Has there been a change in the policy of how to treat players that might be cheating? It used to be that if a player is giving advice to another player during a game, that this would be considered as serious action and the players might even be withdrawn from the tournament. TDs might even follow a suspicious player and catch him evaluating his position on his cellphone and kick him out. I remember reading about a player who traveled thru Europe beating GMs and winning events by cheating and then penalized.
I now have heard that only warnings are given and even if continued the player might not be removed. Is this true?
I suppose it depends on the TD. If this happened to you I’d file a complaint both against the players and the TDs involved. In short, it is not supposed to have changed. I, and most TDs, take that sort of thing very seriously. In fact in the tournament I’m running right now games are broadcast with a two move delay to hinder electronic cheating.
Alex Relyea
For one player advising another player with a game in progress the penalty that should be imposed depends on a few factors: the relative ratings of the players, how likely it would be that the player receiving the advice would have found the move without the interference, and whether there is a pre-existing relationship between the players (teammates, siblings, coach-student, etc.) prominent among them. There might be a severe penalty here, or just a warning. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
A player with a game in progress evaluating his position on a cell phone is a very serious offense. At a minimum I would forfeit his game, and eject him from the tournament. If this happened to you, and the TD did nothing more than give a warning, then I would file a complaint against both the player and the TD.
I strongly disagree. The player giving advice should be dealt with severely. Even if it is an obvious joke. He should definitely know that it shouldn’t happen again. The above is good for the receiver of advice.
Alex Relyea
If a kid rated 800 suggests a move to a Master in a position where the correct move is obvious you would penalize the kid severely?
Yes. Why would you not? I wouldn’t prevent the master from playing the move, however.
Alex Relyea
Because jaywalking doesn’t deserve 20 years in jail. The penalty in a case like this should be commensurate with the damage done by the interference. Here no real damage is done because the Master would have found the move on his own without any outside assistance. Any penalty more than a minimal one is unwarranted.
The harm done is that the child does not learn that his behavior is completely unacceptable. I would not tolerate any spectator, regardless of age, giving advice to a player, regardless of whether the advice was sound or thoroughly inane and whether the move was obvious or not.
With a non-playing spectator or an experienced older player, I’d lean towards a fairly severe punishment. With a younger inexperienced player, I’d hope I could turn it into a teaching moment.
I agree. A young inexperienced player should be treated differently from an older more experienced one. I would read the kid the riot act, and explain the significance of his behavior to his parent(s), but going much beyond that in a situation where no actual harm has been done is overkill.
What I did when a fairly experienced 10-year-old gave advice to a friend during the friend’s game was to take away half of the 10-year-old’s time, to make it clear that what he did was unacceptable. Since kids tend to play quickly it wasn’t as severe a penalty as it would have been for an adult.
In a scholastic team tournament, I once asked a middle school student if he would be OK with allowing his opponent’s coach to suggest moves during his next game. He wasn’t thrilled with that idea, and neither was his father. That drove the point home, though.
Or a learning moment 
Neither the player nor the spectator (or another player) should be discussing a game in progress. The director must determine whether the advice was solicited or unsolicited, i.e. who began the conversation about the game.
As a player, I occasionally am asked the seemingly innocent questions “How is your game?” or even worse “Why didn’t you play this move?” No player should ever respond to such questions while the game is in progress. Sometimes “unsolicited” advice arises out of such a two-way conversation. Honestly, I would hardly call it unsolicited anymore. It is incumbent on the player to decline the conversation and walk away. I realize that some people do not.
If the director has determined that advice was given, then the length of the conversation and who initiated it would be important.
Michael Aigner
Following up on your point, sometimes it’s important to be specific, both in understanding the rule, and in the application of it. In this case four rules are key:
- 20E. Soliciting or using advice prohibited. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice (solicited or not), or analyze on another chessboard.
- 20E1. Solicited advice. This is a serious violation and a forfeit loss is often ruled.
- 20E2. Unsolicited advice. Ruling on unsolicited advice can be difficult. The giver deserves a penalty, but what of the recipient? The director’s task is to prevent a player from benefiting from advice but also not unduly penalize the player for another’s offense. There is sometimes no good solution to this problem, but here are a few examples of possible rulings. (KLB-10 examples are then given to assist with understanding the situation.)
- 20I. Discussion of games. Players should not discuss their games in progress with anyone; this may lead to penalties under 20E, Soliciting or using advice. The director has the option of banning all talking in the tournament room, even if not loud enough to be disturbing.
The rule on advice tries very hard to be specific, but not so much the rule on discussion of games. So I guess my question is whether this rule is intending to be “broadening” or is it intended to be “reaffirming”? In asking this question I’m not “lawyering” - which is a phrase TDs sometimes disdainfully use to describe a player action (even though the player may have a legitimate need and or desire to better understand a rule – Aside: personally I think this is an attitude we should encourage directors to avoid. If a ruling/rule can be justified, then it can be justified. If a player is calling that ruling into question we shouldn’t use derision to make our point, but rather the ruling should be explained, and emphasized.)
For example, suppose there is a conversation between two players in the hallway, so as to not disturb other players. At what if any point do any of the statements below violate these four rules?
- “I had a hard drive here this morning.”
- “Are you staying at the hotel?”
- “Wasn’t the breakfast great?”
- “What board are you on?”
- “What’s your opponent rated?”
- “Who are you playing?”
- “Good luck in your game.”
- “I like my position.”
- “I like your position.”
- “What did you play in that position?”
- “I just played ‘move-given’.”
- etc.
To my mind, only H. through K. are problematic. This range of comments begins getting specific about moves or the position - the actual game being played/in progress. Of the above list, only “I like your position.” conveys advice (it provides a reaffirmation, thus indicating an opinion about the strength of the position.) I don’t see a purely informational comment about the location of the position or the opponent as being within the intent of 20I., and certainly don’t fall under 20E. And even though most of these do not constitute advice, they could easily lead to additional conversation that might cross the line.
Do others see this similarly? Or if someone shared “I’m playing on board 20 against John Doe, a 1900.” do you feel that person has violated 20I?
Excellent Response. Overly officious tournament directors tend to chase new and inexperienced players, esp, kids and
their “offended” parents from the game. I think the USCF non-renewal rate is high enough without adding to it unnecessarily. Further, good TDs owe it to their organizers to exhibit good business sense as well. Chess clubs and venues
either survive and thrive based on the level of player satisfaction and repeat attendance. Doing that unnecessarily which
harms repeat attendance is simply bad for business.
Rob Jones
Of course, Phones are a red line. But, any advice should be dealt with harshly.