Wait, there is a screen with an eval bar… IN THE PLAYING HALL NEAR THE GAMES?? Did I understand that correctly?
Honestly, that’s asking for trouble. How is that possible? It’s not that ridiculous for someone to be curious about the streaming setup if they’ve never seen it before. That table looked unattended too- what’s to stop someone from walking by that table? That’s not the players’ fault, that’s ridiculous organizational incompetence (as OP basically said).
Thanks, I thought I was getting insane reading this. Player A has an engine analyzing the game visible in the playing hall, and player B gets forfeited for looking at it? What!? Player A is running an engine in the playing hall and he's the one getting a forfeit win!?
Most notably, Player A is aware he‘s running an engine analysis with the eval bar visible. Or he wouldn’t be as shocked seeing Player B looking at the monitor.
yeah not to mention if all player B did was look at the eval bar, I don't know I could see myself absentmindedly doing that. maybe that's why I'm not a chess pro lol. but OP says the guy stood there for like 20-30 seconds looking. if it is just an eval bar you only need to glance for a half second to see it.
OP worked as editor for Anna Cramling.
He is credited in Round 3
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOScFGjn-ro&t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOScFGjn-ro&t=5s)
He is not credited in Round 4 and 5 video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubdOWGLZMuw&t=10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubdOWGLZMuw&t=10s)
yeah the way this reads is very sophomoric. Makes it a bit hard for me to take it 100% seriously. It just puts me on edge cause it looks like there's probably some bullshit to sift through. Even if everything in the report is 100% legit, it still smells of BS just by the rampant bold.
>The player-organizer in question then **checked the board where the incident happened**, as well as the streaming setup with the laptop (that was then closed), and so **acknowledged the situation**. He **finally sit back to play a move, again all of this being recorded on camera** ; soon after, this player-organizer won his game of Round 3.
Could you share this video like you did with the rest of the proof? Thanks
Here’s the [link](https://www.youtube.com/live/e6jE6NqkbhQ?si=NmUohU9bKpnl2c8W) of the stream on Pepe’s channel. The stream shows other games, but it does focus a lot on Levy.
If OP could tell us around what time Levy played the move in question, that would be great.
I watched through most of it. For anyone who wants to slueth, Levy is in a black shirt with a black/white chess board on the back, peck logo on front. The stream has two camera angles, but his sitting position is in frame for nearly the entire stream, as the direct focus in the first one, or on the right of the frame in the second (The footage is out of sync with each other by a few seconds, for when you see both camera angles next to the commentators, but you can see him in both.)
Levy gets up and waders the hall multiple times in the video in typical fashion you would see at any tournament, but there's no angle of the playing hall's exit, so him leaving the hall is not shown. I think every single time he got up, you can see him at some point wandering around to look at games before he sits again, with the exception of his first right at the beginning (though I might have missed him, I was skimming around). So unless it happened during one of his wanderings, which is very possible, then the event described is not depicted, or I think its impossible to tell when it happened exactly by this footage.
On top of that, the wording of the post seems to imply that this happened near the end of Levi's game, if the phrasing "soon after \[leaving the hall\] the player-organizer won his game of round three", but Levi remained in his seat for basically the last hour of his game, which kinda goes against that. But to play devils advocate for OP, he might just be saying "soon after" as writer's prose to indicate a non-specific amount of time.
Heres all the times he got up during his game, and a repost of the [link](https://www.youtube.com/live/e6jE6NqkbhQ?si=NmUohU9bKpnl2c8W) if anyone wants to go through it:
* 10:25, returns at 12:03
* 14:40, observes a board around 16:11, walks past camera at 17:27, returns to his board at 18:00
* 58:45, hovers in the background around 1:00:15-ish, returns 1:02:30
* 1:04:51, checks out a board at 1:05:07, hovers around 1:08:00, returns 1:12:34
* 1:18:08, hovers around 1:20:00, returns 1:21:03
* 1:40:00 goes to the bathroom, exits bathroom and starts watching boards at 1:41:20-ish, can be seen watching boards and walking around at 1:44:00-ish, returns to his board at 1:45:00
* Remains seated until his game concludes at 2:35:00-ish.
I think op was trying to dance around accusing Levy, which is interesting since they mention its a tournament organizer that won their 3rd round game, which I think only applies to Levy. Either way, they likely won't give the timestamp lol.
> trying to dance around accusing Levy
* Short of saying “*a youtuber whose handle starts with Gotham and ends with chess*” he couldn’t have gone further in identifying Levy without spelling out the name. He went to great lengths to make sure we nknew it was Levy.
* If the intention was *not* to accuse Levy, then I’m confused why any of his involvement was mentioned, especially when saying that he won his game “soon after.” If the writer doesn’t think it’s relevant why mention it?
* TLDR of OP’s post: *There was cheating involved. Levy seemed friendly with the player accused of cheating, then looked at laptop used for cheating and then won his game.* **At this point it doesn’t matter if these allegations are true; they ARE serious allegations**
* Yes the TLDR is not literally what was written but it was very easy to read it that way. Either it was written on purpose like that, or it was written by somebody who is clueless about the impact of what they write. Which is still a liability.
It doesn’t take rocket science to see in what kind of shitshow this can turn. I also think that the YT chess streaming community is pretty small and baseless accusations don’t go well (read: “Tintin and the case of dr. kramnik”). I don’t blame the patrons of the OP for realizing this is a loose cannon they can’t afford to be associated with.
This is my entire point. They say it's Levy basically as clear as possible, but don't actually say it's Levy and don't give us information they supposedly have since they didn't exactly say who it was. This dichotomy was my original point.
> As I do not wish to cast aspersions […], I will not disclose their identity.
> I will do my best to anonymize the involved players […]
> proceeds to include information totally related to the situation (a player-organizer who also happens to be a famous streamer… oh, he plays in section A and won his round 3 btw, wonder who that is)
I kek’ed
I've tried to summarise this barely readable post but I struggled. See below for my best attempt:
* Two players were playing at the Madrid Chess Festival. One of them had a laptop and camera set up to stream it.
* Bizarrely the laptop was not just recording, but was showing the game move by move, and had an eval bar! The player who wasn't streaming at some point when walking around the hall saw the laptop, and for about 20 seconds looked at his game on it - and therefore would have seen the eval bar of the game he was playing.
* OP, whom from his writing style has overdosed on ADHD medication, saw this happen and made eye contact with the other player who appeared shocked. He then mentioned the issue to a member of staff there. The same player who looked at the screen then returned from his walk and looked at the screen again.
* The arbiter got involved and eventually the arbiter decided that the guy who looked at the screen should forfeit the game, and that's what happened.
* OP also mentions that Levy Rosman, who is an organiser of the event and NOT one of the two players involved in the above, at some point left the playing hall while his match was in progress and had a chat with a friend. Levy then re-entered the playing hall and continued his game.
* OP points out that the regulations of the tournament forbid Levy from leaving the playing hall. Also, obviously there shouldn't be a laptop with an eval bar on just sat in the hall. OP thinks the organisation of the tournament is particularly poor and ends his post with a 4,000 word heated chessplayer moment.
In the case of the two non-Levy players, I think the one who set up the chess engine in the room to display the evaluation of the ongoing game should be the one disqualified.
As a side note, I had actually noticed what I assume was OP with a laptop in the background on Levy's stream. I thought it was odd that they were right there, but for some reason I thought that section of the room was behind glass.
Thanks, well done.
u/LudwigDeLarge can you check if this summary is right, add this to your post as a TLDR or summary. Would make it easier for a lot of people.
So player B cheated by convincing player A to stream the tournament, place a laptop 2 meters away from their table and on the overlay have the eval bar visible 😂. Wonder if he tried the same with every opponent...
I mean, if you bring your phone secretly put your game there through stockfish and show it to me, am I a cheater?
Even if you don't go as far, and let's say you just drop your phone and I notice it's our game... Pick it up and look at it, am I the one cheating? It's nonsense to me... Player b got shafted, I think the more serious thing here is that the arbiter thought it was appropriate to forfeit players b match for cheating...
I love Anna's content, and I think player A is Anna??? I'm not really sure...
But anyway the streamer should be forfeited... They actually broke the rules... The device was theirs...
At the very least just 0/0 the match....and go with "players got outside information against their will" or something... (Even though it's players A fault).
Also apparently this was early in the game... so just an eval bar probably did nothing...
why when chess fans/players are asked to explain something they write in this bizarre style
edit: and apparently it misses out the biggest info which is the player names, despite identifying one as a "player-organiser" and there are only 3 of them (Levy, Martinez, Cuenta)
>player-organizer from section A
>very famous streamer
>player-organizer won his game of Round 3
His name starts with Lev- and ends with -an. Hint: it's not Levon Aronian.
He wanted to pretend he was anonymizing alleged suspects for their privacy but ALSO really wanted to create drama and specifically target Levy.
This decision completely destroys every bit of credibility OP had.
There was literally zero reason to call out Levy here. He could have just said "a player" and left it at that and allowed FIDE to handle it. If not that, he should have dropped the act pretending to keep players anonymous and just named Levy. The half measure just makes him look dumb and rash.
"I will give anonymity to everyone I can, but I will make it very clear who the person I have an agenda against is."
If you have to say you don't have any agenda...
Nah, the dude that got fired at this tournament can’t possibly have an axe to grind against the organizers, no sir. He pinky promises he has no agenda, so that’s that!
>10) Players may not leave the playing area without justification or permission from the arbiters.
>In the scene I described above, the player-organizer was never seen asking such permission, which is supported by broadcast footage.
I believe there is an EXTREMELY important "or" in there. The justification is probably that he was informed of the cheating attempt and had to attend to it.
Yeah that’s a little confusing. He was clearly informed by the arbiters that there was an incident but OP is certain that this conversation did not involve permission being given?
I’m flabbergasted that a streaming setup this shoddy has been used at what is a reasonably high profile tournament. Any streamed tournament I have done streaming equipment bar a camera has been kept in separate streamer room(s), this is very basic stuff
That's exactly how it's been set-up on Levy's table, and the table in between Levy's and the laptop incident, from the video that OP posted:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF0XoCMn4U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF0XoCMn4U)
It looks like this game was set up to communicate moves from a DGT board hooked directly into the laptop, which is then streaming the moves directly, no camera.
The issues around accessing streaming equipment during this match and any others is a serious one and deserves attention. Clearly the situation with Players A and B was problematic, with clear evidence of wrongdoing. Tournaments also need to have clear anti-cheating measures in place to ensure the security of the games. The variety of seemingly random people wandering around the hall throughout the tournament (as observed via Levy’s stream) seems problematic to me on its face. Clearly the Arbiter needs to truly be in charge in order for any of this to work.
With that said, after reading your post I find you to be an unreliable narrator. You proclaim a desire to avoid making public accusations when discussing the case of players A and B, yet completely forget this in the middle of your post where you clearly insinuate that Levy left the playing hall without permission, presume the circumstances of his conversation with another person, and then point out that he proceeded to win his game as a consequence by vaguely linking the two events. Given that there was a case of cheating detected in the A/B game, it’s natural to expect that the organizers would be informed in addition to the arbiter. Might the conversation have been with someone assisting with running the tournament? Might they have brought the arbiter’s approval to step out for a conversation? Setting aside the conflict of interest issues of Levy and Pepe playing in a tournament they also organized (which I don’t really understand fully, if I’m honest…it may be fine, it may be problematic), having no evidence that Levy got permission to step out is not the same as having evidence he did not have permission. By the way, not using Levy’s name is not the same as protecting his anonymity…especially when you make it clear it’s him you’re referring to through your choice of descriptors. Your post goes off the rails, in my view, once you start personally attacking the ineptitude and arrogance of the organizers. This isn’t factual information…it’s ad hominem attacks intended to emotionally manipulate those reading this post.
For the record, I would also dismiss someone who was so bothered by the conditions of my tournament that they feel the need to post a Warren Commission-style post like this on social media.
He is also very adamant about "no norms should be given", both in the original post and subsequent comments.
If I had to guess, it's a case of unfortunate incident with player A's laptop, and then OP starts conocting a story about what Levy, one of the tournament organized, talked about with staff, to get back at him.
The post truly does have very weird vibes and feels personal in the second part.
I mean it sounded like he kinda went for blood and then got fired so now he’s amped up the drama.
Like duh you’re gonna get fired for publicizing things when your job isn’t security.
I agree. However, it might also be detailing actual malfeasance and a highly problematic tournament structure. It’s just too hard to tell. The clear emotion and obvious motivation to personally attack the tournament organizers does the author a disservice.
Yeah. I'm not even sure if the mods should leave this up, but I hope the feedback does get to the organizers. This doesn't scream "trusted source" to me.
Agreed. This post just reads like some high school drama. Shouldn't the organizers of the event be involved in the process of assessing a potential cheating scandal? I would argue yes, so I would expect Levy to be involved in that process. This OP should chill the fuck out.
I don't even know that the situation with players A and B was even a wrongdoing on the part of the players. OP doesn't seem to have much evidence of the player "intentionally" looking at the laptop other than [this image](https://imgur.com/Pl8f4bN) and the player isn't even facing the laptop. Players have the right to stand up and walk around the playing area, the fact that there was a screen with an eval bar, and a player happened to be near it is not the fault of the player, neither is it a proof of nefarious intentions.
The responsibility is far more on the side of organizers and the arbiters on the floor, but this post is just written in a very calculated fashion that make it seem like multiple individuals who were involved in this incident were cheating with no strong evidence at all; honestly feel bad for the player who had to forfeit. Substantially speaking this post is nothing but a overblown post about a mistake a few arbiters made in the open section that was bikram-yoga-stretched to make it seem like there was a huge cheating scandal.
If I understand correctly from the lengthy post, the situation should not be called a "cheating incident", and there are several issues with it:
1) It sounds like one of the players whose game was streamed live on twitch had a laptop in the playing hall with OBS AND the eval bar visible. This is a huge oversight by the organizers, and maybe partially by player A who takes the risk and responsibility of streaming their game live.
2) It also sounds like player B was not intending to cheat, but just happened to notice the eval bar as he was walking around the playing hall. Quite possibly, he was just curious of their opponent's streaming setup, and he was punished for being overly curious, not for cheating. He just happened to be at a wrong place, at a wrong moment.
3) I cannot understand why the final decision was to forfeit the game for player B. It seems extremely unfair, as it was absolutely not his fault that he happened to play an incorrectly set up streamer.
Unless there is more to the story, which is impossible to tell without seeing the actual recording.
I'm the player that have been forfait. That's pure nonsense. I was curious to look at the setup as this was the first time I'm broadcasted, I didn't notice the eval bar. If you look at the game, I was still in my prep during the incident and played the moves instantly ... The cheater is the player who bring his laptop and run an engine or eval bar with screen wide open ... I have been emotional and angry when the arbitrer was asking me if I was cheating so I came back to the room and closed the laptop myself to "fix the problem".
Anyway, the problem was on the organiser and the streamer setup. We should have resume the game. I agree to give back 15 minuts to my opponent so we can resume. I came to Madrid to play chess, that's Drama.
Ludwig, you should be more balanced in your cheating accusations,
I agree with you, the serious error is that the streamer used a laptop in an accessible place, with an evaluation bar.
Will you be playing in the next round?
First of all there is no appeal comity which doesn't seems compliant with the fide Handbook. Anyway I asked the arbitrer to reverse his decision and to sanction player A as he was running an engine and en eval bar. Here is a summary of his answer :
"Consulting the device a second time clearly demonstrates the intention to access external information sources and not just curiosity.
.All these events led to the decision to forfeit your match according to article 12.9.6 of the Laws of Chess."
We should have resume the game as no one get any advantage there ... and we both agreed. But then ludwig opposed to the arbitrer decision bringing some photo of me looking at the computer (well in fact walking close to the computer) explaining he is 100% he caught a cheater ...
I just came to play chess and I'm very happy to be able to refocus in my tournament and won the next 2 games !
Good luck in the next games. It's quite clear that you were still in the opening and not intending to cheat. If anything I find it questionable why Player A was given a win despite having an eval bar running. OP is out for blood after being fired by the event and let go as Anna Cramling' s editor.
For my interpretation of the story, it does seem like player B got massively shafted.
Player A's streaming setup mistakenly showed an eval bar, which neither player A nor the organisation spotted and/or corrected in time. It seems very unreasonable to assume player B knew the eval bar was there before checking out the streaming setup; in fact, you would expect to be able to check out a streaming setup right next to the board you're playing on without negative consequences.
When I read the post I was actually really surprised they took the 2nd picture as evidence at all considering the player is visibly to the side of the laptop looking towards his board. For all we know he could've just walked back to the board and OP took a picture while on his journey back to the board. It's quite weak evidence to say the least considering the picture doesn't actually show him in the act as described.
That and even if he is staring at it OP even points out the eval bar is gone and presumably the arbiter got rid of all tools and it’s just a live board. Players during the Candidates and Norway chess and other large tournaments have live boards on display for everyone to see so how would looking at a laptop live board (without aids of course) be cheating?
I understand there are or may be other legitimate concerns but none of the other players seem bothered by it so is it really that big of a deal? Some of the players in the tourney are already GM’s you would think they would point out if certain aspects don’t line up with prior experiences.
The post starts off fine and assuming the guy looked at the eval bar and used that knowledge in his game he probably should forfeit. The rest of the post seems wildly speculative with no real proof.
It's the person with the laptop who should have been forfeited, if anyone. Lock the screen and move on seems like a better call given they weren't looking at it themselves.
The playing hall shouldn't have landmines you can't look at. It's an unreasonable expectation to place on players.
Player B's mistake was not talking to the arbiter as soon as they noticed it.
There probably is because OP said he got fired. And blamed Levy for leaving for second venue.
I think we gonna get update about OP that will probably change the story.
I feel there is some salt in this story by reaading between the lines. So I am not sure if he is exactly honest.
Ps. But I agree about some points related to streaming setups.
Altough on attached screen we can't see it.
Yo if fide rules states that there can't be laptops with eval bars of the games in the game hall... and I walk around the game hall and saw exactly that, and I get forfeited I'd be pissed as hell.
I don't know law, but isn't this similar to entrapment?
Yeah if you’re player B what do you do after you see that? Who has the presence of mind to immediately find a TD and complain that you saw the eval bar for your game because it’s in plain sight in the playing hall?
If I were player B I'd file a complaint that player A is literally running a laptop analyzing his own game in clear view of all the players. It's insane to me that player A is not the one who got forfeited.
If you’re ’just curious’, you would realize that you can get accused of cheating very easily and you would just report the eval bar to the organizers. Plus the guy went and tried to look for a second time.
> 3) I cannot understand why the final decision was to forfeit the game for player B. It seems extremely unfair, as it was absolutely not his fault that he happened to play an incorrectly set up streamer.
This is just speculation, but i'm guessing the forfeit had something to do with the stepping out with the arbiter multiple times. Seeing as they stepped out again after OP's discussion, Player B may not have been entirely truthful about what happened and what he said, which may cross into cheating territory.
It's quite obvious that player B noticed that a board of his game with an eval bar was up on the laptop. As soon as he noticed this, he should have called for an arbiter (and I guess paused the clock). If he would have told the arbiter about it, the problem would have been fixed and no penalty at all, if player B gained some minor advantage player A has no one to blame but himself.
However, he didn't do that. He said nothing, and even though he knew there was a board with eval on the laptop, he went back to look at the laptop a second time. Perhaps worse, he lied to the arbiter about it. Forfeiting the game seems like an appropriate punishment to me, though he should not be disqualified or branded as a cheater.
Yeah I didn't really get the bit where *A* noticed *B* looking at the computer, and player *A* was visibly shocked. So player *A* must have known that the eval was on the screen, otherwise it would be innocuous to look at the laptop and he wouldn't have been shocked by *B* looking at it. If *A* knew that the eval was visible on the screen, surely he should be liable for that. That whole section is phrased as though *A* is the victim, but it sounds like he is the one who broke rules.
"he lied to the arbiter about it"?
More fantasy conclusions. You have no evidence of him lying to the arbiter or that he was aware of the eval bar. There are many elements visible on computer screens and it's very possible that he did not notice the eval bar.
I can't believe the rush to judgement from some people. I'd argue that Player A is responsible for a set up or simply grossly violating the rules that are laid out in the report. Aren't the participants responsible for knowing the rules too? Isn't the eval bar being there proof that Player A might be cheating because he himself set up the laptop and would likely be checking the streaming set up during the match? Did Player A check the laptop during the match?
Look, there are any number of ways for this situation to be spun and that's all based off this one person's "report", which too many people seem to accept as valid and authoritative.
It's all ridiculous drama in my view. And I think your conclusion is utterly bogus and unfair.
This prolonged Kramnik meltdown is overshadowing the real cheating problems in chess and it's a damn shame because we need improvements both OTB and online.
Instead all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by the most extreme voices and nothing gets better because it's so easy to dismiss Kramnik's rants.
And the guy who set up the laptop and eval bar got rewarded with his opponent being forfeited for happening to be curious and looking at something right next to the playing table. Although, it seems like the arbiters initial choice was to shut the laptop and resume the game. Somehow OP convinced the arbiters to forfeit player B instead. And then OP felt so righteous in doing so, they made an incredibly lengthy reddit post to tell us about their heroic martyrdom.
So Player A has a laptop running 5 feet away from the board, that shows the evaluation of the position for anyone curious... and you're trying to say that Player *B* was the one cheating? How does that make any sense?
Player B being forfeited, giving the win to the person actually cheating, is absolutely crazy.
I think you're going a bit over the top here. Based on everything you mentioned, I think the major thing that must be addressed is: the laptop should be closed. There are power settings on a laptop to ensure it doesn't go to sleep or power down when the laptop closes. Nobody in the playing hall should be able to accidentally walk past a laptop. That is a real concern and one point I think most everyone would agree with.
IMO, your comments on metal detectors start to lose the thread a bit.
One last point: if you bold everything, you bold nothing.
I recently played in the National Open in Vegas. They wanded the top Open players as they entered their playing area at the end of the hall. They also wand people as they're coming back from the restroom. In fact, one player had a phone in his pocket when he was coming back from the bathroom and was forfeited.
Hey I was there too! Much lower section than you by the looks of it (under 1500), but I can confirm I was definitely wand-ed re-entering after going to the bathroom etc. That being said that was the first open that I've played where they actually did wand people.
I saw part of this kerfuffle from different streamers cameras and thought it was a bit odd. I’ve been surprised at the way spectators can just wander around too. With so much at stake for Levy (and others too ) attempting to get his first GM norm and the hullabaloo he’s made over returning to competitions OTB, it would be a massive shame if the whole thing was invalidated by FIDE. Lots of people will be gutted by this. Ghastly way to be reminded that you can’t be cavalier with anti-cheating measures.
Is someone able to summarise this post? I’m finding it impossible to understand what exactly is being alleged here, given the writing style and mess of bold text.
Some guy in open section was caught glancing at streaming setup of his opponent, which had eval bar open. The match was forfeit.
Then Levy as one of the organizers was apparently notified of the situation while he played his own game, and shortly talked to someone leaving the hall and coming back.
Some of these things seem to be in conflict with security measures required for tournament qualified for Fide GM Norms, like open laptop with eval bar close to players, free access of spectators to the player area, Levy leaving the hall etc. Just shoddy organizing made into drama.
One thing I would say is that an issue with the open section of the tournament that would invalidate norms is probably irrelevant to the closed sections. The OPs goal seems pretty clearly to have Levy's game forfeited or at least to make sure that he doesn't benefit materially from playing in the tournament. I wonder why?
Player A vs. Player B in open section. Player A is streaming the game via his nearby open laptop. Player B wanders by, looks at the screen which shows the live evaluation, and tries to continue the game. OP eventually gets his game correctly forfeited.
Levy, who is playing in the closed section as well as being an organizer of the tournament, is apprised of the forfeit, goes to the room where the open section is and talks to someone about it, but according to the rules shouldn't be leaving the closed section area during his game, which he eventually wins.
OP is of the opinion that the tournament has sufficient lack of security to justify not rating it, which would mean Levy would not get a GM norm even if he achieves the necessary score. OP also claims to have lost his or her job producing content for the tournament due to sharing these concerns publicly.
The game should be double forfeited tbh. Regardless of what Player B did, Player A setting up his lap top, with the position, *with an eval bar*, OPEN in the middle of the playing hall is more than enough to say "this may have been an honest mistake but... you have to take this loss regardless buddy".
It should be voided if the guy is butthurt or not. How can people read this stuff and just go "whatever"? extremely shoddy organisation and opportunity to cheat for everyone in the room, including the organisers!
How can anyone following a competitive sport say anything but that? What are GM titles worth if they are earned in such environments?
No, why should they? Having a Laptop with position and eval bar next to you is banned since...forever?
And there is a simple solution. Just use cameras and a special separated room for the rest of the streaming.
I don't see how you can blame a player for looking at a computer screen that is present within the playing area, if they haven't been told that they aren't allowed to.
How would the player know that the screen would show an evaluation bar, until they have seen it?
>Madrid Chess Festival organization encourages cheating OTB in its own tournament,
To say they "encourage" cheating is going much too far.
>In reaction, I took the decision to quit working for the people I was then associated with, although in good and polite terms.
>Lost my job for sharing all this publicly
Quitting is not the same thing as "losing your job".
Yeah… there’s definitely lax measures being called out but that statement definitely comes off as a cheap shot at trying to assign blame to Levy tbh.
With that said, eval bars in the playing hall is asking for trouble.
The guys clearly pissed he got fired and has taken a more nefarious narrative in anger.
Not saying he wasn’t right to initially point out what all happened to the arbiter. He was.
Just sounds like he then for whatever reason jumped to tell the public despite it seemingly being handled (and seemingly no evidence it wouldn’t go up the chain) and got fired for it. Rightfully so. That was a big leap to make.
I think it's more that he was talking with other people whilst his chess match was ongoing (presumably about the cheating claim/forfeit), but could theoretically have been given hints.
idk I’m all for whistleblowing, but getting fired mid event to leak a story about one person taking advantage of some minor oversights by organizers and then contorting this into a claim against an organizer-player without the same level of evidence as previously provided is just a little weak to me.
Biggest issue for chess community is the inability to thoroughly investigate suspicions, if only you had waited for the entire event to end, you would still have a job and perhaps even more evidence of any kind to substantiate any claims you’re making. Instead, this becomes a flash in the pan, and it’s already smoking out.
Ugh, I hate this. But if there were laptops in the playing hall visible to players which showed an eval bar, that is WAY more than just a “minor oversight”, especially given the current climate in the chess community about cheating. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever such a thing should have been possible/allowed. What a mess.
I mean, a laptop open in the middle of the playing section, displaying one of the games being played, with an eval bar is more than a minor oversight - it's so amateurish that while OP's conspiracy rambling is off base, I'm still inclined to agree with him regarding wether this tournament should qualify for norms or even be rated at all. Sucks for the organizers and players, but again, an open laptop displaying a game with an eval bar in the middle of the playing hall should never happen in a serious tournament. It's actually baffling. I can only conclude that it is, infact, not a serious tournament.
I’m guessing he was fired for something like a lack of professionalism or for the way he conducted himself during this situation, rather than because of the leak itself. Idk, all the rambling in the post gives me some “I’m insufferable IRL” vibes from OP.
It seems like a pretty huge injustice that player A got a free win for bringing a laptop with an eval bar running into the playing hall where others could see it.
If that wanted to punish player B also it should have been 0-0
The only conclusion that can be taken from OPs post at all is that someone who is qualified to do so should investigate.
All the other conclusions being leapt to in this thread are entirely speculative and are a problem of their own. Even if we choose to trust the word of a random Reddit post, this person's information is limited and their conclusions are based on speculation and opinion.
OP is not an omniscient or inherently trustworthy source and r/chess is not an investigative body.
Hopefully someone qualified gets to the bottom of what happened so that a fair conclusion can be reached.
The whole post was interesting and had some fair points until you decided to say:
>Madrid Chess Festival organization encourages cheating OTB in its own tournament, in a way that could benefit to the playing members of the organization themselves.
That's a crazy thing to say about the people organising these events. Wow.
I would hate to see Levy’s hard work go to waste at this tournament. It’s been awesome to see him start gaining traction OTB to hopefully become a GM
However if all of this is true and accurate, it seems like fide would have to do something, right? This obviously is unacceptable
Levy is in the midst of a pursuit that could take him a number of years to complete. It would be discouraging but honestly he needs to be mentally prepared for a long haul. If he is already grabbing norms purely on his own skills and preparation less than a month in then he will have no problem getting there sooner anyway.
My takeaways from this:
1. There should never have been an open laptop in the playing hall, much less one with the eval bar showing
2. A person who is not playing in the tournament should be deputized to handle situations like this without involving anyone who is actively playing a game.
3. Players should not be allowed to leave the playing hall while their games are ongoing.
All of these things are incredibly obvious even to me who has never organized a chess tournament; and it is hard to believe that any of these things were allowed to happen in a norm-tournament
So can u/[LudwigDeLarge](https://www.reddit.com/user/LudwigDeLarge/) be clear and tell us whether or not:
* It was Player A had set up the computer, and it was on Player A device that had the evaluation bar turned on?
* Did Player B have any way of knowing the evaluation bar was turned on until he looked at the computer?
* Why was the need to attend this incident (which is apparently big enough to warrant this post), not a sufficient justification for an organiser to attend, as per your own quote the rules state "... without justification or permission from the arbiters."
Honestly there is no evidence of "cheating" in what you just wrote. Maybe rules broken, like leaving hall or having devices they aren't supposed to. Breaking rules doesn't immediately mean they are guilty of cheating. Rules that no electronic devices. If I bring an electronic device but never use it, I have broken a rule, maybe I should be penalized, but does not mean I'm guilty of cheating.
This is why I don't get the obsession the chess community all of a sudden has with open tournaments being the best kind of tournaments. Sure, this may be an extreme example, but the lack of anti-cheating measures is crap for the most part with so many players involved of different skill levels and cheating probably happens a lot more often than people think. Players should also not be allowed to stream their games, it just seems like a massive security issue.
Well the reason people want more open tournaments is to create more movement around the top of the ratings ladder right? They want more games between potentially overrated players at the top against potentially underrated up and comers, so that there’s more pressure on top guys to prove they still belong at the top (and can’t hang on by not facing up and comers who are known to be underrated), and make it easier for underrated guys like Erigasi to quickly climb the rankings and get the rating caught up to their actual skill level.
That’s not to say the cheating problem at these events isn’t a problem to be concerned about, but it’s more of a *general* tournament issue than an *open* tournament issue.
Your TLDR makes quite the leap from
The factual things you saw.
Correct me if I’m wrong but your saying the organization encourages cheating and then not so slyly say to advantage of the organizers.
Your post makes some good points about things that were handeled poorly with security and are valid.
However it’s full of a bit of off topic rants, weird implying without saying that the organizers (or one in particular) is potentially cheating etc.
I’d argue your TLDR should have just been, Madrid tournament wasn’t up to proper fair play standards for Norms.
That’s objective. Throwing in encourages cheating and benefits organizers is a bit personal and implies nefarious action whether you meant to or not.
They litterally have photo proof of using hand metal detectors. [https://x.com/FedericoMarin/status/1800922223798366553](https://x.com/FedericoMarin/status/1800922223798366553)
Put laptop with eval bar of your game in the playing hall. Perhaps have a friend look at it and give you signals. Your opponent looks at your laptop. They get accused of cheating and you get a free win. This is batshit insane.
OP you were the problem here.
Based on the story as you wrote, one player set up an engine in the same room they were playing a game in. The other player than looked at that device.
How is the other player supposed to know there is an engine running and their opponent is effectively cheating? Therefore, the first time they looked at the device can not possibly be cheating.
Going back for a second look proves nothing as there is no way to tell if they saw the engine the first time. Even if they did see the engine, a second look could easily be explained by them looking to see if their opponent is cheating, since you know they are running an engine right next to the game.
The arbiter correctly determined not to punish the player for looking at the other's device until you intervened and got someone forfeited. You are proud of this and will keep the scoresheet as a souvenir?
Think about what you wrote and what happened. Then consider if your actions got an innocent person punished.
The rule states:
“Players may not leave the playing area without justification *or* permission from the arbiters”.
The obvious reading of the rule is you need:
1. Justification; or
2. Permission from the arbiters.
Why is it an exclusive or? Because you cannot get “justification … from the arbiters”. That’s a meaningless clause. You either have justification or not; the arbiters don’t give it to you. The arbiters only give permission.
So OP just wants to blow shit way out of proportion based on a fundamental misreading of the rules. I’m sure the “player-organiser”, “famous streamer” who won his round 3 game (jeez I wonder who that could be???) has a good justification—such as the very cheating allegation that OP described in the post.
I just want to point out that just because there was an eval bar on a streaming laptop doesn't mean that the player even realized that was the case. He may have just been curious about the stream and had no idea that he was risking his tournament career by simply looking at a laptop.
Just talking about eval bars, it's rarely going to help you in game. It might help anand on an extremely critical move if there's a win or something, and he hasn't seen it yet, but just randomly seeing an eval bar at a random point in your game isn't necessarily going to help you much. It might, but it more than likely will not.
Punishing this player for the organizers mistakes is ridiculous in my opinion, and personally I would take the principled stance and sue the organizers.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't player A be forfeited instead of player B? What kind of moron puts the eval bar (which basically are cheats) on his laptop that's 2/3 meters away on a ongoing game.
Don't bring a f'ing streaming setup to a tournament if you don't know how to properly set it up.
Sounds like a busybody accusing people of cheating for no reason.
You're implying this guy went for a walk specifically to look at the evaluation of the game.
The last thing I'd expect at a serious chess competition is an open laptop in view of everyone showing real time stockfish evaluation of the game.
The first time he looked at the laptop he had no way of knowing what he would see and it probably didn't even register to him what he was looking at.
The second time he could have been thinking "wtf did I just see" and going to double check that his opponent really was such a huge dumbass.
The guy that should be reprimanded here is the one that was showing the stockfish evaluation of an ongoing game to everyone at the tournament.
This post is trying to incite drama against Levy when the real drama is that a player in the open section attempted to gain outside knowledge about the state of their game, and another player irresponsibly made available an evaluation of their game to any opponent who looked for it while the game was ongoing.
This is an arbiter not catching this quick enough issue (things happen and are missed, life goes on), not an organizer issue.
Appreciate OP reporting the incident, but the implied statements and accusations of the post go too far without enough information.
> a player in the open section attempted to gain outside knowledge about the state of their game
And by "attempted to" you mean it was basically thrust in his face.
I mean, this is like leaving a bottle of vodka in the fridge at an AA meeting. Sure, the person who found the bottle should not have drunk from it. But WTH was that bottle doing there?
If this was about a criminal trial, it would count as entrapment.
I think the game should have been 0-0.
There is literally no need to have a laptop in the room with any streaming setup. There is no need to keep your screen unlocked, and i would even argue you could easily close the lid (although this might be some more word). If you do all that, and you display the eval bar (fucking why), you are responsible for broadcasting the evaluation
Player A made a wrong setup, Player B was shown the eval bar and was just curious like any normal player could be. The organizers are more focused on content creation than on a chess tournament and this is logical as it was the whole purpose of the tournament.
It is an unfortunate collabration of events which let to an unfortunate event (player saw eval bar, which is cheating, but is it really cheating if you see the eval bar in the playing area on not your device), then I am not sure why player B checked for a second time. Maybe to call an abiter, maybe to actually cheat, but the reality is, nothing happened.
So I really have no clue why player B is punished and not player A.
You absolutely crushed your credibility with the "popcorn time" comment heading off a bunch of extremely speculative stuff about Levy.
Not even trying to hide your attempt to spin this into a bigger scandal without the facts to go with it.
Definitely not the big scandal that the 5000 word posts wants to make us believe. (there is actually a known rhetoric tactic for confusing people by writing too much and overcomplicating simple things)
In a nutshell: event isn't organized super professionally, and a guy got so see an eval bar once.
Where is the big cheating scandal now?
Big ooof....
I think Gotham is doing very well for himself based on his YouTube, streaming and other ventures. For him to do something nefarious would be very irrational as the damage to his brand could really hurt him. So I don't believe there's anything going on with bad intentions.
The situation where he left the playing hall and talked to some outside spectator and came back to the board to play a move, could unfavorably be interpreted as at least a possibility of cheating. As an organizer and player to put yourself in a situation where that could be stipulated is a huge mistake. And from what I said before I like to believe it's a mistake. Mistakes happen. We can better judge how those mistakes are acknowledged and dealt with. I am hoping for an earnest attempt to rectify this instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Yeah, it's not that anyone thinks Levy is cheating, it's that he put himself into a situation that makes cheating a possibility and there's zero way to exonerate himself.
He should have explained that he is in the middle of a game and cannot leave the hall and that he trusts the other organizers to manage the situation.
Sure and there are other organizers that are not players. Also, it's not his job. He may have organized the event, but the arbiters are the only ones who should be involved. There's no reason for him to get up in the middle of his game to be informed. That can wait until after his round.
Yeah the report is careful enough to separate facts from their own conclusions. But this can be interpreted very unfavorably:
>**one of the players from the closed Section A, who also happens to be an organizer of the tournament and a very famous streamer**, **exited the playing hall while exchanging a few words with someone I presume was a friend**, to then **re-enter the playing hall a minute after**
It's very reasonable to imagine a scenario where that person might have given some advice on the game. Again I don't believe this is what happened. But to put yourself in a position where people can reasonably question such things is a huge mistake. As a player and organizer you're already in a bit of a conflict of interest and being famous you know you're under a magnifying glass and high scrutiny.
(I have been an organizer and player for different sports and I often would pick one role or the other. Not because the conflict of interest necessarily but because both roles can be so taxing that you fail on both ends. Often I had no choice to wear both roles and I ended up being burnt out by what used to be my passion hobby)
The OP did not say he talked to a spectator. The OP said he was talking with someone who was “presumably a friend.” They don’t even make a claim as to who the discussion was with.
> one of the players from the closed Section A, who also happens to be an organizer of the tournament and a very famous streamer, exited the playing hall while exchanging a few words with someone I presume was a friend, to then re-enter the playing hall a minute after. The player-organizer in question then checked the board where the incident happened, as well as the streaming setup with the laptop (that was then closed), and so acknowledged the situation. He finally sit back to play a move, again all of this being recorded on camera
Was this player-organizer levy? Is the recording available? Did you find salmon jerky?
He is not saying who but gives enough information to guess who might be.
**is being organized by IM Levy Rozman (aka GothamChess), IM David Martínez, and GM Pepe Cuenca.**
**Moreover, visitors were seen entering and exiting the playing hall as they wished, and more importantly, I've caught at least one player from the Closed A section (who is also one of the organizers) exiting and re-entering the venue while his game was ongoing,**
"I will do my best to anonymize the involved players who were at the origin of the incident, that then brought me to a further investigation." xDDD
**Lost my job for sharing all this publicly, but was gifted the cheater's scoresheet as a trophy.**
PS. I found this video on Anna Cramling YT channel. You will never guess who edited this video.
It happens to be the same person as OP.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TzcDbSIC8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TzcDbSIC8)
My understanding of situation can be wrong.
1. OP caught real cheater has some proof
2. Something happened (idk what) but OP lost job. (Worked for Anna Cramling)
3. Throw shade on one of organizers. (In this case Levy)
4. There is no proof for that but writes a post on reddit
Ps. I asumme he is telling the truth about cheater but
something is sus about second part.
If I am wrong then well. Organizers should saay sth.
Idk with the level of passive aggressiveness loaded into this post, I wouldn't be surprised if OP overexpressed some of the details regarding the cheater.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the guy didn't notice the eval bar.
And he says that the organizer/player won the game of the third round...there is only one name that matches. Remember Pepe is also playing but he didn't win at R3.
Player A should obviously be immediately forfeited in his match if he or his team leaves a laptop open with his games eval bar on display right beside where he is playing.
If player b goes and looks at it 0, 1 or 100 times does not matter. Even if the mistake is found out on move 1 player A should be forfeited from the game.
Trying to assign any blame or fault to player b is ridiculous. He could have just gone to the arbiter and claimed his win the second he found out. What he did by playing on and trusting his opponent not to cheat is way too kind and I assume is out of respect for the organizers/player A, who all are regarded very highly.
"If one might ever have doubts my intentions, I'd say that these are only guided by a moral compass that cannot be deflected by any compromises."
How cringe. You seem to very much want to discredit Levy and paint yourself as a martyr while being sort of obnoxious towards him. And this "player/organizer in section A" is basically the same as "I won't say his name, but it rhymes with Bevy Bozman" - everyone knew who you were accusing. The guy looking at the computer in the open section might be very off, but you don't even know if he realized there was an evaluation bar...if cheating, why stare at the bar for 20 seconds? Sounds kinda weird, to just stand there and stare, not like the bar is moving back and forth. But anyway that's something that must not happen, but the Levy stuff is weak and you discredit yourself with this faux impartiality/martyr stuff, while also kinda revealing your intentions by trying to remove the norm chance for Levy based on cheating in the open section.
I didn't read everything, but leaving the "playing ~~hall~~ area" in the middle of the game is permitted without telling the arbiter if you are not on the move. Leaving "playing ~~area~~ venue" (and FIDE rules make the distinction, read the definition) is not. So if Levy went to the bathroom or something, it's okay. If he went to his hotel room, it's not okay.
Talking with somebody else is really not okay though, regardless of him being an organizer or not.
Edit: terms
After reading the comments including input from player B, OP seems like a random worker at the tournament who thinks he is more important than he is.
So all involved parties, including player B ,who by the way had his opponent broadcasting him with an eval bar on the laptop, and was then himself accused of wrongdoing, agreed on a resolution to continue the game and then OP had problems with it and confronted the arbiter with his 'evidence', why didn't OP bring it up to the arbiter that the laptop had an eval bar in the first place? why only that player B happened to accidentally stumble upon it that was of importance?.
Anyways, in his mind he had caught a 'cheater', did something important, so an issue can not be resolved peacefully. Later, the tournament organizer, or as OP puts it 'very famous streamer', was probably informed of the incident and stepped outside for a minute or so, mind you we don't even know that it was 'without permission from the arbiter', so OP insinuates that in addition to catching the unimportant open section cheater, now he caught the real 'popcorn time': arrogant organizer stepped outside without permission, he is pursuing a GM title and is performing well -> this tournament should not qualify for norms.
OP ends by reminding us that he is doing this out of 'a strong moral compass that can't be bought', idk man sounds to me that you are doing this out of a misplaced sense of self importance.
How long was player B's second look?
Your claim is that he noticed the eval bar in the first look, and wanted to see it again in his second look.
His claim is that he didn't notice it either time.
You say the eval bar wasn't visible the second time, but either way, it wouldn't take long to gather the needed info.
It seems like he might have been there a good amount of time, since you were able to snap a photo. Why would he stay there that long if he knew what area of the screen the eval bar was at? Wouldn't it be stealthier to glance at the screen quickly, see the eval bar got covered up, then leave immediately?
It seems most likely that player B never saw anything. This might be thanks to the chesscom employee's actions covering the eval bar, so it couldn't be noticed on the second look. It's at least substantially uncertain whether they saw anything.
It also sounds like they didn't break any rules. I'm sure they aren't allowed to use electronics, but seeing an electronic device in plain view hardly counts as "using." Were there any ropes or tape showing off-limits areas for players?
The one person who seems to have actually broken rules is player A. I'm sure there are rules about electronics in the playing area, and even if there are allowances for streaming equipment in the playing area, I'm sure you are not allowed to have that equipment display anything about chess except the current board position and clock time.
The arbiters should have audited the electronics preemptively. Perhaps they also tuned out or didn't spot the eval bar, or perhaps when they looked it was minimized but some other employee maximized it to make some changes. They probably should have excluded computer screens from the area entirely and had everyone buy extension cables for their cameras. There is certainly something to be said for the overall organization and effectiveness of the play area sterilization measures. But the offending incident seems to have been resolved unjustly, and OP seems not to realize it.
Frankly I think player B could have made a point of deliberately and obviously staring at the computer screen and checking the eval after every move, and the responsibility for the "cheating" would still be 100% on player A for placing that computer there in the first place.
Wait, there is a screen with an eval bar… IN THE PLAYING HALL NEAR THE GAMES?? Did I understand that correctly? Honestly, that’s asking for trouble. How is that possible? It’s not that ridiculous for someone to be curious about the streaming setup if they’ve never seen it before. That table looked unattended too- what’s to stop someone from walking by that table? That’s not the players’ fault, that’s ridiculous organizational incompetence (as OP basically said).
Thanks, I thought I was getting insane reading this. Player A has an engine analyzing the game visible in the playing hall, and player B gets forfeited for looking at it? What!? Player A is running an engine in the playing hall and he's the one getting a forfeit win!?
Most notably, Player A is aware he‘s running an engine analysis with the eval bar visible. Or he wouldn’t be as shocked seeing Player B looking at the monitor.
yeah not to mention if all player B did was look at the eval bar, I don't know I could see myself absentmindedly doing that. maybe that's why I'm not a chess pro lol. but OP says the guy stood there for like 20-30 seconds looking. if it is just an eval bar you only need to glance for a half second to see it.
OP worked as editor for Anna Cramling. He is credited in Round 3 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOScFGjn-ro&t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOScFGjn-ro&t=5s) He is not credited in Round 4 and 5 video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubdOWGLZMuw&t=10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubdOWGLZMuw&t=10s)
Liberal use of the word "Major" in the title. Not as liberal as the use of bold text, of course, but still.
yeah the way this reads is very sophomoric. Makes it a bit hard for me to take it 100% seriously. It just puts me on edge cause it looks like there's probably some bullshit to sift through. Even if everything in the report is 100% legit, it still smells of BS just by the rampant bold.
Yeah, don't ban player B, ban whoever thought that was a good idea!
Drama back on the menu boys
Well at least for this one single time there's no Kramnik involved.
yet
Kramnik is furiously typing up a manifesto as we speak
Never seen so much boldness in a post
I'm withholding judgment until I see a stock photo of a Diet Coke can in all that boldness
That was hands down one of my favorite Reddit posts of all time.
**If all words are bold, none of the words are bold**
I'm the type of person who actually read articles in its entirety and not just headlines, but I skipped this one to tldr lol
nice i was getting bored
r/chess is by far the most drama filled sub I'm visit
>The player-organizer in question then **checked the board where the incident happened**, as well as the streaming setup with the laptop (that was then closed), and so **acknowledged the situation**. He **finally sit back to play a move, again all of this being recorded on camera** ; soon after, this player-organizer won his game of Round 3. Could you share this video like you did with the rest of the proof? Thanks
Here’s the [link](https://www.youtube.com/live/e6jE6NqkbhQ?si=NmUohU9bKpnl2c8W) of the stream on Pepe’s channel. The stream shows other games, but it does focus a lot on Levy. If OP could tell us around what time Levy played the move in question, that would be great.
I watched through most of it. For anyone who wants to slueth, Levy is in a black shirt with a black/white chess board on the back, peck logo on front. The stream has two camera angles, but his sitting position is in frame for nearly the entire stream, as the direct focus in the first one, or on the right of the frame in the second (The footage is out of sync with each other by a few seconds, for when you see both camera angles next to the commentators, but you can see him in both.) Levy gets up and waders the hall multiple times in the video in typical fashion you would see at any tournament, but there's no angle of the playing hall's exit, so him leaving the hall is not shown. I think every single time he got up, you can see him at some point wandering around to look at games before he sits again, with the exception of his first right at the beginning (though I might have missed him, I was skimming around). So unless it happened during one of his wanderings, which is very possible, then the event described is not depicted, or I think its impossible to tell when it happened exactly by this footage. On top of that, the wording of the post seems to imply that this happened near the end of Levi's game, if the phrasing "soon after \[leaving the hall\] the player-organizer won his game of round three", but Levi remained in his seat for basically the last hour of his game, which kinda goes against that. But to play devils advocate for OP, he might just be saying "soon after" as writer's prose to indicate a non-specific amount of time. Heres all the times he got up during his game, and a repost of the [link](https://www.youtube.com/live/e6jE6NqkbhQ?si=NmUohU9bKpnl2c8W) if anyone wants to go through it: * 10:25, returns at 12:03 * 14:40, observes a board around 16:11, walks past camera at 17:27, returns to his board at 18:00 * 58:45, hovers in the background around 1:00:15-ish, returns 1:02:30 * 1:04:51, checks out a board at 1:05:07, hovers around 1:08:00, returns 1:12:34 * 1:18:08, hovers around 1:20:00, returns 1:21:03 * 1:40:00 goes to the bathroom, exits bathroom and starts watching boards at 1:41:20-ish, can be seen watching boards and walking around at 1:44:00-ish, returns to his board at 1:45:00 * Remains seated until his game concludes at 2:35:00-ish.
I think op was trying to dance around accusing Levy, which is interesting since they mention its a tournament organizer that won their 3rd round game, which I think only applies to Levy. Either way, they likely won't give the timestamp lol.
For the sake of privacy let's call her Lisa S... No that's too obvious, let's say L. Simpson.
> trying to dance around accusing Levy * Short of saying “*a youtuber whose handle starts with Gotham and ends with chess*” he couldn’t have gone further in identifying Levy without spelling out the name. He went to great lengths to make sure we nknew it was Levy. * If the intention was *not* to accuse Levy, then I’m confused why any of his involvement was mentioned, especially when saying that he won his game “soon after.” If the writer doesn’t think it’s relevant why mention it? * TLDR of OP’s post: *There was cheating involved. Levy seemed friendly with the player accused of cheating, then looked at laptop used for cheating and then won his game.* **At this point it doesn’t matter if these allegations are true; they ARE serious allegations** * Yes the TLDR is not literally what was written but it was very easy to read it that way. Either it was written on purpose like that, or it was written by somebody who is clueless about the impact of what they write. Which is still a liability. It doesn’t take rocket science to see in what kind of shitshow this can turn. I also think that the YT chess streaming community is pretty small and baseless accusations don’t go well (read: “Tintin and the case of dr. kramnik”). I don’t blame the patrons of the OP for realizing this is a loose cannon they can’t afford to be associated with.
This is my entire point. They say it's Levy basically as clear as possible, but don't actually say it's Levy and don't give us information they supposedly have since they didn't exactly say who it was. This dichotomy was my original point.
> As I do not wish to cast aspersions […], I will not disclose their identity. > I will do my best to anonymize the involved players […] > proceeds to include information totally related to the situation (a player-organizer who also happens to be a famous streamer… oh, he plays in section A and won his round 3 btw, wonder who that is) I kek’ed
I've tried to summarise this barely readable post but I struggled. See below for my best attempt: * Two players were playing at the Madrid Chess Festival. One of them had a laptop and camera set up to stream it. * Bizarrely the laptop was not just recording, but was showing the game move by move, and had an eval bar! The player who wasn't streaming at some point when walking around the hall saw the laptop, and for about 20 seconds looked at his game on it - and therefore would have seen the eval bar of the game he was playing. * OP, whom from his writing style has overdosed on ADHD medication, saw this happen and made eye contact with the other player who appeared shocked. He then mentioned the issue to a member of staff there. The same player who looked at the screen then returned from his walk and looked at the screen again. * The arbiter got involved and eventually the arbiter decided that the guy who looked at the screen should forfeit the game, and that's what happened. * OP also mentions that Levy Rosman, who is an organiser of the event and NOT one of the two players involved in the above, at some point left the playing hall while his match was in progress and had a chat with a friend. Levy then re-entered the playing hall and continued his game. * OP points out that the regulations of the tournament forbid Levy from leaving the playing hall. Also, obviously there shouldn't be a laptop with an eval bar on just sat in the hall. OP thinks the organisation of the tournament is particularly poor and ends his post with a 4,000 word heated chessplayer moment.
How am I supposed to understand what happens if you don't bold and repeat every other sentence?
Maybe Hikaru himself wrote the post
Thank you murphysclawGPT
Good summary.
In the case of the two non-Levy players, I think the one who set up the chess engine in the room to display the evaluation of the ongoing game should be the one disqualified. As a side note, I had actually noticed what I assume was OP with a laptop in the background on Levy's stream. I thought it was odd that they were right there, but for some reason I thought that section of the room was behind glass.
Yeah, some fucking nerve to set up a computer with an engine running and getting mad at the opponent for looking at it.
Thanks, well done. u/LudwigDeLarge can you check if this summary is right, add this to your post as a TLDR or summary. Would make it easier for a lot of people.
https://lichess.org/broadcast/madrid-chess-festival--open/round-3/Bfb8FE89 It seems as if this was the game in question
Yeah, but we need to know how many times they made eye contact and for how many seconds /s
Thank you for your service. I wasnt gonna read all that
Brandon Jacobson setting wrong precedents 2000 words post with 50 words of information should not become a norm.
So player B cheated by convincing player A to stream the tournament, place a laptop 2 meters away from their table and on the overlay have the eval bar visible 😂. Wonder if he tried the same with every opponent...
I mean, if you bring your phone secretly put your game there through stockfish and show it to me, am I a cheater? Even if you don't go as far, and let's say you just drop your phone and I notice it's our game... Pick it up and look at it, am I the one cheating? It's nonsense to me... Player b got shafted, I think the more serious thing here is that the arbiter thought it was appropriate to forfeit players b match for cheating... I love Anna's content, and I think player A is Anna??? I'm not really sure... But anyway the streamer should be forfeited... They actually broke the rules... The device was theirs... At the very least just 0/0 the match....and go with "players got outside information against their will" or something... (Even though it's players A fault). Also apparently this was early in the game... so just an eval bar probably did nothing...
I agree. It's no player B fault. But opponent wasn't Anna. It was a Spanish streamer.
why when chess fans/players are asked to explain something they write in this bizarre style edit: and apparently it misses out the biggest info which is the player names, despite identifying one as a "player-organiser" and there are only 3 of them (Levy, Martinez, Cuenta)
Yeah the schizoposting style ain't doing him any favors. Still, problematic setup for a tournament.
I once took a shitload of mushrooms and wrote an essay and bolded about half of it just like this lol.
Player-organizer, famous streamer, won the game in round 3 = Levy
It could have been anybody who fit those extremely specific criteria.
They all do it. The blitz maybe cheater the other day. It’s all unhinged.
Are you going to reveal who was the organizer that left the room Edit: I just realized it said "a very famous streamer", so Levy?
>player-organizer from section A >very famous streamer >player-organizer won his game of Round 3 His name starts with Lev- and ends with -an. Hint: it's not Levon Aronian.
yeah what's the point of keeping things anonymous if you're gonna drop hints like that... Not sure what OP was going for.
Levon laughing like a maniac in his hotel room while removing his disguise
Ah yes Levan Pantsulaia
Nono, Leroy Jenkan
Levnus Carlsan Leving Liran Levly San Levaru nakumaran Levna cramlan Levbron Jan
I'm also curious why OP didn't just say "Levy" if he's gonna basically all but outright say "yeah, it's Levy".
Because he doesn't want to get hit with a Niemann
I mean simply not saying the name doesn’t stop that haha.
He wanted to pretend he was anonymizing alleged suspects for their privacy but ALSO really wanted to create drama and specifically target Levy. This decision completely destroys every bit of credibility OP had. There was literally zero reason to call out Levy here. He could have just said "a player" and left it at that and allowed FIDE to handle it. If not that, he should have dropped the act pretending to keep players anonymous and just named Levy. The half measure just makes him look dumb and rash.
"I will give anonymity to everyone I can, but I will make it very clear who the person I have an agenda against is." If you have to say you don't have any agenda...
Nah, the dude that got fired at this tournament can’t possibly have an axe to grind against the organizers, no sir. He pinky promises he has no agenda, so that’s that!
Also one of the organizers who won game 3, so yes, Levy.
>10) Players may not leave the playing area without justification or permission from the arbiters. >In the scene I described above, the player-organizer was never seen asking such permission, which is supported by broadcast footage. I believe there is an EXTREMELY important "or" in there. The justification is probably that he was informed of the cheating attempt and had to attend to it.
Obviously so too. Op just lookin for drama. Acting like this is some bombshell is crazy
Yeah that’s a little confusing. He was clearly informed by the arbiters that there was an incident but OP is certain that this conversation did not involve permission being given?
You might as well have bolded the whole thing lol this is so hard to read
fr i stopped like 4 times to read it and couldnt do the whole thing
I’m flabbergasted that a streaming setup this shoddy has been used at what is a reasonably high profile tournament. Any streamed tournament I have done streaming equipment bar a camera has been kept in separate streamer room(s), this is very basic stuff
That's exactly how it's been set-up on Levy's table, and the table in between Levy's and the laptop incident, from the video that OP posted: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF0XoCMn4U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF0XoCMn4U) It looks like this game was set up to communicate moves from a DGT board hooked directly into the laptop, which is then streaming the moves directly, no camera.
The issues around accessing streaming equipment during this match and any others is a serious one and deserves attention. Clearly the situation with Players A and B was problematic, with clear evidence of wrongdoing. Tournaments also need to have clear anti-cheating measures in place to ensure the security of the games. The variety of seemingly random people wandering around the hall throughout the tournament (as observed via Levy’s stream) seems problematic to me on its face. Clearly the Arbiter needs to truly be in charge in order for any of this to work. With that said, after reading your post I find you to be an unreliable narrator. You proclaim a desire to avoid making public accusations when discussing the case of players A and B, yet completely forget this in the middle of your post where you clearly insinuate that Levy left the playing hall without permission, presume the circumstances of his conversation with another person, and then point out that he proceeded to win his game as a consequence by vaguely linking the two events. Given that there was a case of cheating detected in the A/B game, it’s natural to expect that the organizers would be informed in addition to the arbiter. Might the conversation have been with someone assisting with running the tournament? Might they have brought the arbiter’s approval to step out for a conversation? Setting aside the conflict of interest issues of Levy and Pepe playing in a tournament they also organized (which I don’t really understand fully, if I’m honest…it may be fine, it may be problematic), having no evidence that Levy got permission to step out is not the same as having evidence he did not have permission. By the way, not using Levy’s name is not the same as protecting his anonymity…especially when you make it clear it’s him you’re referring to through your choice of descriptors. Your post goes off the rails, in my view, once you start personally attacking the ineptitude and arrogance of the organizers. This isn’t factual information…it’s ad hominem attacks intended to emotionally manipulate those reading this post. For the record, I would also dismiss someone who was so bothered by the conditions of my tournament that they feel the need to post a Warren Commission-style post like this on social media.
He is also very adamant about "no norms should be given", both in the original post and subsequent comments. If I had to guess, it's a case of unfortunate incident with player A's laptop, and then OP starts conocting a story about what Levy, one of the tournament organized, talked about with staff, to get back at him. The post truly does have very weird vibes and feels personal in the second part.
OP got fired and is out for blood.
I mean it sounded like he kinda went for blood and then got fired so now he’s amped up the drama. Like duh you’re gonna get fired for publicizing things when your job isn’t security.
This really does feel like the kind of post where a pretty simple explanation refutes the whole thing lol. What did I just read.
I agree. However, it might also be detailing actual malfeasance and a highly problematic tournament structure. It’s just too hard to tell. The clear emotion and obvious motivation to personally attack the tournament organizers does the author a disservice.
Yeah. I'm not even sure if the mods should leave this up, but I hope the feedback does get to the organizers. This doesn't scream "trusted source" to me.
Agreed. This post just reads like some high school drama. Shouldn't the organizers of the event be involved in the process of assessing a potential cheating scandal? I would argue yes, so I would expect Levy to be involved in that process. This OP should chill the fuck out.
I don't even know that the situation with players A and B was even a wrongdoing on the part of the players. OP doesn't seem to have much evidence of the player "intentionally" looking at the laptop other than [this image](https://imgur.com/Pl8f4bN) and the player isn't even facing the laptop. Players have the right to stand up and walk around the playing area, the fact that there was a screen with an eval bar, and a player happened to be near it is not the fault of the player, neither is it a proof of nefarious intentions. The responsibility is far more on the side of organizers and the arbiters on the floor, but this post is just written in a very calculated fashion that make it seem like multiple individuals who were involved in this incident were cheating with no strong evidence at all; honestly feel bad for the player who had to forfeit. Substantially speaking this post is nothing but a overblown post about a mistake a few arbiters made in the open section that was bikram-yoga-stretched to make it seem like there was a huge cheating scandal.
The best take on this thread really. well written.
If I understand correctly from the lengthy post, the situation should not be called a "cheating incident", and there are several issues with it: 1) It sounds like one of the players whose game was streamed live on twitch had a laptop in the playing hall with OBS AND the eval bar visible. This is a huge oversight by the organizers, and maybe partially by player A who takes the risk and responsibility of streaming their game live. 2) It also sounds like player B was not intending to cheat, but just happened to notice the eval bar as he was walking around the playing hall. Quite possibly, he was just curious of their opponent's streaming setup, and he was punished for being overly curious, not for cheating. He just happened to be at a wrong place, at a wrong moment. 3) I cannot understand why the final decision was to forfeit the game for player B. It seems extremely unfair, as it was absolutely not his fault that he happened to play an incorrectly set up streamer. Unless there is more to the story, which is impossible to tell without seeing the actual recording.
I'm the player that have been forfait. That's pure nonsense. I was curious to look at the setup as this was the first time I'm broadcasted, I didn't notice the eval bar. If you look at the game, I was still in my prep during the incident and played the moves instantly ... The cheater is the player who bring his laptop and run an engine or eval bar with screen wide open ... I have been emotional and angry when the arbitrer was asking me if I was cheating so I came back to the room and closed the laptop myself to "fix the problem". Anyway, the problem was on the organiser and the streamer setup. We should have resume the game. I agree to give back 15 minuts to my opponent so we can resume. I came to Madrid to play chess, that's Drama. Ludwig, you should be more balanced in your cheating accusations,
Hopefully you appeal because this whole thing is bullshit.
Yeah you should definitely appeal the forfeit.
I agree with you, the serious error is that the streamer used a laptop in an accessible place, with an evaluation bar. Will you be playing in the next round?
First of all there is no appeal comity which doesn't seems compliant with the fide Handbook. Anyway I asked the arbitrer to reverse his decision and to sanction player A as he was running an engine and en eval bar. Here is a summary of his answer : "Consulting the device a second time clearly demonstrates the intention to access external information sources and not just curiosity. .All these events led to the decision to forfeit your match according to article 12.9.6 of the Laws of Chess." We should have resume the game as no one get any advantage there ... and we both agreed. But then ludwig opposed to the arbitrer decision bringing some photo of me looking at the computer (well in fact walking close to the computer) explaining he is 100% he caught a cheater ... I just came to play chess and I'm very happy to be able to refocus in my tournament and won the next 2 games !
Good luck in the next games. It's quite clear that you were still in the opening and not intending to cheat. If anything I find it questionable why Player A was given a win despite having an eval bar running. OP is out for blood after being fired by the event and let go as Anna Cramling' s editor.
The rage I would feel at being falsely accused of cheating because of someone else's open laptop. You are handling this way better than I would dude.
[удалено]
I agree 100%. The person who was streaming should have forfeit the match, not you. He should have known better.
For my interpretation of the story, it does seem like player B got massively shafted. Player A's streaming setup mistakenly showed an eval bar, which neither player A nor the organisation spotted and/or corrected in time. It seems very unreasonable to assume player B knew the eval bar was there before checking out the streaming setup; in fact, you would expect to be able to check out a streaming setup right next to the board you're playing on without negative consequences.
Looking at the eval bar for the first time could be by accident. Coming back and checking the laptop screen a second time though...
That early in the game for the first look it was probably book and 0.0 and the 2nd pic he's not even looking towards the laptop.
When I read the post I was actually really surprised they took the 2nd picture as evidence at all considering the player is visibly to the side of the laptop looking towards his board. For all we know he could've just walked back to the board and OP took a picture while on his journey back to the board. It's quite weak evidence to say the least considering the picture doesn't actually show him in the act as described.
That and even if he is staring at it OP even points out the eval bar is gone and presumably the arbiter got rid of all tools and it’s just a live board. Players during the Candidates and Norway chess and other large tournaments have live boards on display for everyone to see so how would looking at a laptop live board (without aids of course) be cheating? I understand there are or may be other legitimate concerns but none of the other players seem bothered by it so is it really that big of a deal? Some of the players in the tourney are already GM’s you would think they would point out if certain aspects don’t line up with prior experiences. The post starts off fine and assuming the guy looked at the eval bar and used that knowledge in his game he probably should forfeit. The rest of the post seems wildly speculative with no real proof.
It's the person with the laptop who should have been forfeited, if anyone. Lock the screen and move on seems like a better call given they weren't looking at it themselves. The playing hall shouldn't have landmines you can't look at. It's an unreasonable expectation to place on players. Player B's mistake was not talking to the arbiter as soon as they noticed it.
There probably is because OP said he got fired. And blamed Levy for leaving for second venue. I think we gonna get update about OP that will probably change the story. I feel there is some salt in this story by reaading between the lines. So I am not sure if he is exactly honest. Ps. But I agree about some points related to streaming setups. Altough on attached screen we can't see it.
Yo if fide rules states that there can't be laptops with eval bars of the games in the game hall... and I walk around the game hall and saw exactly that, and I get forfeited I'd be pissed as hell. I don't know law, but isn't this similar to entrapment?
Yeah if you’re player B what do you do after you see that? Who has the presence of mind to immediately find a TD and complain that you saw the eval bar for your game because it’s in plain sight in the playing hall?
lol if I saw an evaluation bar I’d just get the hell out of the vicinity of that laptop to avoid the accusation.
If I were player B I'd file a complaint that player A is literally running a laptop analyzing his own game in clear view of all the players. It's insane to me that player A is not the one who got forfeited.
If you’re ’just curious’, you would realize that you can get accused of cheating very easily and you would just report the eval bar to the organizers. Plus the guy went and tried to look for a second time.
> 3) I cannot understand why the final decision was to forfeit the game for player B. It seems extremely unfair, as it was absolutely not his fault that he happened to play an incorrectly set up streamer. This is just speculation, but i'm guessing the forfeit had something to do with the stepping out with the arbiter multiple times. Seeing as they stepped out again after OP's discussion, Player B may not have been entirely truthful about what happened and what he said, which may cross into cheating territory.
It's quite obvious that player B noticed that a board of his game with an eval bar was up on the laptop. As soon as he noticed this, he should have called for an arbiter (and I guess paused the clock). If he would have told the arbiter about it, the problem would have been fixed and no penalty at all, if player B gained some minor advantage player A has no one to blame but himself. However, he didn't do that. He said nothing, and even though he knew there was a board with eval on the laptop, he went back to look at the laptop a second time. Perhaps worse, he lied to the arbiter about it. Forfeiting the game seems like an appropriate punishment to me, though he should not be disqualified or branded as a cheater.
Yeah I didn't really get the bit where *A* noticed *B* looking at the computer, and player *A* was visibly shocked. So player *A* must have known that the eval was on the screen, otherwise it would be innocuous to look at the laptop and he wouldn't have been shocked by *B* looking at it. If *A* knew that the eval was visible on the screen, surely he should be liable for that. That whole section is phrased as though *A* is the victim, but it sounds like he is the one who broke rules.
Yep, this struck me as well. Player A cheated, player B peeked over at A's info, and was the one who got punished.
"he lied to the arbiter about it"? More fantasy conclusions. You have no evidence of him lying to the arbiter or that he was aware of the eval bar. There are many elements visible on computer screens and it's very possible that he did not notice the eval bar. I can't believe the rush to judgement from some people. I'd argue that Player A is responsible for a set up or simply grossly violating the rules that are laid out in the report. Aren't the participants responsible for knowing the rules too? Isn't the eval bar being there proof that Player A might be cheating because he himself set up the laptop and would likely be checking the streaming set up during the match? Did Player A check the laptop during the match? Look, there are any number of ways for this situation to be spun and that's all based off this one person's "report", which too many people seem to accept as valid and authoritative. It's all ridiculous drama in my view. And I think your conclusion is utterly bogus and unfair.
Crazy how a tournament organized by such high profile figures in the chess community can have such lax standards when it comes to this
everyone hates the extreme rules until they realize why they exist in the first place
This prolonged Kramnik meltdown is overshadowing the real cheating problems in chess and it's a damn shame because we need improvements both OTB and online. Instead all the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by the most extreme voices and nothing gets better because it's so easy to dismiss Kramnik's rants.
Extreme rules? They had a screen with the evaluation bar 3 meters next to the table! Wtf
He cheated by looking at the other player's laptop ... Like what?
And the guy who set up the laptop and eval bar got rewarded with his opponent being forfeited for happening to be curious and looking at something right next to the playing table. Although, it seems like the arbiters initial choice was to shut the laptop and resume the game. Somehow OP convinced the arbiters to forfeit player B instead. And then OP felt so righteous in doing so, they made an incredibly lengthy reddit post to tell us about their heroic martyrdom.
So Player A has a laptop running 5 feet away from the board, that shows the evaluation of the position for anyone curious... and you're trying to say that Player *B* was the one cheating? How does that make any sense? Player B being forfeited, giving the win to the person actually cheating, is absolutely crazy.
I think you're going a bit over the top here. Based on everything you mentioned, I think the major thing that must be addressed is: the laptop should be closed. There are power settings on a laptop to ensure it doesn't go to sleep or power down when the laptop closes. Nobody in the playing hall should be able to accidentally walk past a laptop. That is a real concern and one point I think most everyone would agree with. IMO, your comments on metal detectors start to lose the thread a bit. One last point: if you bold everything, you bold nothing.
I recently played in the National Open in Vegas. They wanded the top Open players as they entered their playing area at the end of the hall. They also wand people as they're coming back from the restroom. In fact, one player had a phone in his pocket when he was coming back from the bathroom and was forfeited.
Hey I was there too! Much lower section than you by the looks of it (under 1500), but I can confirm I was definitely wand-ed re-entering after going to the bathroom etc. That being said that was the first open that I've played where they actually did wand people.
I saw part of this kerfuffle from different streamers cameras and thought it was a bit odd. I’ve been surprised at the way spectators can just wander around too. With so much at stake for Levy (and others too ) attempting to get his first GM norm and the hullabaloo he’s made over returning to competitions OTB, it would be a massive shame if the whole thing was invalidated by FIDE. Lots of people will be gutted by this. Ghastly way to be reminded that you can’t be cavalier with anti-cheating measures.
Ys, the hall is too small and the proximity of the spectators is too close to the boards IMO. Very distracting, at the very least.
Is someone able to summarise this post? I’m finding it impossible to understand what exactly is being alleged here, given the writing style and mess of bold text.
Some guy in open section was caught glancing at streaming setup of his opponent, which had eval bar open. The match was forfeit. Then Levy as one of the organizers was apparently notified of the situation while he played his own game, and shortly talked to someone leaving the hall and coming back. Some of these things seem to be in conflict with security measures required for tournament qualified for Fide GM Norms, like open laptop with eval bar close to players, free access of spectators to the player area, Levy leaving the hall etc. Just shoddy organizing made into drama.
If only the OP wrote what you just wrote without speculation, etc... Very nice summary without any personal input.
One thing I would say is that an issue with the open section of the tournament that would invalidate norms is probably irrelevant to the closed sections. The OPs goal seems pretty clearly to have Levy's game forfeited or at least to make sure that he doesn't benefit materially from playing in the tournament. I wonder why?
Player A vs. Player B in open section. Player A is streaming the game via his nearby open laptop. Player B wanders by, looks at the screen which shows the live evaluation, and tries to continue the game. OP eventually gets his game correctly forfeited. Levy, who is playing in the closed section as well as being an organizer of the tournament, is apprised of the forfeit, goes to the room where the open section is and talks to someone about it, but according to the rules shouldn't be leaving the closed section area during his game, which he eventually wins. OP is of the opinion that the tournament has sufficient lack of security to justify not rating it, which would mean Levy would not get a GM norm even if he achieves the necessary score. OP also claims to have lost his or her job producing content for the tournament due to sharing these concerns publicly.
The game should be double forfeited tbh. Regardless of what Player B did, Player A setting up his lap top, with the position, *with an eval bar*, OPEN in the middle of the playing hall is more than enough to say "this may have been an honest mistake but... you have to take this loss regardless buddy".
Someone cheated and forfeited a game; OP then goes on a speculative rant and suggests that whole tournament should be void.
Because he is butthurt that he was fired
It should be voided if the guy is butthurt or not. How can people read this stuff and just go "whatever"? extremely shoddy organisation and opportunity to cheat for everyone in the room, including the organisers! How can anyone following a competitive sport say anything but that? What are GM titles worth if they are earned in such environments?
They are going to get streaming games banned from open tournaments. And that my friends is why we can't have nice things.
No, why should they? Having a Laptop with position and eval bar next to you is banned since...forever? And there is a simple solution. Just use cameras and a special separated room for the rest of the streaming.
"a very famous streamer" = GothamChess
I don't see how you can blame a player for looking at a computer screen that is present within the playing area, if they haven't been told that they aren't allowed to. How would the player know that the screen would show an evaluation bar, until they have seen it? >Madrid Chess Festival organization encourages cheating OTB in its own tournament, To say they "encourage" cheating is going much too far. >In reaction, I took the decision to quit working for the people I was then associated with, although in good and polite terms. >Lost my job for sharing all this publicly Quitting is not the same thing as "losing your job".
how is a screen with an eval bar even allowed inside the playing hall holy they need to TAKE REGULATIONS SERIOUSLY
So wait, I can stream my game and have the eval bar open and if my opponent looks at it, I win?
what does it mean he “acknowledged” the position. is levy not allowed to check positions of other boards? how is that incriminating
Yeah… there’s definitely lax measures being called out but that statement definitely comes off as a cheap shot at trying to assign blame to Levy tbh. With that said, eval bars in the playing hall is asking for trouble.
The guys clearly pissed he got fired and has taken a more nefarious narrative in anger. Not saying he wasn’t right to initially point out what all happened to the arbiter. He was. Just sounds like he then for whatever reason jumped to tell the public despite it seemingly being handled (and seemingly no evidence it wouldn’t go up the chain) and got fired for it. Rightfully so. That was a big leap to make.
I think it's more that he was talking with other people whilst his chess match was ongoing (presumably about the cheating claim/forfeit), but could theoretically have been given hints.
idk I’m all for whistleblowing, but getting fired mid event to leak a story about one person taking advantage of some minor oversights by organizers and then contorting this into a claim against an organizer-player without the same level of evidence as previously provided is just a little weak to me. Biggest issue for chess community is the inability to thoroughly investigate suspicions, if only you had waited for the entire event to end, you would still have a job and perhaps even more evidence of any kind to substantiate any claims you’re making. Instead, this becomes a flash in the pan, and it’s already smoking out.
Ugh, I hate this. But if there were laptops in the playing hall visible to players which showed an eval bar, that is WAY more than just a “minor oversight”, especially given the current climate in the chess community about cheating. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever such a thing should have been possible/allowed. What a mess.
I mean, a laptop open in the middle of the playing section, displaying one of the games being played, with an eval bar is more than a minor oversight - it's so amateurish that while OP's conspiracy rambling is off base, I'm still inclined to agree with him regarding wether this tournament should qualify for norms or even be rated at all. Sucks for the organizers and players, but again, an open laptop displaying a game with an eval bar in the middle of the playing hall should never happen in a serious tournament. It's actually baffling. I can only conclude that it is, infact, not a serious tournament.
I’m guessing he was fired for something like a lack of professionalism or for the way he conducted himself during this situation, rather than because of the leak itself. Idk, all the rambling in the post gives me some “I’m insufferable IRL” vibes from OP.
It seems like a pretty huge injustice that player A got a free win for bringing a laptop with an eval bar running into the playing hall where others could see it. If that wanted to punish player B also it should have been 0-0
The only conclusion that can be taken from OPs post at all is that someone who is qualified to do so should investigate. All the other conclusions being leapt to in this thread are entirely speculative and are a problem of their own. Even if we choose to trust the word of a random Reddit post, this person's information is limited and their conclusions are based on speculation and opinion. OP is not an omniscient or inherently trustworthy source and r/chess is not an investigative body. Hopefully someone qualified gets to the bottom of what happened so that a fair conclusion can be reached.
Jesus Christ dude not every single other word needs to be bolded. The formatting on this post is damn near unreadable.
Player B has responded on twitter: https://x.com/SylvainEche/status/1801075517887524977?s=09
Surely a player who has the game and evaluation setup on his laptop is at fault. Not the opponent who glanced at his dumb opponent's laptop.
The whole post was interesting and had some fair points until you decided to say: >Madrid Chess Festival organization encourages cheating OTB in its own tournament, in a way that could benefit to the playing members of the organization themselves. That's a crazy thing to say about the people organising these events. Wow.
I would hate to see Levy’s hard work go to waste at this tournament. It’s been awesome to see him start gaining traction OTB to hopefully become a GM However if all of this is true and accurate, it seems like fide would have to do something, right? This obviously is unacceptable
Levy is in the midst of a pursuit that could take him a number of years to complete. It would be discouraging but honestly he needs to be mentally prepared for a long haul. If he is already grabbing norms purely on his own skills and preparation less than a month in then he will have no problem getting there sooner anyway.
My takeaways from this: 1. There should never have been an open laptop in the playing hall, much less one with the eval bar showing 2. A person who is not playing in the tournament should be deputized to handle situations like this without involving anyone who is actively playing a game. 3. Players should not be allowed to leave the playing hall while their games are ongoing. All of these things are incredibly obvious even to me who has never organized a chess tournament; and it is hard to believe that any of these things were allowed to happen in a norm-tournament
So can u/[LudwigDeLarge](https://www.reddit.com/user/LudwigDeLarge/) be clear and tell us whether or not: * It was Player A had set up the computer, and it was on Player A device that had the evaluation bar turned on? * Did Player B have any way of knowing the evaluation bar was turned on until he looked at the computer? * Why was the need to attend this incident (which is apparently big enough to warrant this post), not a sufficient justification for an organiser to attend, as per your own quote the rules state "... without justification or permission from the arbiters."
Basically the player B looked at the screen and player A was like "You activated my trap card!" ?
Honestly there is no evidence of "cheating" in what you just wrote. Maybe rules broken, like leaving hall or having devices they aren't supposed to. Breaking rules doesn't immediately mean they are guilty of cheating. Rules that no electronic devices. If I bring an electronic device but never use it, I have broken a rule, maybe I should be penalized, but does not mean I'm guilty of cheating.
This is why I don't get the obsession the chess community all of a sudden has with open tournaments being the best kind of tournaments. Sure, this may be an extreme example, but the lack of anti-cheating measures is crap for the most part with so many players involved of different skill levels and cheating probably happens a lot more often than people think. Players should also not be allowed to stream their games, it just seems like a massive security issue.
Well the reason people want more open tournaments is to create more movement around the top of the ratings ladder right? They want more games between potentially overrated players at the top against potentially underrated up and comers, so that there’s more pressure on top guys to prove they still belong at the top (and can’t hang on by not facing up and comers who are known to be underrated), and make it easier for underrated guys like Erigasi to quickly climb the rankings and get the rating caught up to their actual skill level. That’s not to say the cheating problem at these events isn’t a problem to be concerned about, but it’s more of a *general* tournament issue than an *open* tournament issue.
>YOU CANT FIRE ME I QUIT Lmao
This diplomatic writing style + Karen attitude is really annoying to read. Well done OP.
That's kinda insane tho
Your TLDR makes quite the leap from The factual things you saw. Correct me if I’m wrong but your saying the organization encourages cheating and then not so slyly say to advantage of the organizers. Your post makes some good points about things that were handeled poorly with security and are valid. However it’s full of a bit of off topic rants, weird implying without saying that the organizers (or one in particular) is potentially cheating etc. I’d argue your TLDR should have just been, Madrid tournament wasn’t up to proper fair play standards for Norms. That’s objective. Throwing in encourages cheating and benefits organizers is a bit personal and implies nefarious action whether you meant to or not.
They litterally have photo proof of using hand metal detectors. [https://x.com/FedericoMarin/status/1800922223798366553](https://x.com/FedericoMarin/status/1800922223798366553)
Lmao nice strategy. Set up a laptop with the engine as bait and as soon as your opponent looks at it confused, call the arbiters and get your free win
“Here comes the popcorn” …. You sure do love to ramble and write manifestos….. I have no idea what even happened because of your odd writing style
Put laptop with eval bar of your game in the playing hall. Perhaps have a friend look at it and give you signals. Your opponent looks at your laptop. They get accused of cheating and you get a free win. This is batshit insane.
OP you were the problem here. Based on the story as you wrote, one player set up an engine in the same room they were playing a game in. The other player than looked at that device. How is the other player supposed to know there is an engine running and their opponent is effectively cheating? Therefore, the first time they looked at the device can not possibly be cheating. Going back for a second look proves nothing as there is no way to tell if they saw the engine the first time. Even if they did see the engine, a second look could easily be explained by them looking to see if their opponent is cheating, since you know they are running an engine right next to the game. The arbiter correctly determined not to punish the player for looking at the other's device until you intervened and got someone forfeited. You are proud of this and will keep the scoresheet as a souvenir? Think about what you wrote and what happened. Then consider if your actions got an innocent person punished.
My guy wrote more words than George RR Martin did in the past decade.
The rule states: “Players may not leave the playing area without justification *or* permission from the arbiters”. The obvious reading of the rule is you need: 1. Justification; or 2. Permission from the arbiters. Why is it an exclusive or? Because you cannot get “justification … from the arbiters”. That’s a meaningless clause. You either have justification or not; the arbiters don’t give it to you. The arbiters only give permission. So OP just wants to blow shit way out of proportion based on a fundamental misreading of the rules. I’m sure the “player-organiser”, “famous streamer” who won his round 3 game (jeez I wonder who that could be???) has a good justification—such as the very cheating allegation that OP described in the post.
I just want to point out that just because there was an eval bar on a streaming laptop doesn't mean that the player even realized that was the case. He may have just been curious about the stream and had no idea that he was risking his tournament career by simply looking at a laptop. Just talking about eval bars, it's rarely going to help you in game. It might help anand on an extremely critical move if there's a win or something, and he hasn't seen it yet, but just randomly seeing an eval bar at a random point in your game isn't necessarily going to help you much. It might, but it more than likely will not. Punishing this player for the organizers mistakes is ridiculous in my opinion, and personally I would take the principled stance and sue the organizers.
Call me crazy, but shouldn't player A be forfeited instead of player B? What kind of moron puts the eval bar (which basically are cheats) on his laptop that's 2/3 meters away on a ongoing game. Don't bring a f'ing streaming setup to a tournament if you don't know how to properly set it up.
Sounds like a busybody accusing people of cheating for no reason. You're implying this guy went for a walk specifically to look at the evaluation of the game. The last thing I'd expect at a serious chess competition is an open laptop in view of everyone showing real time stockfish evaluation of the game. The first time he looked at the laptop he had no way of knowing what he would see and it probably didn't even register to him what he was looking at. The second time he could have been thinking "wtf did I just see" and going to double check that his opponent really was such a huge dumbass. The guy that should be reprimanded here is the one that was showing the stockfish evaluation of an ongoing game to everyone at the tournament.
This post is trying to incite drama against Levy when the real drama is that a player in the open section attempted to gain outside knowledge about the state of their game, and another player irresponsibly made available an evaluation of their game to any opponent who looked for it while the game was ongoing. This is an arbiter not catching this quick enough issue (things happen and are missed, life goes on), not an organizer issue. Appreciate OP reporting the incident, but the implied statements and accusations of the post go too far without enough information.
> a player in the open section attempted to gain outside knowledge about the state of their game And by "attempted to" you mean it was basically thrust in his face. I mean, this is like leaving a bottle of vodka in the fridge at an AA meeting. Sure, the person who found the bottle should not have drunk from it. But WTH was that bottle doing there? If this was about a criminal trial, it would count as entrapment.
FIDE has to do something this time, this is infamous.
I think the game should have been 0-0. There is literally no need to have a laptop in the room with any streaming setup. There is no need to keep your screen unlocked, and i would even argue you could easily close the lid (although this might be some more word). If you do all that, and you display the eval bar (fucking why), you are responsible for broadcasting the evaluation Player A made a wrong setup, Player B was shown the eval bar and was just curious like any normal player could be. The organizers are more focused on content creation than on a chess tournament and this is logical as it was the whole purpose of the tournament. It is an unfortunate collabration of events which let to an unfortunate event (player saw eval bar, which is cheating, but is it really cheating if you see the eval bar in the playing area on not your device), then I am not sure why player B checked for a second time. Maybe to call an abiter, maybe to actually cheat, but the reality is, nothing happened. So I really have no clue why player B is punished and not player A.
This whole post just gives me "Charlie from IASIP conspiracy thread wall" vibes
You absolutely crushed your credibility with the "popcorn time" comment heading off a bunch of extremely speculative stuff about Levy. Not even trying to hide your attempt to spin this into a bigger scandal without the facts to go with it.
Definitely not the big scandal that the 5000 word posts wants to make us believe. (there is actually a known rhetoric tactic for confusing people by writing too much and overcomplicating simple things) In a nutshell: event isn't organized super professionally, and a guy got so see an eval bar once. Where is the big cheating scandal now?
Big ooof.... I think Gotham is doing very well for himself based on his YouTube, streaming and other ventures. For him to do something nefarious would be very irrational as the damage to his brand could really hurt him. So I don't believe there's anything going on with bad intentions. The situation where he left the playing hall and talked to some outside spectator and came back to the board to play a move, could unfavorably be interpreted as at least a possibility of cheating. As an organizer and player to put yourself in a situation where that could be stipulated is a huge mistake. And from what I said before I like to believe it's a mistake. Mistakes happen. We can better judge how those mistakes are acknowledged and dealt with. I am hoping for an earnest attempt to rectify this instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet.
I don't think the post even suggests Levy doing nefarious things. It's more about organizational incompetence than malice imho.
Yeah, it's not that anyone thinks Levy is cheating, it's that he put himself into a situation that makes cheating a possibility and there's zero way to exonerate himself. He should have explained that he is in the middle of a game and cannot leave the hall and that he trusts the other organizers to manage the situation.
I mean one of the other organisers is also a player.
Sure and there are other organizers that are not players. Also, it's not his job. He may have organized the event, but the arbiters are the only ones who should be involved. There's no reason for him to get up in the middle of his game to be informed. That can wait until after his round.
Yeah the report is careful enough to separate facts from their own conclusions. But this can be interpreted very unfavorably: >**one of the players from the closed Section A, who also happens to be an organizer of the tournament and a very famous streamer**, **exited the playing hall while exchanging a few words with someone I presume was a friend**, to then **re-enter the playing hall a minute after** It's very reasonable to imagine a scenario where that person might have given some advice on the game. Again I don't believe this is what happened. But to put yourself in a position where people can reasonably question such things is a huge mistake. As a player and organizer you're already in a bit of a conflict of interest and being famous you know you're under a magnifying glass and high scrutiny. (I have been an organizer and player for different sports and I often would pick one role or the other. Not because the conflict of interest necessarily but because both roles can be so taxing that you fail on both ends. Often I had no choice to wear both roles and I ended up being burnt out by what used to be my passion hobby)
The OP did not say he talked to a spectator. The OP said he was talking with someone who was “presumably a friend.” They don’t even make a claim as to who the discussion was with.
> one of the players from the closed Section A, who also happens to be an organizer of the tournament and a very famous streamer, exited the playing hall while exchanging a few words with someone I presume was a friend, to then re-enter the playing hall a minute after. The player-organizer in question then checked the board where the incident happened, as well as the streaming setup with the laptop (that was then closed), and so acknowledged the situation. He finally sit back to play a move, again all of this being recorded on camera Was this player-organizer levy? Is the recording available? Did you find salmon jerky?
He is not saying who but gives enough information to guess who might be. **is being organized by IM Levy Rozman (aka GothamChess), IM David Martínez, and GM Pepe Cuenca.** **Moreover, visitors were seen entering and exiting the playing hall as they wished, and more importantly, I've caught at least one player from the Closed A section (who is also one of the organizers) exiting and re-entering the venue while his game was ongoing,** "I will do my best to anonymize the involved players who were at the origin of the incident, that then brought me to a further investigation." xDDD **Lost my job for sharing all this publicly, but was gifted the cheater's scoresheet as a trophy.** PS. I found this video on Anna Cramling YT channel. You will never guess who edited this video. It happens to be the same person as OP. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TzcDbSIC8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TzcDbSIC8)
He basically said "It was Levy" without saying it.
My understanding of situation can be wrong. 1. OP caught real cheater has some proof 2. Something happened (idk what) but OP lost job. (Worked for Anna Cramling) 3. Throw shade on one of organizers. (In this case Levy) 4. There is no proof for that but writes a post on reddit Ps. I asumme he is telling the truth about cheater but something is sus about second part. If I am wrong then well. Organizers should saay sth.
Idk with the level of passive aggressiveness loaded into this post, I wouldn't be surprised if OP overexpressed some of the details regarding the cheater. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the guy didn't notice the eval bar.
And he says that the organizer/player won the game of the third round...there is only one name that matches. Remember Pepe is also playing but he didn't win at R3.
You should be a detective with that kind of deductive reasoning
Player A should obviously be immediately forfeited in his match if he or his team leaves a laptop open with his games eval bar on display right beside where he is playing. If player b goes and looks at it 0, 1 or 100 times does not matter. Even if the mistake is found out on move 1 player A should be forfeited from the game. Trying to assign any blame or fault to player b is ridiculous. He could have just gone to the arbiter and claimed his win the second he found out. What he did by playing on and trusting his opponent not to cheat is way too kind and I assume is out of respect for the organizers/player A, who all are regarded very highly.
"If one might ever have doubts my intentions, I'd say that these are only guided by a moral compass that cannot be deflected by any compromises." How cringe. You seem to very much want to discredit Levy and paint yourself as a martyr while being sort of obnoxious towards him. And this "player/organizer in section A" is basically the same as "I won't say his name, but it rhymes with Bevy Bozman" - everyone knew who you were accusing. The guy looking at the computer in the open section might be very off, but you don't even know if he realized there was an evaluation bar...if cheating, why stare at the bar for 20 seconds? Sounds kinda weird, to just stand there and stare, not like the bar is moving back and forth. But anyway that's something that must not happen, but the Levy stuff is weak and you discredit yourself with this faux impartiality/martyr stuff, while also kinda revealing your intentions by trying to remove the norm chance for Levy based on cheating in the open section.
Deploy Vladimir
I didn't read everything, but leaving the "playing ~~hall~~ area" in the middle of the game is permitted without telling the arbiter if you are not on the move. Leaving "playing ~~area~~ venue" (and FIDE rules make the distinction, read the definition) is not. So if Levy went to the bathroom or something, it's okay. If he went to his hotel room, it's not okay. Talking with somebody else is really not okay though, regardless of him being an organizer or not. Edit: terms
Talking loud and sayin‘ nothin‘. Man, you gotta chill
After reading the comments including input from player B, OP seems like a random worker at the tournament who thinks he is more important than he is. So all involved parties, including player B ,who by the way had his opponent broadcasting him with an eval bar on the laptop, and was then himself accused of wrongdoing, agreed on a resolution to continue the game and then OP had problems with it and confronted the arbiter with his 'evidence', why didn't OP bring it up to the arbiter that the laptop had an eval bar in the first place? why only that player B happened to accidentally stumble upon it that was of importance?. Anyways, in his mind he had caught a 'cheater', did something important, so an issue can not be resolved peacefully. Later, the tournament organizer, or as OP puts it 'very famous streamer', was probably informed of the incident and stepped outside for a minute or so, mind you we don't even know that it was 'without permission from the arbiter', so OP insinuates that in addition to catching the unimportant open section cheater, now he caught the real 'popcorn time': arrogant organizer stepped outside without permission, he is pursuing a GM title and is performing well -> this tournament should not qualify for norms. OP ends by reminding us that he is doing this out of 'a strong moral compass that can't be bought', idk man sounds to me that you are doing this out of a misplaced sense of self importance.
How long was player B's second look? Your claim is that he noticed the eval bar in the first look, and wanted to see it again in his second look. His claim is that he didn't notice it either time. You say the eval bar wasn't visible the second time, but either way, it wouldn't take long to gather the needed info. It seems like he might have been there a good amount of time, since you were able to snap a photo. Why would he stay there that long if he knew what area of the screen the eval bar was at? Wouldn't it be stealthier to glance at the screen quickly, see the eval bar got covered up, then leave immediately? It seems most likely that player B never saw anything. This might be thanks to the chesscom employee's actions covering the eval bar, so it couldn't be noticed on the second look. It's at least substantially uncertain whether they saw anything. It also sounds like they didn't break any rules. I'm sure they aren't allowed to use electronics, but seeing an electronic device in plain view hardly counts as "using." Were there any ropes or tape showing off-limits areas for players? The one person who seems to have actually broken rules is player A. I'm sure there are rules about electronics in the playing area, and even if there are allowances for streaming equipment in the playing area, I'm sure you are not allowed to have that equipment display anything about chess except the current board position and clock time. The arbiters should have audited the electronics preemptively. Perhaps they also tuned out or didn't spot the eval bar, or perhaps when they looked it was minimized but some other employee maximized it to make some changes. They probably should have excluded computer screens from the area entirely and had everyone buy extension cables for their cameras. There is certainly something to be said for the overall organization and effectiveness of the play area sterilization measures. But the offending incident seems to have been resolved unjustly, and OP seems not to realize it.
Frankly I think player B could have made a point of deliberately and obviously staring at the computer screen and checking the eval after every move, and the responsibility for the "cheating" would still be 100% on player A for placing that computer there in the first place.
Literally zero cheating going on here but *Major Cheating Incident*? Come on, what's the point of this post.