Are we sure we have the right people in the board of director of FIDE to combat cheating in chess?

They have no standard rating within their national rating system as well. If you are unrated, you are unrated.
I once played a CM level player who had a blitz rating of around 1600. It happens, doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

@kaotic99 said in #3:
> His ratings are std 1660, rapid 1962, blitz 1916 so it should be fine no?
Not really. 1660 is the current rating. He entered the competition at zero rating.

@bufferunderrun said in #11:
> They have no standard rating within their national rating system as well. If you are unrated, you are unrated.
> I once played a CM level player who had a blitz rating of around 1600. It happens, doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

Was your opponent a director of the Board of Directors of FIDE?
My point is that the reputation of FIDE should be better protected and more stringent rules should be applied to their directors. A reasonable suspicion of banditism at the top of FIDE doesn't really help, does it?

@ldmscacchi said in #12:
> Not really. 1660 is the current rating. He entered the competition at zero rating.
So his tournament performance was 1660, and he played in the U1700 section. What a scandal!

@sheckley666 said in #14:
> So his tournament performance was 1660, and he played in the U1700 section. What a scandal!
No. He has NOW a rating of 1660 because he played in the U1700. He is much stronger, he is 37 years old and it is not credible that he had a zero rating at the beginning of the tournament. Only reasonable explanation: he was trying to win easily (and dishonestly?) €1,000

There is no FIDE rating of zero. Zero means: No rating at all.
The tournament were his only rated games so far, and therefore his tournament performance is now his first rating.

@sheckley666 said in #16:
> There is no FIDE rating of zero. Zero means: No rating at all.
> The tournament were his only rated games so far, and therefore his tournament performance is now his first rating.

No FIDE rating is treated as zero rating for pairing and tournaments administration. I think you might be pedantic by saying that FIDE rating of zero doesn't exist.
The tournament director should have not allowed him in the lowest section given his high ratings in blitz and rapid.
This is particularly severe given that we are talking about a FIDE Director sitting in the board

>No FIDE rating is treated as zero rating for pairing and tournaments administration. I think you might be pedantic by saying that FIDE rating of zero doesn't exist.

That's incorrect.

>7.2.1
>Players whose ratings drop below 1000 are shown as unrated on the next list. Thereafter they are treated in the same manner as any other unrated player.
handbook.fide.com/chapter/B022022

In any case...

>3.3.
>For the Under 1700 section, a player must not have a published FIDE Standard rating of 1700 or greater for at least one year prior to the start of the championship.
handbook.fide.com/chapter/D0404

They were unrated, so perfectly qualify to play in this group.

@bufferunderrun said in #18:
> That's incorrect.
>
> handbook.fide.com/chapter/B022022
>
> In any case...
>
> handbook.fide.com/chapter/D0404
>
> They were unrated, so perfectly qualify to play in this group.

You don't get the point. The rules are insufficient to prevent banditism. FIDE, and in particular the legal department, are in charge of the rules. How can you trust this board, when then one of their directors play as a bandit would have played?

@ldmscacchi said in #19:
> You don't get the point. The rules are insufficient to prevent banditism. FIDE, and in particular the legal department, are in charge of the rules. How can you trust this board, when then one of their directors play as a bandit would have played?
Whether it was done intentionally in this case is worth considering, it could be Mr Aleksandr Martynov proudest moment, and he was possibly considering failure and embarrassment, but managed to achieve a good performance.

But you may be correct that the rules should limit the likelihood of abuse by FIDE staff, and therefore perhaps you should suggest this to FIDE directly. It may be more beneficial if you acknowledge the good result in this instance (and use the right tone), and also have an idea of what potential steps or what rules they could implement to make players more secure in open trust for FIDE. Perhaps 23 games in non-prize tournaments to establish Elo rating?

Do you have any ideas on methods to prevent abuse by "banditism" effectively in general?