looked like a large number of people were booted, including at least one that finished all 9 rounds?
hard to really compare year to year, anyone there know what happened?
If you look at the World Open crosstables on the official site here:
chesstournamentservices.com/cca/ … standings/
I think it shows that only three players were expelled. There is a full explanation for two of them at the top of the U1800 and U1600 sections.
If you scroll down to below the U900 Section, there is a table for “Results of Expelled Players.” I think only the top three in that table were expelled; the others are all the opponents of those players. Their games with the expelled players were rated but in the section crosstables, their scores are all adjusted up by half a point and listed as byes when they played one of these guys. Thus the actual game results appear in a separate “extra games” type section.
– Hal Terrie
EDIT: After further study, it looks like the third player in that crosstable (Myagmarsuren) was not expelled, just forced to move from the U2000 to the U2200 section. The three games in the “Expelled Players” crosstable are his first three rounds from the U2000 before he was switched. He’s listed for all nine rounds as player #130 in the U2200 section.
Cerilo, rated 1976 Philippine, evidently won some bucks in the Under 1600 section of last year’s National Chess Congress, then had an unfortunate slump in a small club event, which dropped his rating back down under 1600 just in time for the next big class event. And the only Dominical Republic Rojas I can find, evidently the guy who entered the under 1800 section, appears to have a FIDE rating of 2116, not 2032 as given by the World Open website.
Lot of stuff going on beneath the radar these days.
Even back in the 90s, I recall playing in a tournament in Kansas City and getting absolutely smoked by a somwehat older player with a ‘thick’ European accent. Then, out of the blue, he offered me a draw, which I gladly accepted.
Gee, I wonder why?
If there is a way to cheat, a cheat will find it. Considering the number of players caught, one wonders how many slip by. That is really a shame. IMO.
hal that explanation makes sense. when i looked at the list of expelled players i saw 20 names and wondered if there was some melee or some off-market version of google glasses making the rounds.
I was reading it on my phone though, so missed a key detail or two.
Two players were removed from the World Open this year. Sometimes, players are removed due to being caught cheating during the event. Other times, players are removed because they were caught playing in vastly inappropriate sections, and it’s too late in the event to move them. The two players removed this year fell into the latter category.
The World Open checks players’ information several times before and during the event. This includes identifying players who may be subject to prize restrictions. The prize restriction checks often catch ineligible players who may be missed during earlier checks. Also, other players turn out to be a good source of information. I would say the signal-to-noise ratio in player cheating complaints is pretty low - but the occasional report does turn up good information, so it’s worth going through the duds.
Also, the World Open staff gets dozens of cheating complaints throughout the tournament - in person, by phone and by email. They’re all checked out. I was the floor chief this year, so I was given a number of appeals concerning dismissed cheating complaints. I also did the prize restriction checks for all “Under” sections. As part of this, I checked any player who was +1 or higher after 5 rounds (anyone with a lower score than that wasn’t in the running for a big prize).
One of the two expelled players was caught during prize-restriction checks. The other was caught when it was claimed (and later proven) he had a NCFP rating that would make him clearly ineligible for the section he was playing. Both players were among their section leaders when they were yanked.
(Any non-factual statements in the above are solely my opinion. I am neither a principal nor an employee of CCA.)
Redentor Cerilo did not disclose his NCFP rating at the time of registration (presumably because it would have forced him to enter the U2000 section). All players with alternate ratings are required to disclose them.
Also, you did not find the correct Juan Carlos de la Cruz Rojas. This is his USCF profile, and this is his FIDE profile.
I think that we have to keep in mind that this is the extreme exception, and truly almost all of the players I have ever met, with maybe only one exception, are legitimate with who they are, and simply want to improve their play. I have seen several OK players recently make some great strides, with several making the Expert class. I guess only when the prizes get bigger do the incentives to cheat make avail of themselves. That is part of the reason that I am against large cash prizes, especially in the class ranks. Players above master should definitely have the opportunity to win prizes, and therefore have a pinnacle to reach. Chess is not a spectator sport, sells very little apparel, gets no significant press time, and therefore is probably never going to have monetary incentives to play in the US. The expenses for many players hurt some tournament turnouts, and just getting rated games should not be cost-prohibitive. I guess a tournament each year, such as the World Open, could become the BIG ONE for the year, but the EF’s are still so high. Some of these larger events could have 25-30K in expenses, and often more, but $200-$300 EF’s seem ludicrous to me, which doesn’t even begin to account for travel, lodging, and food.
Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. I’ve seen players (and their supporters) cheat with absolutely nothing but rating points on the line - no prizes, no norms, nothing. It is rare, but I’ve seen it quite a bit. I had to throw a player out of the PA state scholastics a couple years ago because he fraudulently changed his loss posted on the pairing sheet to a win. The game in question had zero direct effect on either individual or team prizes.
Unfortunately, most US tournaments generate 100% of their prize funds from entry fees. So, you either have to have small prizes for masters, or entice non-masters to play. The only model I’ve seen that seems to successfully and consistently draw both masters and non-masters is the class-section model that CCA uses.
Fortunately, the vast majority of rated events in the US are far cheaper to attend than the bigger Swisses. Many players don’t like the bigger Swisses (for various reasons) and don’t play them. That’s fine - USCF offers many diverse options.
Tournaments like the World Open, Chicago Open, National Open, etc., are definitely not everyone’s cup of tea. That said, these events have significant expense for the organizer (advertising, TD pay, TD travel reimbursement, materials/supplies and PRIZES are among the big-ticket items).
It seems to me that free market forces are working just fine. Personally, I can’t imagine the tournament being any larger and I can’t imagine the entry fee being any larger either.
I’ve noted before that cheating is rampant online where, in addition to the lack of prizes and norms noted above, the play is unrated and the players are unidentified “guests” or using some meaningless handle.
In passing, let me remark that I once stopped by a tournament in progress. The tournament site was donated by a major firm. I was personally told that there had been some defacing of the washroom. Access to that rournament site was lost.
It would be nice if there was a single database to access ratings across countries and federation.
It would indeed. But then you’d run into the, “Are you Philip J. Fry from Earth, or the Philip J. Fry from hovering squidworld 97-A?” problem. So, to correct that you either have to issue physical IDs with numbers (globally,) or require additional identifying data from all Federations for all players. Since the latter can’t be legislated, the former would require FIDE to charge memberships and wantonly intrude on the affairs of member federations, and both would see FIDE start charging for those services (as they already tried to do once and have done for arbiters,) here we are.
And it still wouldn’t correct the problem of players trying to sneak under radar and deliberately not identify prior ratings.
sigh…
Mr. Cerilo did exceptionally well already in Eastern Chess Team Championship in 2011, where he scored 4 1/2 out of 5 against range of 1400 - 1700 rated players on the fourth board. His team composed of players of Philippinian descent was called (hold your breath!) : “CCA Minimums”.
For those who do not know: CCA gives some minimum rating for players who did exceptionally well in it’s tournaments and some players suspected of sandbagging.
Team “CCA Minimums” had average rating 1993 (has to be U2000 average by tournament rules) and was greatly helped by Mr. Cerilo’s rating of 1508. His other three team members were rated 2256, 2200 and 2008.
My team played CCA Minimums in the first round and lost. Mr. Cerilo gave our fourth board player a “pity draw” as the match was already sealed in their favor.
I did not play in the 2012 Eastern Chess Team but it looks like Mr. Cerilo was on the team which won this championship - Big surprise!
Mikhail Koganov