I've received several info which lead me to think that there might
have been many suspicions of cheating coming from ICC speedtrap group
in the Dos Hermanas tournament, justifying ICC of kicking out of
suspected participants.

ComradeZukovsky seems that he would be willing to speak up:

"1. I have unfairly been disqualified from the Dos Hermanas Tournament
and
so will be seeking a refund and not returning to ICC.
2. Bye to my friends.
"
http://www.chessclub.com/cgi-bin/fin...omradeZukovsky

Are there any others who want to speak up? I'm willing to give them a
place to speak up their mind in my homepage.

CHEATING on Internet Chess Servers:
A MATTER YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF .
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Real...torUnclear.htm

DU

"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
om...

Are there any others who want to speak up? I'm willing to give them a
place to speak up their mind in my homepage.


It`s really interesting what was the criterion of cheating in Dos Hermanas
qualifiers. And how did they (organizers) find out the cheaters. Shouldn`t
they publish the cases and the proofs ?

Regards,
Jerzy

Jerzy wrote:
It`s really interesting what was the criterion of cheating in Dos
Hermanas qualifiers. And how did they (organizers) find out the
cheaters. Shouldn`t they publish the cases and the proofs ?

You appear to be confusing the ICC and the ICJ. The ICC is under no
obligation to disclose anything, particularly anything that would be
likely to prejudice future investigations.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but you never have to clean it!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...

It`s really interesting what was the criterion of cheating in Dos
Hermanas qualifiers. And how did they (organizers) find out the
cheaters. Shouldn`t they publish the cases and the proofs ?

You appear to be confusing the ICC and the ICJ. The ICC is under no
obligation to disclose anything, particularly anything that would be
likely to prejudice future investigations.

And what is your source for such a belief ?

It`s not about beliefs that nice women can`t really play chess well or only
ugly women play chess well because such statements are both false.

It`s all about rules.
If there are no clear rules there are no rules at all.

Regards,
Jerzy

Jerzy wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Jerzy wrote:
It`s really interesting what was the criterion of cheating in Dos
Hermanas qualifiers. And how did they (organizers) find out the
cheaters. Shouldn`t they publish the cases and the proofs ?

You appear to be confusing the ICC and the ICJ. The ICC is under no
obligation to disclose anything, particularly anything that would be
likely to prejudice future investigations.

And what is your source for such a belief ?

The belief that the ICC can do whatever it pleases within the law? That's
just how the world works. The ICC isn't a governmental or judicial
body. Nobody compels anyone to give money to the ICC. If the ICC has
breached the terms of any contract with anyone, that person has the right
to sue; otherwise, tough. Deal.


It`s not about beliefs that nice women can`t really play chess well or
only ugly women play chess well because such statements are both false.

When I wrote, `I wonder how much of the problem is that people have a
great deal of difficulty believing that a beautiful woman might be capable
of anything other than being beautiful,' I was wondering about why rumours
were supposedly circulating around the ICC that Kosteniuk had been accused
of cheating. Nobody has said here that she actually has been accused
though, if the ICC has accused her of cheating, it seems unlikely to be
because they don't think a beautiful woman should be able to play chess
well.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Radioactive Windows (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a graphical user interface
but it'll make you glow in the dark
and it's just like all the others!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...

And what is your source for such a belief ?

The belief that the ICC can do whatever it pleases within the law? That's
just how the world works. The ICC isn't a governmental or judicial
body. Nobody compels anyone to give money to the ICC. If the ICC has
breached the terms of any contract with anyone, that person has the right
to sue; otherwise, tough. Deal.

So it would be risky to make a deal with ICC because their rules aren`t
clear. When I played in Dos Hermanas qualification last year I talked to one
of the judges there and he told me that I would cry out loud if I knew how
they were checking whether someone was cheating. However he didn`t tell me
how they were doing it.



It`s not about beliefs that nice women can`t really play chess well or
only ugly women play chess well because such statements are both false.

When I wrote, `I wonder how much of the problem is that people have a
great deal of difficulty believing that a beautiful woman might be capable
of anything other than being beautiful,' I was wondering about why rumours
were supposedly circulating around the ICC that Kosteniuk had been accused
of cheating. Nobody has said here that she actually has been accused
though, if the ICC has accused her of cheating, it seems unlikely to be
because they don't think a beautiful woman should be able to play chess
well.


I don`t write that it is your personal opinion. However such an opinion has
a great amount of prejudice. IMHO there are many nice and good-looking women
that can play chess excellently. First of all of course Polgar sisters come
to my mind but I could give several more examples if you wish ;-)

Regards,
Jerzy

"Jerzy" wrote in message ...
"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
om...

Are there any others who want to speak up? I'm willing to give them a
place to speak up their mind in my homepage.


It`s really interesting what was the criterion of cheating in Dos Hermanas
qualifiers. And how did they (organizers) find out the cheaters. Shouldn`t
they publish the cases and the proofs ?

Regards,
Jerzy

If ICC would reveal the cases and evidence, ICC would lose control of
the server very fast. Chaos, zizany, outrage, shouts coming from all
directions would arise. This silence and secrecy policy is also
observed on all other ICSes, with maybe the only exception when the
WICC of the FIDE was held.
ICC is mainly governed by the law of the market, and not by any chess
organization.

"The ICC tournament directors may at their discretion make a ruling on
a particular game, eject a player from a tournament (...) for any
reason including but not limited to: (...) suspicion of chess
computer use, suspicion that a player is receiving assistance, (...)
or the fact that this player has been caught violating ICC rules in
the past."
Section V Technicalities a) Game Rules
http://www.doshermanas.net/ajedrez/O.../bases_eng.htm

Their rules and policies for prize tourneys is that suspicions alone
is sufficient to disqualify/eject from the tourney someone. It's been
like that for the last 5 years.
But that did not stop at least 1 cheater from winning a prize in 1999:
not a big prize (free months or something like that) but
nevertheless... I'm sure there were several other cases like that.

DU

"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
m...

If ICC would reveal the cases and evidence, ICC would lose control of
the server very fast. Chaos, zizany, outrage, shouts coming from all
directions would arise. This silence and secrecy policy is also
observed on all other ICSes, with maybe the only exception when the
WICC of the FIDE was held.

That`s the right attitude when organizing a serious tournament. Clear rules
before the competition not after.

ICC is mainly governed by the law of the market, and not by any chess
organization.

OK so chess players watch out where you are playing : it can be risky to
your wallet ;-)



"The ICC tournament directors may at their discretion make a ruling on
a particular game, eject a player from a tournament (...) for any
reason including but not limited to: (...) suspicion of chess
computer use, suspicion that a player is receiving assistance, (...)
or the fact that this player has been caught violating ICC rules in
the past."
Section V Technicalities a) Game Rules
http://www.doshermanas.net/ajedrez/O.../bases_eng.htm

Their rules and policies for prize tourneys is that suspicions alone
is sufficient to disqualify/eject from the tourney someone. It's been
like that for the last 5 years.

OK (W)GMs (W)IMs pay nth for the play but when I pay I demand clear rules
for the play. I would protest if someone`s pure suspicion not supported by
proofs lead to my disqualification. Surely I would demand the proofs.

The reasoning that "nice women can`t play chess and must cheat to win"
doesn`t convince me at all.

But that did not stop at least 1 cheater from winning a prize in 1999:
not a big prize (free months or something like that) but
nevertheless... I'm sure there were several other cases like that.

Can you give more details of the case ?

Regards,
Jerzy

"Jerzy" wrote in message ...
"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
m...

If ICC would reveal the cases and evidence, ICC would lose control of
the server very fast. Chaos, zizany, outrage, shouts coming from all
directions would arise. This silence and secrecy policy is also
observed on all other ICSes, with maybe the only exception when the
WICC of the FIDE was held.

That`s the right attitude when organizing a serious tournament. Clear rules
before the competition not after.

ICC is mainly governed by the law of the market, and not by any chess
organization.

OK so chess players watch out where you are playing : it can be risky to
your wallet ;-)



"The ICC tournament directors may at their discretion make a ruling on
a particular game, eject a player from a tournament (...) for any
reason including but not limited to: (...) suspicion of chess
computer use, suspicion that a player is receiving assistance, (...)
or the fact that this player has been caught violating ICC rules in
the past."
Section V Technicalities a) Game Rules
http://www.doshermanas.net/ajedrez/O.../bases_eng.htm

Their rules and policies for prize tourneys is that suspicions alone
is sufficient to disqualify/eject from the tourney someone. It's been
like that for the last 5 years.

OK (W)GMs (W)IMs pay nth for the play but when I pay I demand clear rules
for the play.

There are no fees for joining the prize tourney. But there are fees
for becoming an ICC member.
In august 1998, after several email efforts, I finally got Dan Sleator
to admit that ICC needed to clarify its stance and policies on
cheating. He (and M. Grund) later confirmed that an helpfile was
needed to explain its policies, sanction policies, apology options,
limits of tolerance of owners, etc... They waited over 15 months to do
so. Everything was quoted fair and square, word for word on my
homepage (part 13).
They even changed the policies after a mid-january 1999 email group
discussion with admins who felt that ICC was too tough, too hard with
(C)heaters. (The turning point was an email that I even quoted on my
homepage). The change to the policy only became words in a public file
on December 4th 1999. Back in january 1999, Marty Grund told me that
the new policies were only a temporary and for testing but the changes
introduced were never removed. Basically, ICC went from a 2 strikes
and you get a (C) (2 steps policies with the option of public apology
in the first step) to a 3 strikes and you're banned (3 steps policies
where the first step implies no public consequence for the offender).

For many reasons, ICC will never be able to tell me that their rules
and their change of policies are promptly reflected, promptly updated
in public files. When you want, wish for a clean, clear and fruitful
working relationship with your customers, you first establish loud and
clear the rules, policies, etc.. and you always try to address their
intelligence, their will to cooperate.
When you make a move on the chessboard, your hand must leave the piece
on the chessboard. You don't try to hold the piece forever claiming
that it's not an official move, that you may change your mind and
place it on another square.

I would protest if someone`s pure suspicion not supported by
proofs lead to my disqualification.

When you join a prize tourney of this sort, you implicitly agree with
the tourney rules, it's a implicit form of a signed contract. You'll
never be able to say later that the tourney rules were not public and
clearly worded.

Surely I would demand the proofs.

The reasoning that "nice women can`t play chess and must cheat to win"
doesn`t convince me at all.

But that did not stop at least 1 cheater from winning a prize in 1999:
not a big prize (free months or something like that) but
nevertheless... I'm sure there were several other cases like that.

Can you give more details of the case ?

Regards,
Jerzy

Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

DU

"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
om...

There are no fees for joining the prize tourney. But there are fees
for becoming an ICC member.

That`s right. Although it`s a small amount of money it is still my money
paid for the organizers.

For many reasons, ICC will never be able to tell me that their rules
and their change of policies are promptly reflected, promptly updated
in public files. When you want, wish for a clean, clear and fruitful
working relationship with your customers, you first establish loud and
clear the rules, policies, etc.. and you always try to address their
intelligence, their will to cooperate.

Exactly.


I would protest if someone`s pure suspicion not supported by
proofs lead to my disqualification.

When you join a prize tourney of this sort, you implicitly agree with
the tourney rules, it's a implicit form of a signed contract. You'll
never be able to say later that the tourney rules were not public and
clearly worded.

Agreed, that`s why Comrade Zhukovsky withdrew from ICC. If they (ICC) don`t
give explanations it`s the only way.

Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

So one wins and nobody objects during the tournament and then out of the
blue someone takes the prize from the winner ?

Regards,
Jerzy