Chess base ran an article on this today.A strong GM disgracing himself for what? .8th of an ELO point.Hope for this fellows sake it was a one off mistake and he can somehow rehabilitate his reputation but I doubt it.Damn shame
It IS a shame, and I’d bet money he’s not the only one, even at that level.
The Times of London has an excellent story on this, but it’s behind their paywall. It has a picture of him sitting in a toilet stall looking at his phone. He admits to having used a chess app but didn’t say which one.
The story, with the photograph, on Deadspin:
deadspin.com/chess-grandmaster- … 1836337912
If I have to monitor players’ restroom activities as part of providing standard competitive conditions, I might not return to organizing when my kids get to an age where I can do so.
That was picked up by the main stream news today. It’s a huge deal when a bonafide grandmaster decides to outright cheat.
Yes, it is a huge deal when a GM decides to cheat, but this is not the first GM to be CAUGHT with his pants down. Have you forgotten about “Disgraced Georgian champion Gaioz Nigalidze?”
telegraph.co.uk/culture/che … atory.html
Could this be only the tip of the iceberg?
"Excellence at Chess is one mark of a scheming mind”
(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
I hope he gets a hernia.
FIDE tournaments are going to have to implement new standards. Either no electronic devices [except approved score keeping devices] at all allowed in the playing hall, or cell phones must be in plain site and never removed during play.
I played a few years ago in Lisbon. They were use a wand to make certain no electronic devices were brought into the playing hall. There was a coat check system for players to leave their cell phones outside the playing hall at the registration area. I am sure reporters were allowed in with their equipment, and I was allowed to bring in my scan camera to take pictures. Also, in Sardinia they did not allow any watches into the playing hall as they did not want to check every player for a smart watch. On the other hand it was not until I made the request that they provided [none on the walls] a clock so a player could know what time it was.
My understanding is that FIDE has worked hard to prevent cheating, and is constantly reviewing its anti-cheating policies.
Larry S. Cohen
ANTD & FA
FIDE has been working with Prof. Ken Regan to find suspicious performances, which is what led them to start watching this guy more closely. I suspect they’ll throw the book at him, possibly a lifetime ban from FIDE events.
They had been looking at this fellow. Up to this point he was evidently gaming the system, but not outright cheating. Not the first to game a system. Not the first cheat. Nor the last in both instances.
I suspect he hadn’t just been “gaming the system”. He had been getting a near-perfect score against weak opposition. You might be thinking, if he was using electronic assistance, why did he just stick with weak opposition? The answer is, he thought he could fly under the radar that way.
In retrospect, he wasn’t flying under the radar. The rise in his rating, particularly at his age, attracted attention. But I suppose that when someone is bent on cheating, their judgment about what might by “flying under the radar” might be clouded.
The other side of the question is, if he was choosing weak opposition, why did he need electronic assistance? But if you’ve ever faced lower-rated opposition, you know how hard it is to gain rating points. No opposition is ever weak enough, really.
I am afraid that these stories on cheating will lead to more cheating not less. Some who may consider cheating will do so because they know they can do it better than the guys who got caught. Cheaters think they are smarter than everyone else, especially smarter than those who are in a policing function. Like real criminals, they look for short cuts to making money.
In the case of GM Rausis, his system of gaining rating points by only playing really low rated players is not a new one. I can think of a few occasions where other players did the same thing because it enhanced their reputation as a chess teacher, coach, or trainer. The extra points led to higher fees being charged and the chance to gain more students. The rating rules have been changed to inhibit this practice of rating inflation one point at a time, but it still can be done.
I think the notion that he was just feasting on low rated players is exaggerated. I spotchecked a number of his more active months, and there was only one tournament that appeared to be an invitational where he was clearly way better than everyone else. A more typical situation is a month like this:
ratings.fide.com/individual_cal … -11-01&t=0
which has a mix of low rated players in early rounds of a Swiss (which all high rated players would get) with plenty of 2400’s and 2500’s in later rounds or in league matches. He does, however, seem to avoid the bigger opens with much stronger fields (and which probably have better security against cheating).
He could well have been using a combination of legally gaming the system and outright cheating. Of course, he was only caught once cheating in the can. There might be a Juga song here…
I think the point that got muddled was that he had ridiculously good results against lower rated players, which somehow morphed into him playing predominantly low rated players. I could imagine that a legit 2500 (which he seems to be) could win most games against 2100’s with perhaps only an occasional hint from a silicon helper. (Is this Bishop sac sound? Y/N? If yes, I’ll play it and can take it from there).