From New In Chess: Did Rausis get the idea to change names from players being banned at chess playing sites simply returning with new handles under new accounts? Perhaps a wee bit of plastic surgery next time…
That is one weird decision by the Chief Arbiter.
When doing a legal name change in every US jurisdiction that I’m familiar with, one of the representations required by the court considering approval of the name change is that the change is not being made for the purpose of avoiding civil or criminal liability or for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud or other illegal/improper activity. It’s not clear to me from this report whether or not the ex-GM had his name change granted in an official/legal manner. But yeah, the arbiter’s decision was a bit weird.
I read in chess24 that the reason the arbiter didn’t kick Rausis out was because it was not a FIDE tournament. FIDE banned him, but “FIDE does not own chess” (quoting Sutovsky).
Also according to chess24, Rausis was not trying to commit fraud by entering the tournament under a pseudonym. He had checked with the organizers before entering the tournament. The organizers didn’t make him leave; but when Neiksans got upset because Rausis was “tainting the memory” of Dudzinska, who had been Neiksans’s coach, Rausis was asked to leave, and left voluntarily.
Kind of a strange incident, anyway. It doesn’t seem that Rausis has fully grasped the enormity of what he did.
On a bit of a tangent, it will be interesting to see if Petrosian takes legal action against chess.com and the promoters of the event he was found guilty of cheating in with no due process procedure leading to a finding of guilty and a ban from certain events. It’s only a matter of time, again IMO, before chess.com gets slapped down hard for defamation and hit with damages for negatively impacting the ability of top players like Petrosian to earn a living.
Brian,
What makes you think he is innocent?
Mike
I’m not assuming guilt or otherwise. If he was accused and penalized without a fundamentally fair hearing with the right to be heard, then his penalty is legally problematic. If he can show that his reputation has been damaged by an unfair process resulting in a loss of income, he may have a viable action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Where that would be would be and which laws regarding defamation apply is for his lawyer to determine. It’s a legal morass that any organization involved in online chess promotion should be very cautious about getting involved with. Then again, it’s interesting to sit on the sidelines watching things develop.
I don’t understand why he has a right to a “fair hearing”. A private company said they violated their terms of service. A bar can kick out someone who is annoying everyone. They don’t get a “fair hearing”. What am I missing here?
Your links don’t make a strong case for his innocence. Insults and whining are the last resort of liars.
I mostly think along Mr. Regan’s lines, but is it that clearcut? For instance, consider these scenarios:
- I get drunk and disorderly at a bar and get tossed out. The local paper publishes it, my local employer finds out about it and fires me. I can sue the bar for tossing me out, but I’ll clearly lose.
- Same facts, but I wasn’t drunk or disorderly. Management didn’t like me expressing my political views which differ from theirs. The newspaper reports I got tossed out, without embellishing the facts. I get fired. I might have a case against my employer, and I might have a case against the bar for damaging my earning power. Even if they have the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign posted, I might win, because they threw me out without cause. Whether they reported it to the papers or someone else did may or may not be relevant. I probably can’t sue them for throwing me out, but the ancillary damages caused by the fact that they did it unjustly might give me a case.
What he’s saying is that he has been defamed by a false accusation of cheating. Has he? I don’t know. Depending on the jurisdiction, he may have grounds for a civil action for defamation of character which he would have the burden of proving. At what point the burden shifts to chess.com to substantiate its accusation of cheating would depend in part on the jurisdiction where the litigation was brought. Potential damages would be loss of income resulting from the alleged defamation. FIDE fair process ethics complaint requirements may or may not apply to this event on the chess.com platform sponsored by the St. Louis club. Regardless, chess.com may wind up as a defendant in a defamation action somewhere. That depends on what Petrosian decides to do and where he decides to do it. A court in Armenia?
The links I provided were not, and are not, intended to make a case for Petrosian or anyone else. They present information that the reader can evaluate on their own.
The link discussing how to cheat is, IMO, interesting because it shows what a motivated cheater can very easily do with online events. I made the point to Bill Goichberg about easily circumventing Zoom observation using an off camera accomplice and an in ear canal receiver, a technique noted by the author. As the article’s author notes, such devices are inexpensive and readily available. Amazon has several in stock for purchase.
The one question that, IMO, needs to be answered by Chess.com is why they did not act in an earlier round to question Petrosian’s looking downward when the same behavior was seen.