|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-14-19
 | | Fusilli: Any explanation anywhere of how exactly the photo was taken? I mean, is there a surveillance camera in that bathroom stall? Did someone sneak up the side of the stall and took the shot? Did they follow him, couldn't hear any sounds of human waste-disposal activity (or smell) and then decided that it was fair game to check? I didn't see anything about the decision-making process leading to the violation of privacy. The guy is a scumbag, of course, but we wouldn't want to know that we are regularly observed in the bathroom, would we? |
|
| Jul-14-19 | | MrMelad: <Dionysius1: <I hope his GM title gets stripped, that he will return all prize money he won in the last 20 years and a good hefty fine is also in place. After that I hope he gets sued privately by people he conned and by FIDE>. It's interesting that when someone does something obviously wrong and disgusting for which there is no straightforward legal redress, people tend to come up with completely OTT penalties. Here's to proper law and proper process> What’s not straightforward legal about it?
When you commit fraud you can:
1. Go to jail
2. Pay a fine
3. Get sued in civil court by the people you conned. I don’t understand why we should assume mitigating circumstances, the guy committed fraud is there any other way to look at it? |
|
Jul-14-19
 | | Dionysius1: Taking no 3: Nearly anybody can sue anyone else, particularly in litigious countries. People who feel they have been conned and have suffered as a direct result can sue of course. Whether the suits are successful or not has a lot to do with proper process, how responsibility is defined and how rigorous the jurisdiction's definition of proof. None of these things would be particularly straightforward. Plus your list of things you hoped would happen seemed a bit scattergun and hotheaded :-). |
|
| Jul-14-19 | | nok: <the guy committed fraud is there any other way to look at it?> Breaking News: Rausis was texting Putin |
|
| Jul-14-19 | | MrMelad: I take cheating seriously and I think that so should you. If someone hacks into your bank account and steals 500$ it can be argued that the hacker was mainly interested in the “intellectual” aspect of the cheat and 500$ is not serious money anyways so no reason to get all hot headed about it. But arguing this would not make much sense, right? Why is this different? This guy used a computer to con other people and take their prize money and also caused them other direct and indirect damages. He also trashed chess tournaments reputation as this was all over the news all over the world. |
|
Jul-14-19
| | Dionysius1: But that's exactly where it does get complicated: who can sue - who can prove they would have won more money if Rausis hadn't cheated? And indirect damages - what damage and how much in financial terms?
And what are the odds of people who sue him being able to prove losses in a reasonable time? The alternative to hot-headedness is applying the same rigour that would have been used in the intellectual crime. Damage done to the reputation of chess tournaments is best rectified by PR and demonstrating the certainty of detection. If FIDE takes him to court, what are the chances it will get a favourable result soon? Anything less than clear cut and quick decisions is only likely to maintain the cloud. |
|
| Jul-14-19 | | csmath: <Most likely, Rausis was playing in the lower-rated events because they had less security than the top events.> Exactly! I bet this guy has been cheating in various ways for a long time and has been on the radar by some accordingly. This time he let it slip. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | Bobsterman3000: Rausis was simply playing advanced chess without telling anyone. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | macer75: Man... it's a real shame he didn't get caught a few games later. Think about it... 2700 is generally considered some sort of magical marker these days of "super-GM" status. So if he had won a few more games, broke 2700, and THEN got caught cheating... man, it would have been a RIOT! Alas, he only made it into the 2680s, and the story is a lot less exciting than it otherwise could have been. What a missed opportunity. |
|
Jul-15-19
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
A good article about the whole affair here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/... Along with other instances including this game D Howell vs S Feller, 2010 which resulted in David Howell being dropped from the team for losing this game. He thinks the lad should have had a lifetime ban instead of a few years. Feller served his ban and is back playing R Rabiega vs S Feller, 2017. *** |
|
Jul-15-19
 | | MissScarlett: Lawson's article doesn't mention Rausis's exploitation of the 400-point rule was integral to his modus operandi, because he would surely have been rumbled earlier playing the regular circuit. It would be interesting to know how often he used computer assistance; one would think he'd steamroller nearly all the much weaker players without help, but, if you have a crutch, you probably come to rely on it. Cheating is pretty addictive - ehhh, I guess. |
|
Jul-15-19
| | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi Miss Scarlett,
These people have been caught by either being stupid (leaving the evidence on their mobile) or standing out like a sore thumb. If one of the top 20 resorted to this skulduggery no one would suspect. I have no doubt that none of them do but with the money involved I would not be too surprised if any of them did. Very disappointed but not surprised.
We were talking about it at a congress yesterday. One lad said if he cheated he would make sure not to attract too much attention to himself and sandbag. (I wonder how many, or if any, are doing that on the lower boards.) But a few agreed with you, it may become additive, especially if you suddenly had an awkward position v a 1700 player where even a draw would undo 6 months work. *** |
|
Jul-15-19
 | | Diocletian: What is the best foolproof way to cheat without leaving the table? |
|
Jul-15-19
| | MissScarlett: Not telling you for a start. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | csmath: <What is the best foolproof way to cheat without leaving the table?> Have assistant in the audience using body language messages in crucial moments. Like in Feller's case. If FIDE is serious about punishing cheaters like Feller and Nigalidze then it will start issuing lifetime bans. There is no other way around. |
|
Jul-15-19
 | | Gypsy: <... If one of the top 20 resorted to this skulduggery no one would suspect. ...> At the time of discovery, Rausis was ranked 41st in the World in classical chess, with ELO already over 2694. He was ranked 2nd among residents of Czech Republic, yet, the suspicion against him was such that he was consistently dis-invited from representing that Country. Rausis, Igors: GM, 2686 (6.9) [in classical time controls], 2421 [in rapid], 2527 [in blitz] https://www.lidovky.cz/sport/ostatn... |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | john barleycorn: Well, remember Lance Armstrong? Top cyclist ... best in the world ... how long did it take to discover his secrets? Top20 chess players not cheating? Well, anyone here to give his right arm for that? |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | Everyone: <john barleycorn> Well, I think at least <Everyone> would bet <your> right arm on it. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | john barleycorn: because everyone knows it is easier to sacrifice other players pawns. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | csmath: Actually in Lance Armstrong case it was an open secret, many were ringing alarm bell but it was all discarded due to his success. Only when federal investigation (USADA) started after Floyd Landis implicated Armstrong the things finally started rolling. Lance Armstrong was draping himself in American flag so it was hard to believe to his accusers even though there were many. At some point it seemed that doping in cycling just has to be taken as a fact. This is the most shameful episode of American sport. The one that never made to a public uproar would be the case against Carl Lewis, another national hero made by drugs. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | john barleycorn: Yeah, remember Ben Johnson? but then some people have the nerve and the infrastructure to hide their wrong doings for a long time. Why not in chess? Maybe more subtle to do so but on what basis can we exclude it? Like "there was no cheating because nobody went to the bathroom"? There is no way to prevent when there is a will to do. |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | breakbad: The photo is also quite troubling. |
|
Jul-15-19
| | Gypsy: <Well, remember Lance Armstrong?> Yes; and Jan Ulrich, and Marco Pantani, and ... they all doped. Pantani payed for it with his life. <Lance Armstrong case it was an open secret> It all became quite clear that year when Tour announced it would test all. That year, suddenly, the whole field slowed down and struggled up the hills like in the old days. (Armstrong won once more: they were all slower) |
|
| Jul-16-19 | | fabelhaft: What I have been reading lately on this case, is that it was some of the players that decided to try to snap that photo of Rausis, but that there had been no action of any sort from organisers or FIDE with regards to trying to catch Rausis. All was supposedly because the players wanted to stop him. And as soon as this worked out, FIDE came with all these proclamations that suggested this had been part of their work to stop cheating. |
|
| Jul-16-19 | | fabelhaft: <Players who participated in the tournament have indeed managed to prove that Igors Rausis consulted his phone while he was in the toilets of the Joséphine pavilion. For this, a photo was taken with a smartphone. This is not without posing two problems ... First, it is a violation of the character of a person's privacy, even if it is cheating. two, cell phones players and spectators are supposed to be extinct during a chess tournament The facts occurred on Thursday, July 11th. Daniel Roos and the referee were immediately notified: "We have been given convincing evidence". They then contacted FIDE, which gave them some steps to follow. "He told us that we had caught" a big fish ", that we had to pick up the phone, not to touch it, to call the police ..." Within the tournament, we quickly realized that the International Federation was looking for to "make an example" of this case. And to make the most of it ... Did not the FIDE director general write on social media that the Rausis "affair" was a "first" blow in the fight against chess cheating?? In fact, the police have not been notified. Not sure that the police moved on July 14 for a suspicion of cheating in a chess tournament ... Igors Rausis confessed. He filled out and signed a statement where he acknowledged the facts. He explained that he "lost his mind". He said he was "tired" and played his last game of chess. "He's an extremely courteous person," says Daniel Roos. He apologized. It seemed sadder to see us collapsed than sad for himself. Daniel Roos regrets that the player "harmed" several people, while nuancing: "He did not kill anyone"> https://www.dna.fr/edition-de-stras... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
