80

According to the 2017 version of the Laws of Chess, rule 11.10 says: Unless the regulations of an event specify otherwise, a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, even if the player has signed the scoresheet (see Article 8.7).


44

No, there shouldn't and if you live to be 80 you will probably understand why. A few years ago in a tournament where I was one of the arbiters a 16 year old boy was playing an old guy in his 80's in round 2, both of them were rated about 1950. There had recently been the case of the Bulgarian phone cheat who had consulted a phone hidden behind one of the ...


28

First, you should inform the tournament director, and let that person handle it. There is a parental instinct that makes me want to just take the kid aside, and say something privately first, but since that can be misconstrued, do not do that, and let the TD handle it. I am sure that they will mention it, or warn the kids, and hopefully it will be done with. ...


27

How could you cheat? This is what the Lichess terms of service say about it: Cheating. We define this as using any external assistance to strengthen your knowledge and, or, calculation ability to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent. Some examples would include computer engine assistance, opening books (except for correspondence games), ...


25

Like I find it easier to beat a 1900 player on lichess than a 1800 on chesscom which is insane! Why is that insane? According to one site, an 1800 blitz rating on chess.com is about equivalent to a 1915 rating on lichess (based on people who answered their survey and have ratings on both sites.) So, your experience of the 1900 lichess player being easier to ...


22

Yes. You will still be detected just that the site is going to need more games. You are more likely to stay under the radar, but that doesn't mean you won't be caught. Cheat detection has never been just comparing your moves against the computer. To understand, online cheat detection is an application of anomaly detection in data science (google "...


20

The World Chess Federation (FIDE) uses the list of prohibited substances published by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I did not see tranquilizers on the list, although I can't say I'm familiar enough with the names of medications to know for sure. Tranquilizers would seem to be a rather counterproductive way to cheat in most sports, which might explain why ...


18

Writing to FIDE will make you feel better but is otherwise a waste of your time. Let's step through and see why. First, getting up and walking around is perfectly acceptable behaviour. Here's what the FIDE Laws of Chess have to say - 11.2.1 The ‘playing venue’ is defined as the ‘playing area’, rest rooms, toilets, refreshment area, area set aside for ...


18

tl; dr: the stronger you are, the more likely it is that you can cheat in this way and not get caught. Check out this position: [FEN "r2q1rk1/5p1p/p2p1bp1/4pn2/2B5/7R/1PPQ1PPP/2B2R1K w - - 0 1"] This position is from Kasparov-Anand, Las Palmas, 1996. It's White's turn to move, and Kasparov went into a deep think. You might want to think about the ...


17

Short of asking a deceased man, I would say that the answer is "no way". He won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship in 1965. Computer chess, if it existed at all, was not strong at all. Even with mainframe-type hardware back then, it paled on comparison to the first Chess Challengers of the early 1980's, and they were only rated about 1200 then. ...


17

Hi Liam and welcome to chess.stackexchange. I am sorry that you had this experience. If this tournament was played under FIDE rules, then the following articles are directly relevant: 11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. 11.5 It is forbidden to ...


17

Elo does not signify how strong of a player someone is. Elo signifies how strong a player is in comparison to some community. Assigning a numeric score to rank how strong someone is in chess would be very difficult to do. The way Elo works (and even the way it is designed) is simply to keep track of players in some group and make predictions about which ...


16

Number of screen switches and speed of play are meaningless. If you use these to complain to the organizers of an online chess playing website they will laugh at you. There are two ways to tell if someone is cheating. The first is the "smoking gun". Consider this game section - [White "Allwermann,Clemens (1900) "] [Black "Kalinitschev,Sergey (2505) ...


14

A short answer to the title of your question would be that you do not lose the right to appeal against any of the arbiter's decisions by signing the scoresheet. But also notice that you did not use your right to appeal anyway, therefore, you have, most likely, already lost it. Every tournament has an appeal committee and players wishing to appeal must do ...


11

Leela works by performing an exceptionally sophisticated positional evaluation at a relatively shallow search depth, whereas most chess engines work by performing a simple evaluation at as deep a search as possible. In theory this should produce a more positional style of play, and it does seem to be an effective strategy versus today's best conventional ...


10

What you describe has never happened to me personally, but I would have no qualms of making a complaint in this situation - either by calling the arbiter (in the case of a tournament) or my captain (in the case of a league match). What you describe is clearly unacceptable conduct in any rated game. To illustrate how little is needed for an issue to be taken ...


10

Is it really that certain that your opponent cheated? The key facts that I extract from your question: Opponent chatted with others on a regular basis I often do this too, and I do not talk about the game at hand just other things. As such I would say this does not even imply something going wrong. At some point the game was discussed, presumably too ...


10

You should not address player B directly, it is forbidden to talk to him about his game (it is actually forbidden to talk to him at all, but the spirit of the law is to prevent conversations about the game). However, you can (and should) tell the arbiter about what you have seen, and the arbiter will decide on the appropriate action.


10

One way to fool some computers is to give them a fortress and then offer material to trick them into opening the portcullis. For example: [Title "White to draw"] [FEN "8/8/pr1k4/Pp2rp1p/1Pp1pPpP/2PpP1P1/3P4/3K4 w - - 0 0"] 1. fxe5+?? (1. Ke1) (1. Kc1) 1... Kxe5 2. axb6 Kd6 0-1 Many computers won't resist the temptation to win RR for ...


9

There have been cheating scandals in top level chess, most notably in 2010 involving French top 100 player Sebastien Feller and in 2012 involving German GM Falko Bindrich. These two scandals involved computer assistance. There are other forms of cheating, like throwing games, which are harder to prove. Illegal moves aren't an issue, but Kasparov allegedly ...


8

I think post-game analysis gives you the best chance of identifying if a player was cheating. This can be done using what is called as the T3/T4 analysis. This basically measures the frequency at which a player picks one of the top 3 or top 4 moves that are suggested by an engine. This largely eliminates the need to identify the target engine in use (as ...


8

"Yes" is the answer according to FIDE. They have published their Anti Cheating Guidelines which highlight the section of the new laws regarding this: 11.3.b. During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other device capable of processing or transmitting chess analysis in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought ...


8

I'm a 1400-1500 rated blitz player on chess.com. Looking through my archives, I see that just this month I had a 34 move game, at a 3 2 time control, where I was rated at a 97.4% accuracy. And I know I wasn't cheating. When I look at my recent daily games (where I'm rated higher, around 1900) I see a 46 move game where I was rated at 99%. You can't tell ...


8

After doing some checking, it seems that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Before the advent of technology, and strong chess playing programs on smartphones, it does not appear that any GMs had ever been stripped of their titles until GM Gaioz Nigalidze, at least that I could find. Gaioz Nigalidze was stripped of his GM title after being caught with a ...


8

I'm afraid SmallChess's answer and comments above are more a matter of wishful thinking than actual fact. If you manage to catch a few small-time cheaters every now and then, it becomes easy to convince yourself that you can detect most or all cheaters; by definition, successful cheaters don't get caught, so you can pretend they don't exist. But they do, and ...


7

The official way is of course to tell the arbiter. Though you may have no proof, the arbiter can just tell your opponent he should not be whispering with the other person. If it happens again, the arbiter may impose fines for violating this. Also the arbiter may just keep a closer look, so while this does not lead to a loss for cheating, it certainly ...


7

Lichess is definitely very good at avoiding false positivies and rectifying those false positives when they do occur. Even though I don't have access to moderator tools on lichess, one can spot cheaters fairly easily. They usually have the following characteristics: A "flat" time graph where all of their moves took about the same length of time - even ...


7

You can't see it well because it's behind his camera view, but he clicks on the player, bringing up the profile page. And there is his rating chart, which has gone up by a 1000 points in 30 days, very smoothly, as he mentions a few seconds later. As that would be immediately visible and it's also what he says, my guess is that that is why he immediately ...


6

You must realize that no one may figure out a line like that over the board. This variation (up to 8. ... g5 9. Bh4) was quite popular in fifties, and for such an important tournament was obviously heavily analyzed. The Argentinians came well prepared with 10. Nf7. It turned out that Soviets were equally well prepared with 13. Bb5. A teamwork at its best. ...


6

Let's look at this from another perspective. Instead of assuming that the problem is just that the ratings at different sites mean different things, let's take that out of the equation. Let's look at the reasons that you could observe that opponents at your rating on one site play fewer mistakes than opponents at your rating on another site. Your opponents ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible