Thursday
Jan312013
More On An Old Cheating Scandal (Revised)
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 1:59PM
You may recall that German GM Falko Bindrich was caught last fall having a smart phone and making many trips to the restroom during his game in a Bundesliga match. Now the German Chess Federation has banned him from tournaments and any other sort of official chess participation for the next two years. He has appealed against the severity of the punishment, though without protesting the original forfeiture.
HT: Ken Regan
(N.B. This was updated in response to points by a couple of readers noting that Bindrich wasn't caught using a smart phone, but merely having it on his person [while making numerous trips to the restroom].)
tagged Falko Bindrich, cheating
Reader Comments (3)
Please stick to the facts: Bindrich was NOT "caught using a smart phone during his game". He did have a smart phone in his pocket but there is no proof that he used it.
[DM: I consciously (and conscientiously) didn't say that he was caught running a chess program on the phone, but fair enough. I'll have a look at the original reports later today and change the text if appropriate.]
Do chess players have the positive right to play chess which they forfeit by cheating or having cheated in the past, OR do chess players have a natural right to a fair/honest game?
The full story is: No one (but Bindrich himself) knows whether he is guilty or innocent, whether he did or didn't use his smart phone - specifically a chess application on that phone? - during the game. The arbiter asked him to hand over the phone for inspection, in accordance with (new) rules of the Bundesliga competition, and Bindrich declined. As the game was still in the opening phase, any cheating would have hardly affected the result - part of the proposed 'deal' was that Bindrich should hand over his phone to his team captain for the rest of the game.
In other sports a declined doping test (and in daily life a declined alcohol test during a traffic control) makes you guilty because you _may_ have something to hide.
[DM: Correction on the last paragraph: it allows one to be considered procedurally guilty. Whether one is in fact guilty is an objective matter.]