He mentioned some sort of cheating happening at the recently concluded European Individual Championship, but I cannot find any mention of that anywhere else. Do you know anything about that?
@SierraSunset. Malcolm did not accuse anyone of cheating. He stated, "or just a general darkening of the mood, to the extent that every time there is an upset, people start muttering that the victor must be cheating. Indeed at the recent European Individual Championships there was such an incident and the whisperings were entirely unjustifiable."
This statement is a reference to: David Shengelia: "Now You Can't Defeat a 2700+ Player Without Being Accused of Cheating"
Saturday, 11.05.2013
One of the EICC participants David Shengelia, who represents Austria, joined us live on Chess-News radio today. It turned out something else than a lost game against Moiseenko on the first board made him upset, “This is a very important thing to mention. Today’s lost game didn’t upset me as much as my opponent’s – I don’t even know how to call it – silly, stupid commentary after the game. My rival said that he suspected me of using the computer during the game. That’s just beyond all limits. […] I beat Areschenko yesterday, so my today’s rival suspected that I could be cheating. So, you can’t defeat a 2700+ player without being accused of cheating. That’s just not nice. Especially after winning a game – telling that your opponent could be cheating in the previous game… It’s really upsetting that such kind of, perhaps, narrow-minded people are in chess world…”
This is how Shengelia found out he has been suspected of cheating, “I got to know that in the lobby after the game. He [Moiseenko] was talking to Areschenko as I remember. I approached them and asked something about the position. Well, just usual conversation between the players after the game. What I got in response was that another Austrian player Robert Kreisl (who beat Cheparinov) and I were suspected of cheating by Moiseenko. Well, that happens when a person plays well – he wins...”
" For junior players, a one year ban and for a second offence five years. For adult players, a five year ban and for a second offence a life ban. "
Does anyone else find this absurd? First of all, age is not a proper way to segment the market. If a junior gets one year, then an adult should too. 2nd, a life time ban without a chance of parole? Really?
[DM: While I'm happy to quibble about the exact numbers, I don't find distinguishing between juniors and adults the least bit absurd. The law does it, and there are good developmental reasons to do it. One assumes a level of maturity and responsibility with adults that's greater than that assumed for children, and that's in part due to differences in brain development.]
For a video gaming league that I helped run competitively for numerous years, it was one year for 1st offense, 3 years for 2nd offense and life for third offense (though you could often appeal and state your case).
Reader Comments (4)
He mentioned some sort of cheating happening at the recently concluded European Individual Championship, but I cannot find any mention of that anywhere else. Do you know anything about that?
@SierraSunset. Malcolm did not accuse anyone of cheating. He stated, "or just a general darkening of the mood, to the extent that every time there is an upset, people start muttering that the victor must be cheating. Indeed at the recent European Individual Championships there was such an incident and the whisperings were entirely unjustifiable."
This statement is a reference to:
David Shengelia: "Now You Can't Defeat a 2700+ Player Without Being Accused of Cheating"
Saturday, 11.05.2013
One of the EICC participants David Shengelia, who represents Austria, joined us live on Chess-News radio today. It turned out something else than a lost game against Moiseenko on the first board made him upset, “This is a very important thing to mention. Today’s lost game didn’t upset me as much as my opponent’s – I don’t even know how to call it – silly, stupid commentary after the game. My rival said that he suspected me of using the computer during the game. That’s just beyond all limits. […] I beat Areschenko yesterday, so my today’s rival suspected that I could be cheating. So, you can’t defeat a 2700+ player without being accused of cheating. That’s just not nice. Especially after winning a game – telling that your opponent could be cheating in the previous game… It’s really upsetting that such kind of, perhaps, narrow-minded people are in chess world…”
This is how Shengelia found out he has been suspected of cheating, “I got to know that in the lobby after the game. He [Moiseenko] was talking to Areschenko as I remember. I approached them and asked something about the position. Well, just usual conversation between the players after the game. What I got in response was that another Austrian player Robert Kreisl (who beat Cheparinov) and I were suspected of cheating by Moiseenko. Well, that happens when a person plays well – he wins...”
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/12012
"
For junior players, a one year ban and for a second offence five years.
For adult players, a five year ban and for a second offence a life ban.
"
Does anyone else find this absurd?
First of all, age is not a proper way to segment the market. If a junior gets one year, then an adult should too. 2nd, a life time ban without a chance of parole? Really?
[DM: While I'm happy to quibble about the exact numbers, I don't find distinguishing between juniors and adults the least bit absurd. The law does it, and there are good developmental reasons to do it. One assumes a level of maturity and responsibility with adults that's greater than that assumed for children, and that's in part due to differences in brain development.]
For a video gaming league that I helped run competitively for numerous years, it was one year for 1st offense, 3 years for 2nd offense and life for third offense (though you could often appeal and state your case).
http://www.chessvibes.com/dont-panic-on-the-recent-developments-around-cheating