French cheating case: GUILTY

[Jeremy Bernstein]

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/frenc ... ys-guilty/

[Martin Thoresen]

So they cheated, incredible.
Quite a sophisticated method too.

Feller, a GM - why on earth would he need to cheat?

I hope no tournament organizers invite any of these players ever again.

Best,
Martin

[JcMaTe]

At least the French take things seriously and I hope it's lesson for many who think that because they are GM they can not be investigated

[Martin Thoresen]

At least the French take things seriously and I hope it's lesson for many who think that because they are GM they can not be investigated

Yes, my respect to the French federation.

[BB+]

Great news. Now we can get true justice in an "unbiased" court when the defendants counter-sue for defamation!

in Khanty-Mansiysk security only searched for weapons or explosives, but that anyone could bring their mobile phone into the playing hall.

Well, maybe with something like an Armenia/Azerbaijan match the former would also be a necessary precaution.

Witnesses
[...]
Laurent Fressinet was not present at the meeting, but sent his testimony by email. When he heard about the cheating from Maxime, he decided to compare Feller’s Olympiad games with the strong chess engine Firebird. He felt that indeed in a number of games a large majority of the moves were very similar to the engine’s suggestion.

I'm not sure why you need a GM like Fressinet to make such a comparison -- I would rather a statisician undertake this.

[BB+]

The lawyer of Sebastien Feller, Charles Morel, has already announced that he will address the Appeals Committee.

Never over till it's over.

Update: we received Fressinet’s conclusions from analysing four games (Howell + the last three, against Timofeev, Gelashvili and Efimenko):
* against Gelashvili and Efimenko, always 1st choice of Firebird
* against Howell, same except for move repetition on move 37
* against Timofeev, once 2nd choice, once 3rd choice, all the other times 1st choice until the position was -5.

I'm not sure why you need a GM like Fressinet to make such a comparison -- a statistician might be a better choice of investigator. How long did Fressinet let Firebird run? In SMP or single-cpu mode? Given that "first choice" is not unique in SMP, the "always 1st choice" makes me wonder. As usual, "move matching" is probably the least useful evidence on the whole.

Besides, according to Jean-Claude Moingt the cheat the system went as follows: Cyril Marzolo sent SMS text messages with phone numbers which functioned as code. The first two digits were always 06, the following two were the number the move, the 5th and 6th figures would refer to the starting square, the 7th and 8th to the ending square, and finally, two counts of no importance. For example: 06 01 52 54 37, 06 01 57 55 99, 06 02 71 63 84, 06 02 67 65 43 are the codes for the moves constituting the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5). This is actually the international notation of correspondence chess.

Arnaud Hauchard kept the two phones with him: his own and that of Sebastien Feller. He consulted and then returned to the bar at the venue. The way to indicate moves to Feller was as follows: the opponent of Vachier-Lagrave: A and 1, the opponent of Fressinet: B and 2, the opponent of Tkachiev: C and 3, the opponent of Feller: D and 4, Feller: E and 5, Tkachiev: F and 6, Fressinet: G and 7 and finally Vachier Lagrave: H and 8. For example if Arnaud Hauchard revolved around the table and stopped some time behind the opponent Tkachiev, and then behind that of Fressinet, he was signalling square c2.

Some photographic evidence of this system would be nice, rather than just Moingt's word. E.g., in bridge, supposedly Reese and Schapiro cheated by showing the number of hearts via how they held the cards -- despite much testimony about this, my recollection is that only one photo exists, and the data do not match (and it would be much easier in that era to cheat by, say, voice inflection).

Most importantly, Edouard revealed that during a lunch in January with Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Laurent Fressinet and Arnaud Hauchard, the latter admitted that the cheating had taken place.

For the above bridge case, 40 years on there were still rumours of "admission of guilt" (possibly on a death-bed). I guess the French have a different culture. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 90277.html

David Rex-Taylor, a publishing executive from Birmingham, claimed yesterday that the episode which ended Mr Reese's international bridge playing career was part of a disastrous experiment to prove that cheating was possible in the card game invented by British civil servants in the Raj.

Mr Rex-Taylor said: "He confided that ... he had been planning to write a highly-researched, in-depth book on cheating at cards and other indoor games and activities, commenting that cheats should be pilloried and their methods exposed."

The alleged confession was greeted with scepticism by senior figures in the bridge world, a game which is estimated to have four million regular players in Britain, making it the most popular participation sport after coarse fishing.

[BB+]

From a comment at ChessVibes:

I was the one making the live transmission on the France-echecs blog.

There are still two different version on the cheating system, one coming from Arnaud Hauchard stating that he witnessed it without participating in it, and that is supported by the declaration from Maxime, Romain and Laurent from the french team. Sebastien was receiving the texts directly on his phone and there was no sophisticated dance around the players.
This explains why in comparison Arnaud is getting a much lighter condemnation (he still can work as private coach pr plays tournament, but he obviously failed as a team capteain hence the life ban on the captain role.) as the comission followed this interpretation.
The second version is the one still supported by the federation as stated above by Thomas.

After following the meeting until 5.30pm, missing the end, I really appreciated the work done by the commission and find the different sanction fair, may be a litle too hard for Sebastien Feller. He is 19, made a big mistake, has to be punished, but when I think that in other sports condemned sportlers are out sometimes only one year maximum 2 by earning much more than what earn a chess IGM (In tennis it is 3 months, in cycling between 1 and 2) 3 years of ban is quite a lot.

Feller council already made appeal, and according to the french rules in appeal the sanction can not be increased, only reduced or stay same.

[BB+]

Gérard Demuydt has given a French version of the proceedings at Europe Echecs:
http://www.europe-echecs.com/actualites ... -2583.html
Here is a rough translation of most parts.

The meeting of the Disciplinary Committee
As advertised, the long-awaited meeting of the Disciplinary Committee commenced at 10:30am at a Paris hotel, with about 30 persons present.

Three groups were present at the hearing:

*) Four members of the Disciplinary Committee, a fifth being excused for personal reasons.

*) The party instituting the action, in this case the executive committee of the FFE. Present were: Jean-Claude Moingt, President of the Federation, Johanna Pomian (vice president), and Leo Battesti and Christian Cureau. The first two are also here as witnesses. Finally, Lawrence Verat (CEO?) and Jordi Lopez (assistant technical director) are here, as is the counsel for the FFE, Mr. Nicolas.

*) The defendants. The three players involved (Feller, Hauchard, Marzolo) are not in the room, but they are represented by their respective counsels.

The lawyer of Arnaud Hauchard excuses the absence of his client because of his fragile psychological state, certified by a medical certificate.

Antoine Canonne, as President of the Disciplinary Committee, gave the procedure. The morning will be devoted to the statement of facts by the prosecution, to which the defense will respond. In the afternoon, the Committee will choose which witnesses to hear [this is more typical in a "inquistorial" judicial hearing as opposed to a "adversarial" one, where the prosecution and defense would call their own witnesses]. These include: Jean-Claude Moingt and Johanna Pomian, Laurent Verat and Jordi Lopez (as above), and also members of the French Olympiad team: Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Laurent Fressinet, Vladislav Tkachiev and Romain Edouard, and finally Pavel Tregubov and Thal Abergel who were present in Khanty-Mansiysk as captains of foreign teams. Mr. Canonne announces that Vachier-Lagrave and Edouard are present, while Fressient and Tregubov have sent letters. Tkachiev and Abergel said they have nothing to add, and the protocol does not force people to testify if they prefer not to.

The procedure began with a review of the request for delay made by the defense. This was rejected by the Committee on the grounds that the upcoming European Championships make it difficult to find a suitable day.

The Charges of the FFE
The first argument concerns the technicality of whether the Disciplinary Committee has jurisdiction for this case. The view of the FFE is that this is evident, as acknowledged by the regulations (Article 2-2-1), and so the Committee can validly bring a judgement on the 3 players.

The second argument concerns the facts themselves. The FFE says that the cheating is established by (private) admission of this by some of the players involved [par la reconnaissance par les joueurs de leur triche] and is corroborated by a detailed listing from the phone used by Cyril Marzolo. During the Olympiad, nearly 200 SMS text messages were sent to Hauchard and Feller. These exchanges only occurred on days when Feller played, during games, and with more than two dozen messages per game sent by Marzolo.

Cheating is established via these items. This is a very serious injury to sports ethics that deserves to be punished.

Following this presentation by the lawyer Battesti (spokesman for the FFE in this affair), he made some special remarks on his own behalf. He stressed that the FFE had no interest in denouncing their own players, then paid tribute to the courage of Moingt and Pomian, and concluded by challenging the cynicism shown by the defendants.

Arnaud Hauchard, represented by Mr Bem
He said that the investigation report prepared by Jean-Luc Hinault contains no evidence of the alleged cheating, though the report uses this phrase six times(?). The minutes from the meeting of the defendants with the FFE on Oct 11 (upon their return from the Olympiad) are lies.

Additionally, the FFE is both the one who brings the complaint and the one that provides evidence, casting doubt on its veracity.

On the legal side: the details of the communications between Marzolo and Hauchard are not admissible evidence as they are covered by the secrecy of correspondence, and by using these, Ms. Pomian is subject to Section 226-15 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the instruction email [not sure to what?] showed a bias, as it demanded that Arnaud Hauchard give arguments "for [his] defense", as if he were presumed guilty.

Cyril Marzolo, represented by Mr Gillier
Counsel began by noting that his client is also in a difficult psychological state due to this affair. He then attacked the constitutive elements of the four attestations (Pomian, Monigt, Verat, and Lopez) and the supposed confessions of the players. [It seems an attestation is something given at this stage of the trial, while "testimony" refers to the afternoon events(?)].

In particular, the suspect SMS was seen by Ms. Pomian on Sep 27, but yet she did not bring this to Verat's attention until three days later. Additionally, it is alleged that Marzolo no longer works for her, which is false, and calls into question the veracity of any attestations.

Other than the attestations of Ms. Pomian, the other three witnesses say nothing more than that Ms. Pomian reported suspicions of cheating. As for the "alleged" confession, this was not signed by the players, though it would have been easy for the FFE to require this from them.

Finally, Marzolo has never been interrogated by Hinault [the "federal instructor" who prepared the investigative report]. There exists no evidence that Marzolo analysed the games of Feller with a computer while they were in progress.

The FFE lawyer briefly intervened to note that Marzolo was summoned by Hinault, but did not respond.

Sebastien Feller, represented by Mr. Morel
Counsel began by stressing that he is not here to defend any cheating: "Nous ne sommes pas les avocats de la triche" [We are not advocates of cheating].

As with the other defendants, he first addressed the procedure, in particular the subject of jurisdiction. From his point of view,
the Olympiad is not organised by the FFE and is not held on French territory, and thus the Disciplinary Committee has no authority to judge the issue. As a second point, by making a public statement the FFE has thrown the accused players to the lions, contrary to its own rules and principles of law. The reprisals have been broadcast to the whole world, causing considerable damage to the players and their cause.

He then notes the irony of presumption of innocence in regard to Battesti, bringing up the supposed cheating of a Corsican player in the Paris championships [Battesti was a political prisoner for a few years back in the late 70s over the issue of Corsican nationalism]. This provoked the ire of Battesti, and a lively exchange ensued until Mr. Canonne was able to restore order.

The current case of cheating is like the Renault affair, applying pressure on the players by throwing their names out in public, but not checking whether the charges are indeed true.

He justifies the non-response of Feller to Hinault on the grounds that the letter contained no specific charges, so there was nothing to defend.

The Minutes from Oct 11 (when the FFE leaders met with Feller and Hauchard) is full of contradictions, and the SMS contents are covered by secrecy of correspondence as determined by the Nanterre judge, and therefore cannot be mentioned.

Finally, Morel questions the veracity of the testimony of Pomian, even going so far as to call her the "forger" (faussaire). Even before the Olympiad, she had looked at phone texts of Marzolo(?).

Witnesses
The afternoon was devoted to hearing witnesses. The procedure allows only members of the Committee to question them [the prosecution/defense cannot intervene directly].

Joanna Pomian
On Monday, Sep 27 she became aware of the SMS received by Marzolo, as she had gone to his(?) home to give him papers. Her relations with Marzolo are complex: since 2003 her family has hosted him for a time, and found him a job. He worked for Pomian's company, first part-time and then full-time, but after the employment contract ran out, Marzolo was again unemployed. Pomian re-hired him in Nov/Dec 2010. The work of Marzolo was part/full-time from 2009, and was a classification of papers, transcripts of interviews, and VAT calculation.

Pomian was then asked about the phone line paid for by her, but used by Marzolo. She said that this was to help him, as he was beset by financial difficulties and "blacklisted" by the mobile operators.

She was then asked about the delay from Sep 27 (discovery) until Sep 30 (passing the information to the FFE). She said it was justified first due to professional reasons (she had to prepare for an important meeting on the 28th) and also for ethical ones: with such a complex situation, she hesitated due to the seriousness of the facts.

She was then asked how she knew the texts were for Feller. Her response was that she knew the two players were very close, for example, she was asked to help install Feller's computer at Marzolo's residence. She further mentioned the rumours of suspected cheating in the Paris Championships of 2010. In particular, Feller and Marzolo insisted heavily on being hosted(?) by Pomian, and Feller was very confident in his chances for victory.

Rather than the Renault espionage case, she compared the situation to that of Dr. Irene Frachon who exposed the Mediator scandal. Mr. Canonne, a doctor by profession, remarked that a case of chess cheating has little to do with a case that caused hundreds of deaths.

Lawrence Verat
Not much to say. On Sep 30, Ms. Pomian contacted him and showed him the SFR phone records. From the info obtained from the SFR website, it was rather clear that cheating was taking place.

Jean-Claude Moingt
The FFE President was in Russia during the Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad, but he participated at the FIDE Congress which was a 10-minute taxi ride from the location of the games. He did not even have an opportunity to share a meal with the French team.

He was warned of suspected cheating by Verat on the day of the match against Georgia. The next day (Oct 1), he watched Hauchard carefully, hoping to catch him in the act. He saw nothing conclusive, but contended that Hauchard transmitted moves by positioning himself successively behind the various players [see below]. Having failed to catch the players directly in the act of cheating, Moingt asked Hauchard to remove Feller from the team for the last game.

The Committee then asked about security at the Olympiad, particularly whether the players were searched. Moingt explained that there were security checks, but largely for weapons or explosives, and one could enter freely with a mobile phone.

Moingt was then asked why he did not inform the tournament arbiter of the suspicions. He responded by saying that the situation in Siberia was a bit delicate, and did not know what would happen to the French delegation if there was publicity given to it. On his return to Moscow he warned Roberto Rivello (the President of the FIDE Ethics Committee) during the final round, and Rivello advised him to handle the case internally.

Moingt concluded by noting that rumours about a possible disagreement between Feller and himself are unfounded, citing the congratulatory message Moingt had placed on his Facebook page upon Feller winning the Parisian championship.

Romain Edouard
He testified that he had observed nothing unusual about Feller's behaviour in the Olympiad. The Committee then asked about the playing conditions, and Edouard said the players could have their phone with them, and could connect once they left the playing area.

He was then spoke about the last round. This was preceded by a rest day, and the day before that France had lost to Ukraine. The team composition was to be filed on the morning of the rest day, and was (as usual) made upon consultation with the players and the captain. Edouard was to play 3rd board with the White pieces. He and Vachier-Lagrave went out that night, and the next morning the official website had him listed as playing 4th board with Black. He asked Hauchard for clarification, who referred him to Moingt, and said that Feller was sick. Edouard wondered if this was a "simulation" so as to ensure that Feller would win the gold medal on Board 5 [to specify, Vachier-Lagrave was Board 1, Fressinet was Board 2, Tkachiev on Board 3, Edouard was Board 4, and Feller was technically the "reserve" (Board 5), though he was put into the lineup many times, likely due to his fine performance].

In January 2011, Edouard learned of the FFE accusations, and made an appointment with the FFE President to discuss these. In the meantime, he had lunch in Paris with Vachier-Lagrave and Hauchard, and the latter admitted that cheating had occurred.

As for Feller's leval of play in the competition, it was high-quality, but any specific moves do not establish cheating as strong GMs can play them also.

Maxime Vachier-Lagrave
Also questioned about Feller's level of play, Vachier-Lagrave admitted that he was impressed by the game played against England's David Howell. But, he said, the moves are "findable" by a GM and one game is unable to prove anything.

The Committee asked him about phones, and he said that in the early rounds, Feller gave his phone to Hauchard.

Like Edouard, he was surprised that Feller was suddenly indisposed in the last round. He also noted that Hauchard (whom he has known and collaborated with since 2003) was extremely tense during the competition, even for someone who always tends to stress during a tournament.

He was informed of the FFE accusations on Jan 5. He was preparing with Hauchard for the Wijk aan Zee tournament when Jordi Lopez called. Informed that Hauchard was there, Lopez said he would call back. Hauchard proceeded immediately to tell Vachier-Lagrave that there had been cheating during the Olympiad, but that he personally was not actively involved, and had just closed his eyes. Vachier-Lagrave then warned Fressinet.

Laurent Fressinet
He was not present, but sent testimony via email to the Committee. He noticed nothing unusual at the Olympiad, and Hauchard was tense as usual. He received a call from Moingt in late Dec 2010, who wanted to meet with him. They agreed to talk on Jan 8, and then on the 6th he was notified by Vachier-Lagrave of Hauchard's confession. He was furious to find out only three months after the fact.

He then decided to examine all the games (starting at the 12th move) from his teammate during the tournament using the "Firebird" chess engine that was in fashion with GMs. He realised that in two games (versus Russia and Georgia), Feller had consistently played the first choice of this engine, and he did the same against Howell except for a repetition at the 37th move so as to reach the time control.

A procedural issue
The FFE then wanted to submit to the Committee a written testimony of about 100 pages by Vachier-Lagrave of his MSN conversations with Hauchard. The defense opposed this vigourously, arguing that they did not have time to review this evidence. The Committee President rejected this material, saying that they themselves did not have time to examine all this material either. Vachier-Lagrave then said he had made this available about a week before, but hardware problems seem to have prevented the receipt [likely the file was too big?].

Concluding remarks
On behalf of the FFE, Mr. Nicolas summed up: the case for cheating is definite. All testimonies of the FFE board are in agreement. The members of the French team also testify and corroborate this. The telephone communication records confirm that SMS messages were sent during the games of Feller.

The FFE requested a sanction suitable to set an example.

Mr. Gillet (on behalf of Marzolo) reiterated that the attestations were contradictory, and noted that the players themselves noted nothing suspicious in the tournament. The witness testimonies are unclear as well, for instance, they disagree as to whether Feller had his phone or not during the games. The evidence given by the prosecution is in general insufficient to prove that cheating did in fact take place.

Mr. Morel (on behalf of Feller) again noted the ruling of the Nanterre judge regarding the SMS evidence, and then asserted that the telephone number called by Marzolo was not that of Feller, but that of his father [I think Feller's father?]. There is also no evidence that this phone was in Russia during the competition.

Due to the Internet interface, Ms. Pomian could also send an SMS on the line in question. As the contents of these are not admissible, there remain only the attestations concerning their timing(?), but the evidence here is not complete. The SMS were not sent only during games, as [for instance] messages were exchanged on the opening day [note that Feller sat out in Round 1]. It is surprising that Pomian immediately suspected it was Feller who was involved, and gave no thought to the fact that Vachier-Lagrave is indeed coached by Hauchard.

While quiet was present during the first portion, the remarks from the defense were thrice interrupted by strong reactions from the FFE delegation.

The verdict
After a two-hour consultation, the Committee declared the three players were guilty of violation of sports ethics.

Marzolo was given a 5-year suspension. Feller was given 3 years of the same, followed by 2 years of community service with the FFE (or another association chosen by him). Hauchard was given a lifetime ban from being a captain [he was also the captain of Evry, which recently won the French team championship].

The Committee noted it took account of Feller's age in this decision.

Mr. Morel announced he would appeal the decision, and the regulations (Article 7.3) note that the penalty cannot be increased in the appeal. The same Article notes that unless the punishment states otherwise, an appeal will suspend any punishment until it is resolved.

Feller will play in the European Championship starting on Monday (Mar 21 in Aix-les-Bains), and without an appeal, the suspension would take effect 10 days after he has been officially notified.

According to a regulation adopted in 2009, the FFE will pay for the hotel of Feller in Aix-les-Bains, as is provided for any French player who is rated at least 2600.

The system of cheating
According to Moingt, the cheating system was revealed at the meeting on Oct 11, and was as follows. Marzolo would send SMS messages with phone numbers. First two digits always 06, the next two for move number, the next two for from-square, the next two for to-square, and finally two random numbers. For example: 06 01 52 54 37, 06 01 57 55 99, 06 02 71 63 84, 06 02 67 65 43 could encode the Latvian Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5). This is essentially the notation used in international correspondence chess.

Hauchard kept 2 phones, both his and Feller's. He consulted them at the bar, and then came back to the game room. He indicated the moves to Feller by where he would pause when circling the tables. For instance, Board 1 could be a/1 or h/8, Board 2 as b/2 or g/7, etc.

[Hood]

Prosecutors were judges. I think there shall be an appeal and an independent court shall investigate and decide it.

Concerning 1st.2nd,... choices not only the time factor has a big influence but the posibility of using backward analysis.
Backward analysis is more suggested by a run of games.

I am wondering if a coincidence with computer engine moves can be a prove. As in the analysis of engines similarity.
One can use other engine and the coincidence can be differrent.

Rgds
Hood

[BB+]

Prosecutors were judges. I think there shall be an appeal and an independent court shall investigate and decide it.

How was Canonne et al. either a prosecutor or non-independent? Here is the "Discipline" webpage for the FFE: http://www.echecs.asso.fr/Default.aspx?cat=9