expensive?

Add to this that the primary sources are hardly unbiased: Danailov is/was the manager of - to my knowledge - the only chess player who got tangible benefits from cheating allegations against an opponent, and now he wants to score on the anti-cheating front. And Alex Karaivanov, author of the Chessbase article, is the manager of FM Lilov, IMO the big winner of the Ivanov affair - before he was pretty unknown, now he is sort of famous.

I also find it strange that those players who demonstrably did cheat (Feller) or at least acted suspiciously (Bindrich) tend to get more support in chess forums than those who did nothing demonstrably wrong besides playing (too) well (Ivanov, in Germany also Jens Kotainy). Do GMs get lots of benefit of doubt that isn't given to an untitled player and an IM?

Anonymous's picture

I wonder what this "“specialized test using technical methods to prove objectively, with scientific means, that he is not using any unfair methods in his play.” entails.

If it is a kind of quiz, I can see that it would be costly to develop this to get sufficiently accurate rating estimates out of this. It would require a large number of test subjects. And what if the test subject has an off-day...

May be Ivanov got wet feet because he was not convinced the test was accurate. Or he enjoys the controversy around his play.

joker's picture

You might find that your first paragraph answers the question in your second. A chess exam would probably have to be combined with a concurrent test for cheating equipment.

joker's picture

(my above reply was aimed at Thomas Oliver)

Thomas Oliver's picture

Yep I thought of this (after posting). In that case there would be two ways to prove Ivanov guilty:
1) if cheating equipment is found - which would be incredibly stupid from him unless it's really part of his body and the operation is irreversible (but that's wild speculation).
2) if he fails a pretty simple chess exam, something a player with Elo 2000 should pass.

But if the exam is tough it can be form of the day. For example, Gelfand cannot lose his Tal Memorial title just because he currently doesn't play as well in Beijing.

Anonymous's picture

Why not just require an accusation of cheating be backed up by the production of the apparatus the cheater used during the game to cheat? No technical apparatus, no cheating, right?

Anonymous's picture

Many of us will now benefit from claiming our opponent cheated whenever we lose....This seems to be the circumstance with Ivanov.

Ludo Tolhuizen's picture

It indeed gives a bitter taste in my mouth that the most recent article on chessbase on cheating started with a banner of the website of Lilov (or his manager).

Anonymous's picture

I had the same feeling, Lilov and company is trying to milk this. I saw one of his videos on Borislav Ivanov and was not convinced by his show.

Anonymous's picture

I'd agree with most of your point and I guess also in saying that there is quite a difference between someone who actually got caught (or personally admitted) cheating and players who are suspects or simply failed to behave unambiguously. Suspicious behaviour and playing "too well" however is quite similar when it comes to the lack of proof for alleged cheating. I find it encouraging to see players belonging to the latter group receiving defence and support by the public, as it should be. Not only the idea "gens una sumus" should be valid, the principle "in dubio pro reo" is way more valuable for the community.

AngeloPardi's picture

In most sports, someone failing to come to a doping test is considered guilty.

Anonymous's picture

Yes, but only if regulations are in place that force the proband to show up. Was that the case here or was it a voluntary meeting he chose not to attend in the end? This case should be handled with professional diligence and patience since it is of public interest. Almost everybody suspects he was cheating, but at the same time most people know that strong evidence is not a proof.

Anonymous's picture

A positive dope test would in chess be comparable to finding the technical means by which the player cheated. Both are "objective" evidence of wrongdoing.

Thomas Oliver's picture

I might need to elaborate on what I referred to - not everyone may know or remember the underlying facts. Some time ago, at the German championship FM Natsidis was caught cheating - his mobile phone had a chess application with the position of his ongoing game against GM Siebrecht. He could only be caught because he showed his phone to the arbiter.

Then the German Bundesliga regulations were changed to give arbiters the right to inspect players' mobile phones. Bindrich refused to hand over his phone for inspection - IMO and for the German federation, this seems the equivalent of a refused doping test, one interpretation (not the only one but a plausible one) is that he had something to hide. This is what I meant with suspicious behavior, not something vague such as spending too much time away from the board or in Ivanov's case actually too much time _at_ the board.

The German 'doping test' was mentioned in the regulations before the start of the competition and standardized (any player could be subject to such a test); the Bulgarian one seems a rather grey zone - not standardized but specifically designed for Ivanov, and at least unclear whether it is consistent with regulations known before Ivanov's last tournament. I/we don't know anything about this test, also not what the pass/fail criteria would have been ... .

chenk's picture

Most tournaments have the "right to admit or not" to whoever they want. So, anyone who is suspicious would not be allowed (Ivanov was not allowed in Benasque Open). I don´t want to say if this is right or not, but the message is clear. If you cheat (or people think you do), maybe you will never play competitive chess again.

Anonymous's picture

That's possible but won't resolve the dilemma. The governing bodies (of competitive chess) must avoid to decide by prima facie evidence in order to maintain authority. Their reasons must be clear, verifiable and general.

Thomas Oliver's picture

I actually wonder if _open_ tournaments do have the right to refuse players who aren't proven(!) guilty and officially banned - of course they aren't obliged to offer conditions. Unproven cheating allegations are one thing, we already had the case that Suat Atalik (banned in Turkey for problems with the Turkish federation) also wasn't welcome at a tournament in Greece. What could be next? A tournament refusing any Jewish or Muslim players??

"If you cheat (or people think you do), maybe you will never play competitive chess again." If you are found guilty of cheating, you can be banned - but even then "never again" cannot apply unless/until the penalty is lifetime ban. If "people think you do" - who is 'people', how many are required, does it make a difference if some of the people are titled players or not??

Tarjei's picture

"I actually wonder if _open_ tournaments do have the right to refuse players who aren't proven(!) guilty and officially banned"

That's a good question. But in a "private" tournament, Why shouldn't you be able to deny the participation from, say, known trouble makers? It should be stated in the tournament invitation though.

"What could be next? A tournament refusing any Jewish or Muslim players??"

No, as discrimination based on race/etnicity/religion is against the law in most countries.

In fact, it looks like Borislav Ivanov has already been barred from taking part in Politiken Cup that is due to start in a few days.

Thomas Oliver's picture

If there is a distinction between "private" and "public" events, Ivanov could at least still play the European Championship, an official FIDE event (Swiss system) open to any European player. Indeed, the French federation couldn't prevent Feller from playing the European Championship in France(!) and, according to their own regulations, even had to pay his hotel expenses.

"Known trouble makers" is a rather vague term, I am not sure if 'discrimination based on rumors' is lawful? As I already wrote, in practice it may come down to not offering conditions - unless/until he becomes a GM Ivanov won't get conditions anyway.

I actually am aware of one specific case. Before the Basel Chess Festival, in an article all about cheating a local newspaper (misleadingly) quoted organizer Peter Erismann: "Some professional players have a bad reputation in the scene. We simply don't invite them." I sent an email to Mr. Erismann and got a prompt reply which I later already used in a blog post: "Of course all players who meet the Elo requirements can participate in our tournament. Invitation indeed means that we offer conditions to some top players. Of course we are free whom we make what kind of offer. ... 'Bad reputation' indeed refers to bad behavior in the past, such as insulting the opponent after a loss or something similar." Insulting the opponent could also mean cheating allegations?

RG13's picture

Whatever the case with Ivanov he does not seem to care about the controversy that he is causing in the chess world. He could have with his lawyer negotiated for a test that he thought was fair instead of acting like Erin Hernandez. By the way do you think it was fair for his team to cut him without waiting for him to be 'proven' guilty?

Anonymous's picture

My conclusion is that Ivanov doesn't seem to care about the controversy he's caused because the accusations he's cheating are absurd and totally without merit....He was even accused of cheating in a rapid match in which he never took his eyes off the board and a played the whole game with a series of almost instantaneous moves.

RG13's picture

So you are saying that the statistical analysis of Professor Kenneth W. Regan is absurd but Ivanov claims that he read a bunch of books and now can beat Stockfish and Houdini 10 - 0 are credible?!

Do you also believe that it was "absurd" for Lance Armstrong's colleagues to suspect him before it was proven that he was cheating?

Anonymous's picture

I'm always looking for that chess book that will boost my strenght. Would love to know the title of that one :-)

Anonymous's picture

I think the "statistical" approach to determining who is cheating is without merit. A test of chess skill to determine is also without merit. Only finding the apparatus on which the cheating was based is valid. Of course, this assumes the player is not allowed to leave the playing hall or talk to other people during the game.

RG13's picture

If "only finding the apparatus on which the cheating (is) based is valid" then there it is never valid to accuse any online player of using computer assistance, correct?

Anonymous's picture

Thanks for the correction....I was trying to refer to the prior accusations against Ivanov, in which no objective evidence of cheating was ever found.

Anonymous's picture

If Ivanov is indeed connecting to a computer somehow, he could easily play it smarter and set 20 different strong engines up. And let his code randomly pick one of those to transmit advice back to him. Then correlation with one particular engine would necessarily be lower (it may still be high when the engines themselves agree on the 'best' move). Why would he invent such an ingenious scheme and then not apply this extra step? May be the engine he is using is not some remoter computer and runs on a small processor he has locally...

His fast play indicates that there is no helper in the room passing the moves on to an engine like in Feller's case. It would just take too long to do this in a way non-obvious to other bystanders.

Thomas Oliver's picture

Something else ... a comment on Macieja's article which doesn't even mention Ivanov, but it does - indirectly - mention his Olympiad opponent Guseinov under Problem 6.
I agree that the role of team captains might require clarification. Should they limit themselves to providing beverages for their teams while not at all interfering with the games? But if it's his task to follow the entire match (while each player primarily focuses on one game, his own), a player can consult him about offering a draw, accepting or declining a draw offer. Then, "May/Should I _force_ a draw?" is just one step further. It could even be that Guseinov asked precisely that question to his captain - was Macieja within hearing distance and could he understand the language they spoke? As a matter of fact, a team player may be severely criticized if he offers, accepts, declines OR forces a draw without first asking his captain!? IMO it's unwarranted to accuse Guseinov of "an obvious attempt of cheating" - his team captain may have given him green light due to the situation on the other boards, not because of his (engine-assisted?) assessment of Guseinov-Macieja.

Problem 5 IMO runs the risk of too many "false positives". It's hard to prove that a draw was prearranged - even if the game follows a well-known theoretical draw, the players might have stumbled into this variation rather than agreeing on it before the game.
Even for (possibly) prearranged losses, do players retain the right to make horrible blunders? At the Beijing GP, Gelfand needlessly lost on time against Giri. Noone accuses him of cheating, because he has an excellent reputation and the game was rather irrelevant for the (tournament and overall GP) standings. When Mamedyarov lost on time against Radjabov in the Astrakhan GP, several people including titled players suspected foul play - it was a win-win situation for both players: Radjabov qualified for the candidates event, Mamedyarov got a wildcard. Still it's hard to prove anything, and a verdict cannot really depend on the tournament situation and the overall reputation of the players (I don't mean to single out Mamedyarov).

RG13's picture

GM Macieja references the former World and European champions as examples where take-backs are "usually an obvious/conscious attempt to cheat" but fails to mention the much more recent escapades of the current world # 1 which include 4 instances caught on video, two of which actually happened in consecutive rounds of the same tournament!

Greco's picture

You guys are still on about Boris? Hes cheating end of story. If hes not then lets crown him World Champion from now and end this!

Anonymous's picture

This article is about cheating in chess, it seems rather on topic. No one forced you to read this.

RG13's picture

I actually think it will be very hard for him to get over 2700 because more and more GM's are choosing to accept a forfeit loss rather than play him and he is unlikely to get any invitations to round robin tournaments.

Anonymous's picture

How can you be so sure he is cheating Greco? I have not seen anything convincing, just speculations.

Anonymous's picture

Not anything convincing? Muahahahahaha

Anonymous's picture

'He's as guilty as a fat rat in a cheese factory!'
is the most wisest post in the history of chess.

RG13's picture

No one can prove that such a rat ate any cheese at all. It's all speculation!

Anonymous's picture

fide should make compulsory for new fide-rated players (and more if blitz) to make a written statement on never having cheated at chess before. They can also make more money by charging each statement one dollar and giving it to members of appeal committees. All old players - AMNESTY!!!

Latest articles