>1) Only players with rating higher
>than 1700 have the right
>to follow (as an accuser)
>the proposed procedure. (I assume
>that a player under 1700
>cannot presume computer suggestions before
>he uses a computer. This
>is not allowed during a
>game. Please, see #2 below). Comment: While it is probably true about the playing ability of a 1700 or lower player, I hate to see them left out. Perhaps if they talked a higher rated player to review the game and had him certify that he considered it suspicious?
>
>2) No player is allowed to
>accuse his opponent while a
>game is in progress. (Fair
>play) No accusation can be
>made after a game is
>over. (In this case suspicion
>comes after post analysis with
>a computer). I believe that
>a game should not continue
>after a “cheat suspicion” is
>thrown on the table. Both
>players are in psychological disadvantage
>and the game should stop.
>
Comment: In the the second sentence "No" should be "An". Correct?
>3) This being controversial, a player
>feeling cheated should resign immediately,
>inform his opponent that he
>feels cheated in his resigning
>message and issue a complaint
>to the proposed “Commission” where
>he mentions the game number
>and the suspicious moves of
>his opponent.
>
>Since, a cheating accusation is hard
>to be proven I propose
>two levels of investigation:
>
>4) The “Commission” should consist of
>3 “PlayChess” members all of
>which are rated over 2100,
>and a technical assistant who
>provides the “Commission” of the
>proposed data upon the game
>in request.
Comment: 2100+ players are a fairly small group. And not all of them will care to involve themselves, so an even smaller group. Plus, in such a small group, there will be hesitation to anger someone they know, or a temptation to be harsher on someone they do not like or easy on a friend. Either have the big boss do an initial review, or skip this part and go directly to the next one. If you play here, you are always at risk of someone making you annotate a game. Not a big deal. But incorporate some reasonable penalty for someone raising an objection which is found to be clearly without basis. After review three possible results: accuser gets punished for being clearly unjustified, not clear so no one is penalized, or accusation correct and cheater penalized.
>4.a) So, the technical assistant provides
>(what Mr. Danailov once described
>as) “coincidental statistics”: All moves
>are compared to a chess
>engine’s suggestions. 5 best chess
>engine lines including evaluations are
>recorded in a given period
>of 1 min. From “all
>moves” we must exclude:
>i) Opening moves until there is
>no reference in chess databases.
>
>ii) Forced moves (unique moves to
>avoid a check or a
>mate attack, exchanges – when
>a player takes a piece
>in return, a game’s conclusion
>where one player is caught
>in a mating net)
>The technical assistant records how many
>moves “match” with computer suggestions.
>As a “match” we consider
>not only same move, but
>also alternatives if their evaluation
>is /- 0.20. The
>only difficulty here is to
>determine the ability of a
>player to discover best tactics
>especially when there is only
>one saving move or when
>there is only one winning
>move in a given position.
>In fact these are the
>moves that look more suspicious.
>Yet, the technical assistant can
>notify the “Commission” that a
>certain move is evaluated higher
>(difference of more than
>0.80) than all other possible
>moves.
Comment: This needs to be clarified more. The criteria should be hammered out with everyones input. Moves should be compared against several of the top programs, to see if they match any one of them suspiciously.
>4.b) If there is a “match”
>of more than 50 percent
>(believe me, that’s enough), then
>the “Commission” proceeds to the
>second level of investigation: The
>accused player is asked to
>annotate the whole game within
>a week or a fortnight.
>He must annotate his game
>move my move including opening
>moves and all other moves
>excluded in 4.a. Annotations are
>then reviewed by the “Commission”.
>Please also read the last
>paragraph.
Comment: Here is the side benefit. The annotated game should be put in public access afterwards, but only if it is deemed a sufficient explanation for the players moves. If the player is branded a cheater on the game, it should not be posted, both to keep the matter private, and because it has no value anyhow. Then we all get to see more good annotated games, and the accused benefits from sitting down and annotating what should be a well played game and reinforce his thoughts into memory.
>5) If the accused player fails
>to fulfill this obligation then
>he loses the point earned
>when his opponent resigned, but
>no further measures against him
>should be decided.
Comment: Well, this would give real cheaters an out to get away with the cheating. Just refuse to annotate. If no annotation, but initial review found the game suspicious, then a second review should be made to decide if further punishment is warranted, and accused should be advised what will be imposed if he/she fails to respond and given a second chance to comply.
>6) After a player has sent
>his annotation, the “Commission” must
>publish its verdict within a
>week or a fortnight. If
>the “Commission” is convinced that
>a player has played the
>moves on his own judgment,
>then the case is dismissed
>and the game result remains
>as it is. (The accuser
>loses the point after his
>resignation). If the commission decides
>that a player has cheated
>then the result is reversed
>and further measures against the
>infringer should be decided.
Comment: No need to publish results publicly. Mistakes can be made, and shouldn't compound the injustice if and when that happens. If found cheating 3 or more times, should be booted from site. By then the reliability of the findings are very high.
>7) I am not sure if
>the annotation or any part
>of this procedure should become
>public knowledge after the end
>of the investigation. Yet, the
>accuser must know how his
>opponent commented their game.
>
>I strongly believe think that a
>player who uses computers will
>not be able to prove
>that he fully understands the
>moves he played. His tricks
>will be uncovered. However if
>a cheater among us is
>able to pass this “truth
>test” then both players and
>the playchess community as well
>(if this is decided) will
>be able to review a
>fine annotation fulfilling the “educational”
>aspect of this website.
>
>A very important point: I have
>run the procedure described in
>4.a for many super tournament
>games and I can tell
>you that 50% is the
>average computer “match” for players
>over 2700 FIDE rating.
>A much more important point: Now
>imagine the technical assistant examining
>a game and recording computer
>suggestions for both players! Not
>just the one being accused,
>but also the accuser. What
>would you think are the
>statistical chances that the accuser
>has a higher percentage of
>“matches” than the accused player?
>I don’t know the answer.
>You should not accuse your
>opponent for cheating if you
>are also cheating. A possible
>way to avoid such a
>conflict is the obligation of
>the accuser to provide his
>own annotation to the commission
>(if he is requested so),
>move by move, just like
>the player accused of cheating.
>In this way the “Commission”
>will be able to clarify
>that the accuser understands the
>moves both players played in
>their own words and that
>the accuser is able to
>judge that some moves are
>very difficult to be found
>without computer assistance. If the
>accuser denies providing an annotation
>then the case is dismissed
>with no further measures against
>either player.
>
Comment: Having all instances of accusation result in both players annotating seems a fair way of discouraging improper accusations. And gives the Commission more upon which to judge the issues. Is that 50% match to the "best move" or to "any move within .20 of best"?