Original Article – Cheating Herzen
By Mig Greengard from chessninja.com –
Response by Chess Coach NM William Stewart
Oh those Germans. They can’t let the French one-up them on anything, not even chess cheating. At the German championship last week, 23-year-old FM Christoph Natsidis of Bannewitz, who will now be quasi-famous for this one thing for the rest of his life thanks to Google and his own stupidity, decided it would be a good idea to check his position on his smartphone a few times in the toilet. ChessVibes has the story. (Repeated toilet trips, suspicious opponent.) Natsidis confessed and apologized when confronted, so I’m not sure we can even say he was caught. Had he stonewalled and refused to let the arbiter see his phone they probably would have had to disqualify him without further proof. I don’t think anything has come out about Natsidis’s other games — he was on track for an IM norm and would have scored it even had he lost that final game.
But much the way refusing a breathalyzer test allows the state to do all sorts of things to you, the “consciousness of guilt evidence” (that is the term, as oxymoronic as it sounds) of his refusal to let them see his phone would have been strong, even if he could have denied guilt till death. I don’t know if the German Ch actually has rules saying the arbiter has certain search powers that cannot be refused under penalty of disqualification, but apparently something like that is required. It will be interesting to see what the German federation will do. FIDE?!
I don’t remember which of my chess tweeps said, regarding the event, that only top events can afford security. But while it would hardly be foolproof, you can get a hand-held security wand that will pick up a cell phone for less than a hundred bucks. Probably still not practical for big opens, but what would be? Lockers for checking phones are yet another expense and potential can of worms. The only thing you can do is give arbiters clear guidelines, limited powers, and make the penalties severe enough to create a deterrent. Stripping a player of his membership for a lengthy time first offense would be a good start. Second offense, chopping off a hand?
William’s Response
Chess cheating seems to have gotten out of control in the last few years and this is certainly no exception. Playing against a strong GM in the last round of the German National Championship, a decent FM goes to the bathroom to the point of suspicion in his last-round game. He had already sealed the deal on an IM norm, so why keep pushing it? Maybe he wasn’t pushing it at all, but had been cheating his way through events for years and nobody had truly taken notice enough to do something about it. Cheating in chess has become a rampant disease, and the scandal at the 2011 Olympiad involving the participation of strong 2600+ GMs is certainly unnerving. It appears that cheating is much more common than previously thought, and is being detected at a higher rate due to increased awareness.
Doctors always say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of treatment. Preventing cheating in the first place would seem a lot easier than searching anyone who looks “too focused” at the chess board. Simply preventing the possession of mobile phones/electronic devices can’t be too difficult (ex Mig mentioned a <$100 security wand). I have also heard arguments for shortening time controls with an accompanying rule that players cannnot use the restroom during the round, however this seems like a different argument altogether. Essentially, preventing cheating in the first place would make everyone’s life a lot easier (ex. no GM wants to receive a public full cavity search). However, it’s not always possible prevent cheating. So, the punishment should be made much stricter. Obviously a 2-3 year ban for a 23 year old FM is not going to be that bad. But maybe a 10 year ban would make potential perpetrators think twice. And if an offender repeats, a life ban from competitive chess globally. If current prevention measures prove inadequate, the only other way to deter cheating in chess is to make the penalty extremely severe.
They should be banned for life.
How about banning bloggers from commenting on poor chess players?
This website is beautiful, indeed. Please keep up the very good work.
Wow, I really am in shock now… as not such a strong player I always try to be modest around here, but since I also happen to be a legal scholar I think it is okay that I am a little more direct here.
I get really angry when someone writes this:
“However, it’s not always possible prevent cheating. So, the punishment should be made much stricter. Obviously a 2-3 year ban for a 23 year old FM is not going to be that bad. But maybe a 10 year ban would make potential perpetrators think twice.”
And out goes the principle of proportionality. Should there not be some sort of relation between the seriousness of the offence and the punishment? Remember that the idea of proportionality is one of the fundamental safeguards of the criminal law.
A 2-3 year ban is said to be not that bad. Is the guy serious?!.. I mean: if I had to make a living with chess and I would be banned for 2-3 years, that would really be awful… not only in terms of financial losses, but also in terms of the social stigma attached to this ban (it would probably hunt me for the rest of my life).
So, 2-3 years is a harsh punishment. A 10 year ban or a lifelong ban… that is not just harsh; it is cruel.
It should always be remembered – and this is important – that meting out punishment is indeed the last refuge and can NEVER be the solution to a social problem.