French cheating case: GUILTY

[Hood]

More doubts then proves.

[BB+]

Feller has responded some at http://whychess.org/node/571

A Versailles court has found a "formal defect" that suspends any sentence until it is removed. http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/frenc ... play-again

The judge of the Versailles Appeal Court had a close look at all the regulations of the French Chess Federation, and found a formal defect. As said before, the federation itself had appealed the first verdict in March. However, it was the Executive Board who appealed the decision, and according to the judge it should have been the federation’s Ethical and Disciplinary Action Commission. The board wasn’t the qualified authority, and therefore the Appeal Commission’s decision was declared illegal.

As one can see, it is largely legal procedure at this point. Feller was suspended for 3 years, and then both sides appealed (when the suspension was increased to 5 years -- if only Feller had appealed, no increase was possible, by my understanding).The FCF was "surprised" at this interpretation of its statutes regarding who should make such an appeal, and the matter is being advanced in the competent French courts.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Feller has responded some at http://whychess.org/node/571

A Versailles court has found a "formal defect" that suspends any sentence until it is removed. http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/frenc ... play-again

The judge of the Versailles Appeal Court had a close look at all the regulations of the French Chess Federation, and found a formal defect. As said before, the federation itself had appealed the first verdict in March. However, it was the Executive Board who appealed the decision, and according to the judge it should have been the federation’s Ethical and Disciplinary Action Commission. The board wasn’t the qualified authority, and therefore the Appeal Commission’s decision was declared illegal.

As one can see, it is largely legal procedure at this point. Feller was suspended for 3 years, and then both sides appealed (when the suspension was increased to 5 years -- if only Feller had appealed, no increase was possible, by my understanding).The FCF was "surprised" at this interpretation of its statutes regarding who should make such an appeal, and the matter is being advanced in the competent French courts.

He seems convinced of his own innocence, in any case.

jb

[BB+]

Chabanon has now weighed in. I think his first 2 sentences are a fair indicator of its tenour:

I didn’t know what exactly happened at the Olympiad so over a long period of time I’ve only expressed my opinion on a few occasions. However, I find it shameful the way Mr. Moingt and Battesti of the French Chess Federation have behaved during this affair. [...]

WhyChess also comments on the ChessBase "solution" (their inverted commas) to the problem. http://www.whychess.org/en/node/1503

We have the following proposal, which would clear up the entire cheating scandal quickly: the accused players, Marzolo, Feller and Hauchard should waive their formal confidentiality rights and simply publish the SMS messages sent during the Olympiad, and especially during the games. They are stored by the mobile phone service provider for one year (this is compulsory) and can be easily retrieved if permission is granted by the user of the phone. If there are any clearly personal messages unrelated to the affair these can be filtered out by a clerk or a trusted person.

If our proposal is rejected then the players must tell us (and the chess public) why. It is as if a crime has been committed, a person stands accused, there is video surveillance tape, but the accused refuses to allow it to be used as evidence since it compromises his privacy rights. The final clarification of a very damaging scandal that has been going on for far too long takes precedence over abstract privacy concerns.

The proposal seems to beg various questions. For example, is there any basis for assuming the phone messages will provide “final clarification”? Even if they contain moves, as the French Chess Federation (FCF) claims, it would still be necessary to prove that the information was acted upon i.e. the moves were actually passed to Feller in the playing hall. And if, as ChessBase summarise Feller’s position, the FCF “concocted the entire scandal”, might that not also stretch to concocting evidence? At the very least you can imagine there would still be legal hurdles to overcome before reaching a guilty verdict.

More fundamentally, whether the players are guilty or not, are demands like “the players must tell us (and the chess public)” really appropriate when handling such a life-changing issue? Institutions exist to weigh evidence impartially and draw binding conclusions. Does our impatience over a “very damaging scandal that has been going on for far too long” mean we should circumvent those institutions in favour of trial by public opinion?

[BB+]

Feller addresses the issues again at http://www.whychess.org/en/node/1603

Q. What stage has now been reached in your proceedings with the French Chess Federation?
[...] At the current moment a judge is examining the case and checking every detail for the presence of violations.
[...] So I’ve dealt with this matter seriously and in depth. The final decision will be taken only in a year or even two years’ time. There are a lot of hearings ahead of us, then the appeal court, and so on. In general, the case might even drag on for many years.

Q. The Head of ChessBase, Frederic Friedel, recently publicly addressed you with the proposal that you publish the SMS messages that form the basis of the suspicion of unfair play. Do you think that might speed up the resolution of this matter?

I can tell you immediately that my lawyer asked me not to do that, as evidence should be introduced by the prosecution. By that I mean that in so far as the National Federation is accusing me then they’re the ones who have to look for evidence. [...]

As has been noted, if the FCF upgrades the charges to "criminal" (rather than civil), the SMS messages can then be introduced into evidence. The content of such messages was not brought into evidence per se in the Disciplinary Committee proceedings that led to Feller being found gulity, though the large volume of them was noted by Pomian [recall her phone was used].

[BB+]

The WhyChess interview with Kramnik (a good read) also touched on cheating prevention:

V.T.: What should be done about cheating, particular if we’re not talking about elite tournaments but opens and children’s tournaments? I recently played in the European Championship in Aix-les-Bains and the atmosphere was one of total paranoia.

V.K.: Yes, that’s all true, but let’s approach it constructively. The first necessity is for FIDE to pay specialists to tell us what the options are.

V.T.: Ilyumzhinov told me in an interview that around 20 such specialists had come to him with a full range of anti-cheating measures, each for a higher budget.

V.K.: We don’t need a full range. After all, chess players are normal people and the money’s not so great for someone to use some super-advanced methods. Firstly, you need to take some sort of minimal measures. And secondly, FIDE have to introduce a new rule that if you sign up to play in a tournament the arbiter can search you at any moment. Currently only a policeman’s allowed to do such a thing.

V.T.: Well ok, so we’ll also sign up children.

V.K.: No, children won’t be signed up. So that’s it then, we should abandon chess and start doing something else? I can see there’s a problem, but you need to do something about it! It’s not a problem you’ll be able to 100% resolve, just as you can’t do that with doping in sport. If you take that approach then you’d conclude that we can only play one-minute blitz games, as even rapid won’t fully solve the problem. In mass events it’s not possible to prevent cheating, but realistically there’s no money there, and only a sick person will spend his time doing that; then he’ll get caught and be disqualified for life. At the highest level you can implement quite serious preventative measures. And, above all, you need to get rid of the paranoia.

V.T.: But how?

V.K.: By searches at any moment and very sensitive metal detectors.

V.T.: But still, what can you do about opens?

V.K.: There’s nothing you can do. Well, there’ll be some freak who uses primitive methods, most likely an iPhone as he won’t have the money for anything more, and then it’ll be possible to catch him. A reasonable solution will reduce the number of such people to a minimum.

[Hood]

'And secondly, FIDE have to introduce a new rule that if you sign up to play in a tournament the arbiter can search you at any moment. Currently only a policeman’s allowed to do such a thing.'

Is it not the case when a medecine is worst then illness?

There shall be differrent methods to check then break the human rights. It is a play.

By the way it is an additional factor that allows an refree influence to the result of a game!

Rgds
Hood

[Hood]

Is it not enough when a refree is watching a player during a game and player is obeyed to be in playing room during a game.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

FIDE Ethics Commission confirms suspension Feller, Hauchard & Marzolo

FIDE confirms sanctions in French cheating case

[Hood]

That is interestinng. It is contrary to the French Court ruling?