I was for years Tournament Director and helped writing EUBGF (now: WBGF rules) which states: As the dice are being rolled they should not touch the player’s hand and the cup should not touch the board. So, in my opinion: Neculai should re-rolled becuse cup touched the board clearly. Secondly, Brendan should not have touched the dice while opponent's turn. Thirdly, Neculai changed the position by misplacing Brendan's checker. We can argue if this was on purpose or not. But the main question which is weird is neither Brendan nor Tournament Director noticed it, so illegal move should stand. Please not that any spectator other then players or TD should remain silent if illegal move happened. It is controversial to disqualify the player retroactively when the match finished. They should have reacted while illegal move happened. Very poor decisions by the Ruling committee. Cheers Leonardo Jerkovic
In my opinion a poor comparison; “illegal move” translates as misplaying one’s own chequers - to clarify, making a move that does not accurately represent the moves dictated by the dice outcome - hence not legal. Usually completely unintentional and not always favourable or an advantage to the player who makes the mistake. However, moving one’s opponents chequers, with the exception of placing on the bar, is plain cheating. The action was not an interpretation of ANY dice roll. Misreading the dice forces an illegal move. In this case there were no dice to read. Blatant adjustment of opponents chequers = Cheating. Simple. What other conclusion is there?
Becca I simply don't get it... how can you say that. You have to prove intent. This can only be done if Necolai admits to that ... which he most certainly doesn't. .. there at least five people interfering with the adjudication. Are you saying the commentator was complicit because he didn't report it... most certainly not... there was so much confusion..if you saw my video Necolai cup fell on the left hand side earlier on ..his had brushed over the checkers ...he was quiet within his right to presume it was he who put the checker on the 23...
Far be it for me to judge the whole situation nor the decisions made by any party Tariq, and I agree with you on some points. I just don’t agree with the comparison made to an entirely different kind of error as the circumstances do not compare (in my opinion).
@@tariqsiddiqi10 If we do not consider it to be cheating unless you can prove intent through admission (your words), how on earth do you ever expect to catch cheaters? Do you think that cheaters just willingly admit to their wrong-doings when they are caught? I have no idea whether Nikolai intentionally cheated or not; but he broke the rules in a way that affected the game, so he bears the burden of responsibility for his actions.
Watching the replays -- I think that Mr. Burgess grabbed the dice because he wanted to stop play because he thought that the role was illegal -- and he did not want to be accused of stopping play because he did not like that role.
My comments are in support of the Ruling Committee, who had a very unfortunate, no-win, and thankless duty to make a decision - especially with dozens of viewers soon to be watching replay video while pretending to have the ability to accurately understand a players true intent by analyzing body language, game situation, level of player, number of witnesses, etc. The fact is that, whether with mal-intent or not, Mr. Axinte moved the opponents checker. That is against the rules of backgammon. The white checker play was not in question with the dropped cup, so thinking they were in a different position and arbitrarily moving them was at best a lapse of judgement - and lapses of judgement are often penalized. Of course we all know that the proper action when we think checkers are in the wrong position is to: ask the opponent, tournament officials, or view the recording - not touch and move the checker. While the checker movement was likely a small equity variation when done, Mr. Burgess having split checkers with the roll of 6-1 would have allowed him to put two on the bar against a 2 point board and depending on the response, possible cube - all potentially altering the game and match dramaticallly. My thought is the Ruling Committee likely spent much time reviewing the recording, talking to players, discussing the rules, etc. before making their decision. I would like to honor their work and their decision.
So, the fact that BB rolled the 61 you think is crucial? Apart from the simple fact that he may not have rolled it without that illegal change by NA, this random outcome increases the severity of NA's action? Give me strength!
I don't feel sorry for the rules committee because they were called upon to do what rules committees do. What does it matter to them that people would soon be watching? Better to defend a stupid ruling if no one else sees the action? If it is thankless and no win, then don't do it. But wishing they didn't have to do what they exist for, make rulings, is puzzling at best. Honor what? Turning a brain fart into cheating? Pretending to know what is in someone's head is wrong. Labeling a person a cheat takes obvious, strong evidence. Where is it?
Time to separate the wood from the trees. 1) The decisions were taken by the tournament committee, not the UKBGF. 2) Marc's second example is a red herring and should not have been used. That was a genuine (and common) error where someone makes an illegal move with their own checkers. I did the commentary on the NY Open Final earlier this year and the players managed to start one game with the checkers incorrectly set up and nobody (except me) ever noticed. Genuine mistakes do happen. 3) In my opinion (and it is an opinion - I can't prove anything) Neculai very deliberately moved Brendan's checker from the 23-pt to the 24-pt. I know nothing of his mindset at the time but, in my humble opinion, that is very clearly cheating. 4) Brendan is culpable for not noticing the infringement and correcting it as he was the only person who could legally have done so. 5) Other observers failed to spot the infringement but they cannot interfere during play. 6) Does the punishment fit the crime? To me this is the key question. I think there are other ways the issue could have been dealt with that are not quite so draconian as the one employed. Therefore, I don't agree with the committee, but I will still support them because they may be right and I may be wrong. Some of this is subjective so there will always be differences of opinion. 7) This highlights the need for some new rules to clarify this area. 8) In summary this was an almighty mess and it is a great shame for our game that it happened at all.
I agree in general but what were the less draconian options? The only one I can think of is to replay the semi with a points penalty, but that's a lot of trouble and might be awkward!
Hey Chris. Nice to hear your analysis. ad 1) I am sorry that I misspoke, you are right, it was not the UKBGF, but the UK Open TD who sets the ruling committee. ad 2) I don't think it was a red herring, it was stating that human errors happen, and if they are not done with intention of cheating, then we don't retrospectively punish a player, since all players have made this mistake many times over. I do understand that there is a difference between touching your own and your opponent's checkers, but I think my argument is still valid: intent matters. ad 3) Anybody can agree that he "deliberately" moved the checker. That is not what matters in my opinion, what matters is if he "deliberately" did it to cheat, or "deliberately" did it to correct a wrong position. What if Neculai had been correct? ad 4) watch my new video tomorrow morning, Brendan gets distracted by something in the moment, and I think that is why he doesn't notice that Neculai shuffles his checker. I won't spoil why here :) ad 5) I actually think, that given the situation that they had just stopped the match to have a ruling, that the tournament staff would have been in their good rights to interfere to get the original position correct. And I think they would have done it by instinct if they had seen it. There is a difference between interfering in a game that is flowing and interfering in a game that is already stopped for a ruling, and even an iphone had been used to replay video to make the ruling. But in a normal situation, you would be correct, spectators or tournament staff are not allowed to interfere even if an illegal play is made, it's up to the players themselves to correct it. ad 6) I agree that the punishment does not fit the crime. I actually don't think there has been any crime, even though both players broke the rules. ad 7) I think the illegal play rules are just fine as they are. If it's not corrected when the second roll is made, the illegal play stands. If you then catch somebody cheating with intent, THEN you can DQ them, but not without intent. Best regards, Marc Olsen from the Galaxy youtube account.
Dear @Wuzzle. One could argue that justice has already prevailed, that even though Neculai gained 1.2% MWC according to XG, he lost 25% of his time bank, which is worth way more than 1.2% MWC at this point in the match. Brendan was a huge NET WINNER in terms of equity in the match with this sequence. And given the fact that Neculai didn't do it to cheat on purpose, why would you retrospectively punish THIS illegal play, when all other illegal plays are being ruled according to the normal rule: If an illegal play is not corrected within the next two rolls then the illegal play stands.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Hi Marc. In my mind this is clearly different to an illegal play and that's why there is a deterrent level punishment. How much mwc he gained is beside the point. Perhaps what will come out of this is a clear distinction between an illegal play and moving your opponents checkers in the rules. Btw the clock time makes no difference to Neculai, I doubt he ever uses more than a minute or two of his bank.
1) Neculai plays very fast and I have seen many experienced players play double 1 this way in this position. However he plays it is irrelevant. The clock is down to Neculai so did not get cheated out of his time. The observers are not allowed to Kibitz so hence said nothing. I know a player who was standing there at the time and saw him move the man back but could not say anything. There is a huge difference between miss playing and miss reading the dice as we all do than cheating. So moving forward is Backgammon going to learn from this and change the rules ? 1) Allow spectators to comment on illegal plays during streamed matches , as they can be checked quite quickly or better still 2 ) Why not have a Referee in the semis and finals of major tournaments ? 3) All streamed matches should be played with Black Dice. They are by far the best for the players to read correctly. Defo for viewing on live stream and makes it much easier for the commentators who need to know the roll instantly.
I've read the USBGF and UKBGF rules after seeing this video. I think the crux of the problem is that neither set of rules defines 'cheating.' They only define legal/illegal move. I'm guessing the difference between cheating and a simple illegal move is the presence of bad intent. But how to prove it? Both players seemed more than willing, on multiple occasions, to literally "take matters into their own hands." They were so confident in themselves, why consult with others when they 'know' they're right. So, N drops the cup and B immediately grabs N's dice rather than simply pausing play and talking about it. So, N sees the checker on the 23 point and reaches over to put it back on the 24 point, without stopping to talk about it. Arrogance and recklessness on both sides. No wonder this is a mess.
Neculai was well aware of where white's checkers were. While awaiting the result of the ruling he adjusts the checkers on white's 3-point to even them up. If he thought white's back checkers should not have been split he could have alerted someone at that point. It's possible that he realised white had a direct shot, and with the clock stopped he could not change his own move. He may therefore have willfully changed white's position once play resumed to remove the direct shot thereby gaining an advantage. In the absence of Neculai's rationale for this play, I would assume the ruling is correct.
Note that during the 6 minute ruling, NA's clock was still running. So it was still his turn. I don't know what the ruling exactly was, other than the 1-1 roll stood, but I strongly believe NA should have finished his own turn by pressing his clock, after the ruling. This would have also given him the opportunity to change his move, which was interrupted by BB's dice grabbing (also illegal BTW). Instead, BB ended NA's turn by operating the clock. Probably also illegal. And another factor that caused this dispute.
It seems like one of the possible cruxes of the debate is whether moving the other player's checkers incorrectly should disqualify you *whether or not* it was deliberate. Some commenters think a player should be disqualified even if we knew for sure that they simply made an honest accident. Others think you should only be disqualified if it is done as part of a deliberate attempt to cheat. It would be interesting to know where the Ruling Committee comes down on this issue. Both views seem to have some merit.
"Some commenters think a player should be disqualified even if we knew for sure that they simply made an honest accident"......ok assuming he didn't intend to cheat - you're saying there are only two views and in this case it classifies as an 'honest accident'. Maybe there are some of us who think that moving your opponents checkers for them, after deciding for yourself they're in the wrong place, without checking or consulting with anyone....to be fairly arrogant and fairly illegal. If you're terming this as an 'honest accident' then yes, i guess there are some of us who think he's brought this on himself and should be disqualified for an honest accident.
Robert & Al, I've liked both your comments. Not sure Robert was actually stating that he thinks it was an honest mistake, just that a major part of the debate and differences in views centre around intent. I agree with that, and I am firmly of the view that rulings should apply with virtually no recourse to intent whatsoever when a transgression is so obvious. Where do you draw the line? How could anyone EVER "prove" intent, if an adequate defence is simply waving your arms around saying you were confused? This doesn't even apply in criminal law defences, never mind backgammon tournaments. Al's earlier golfing analogy of having incorrect clubs is a very good one. I think in the future additional wording is required that retains full power of sanctions but refrains from any mention of actions being deliberate or not. We can achieve the same integrity in rulings without having to even open that can of worms.
Coming from chess I'm flabbergasted that you guys don't have touch move rule. You touch a checker you have to move it. You release a checker to a different point you have to move it there. If the touch move is illegal opponent gets 2 extra minutes, and then you make a different move.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree here Marc. I think the whole cheat vs accidental argument is a bit of a strawman - I think there are adequate grounds for him to be DQ'ed regardless of intent. If we want backgammon to be taken seriously, we can't just have people randomly moving their opponents checkers around in a tournament worth a lot of money and just expect a chorus of shoulder shrugs. Would chess tolerate someone nudging a pawn one square and allow the match to stand? Of course not. 2 other things: 1. The cup drop element was totally irrelevant; nobody is suggesting that was deliberate. 2. The comparison with Claudia's position is a non-starter. That was a simple misplay, which happens all the time. Moving your opponent's checkers when it isn't even your move is completely different. A failure to act here by the ruling committee would send a terrible message to people potentially interested in the game, and would set a terrible precedent for any similar future incidents.
"A failure to act here by the ruling committee would send a terrible message" -- But is the proper way to act here to retroactively disqualify the player from all his matches in the entire tournament, including the 10k prize money he just won? What if his misplacing the backchecker had been spotted shortly after, would the ruling be that he immediately loses the entire match? Or even be disqualified at the spot? I doubt it. Maybe a penalty point, maybe just a warning. Also, it might be unsatisfying, but the illegal moves rule states that once play continues, the move stands. BB nor anybody else pointed out the misplaced checker. Even after rolling the 6-1, which would've double hit, BB apparently had no idea his backcheckers were split originally and didn't object to his two checkers on 24 at all. If BB had such a bad recollection of where his backcheckers were before the incident, it seems plausible that NA might have been honestly mistaken about it as well.
@@ZorbaTheDutch The rule states that about "illegal moves" i.e. "illegal plays". But how can it apply to this situation, where it wasn't actually even a move/play? A move or play entails rolling the dice, and then moving those numbers. (Or cube decisions.)
@@PeterOzanne I think it was still his move during the entire ruling, as the clock was never stopped. However, I do not know what was said during the OTB ruling about how to continue the game, but it seems weird that the 1-1 move wasn't finished by the player himself (opponent stopped his clock).
The example with Claudia's illegal move makes little sense, since the alternative legal move with the 3-2 wasn't the inflexible 8/5 7/5 (a 0.060 error) but 8/6 7/4 of course which has almost exactly the same equity as Claudia's illegal move 8/6 7/5. Perhaps this 8/6 7/4 was also the play she intended at first and got confused. Either way, the play didn't gain anything.
@@BackgammonGalaxy it's one thing to make an illegal move with your own checkers, it's another thing to make an illegal move with your opponents checkers. You don't address that in your analysis and I think you've made a false equivalence with the Claudia example. Plus you completely downplay the impact of the illegal play on the outcome of the match. Brendan's 61 puts two on the bar without the illegal play and with four behind for Neculai gammons go up from 17% to 24% and wins from 52% to 57% for Brendan. 5-2 to Neculai could have easily turned to 6-5 to Brendan with the cube turned here. For you to downplay that is very very questionable.
@@BackgammonGalaxy I noticed a lot has been said about this in other comments already. Your point that illegal moves with no bad intentions are made all the time stands well on its own. However, in this video, it is used in relation to Neculai's actions. As such, it is very poorly chosen I'd say, as I don't think anybody would ever think Claudia's move was a cheating attempt (there wasn't even anything to be gained), whereas Neculai's action of moving an opponent's checker deliberately (even if we are unsure of good or bad intentions) is pretty rare, highly dubious and very clearly to his advantage. I'm not convinced Neculai cheated, but it's certainly very possible. Therefore the point you were trying to make with the other example doesn't seem very helpful.
Marc: I disagree with both the tone and the logic of your video, which spends a lot of time discussing goings-on that are not the central issue, which is whether the player reaching over and moving his opponent’s checker was cheating in this case. Personally, I see no reason for his hand to be in that part of the board other than to move the checker to his advantage. It is not relevant to the cheating issue that he might have been upset. This may be relevant to understanding why he might have done this, but being upset is not a defense for cheating. Your comparison of this action to another player’s illegal move is particularly troublesome. She made the type of misplay that is common in live play. This is completely different from moving an opponent’s checker during a period of distraction. That no one except the commentators noticed is also not relevant to the cheating accusation. It was up to the tournament committee to consider the totality of the circumstances before coming to a decision, but respect for their process is absent in your video. It is likely that the committee members gained more knowledge about the facts than what you have been able to access, so I give more weight to their decision than to your declaration of what you would have done based on less information.
Human beings, being human, make mistakes. A rule was broken. A quite important rule. It is the act that counts, not the intent. Our Marc can spin a tale of human mistakes, but if it were a court case, mens rea is not needed, merely actus reus. Perhaps his intent was merely a restoring of position after the board had been jostled. He should have, by rule, called his opponent's attention to his action in the moment had that been his intent. His failure to do this makes it an act of cheating by definition.
NO "comparison" was not made. Marc cited Claudia's play as an "example" of how honest players make mistakes all the time. What is 'troublesome' is your misrepresenting it as a comparison, that's dishonest.
Marcs claim that this happens all the time is just wrong: I can´t remember this ever happening in any match I´ve seen or played: " Moving opponents checker to an inferior position while opponent is distracted, and without notifying opponent of doing this" If we find any other player doing that we should support some kind of sanction. I do agree that moving both checkers with the same die a common illegal move, but not comparable in any other way then that both actions are illegal.
an angle you didn’t consider marc - you imply that necolai had in his mind that the back chequers were both on the ace point, hence this was why he played the double aces that way. i agree that this is a possibility of his mindset at the time, but what if instead, he only just realised that the back chequers were NOT both on the ace point, and out of pure tilt from making the blunder, tried to manipulate the position. we cannot know for sure, but the organisers must have felt like they needed to protect the integrity of the game since cheating could have potentially occured! worth thinking about.
I see your point. I dont think he had any nefarious intentions but your point is valid and that is why you have rules committes and decision makers. Read my post above and see my opinion.
@@DavidKlausa I'm still not convinced it was that bad a blunder. We were never told. I would do it now. Announcer said he created 2 direct shots. I see 2-7. The other?
This could all have been avoided had Neculai simply showed Brendan what he was doing. Moving your opponents checkers without telling them is a world away from inadvertently making an illegal move, which happens all the time, and is unavoidable for those with normal human brains. It's surprising that Marc considers them comparable. That said it looks very much like an unfortunate error of judgement or misapprehension of the rules. Not underhand. In fairness to Neculai this could be clarified. It's great we get to see live streamed matches but this was probably an accident waiting to happen - perhaps we need to relax the kibitzing rule in these cases. Onwards and upwards!
Agreed, moving your checkers players when they aren't looking has very little similarities to inadvertently making an illegal move with your own checkers. If you don't know that moving your opponent's checker without informing them is not fair play, that still does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
@@mackenzieusher8025 Yes, but should the consequences of your actions be so severe as a retrospective DQ from a semi final, after you've won the final?
@@mackenzieusher8025 That makes two of us, but I also believe in a sense of proportionality, particularly as - despite his troublesome reputation - he may not have been TRYING to gain an unfair advantage.
@@g.c.muttley1715 not sure what other options the committee had - I suppose they could've relegated Neculai to being a losing semifinalist, but personally I don't think that's enough of a deterrent
Statement from the UKBGF As many of you are now aware, the result of an unfortunate incident during a semi-final match at the recent UK Open has led to a barrage of differing opinions and speculation within the backgammon community. As the incident was not reported at the time of its occurrence, in accordance with the Rules governing the event, the Tournament Directors thereafter established an independent Ruling Committee which made a determination on the issue. Due to a technical reason the determination of the Ruling Committee was annulled, and the Tournament Directors subsequently requested that the UKBGF alternatively determine the resolution of the matter. The UKBGF accepted the request, held a specially convened board meeting and reached a determination which was believed to take into account all relevant information (including the representations received from Neculai Axinte (NA) and Brendan Burgess (BB) and to be the most equitable to all parties involved. The determination of the UKBGF is that: the semi-final match between NA and BB shall be deemed null and void; the final that had been played between NA and Eric Westbrook (EW) shall be deemed null and void; an equitable split of any monetary prize winnings shall be determined and distributed amongst NA, BB, EW and any other relevant players; any non-monetary prize winnings shall remain as already distributed; and there will be no winner of the UK Open 2022. The UKBGF would like to state that the organisers of the UK Open 2022 clearly stated that the currently existing Tournament Rules of the UKBGF would govern the event, a copy of the rules was made available at the event (and is publicly available for viewing on the UKBGF website) and accordingly all players participating in the event are deemed to have agreed to be bound by those rules. The UKBGF believes that the Tournament Directors and the UKBGF have also acted in accordance with those rules. Yours faithfully, The UKBGF Board
Why haven't the UKBGF posted this on their website? It was, after all The UK Open,and the UKBGF,from what I've been led to believe,is supposed to underwrite the tournament .
This is a pretty harsh and polarizing ruling. If the reason given is that: he did this to gain an advantage - consider this: 1. He did this in front of the tournament director. 2. Nobody said or did anything about it even though the game commentator noticed. He should have said something to the players. This was irresponsible. 3. It could have easily been rectified had one of the 4 players/directors over the board noticed. 4. It was clearly a very confusing moment for all - and as Marc said, this leads to mistakes.
The entire premise of this video is flawed. The comparison between a misplay in Jason Champion's match and the illegal manipulation of the correct position is ridiculous. To be clear. It is totally true to say that people accidently misplay positions all the time. It is down to both players to correct this at the time or the moment is gone. That's how it should be. The disqualification incident is not a misplay. The hand movement towards the checker on pip 23 is deliberate. He didn't accidently knock the checker back onto pip 24. It's a deliberate movement. Not a misplay! A deliberate movement! Both these points are factually correct. Had Brendan double hit from 6,1 as he surely would have done then the gammon chance goes right up. That hugely changes the scoreline. So, the illegal manipulation is worth at least a 3 point swing. This video suggests that the scoreline doesn't point towards cheating and that the act itself is just like a misplay. Both work from a totally false premise. The facts of the case are clear. It's not a misplay. It's a deliberate act And it alters the entire course of the match.
@@BackgammonGalaxy that distinction doesn't matter. Only that it was a deliberate act which drastically altered the course of the match. There's only 2 options. It's either accident or deliberate. Clearly it's a deliberate motion. To describe the decision to disqualify as disgraceful is clearly untrue. The premise for disqualification is far more salient than many of the points raised in this video.
@@BackgammonGalaxy to use a football analogy, it's like a defender reflexively using a hand to stop a ball going into a goal. Doesn't matter what is going through the defender's head, they are sent off. Neculai had no license to move his opponent's checkers. If you do so and you are wrong it is absolutely correct that you are heavily sanctioned.
Any professional magician will tell you that it is not hard to do egregious things in plain view of an audience without them noticing. Magicians earn their livelihood based on this principle. (If you don't believe me, find a professional magician and show them this video and ask for their opinion.) So it is not even remotely surprising that Neculai could move that checker without being noticed. I didn't notice it myself while watching this video until it was pointed out. Nor is it too surprising that Neculai would try such a thing. People who do this sort of thing on purpose know when people's attention is distracted in a way that they can take advantage of, and in the unlikely event they are caught, they can always make some kind of excuse (and maybe count on people on social media rushing to their defense!). As for the idea that Neculai was correcting an illegal move, it wasn't as though Brendan had just made his move. Neculai had witnessed the move, rolled his dice, and made his own move. So you're saying that five minutes later, after a detailed discussion of the situation with everyone reviewing the video footage, *then* he decides to correct an "illegal move" on the *previous* roll, without alerting the opponent and all the officials standing right there? And it just so happens that the "correction" turns his own hasty blunder into a good move? I'm very surprised that anyone would defend Neculai's illegal action.
There's a lot of contention here where it shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should never move your opponent's checkers in a tournament context. This doesn't mean illegal moves cannot be corrected. We've all watched many hours of tournaments and with that, we've seen many illegal plays made and corrected. The key difference is that players move only their own checkers, so when an issue arises where an opponent's checkers are concerned, you stop the play and communicate your grievances. If the opponent is in agreement with the proposed correction, great! Play on, and if not, wait for an organiser's help. That's it, it's not that hard.
I made a long post yesterday evening that has now disappeared. Is Backgammon Galaxy censoring comments? If so, why? Would it not be better to inform the person who made the post? And to inform viewers that their comments are subject to censorship?
I don't know if anybody mentioned this yet, but you can clearly see that Neculai's cup hit the corner of the board as he rolled, thus causing him to drop the cup.
No way would someone cheat during a ruling that has used the ongoing video recording of the match. If he was cheating and fully aware during this car crash why loose more benefit letting his clock run down. I have played doubles with him many times as his partner he has eastern European speed and confidence. He did not cheat
Huge difference between illegally moving your own checkers and moving your opponent's checkers. I'm tired of the excuse-making and gaslighting. The ban is correct. He'll do it again if you don't.
@@PROPERTY68601 I think, he played the aces soo fast, in the mind, that the opponent didnt split his backcheckers, because he would never make the mistake to give the shot. So in his mind, the 23 has to be on 24 and he correct it. (for his point of view)
Ok if you want to ban one player for touching his opponents checkers, than ban the other player for touching the dice on his opponents roll. He made a rules violation in a heated situation. I see no proof of intent to cheat.
Just to show support for a strong ruling by the committee & hopefully UKBGF will be equally strong in the event of any appeal. IMO this whole thing about accidental vs cheating and trying to reason away why he might have done what he did has clouded the real issue - you can't deliberately & illegally handle your opponents checkers, gain an advantage from it and then expect to just get away with that. James N already said it below & I agree - in no other sport or game would you be allowed to do something that's clearly deliberate & illegal, (whether the intention is to cheat or not), is also clearly to your benefit in doing so - then expect to be able to just explain it away with wishy washy crap about being distracted. If you're arrogant enough to think you can unilaterally decide your opponents checkers are in the wrong place and then move them without consulting with anyone.....tough luck there are going to be harsh consequences. Same as if a pro golfer loses the masters after he's found with 15 clubs in his bag - it doesn't matter if it's a plastic club your 5 year old daughter has put there, some things are just a player's responsibility. Not doing deliberately illegal stuff is one of them...
I fully agree with this. Much as I respect you Marc your analysis is flawed and mostly irrelevant. Making a comparison with Claudia’s honest mistake is also inappropriate as Tim Cross has indicated. The clock, the score, the drop of the cup and Brendan’s unfortunate handling of the dice are all irrelevant. After all, Neculai’s 1-1 move was allowed to stand without query once the cup issue had been resolved. The only important thing is that Neculai moved Brendan’s checker thereby gaining a material advantage. A serious breach of the rules whether it was it was intentional or not. Indeed is it not unreasonable to suspect it may have been intentional: why would the checker be on the 23pt by accident and shouldn’t Neculai have remembered Brendan’s previous splitting move? He had just been studying the video feed after all I’m not saying it was deliberate or not, only that a serious illegal checker adjustment has taken place. The ruling committee have had a very difficult situation to deal with and I think you are unfairly critical or their decision
But you can grab an opponent's dice from the table, change the 1 to a 5 and push them back toward the opponent? Doesn't matter why, correct? Send them all to the guillotine when you have the chance, because for once you have some real evidence to contemplate, rather than "he said, she said"?
Does this tough approach also apply when you deliberately, illegally pick up opponent's dice while he's still making his move, and put them back on the board, changing the dice roll?
@@ZorbaTheDutch No. Admittedly that was unfortunate as Mike mentioned above. IMO I think you have to base a judgement on what most players would deem to be reasonable and acceptable behaviour. Clearly it's reasonable to assume after a dice cup has flown across the board, it's an illegal roll and Brendan just did what anyone does when it's a similar situation with cocked dice, he passed them back. I think it's an illegal roll but as Marc says the rule is a bit ambiguous and you can see the side for both interpretations of it. Flip side and Neculai - how often do you see someone just deciding to move their opponents checkers into a different place on the board, without checking with either your opponent or anyone else? I can't see why anyone would think this is reasonable or acceptable behaviour?
@@alwoods3462 "Clearly it's reasonable to assume after a dice cup has flown across the board, it's an illegal roll " How can that ever be clear if a 6 minute ruling decides it's legal? If anything, the ruling shows how bad it is to pick up opponents dice. Just don't touch them and call the TD. As to NA's behaviour, NA might ave thought it reasonable to move the checker if he thought it has been displaced during the preceding 6 minutes. He should have never done this, especially not without consultation. It's illegal and deserving of some penalty, but bad intent is not clear and the ruling should not assume this bad intent. Given the extremely harsh punishment, it seems bad intent was taken into account. This seems dubious to me, unless of course there's evidence we haven't seen (yet).
At 13:13, the checker in question was moved back to the ace point before it was moved correctly to the two point. Honestly, even if Nikolai is a known cheater, this would be the absolute dumbest way to cheat. Moving a single checker in a position that four people were staring at is just a dumb way to cheat. Your analysis is spot on, Marc. Taking £10,000 and harming the reputation of an amateur is utterly disgraceful over a decision that had probably about 0.2 equity influence on the game. I am sure that in my local club, we have made human errors that are far worse and didn’t even notice
After your comment I went back and re-watched the original video. The checkers do remain on the 24 and 23 points during the entire kerfluffle about the dropped cup. In re-watching the original I did notice something else kind of interesting, though. Look at about 26:20. Play was paused because of the dispute. N reaches in to pick up his cup and, in doing so, it slips from his hand and falls into the home board, hitting the two white checkers. Was it possible that, after the dispute was over, N thought, "The cup must have hit those checkers" and repositioned them? To be honest both of these guys seemed to be playing fast and loose. When N first drops the cup, B - without hesitation - reaches in and grabs N's dice. Clearly B thought N's roll was invalid. But instead of talking about it or calling a TD, B took into his own hands (probably because they were both racing to see who could play faster).
Agreed. Don't touch ANYTHING (dice, checkers, cube, clock) unless/until you know its your turn. That would have avoided a host of errors in this (and other) matches.
I am struggling to see how anyone could think, looking at checkers perfectly positioned on the 24 and 23, that they had been split by a cup, and been so certain as to reposition them without drawing attention to the alteration. Plus, I don't think Neculai has given any explanation for why he did it, except for pointing to a position later in the game where he corrects a potential illegal move from his opponent.
I think Neculai just is distracted. When the play starts again after 5 minutes he for a short moment thinks they are about to start a new game and he moves the checker from 23 to it's starting position on 24 without actually being aware of what he is doing.
I don't believe that, but if that were the case, he should replace it soon as Brendan rolled. In the facebook chat he implied he was fixing a wrong position
That's actually what I thought too. In all the commotion he could have thought a new game was starting and just automatically put the checker back . Don't think it was intentional .
I agree with your analysis and conclusion. The only thing I can add is the fact that some of the kibitzers may have noticed the illegal move and felt they were not allowed to comment on the game.
@@jebhorton1830 Given that 'most' spectators are in fact also players, I disagree, and would add that they will also be fully aware that although they are not allowed to comment to the players, they are allowed to report it to the TD.
If the video was the only evidence, then the verdict was excessive. An illegal action, sure, so some type of penalty would be OK. Yes, it could be an attempt to cheat, but it could also be something happened in the general confusion from the previous roll and ruling and under the tension of the finals. I have a few questions: 1) Did the ruling committee interview Neculai? If so, what did he say? 2) Is there any pattern of behavior like this by Neculai? 3) What is the proper procedure in asking for a ruling? Should Brendan not wait for the move to be completed (clock pressed by Neculai), then stop the clock and ask for a ruling? If the move does not need to be completed before the ruling (that could be reasonable because the question is whether the 11 roll can stand), should then not the checkers be moved back to the position before the 11 play, and again the clock be stopped? 4) When the checker was moved back to the 24 from the 23, should any bystander noticing this not have a duty to make a remark? When was this cheating noticed? I assume after the match had finished. Unless there is more information I might rule a penalty of twice the equity gain from moving the back checker from the 23 to the 24. And give both players a stiff talking to about proper play procedures and Neculai a warning.
1st thing I noticed is the dice cups, I have two FM boards and one of them has these exact cups; they are small and slippery! I do not use them for the exact reason that happened here! From watching this video I would give the benefit to Neculai, the movement of the checker was done with 3 members of the committee there! In Neculai's mind he might have have thought the checker was moved with the movements of the cup landing on the board and Brendan moving the dice, but I would have ASKED my opponent if the checker was there legally before; moving another person's checker(s) should NEVER be done. I think the committee should have made sure everything was in place correctly before they resumed play. Also, this might benefit the case for making baffle boxes preferred in big tournaments! Thanks for the video Marc!
I am one of the people who the ruling committee reported to so I will not be making any comment at all about the main incident until all this is finalised. I was really disappointed to see Claudia's name brought into this, she is a wonderful ambassador for the game and even though of course no accusation is made I am not happy that her actions were even compared to the incident.
@@vinr6867 There's a world of difference between misplaying a checkers during your turn and moving checkers (your opponent's at that) without agreement after a turn has finished.
It's initializing the environment on your phone really slowly if you have slow internet. It might appear to be frozen, but let it load for 1-2 minutes. After it has loaded, the rest of the time it should load instantly. We are working really hard to resolve this problem, and it will be in 1-2 months!
the nebulousness and flexibilities of the rules is a problem - you explained the angle shoot exactly, and he could have easily picked up the cup with an "oops" if it was a bad roll, regardless of whether it touched the dice. there needs to be some tightening of this to prevent that.
It's a bit hard to tell when you can't hear them talking. I would have assumed an automatic re-roll after dropping the cup. What if the other guy was not paying attention to the result of the dice as he was expecting the re-roll, he was perhaps not changing the dice so much as passing them back for the re-roll. On the other hand it almost looks like he is trying to turn the dice one time as he moves it over. Shame we can;t heart what they are saying. Oh the white checker he moved. Seems a bit suspect fir sure but he was thrown off by all the commotion, perhaps he caused the commotion in order to start a distraction, was strange he didn't notice as he was picking up the dice at almost the same time. I wonder if he has a history of cheating or magic tricks? He may have chosen that moment to move the checker because the judges were walking back to their seats at this moment. perhaps his opponent was starting to look up at them or to talk with them a they were sitting down. Perhaps he thought his opponent was trying to cheat by changing to the 5 so he thought he had to do something n return. They should have made him do the re-roll. lol
Allot of scenarios and many of them could be possible. As much as I'd like to think he wouldn't move that checker on purpose, it seems that way after watching it several times. I feel he knew what was happening on that board 100% My first post gave him benefit of the doubt but I see it differently now. Sad that he felt he needed to get back at him for messing with his roll. But it still bothers me knowing he knew he was being recorded. He shouldn't have been mad because he was winning. Only one person knows the truth.
@@mrboags The more i think about it the more it seems it might have been played out from the cup drop. The opponent might not have meant to move his dice but that part does seem a bit strange, he might have just been passing them back asking for a re roll and expecting one. But the other player with black may well have done the drop just to cause a commotion as a distraction and had his eye on putting that white piece back to the start. But then again, with all the time wasted he may have only then realised his mistake and perhaps putting the white back to the start became intentional later. I really doubt he thought it had been knocked from it's starting position but sometimes the brain does strange things when we are not thinking straight. Perhaps they both have a shifty reputation or one of them brought out or triggered the worse in the other one. Ask their school friends. Ask their brothers etc. lol
I've played Neculai on a couple of occasions...he's definitely a contentious person,but I would never call him a cheat...if the UKBGF have ruled against him, and taken away the win,the prize money, and the prestige of winning the tournament, then maybe they should consider giving him his entry money, hotel and travel costs back...I spoke to someone connected to the UKBGF prior to the final, and we both agreed that Neculai would not be a popular winner with a lot of other players...maybe if this had happened to another player, the punishment wouldn't have been so harsh...
It has been observed here by more than yourself that N has a rep for causing trouble. But, as you imply, this is VERY different to one for cheating, and should not have influenced the Ruling Committee in any way. (I'm not saying that it did.) Also, the fact that B then rolled the double hitter 61 (with the correct position ofc) though ironic, should be irrelevant to any judgement. One hopes this was also the case.
Knowing nothing about the two players personally and in the absence of further information, I think this ruling is foul and stupid. After a series of emotional moments, misplays, the presence of the ruling committee, etc. to deprive a player of his winnings and throw him out of the tournament for moving one checker is to me foul and stupid. In my view, the only 'cheating' was done by the rules committee and all the members of that committee involved should be banned for life from any ruling committee in any tournament anywhere in the world. I have sent the video and a copy of my comments here to tournament directors whom I respect with notice that if I see the names of any of these committee members on the ruling committee of any tournament, I will not participate.
I agree that I know nothing about the two players. However, I have served on tournament commttees at importnat tournaments including the World Championship and have dealt with player problems of all kinds including an accusaiton at the WC of a registered player 'being a cheat'. The point is that that we have video confirmation of BOTH players, probably in the heat of the moment, doing something illegal on camera. Yet one player was thrown out of the tournament and cost (from the audio commentary) thousands of pounds for 'cheating' (moving a checker a single pip with a match equity change somewhere many many places to the right of the decimal point)?!! I renew my objection to this decision and to those who made it having anything to do with players' fates in the future.
@@douglasmayfield6411 There is no equivalence between the players' actions: one did something very minor, which happens accidentally all the time, and the other did something very major, and rare, which was not accidental. After many warnings and bans elsewhere. The other is known and loved in the BG community since 30+years.
Excellent analysis by Marc. I quit playing in tournaments after the Florida State event about 5 years ago when I was playing the finals and asked a couple well known players who were making a lot of noise in their private game very close by, to quiet down. That didn't go well. A few years before I had traveled to Istanbul for an event, got cheated on a crucial play by a local player, and lost the ruling of course. Also of course, there was no live stream, no witnesses, just an opponent who says he rolled a number he didn't roll. Very common. How can you make the correct ruling when there is no evidence? My opinion: Don't travel to play backgammon. You won't have time to enjoy the surroundings anyways. Play online. Thanks to Marc Olsen for creating Backgammon Galaxy.
Another point to note is that the UKBGF wrote to all members saying not to privately speculate or comment. Why not? Even in the Olympics the BBC analyses and has opinions as do viewers. It is not healthy to run UKBGF as a closed shop. It is refreshing to bring comments and analysis. There is one UKBGF member who has a bias against the player accused of cheating
Not a good look for UKBG. Shameful to take away prize money after the Romanian player had won the tourney! The illegal move was made right in front of them? Do they not share any blame??
@@vinr6867 If someone robs you and you don't notice it, are you to share the blame for the theft? Or do you deserve to have your possessions back if the thief is later caught?
@@PeterOzanne Because he's loud and contentious...you seem to have a big problem with the man Mr Ozanne...you're just not honest enough to say so! Played Neculai on a few occassions,but can never say he's a cheat.
Nice analysis. This reminds me of my days in law school where your given a hypothetical set of facts and have to argue the pros and cons. I watched this match live and couldn't figure out why the opponent, three observers, AND the commentator all must have seen the illegal checker play, but NO ONE did ANYTHING to correct it. If N. was cheating intentionally, it was incredibly foolish, given that he already knew the match was streamed (he was just shown the playback on the dropped cup issue) and knew so many were standing over the board watching. (I mean, its not like he moved the checker as his opponent was bending down to pick up a dropped die -- his opponent was looking directly at the board reaching in to pick up the dice after having restarted the clock.) It's all incredibly confusing and sad for all sides. I guess the other question, not answered so far, is on what basis the tournament even revisited the issue? A simple illegal move isn't reviewable after a few moves have passed, right? Did Brandon look at the video and complain to the tournament officials? Did someone watching the livestream complain? Did an official look at the video later and raise it themselves? Oh yeah, and why didn't the ruling committee criticize the TD for allowing such "blatant cheating" to occur right before his/her eyes without stepping in to stop it? So sad for everyone.
"Must have"?? People don't notice things. Try telling people "You must have noticed someone picked your pocket" "You must have seen the trick/scam/whatever. Even if it was a mistake, everyone was distracted, no-one would believe someone would do that - and Brendan was adjusting the clock and picking up the dice, so his attention was on something else, and must have helped to distract the observers. Everyone relaxed their alertness after the stress of the discussion about the dice roll. It has been proved with tests that we are terribly bad witnesses, it's just a scientific fact, so don't "assume" everyone must have seen it. I was watching keenly, and didn't see it first time. And REALLY, you are wrong to suggest the TD "allowed" blatant cheating without stepping in. Nobody saw it, except KG commentating, and they aren't allowed to step in.
@@PeterOzanne The commentator did not mention it after the match and let the final to continue...your comments have all the making of a kangaroo court ...guilty until proved innocent...amazing how you ignore Brenden changed the roll to 5 1... perhaps that doesn't suit your agenda...
If any of the observers had seen it they would have called it out. The cheating would be so unexpected that no one would watch for it. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I certainly have not ignored the issue of Brendan's touching/knocking over the die! I have answered this question multiple times all over this post: ok, you missed that. Then I will repeat. Players like us touch the opponent's dice all the time - normally when their roll is cocked, and dice land near our side of the board. Then we naturally pass them back without thinking, so that they can re-roll, right? This situation was very unusual - but similar. Brendan thought it was an illegal roll, and instinctively passed the die back. Dice often get knocked over, for example, when we roll our dice. Players then often move the dice next to the bar, especially if they are near checkers they want to move. I, and many others, have knocked dice over in this situation. Brendan has a spotless reputation: I, all the players in Ireland, and many in the UK, have known him for 30+ years, and know that he would not deliberately change the dice. Regarding the "kangaroo court" and the illegal checker "move" - in the above answer I did say "even if it was a mistake" - leaving that possibility open. I had to use examples where people don't see what's in front of their eyes, where people are deceived, for example, by the trick of a magician (more neutral than my other examples for sure). All I'm saying is that it is POSSIBLE to trick people deliberately, and it's also POSSIBLE that it could happen accidentally. But the checker move did not happen by accident, and it's a most serious rule-break, and that's why they decided on the disqualification. It's a tough situation, because there is no perfect solution IMHO. All the best to you.
Is it incorrect to say that Neculai's 1,1 move had already been made since the clock was still ticking? Could he not have changed his move instead of waiting 5 minutes to pick up his opponent's checker and put it in a much worse position?
There was another strange non-move that Neculai made later in this match at the game of 6 to 9. Towards the end of that game, when Neculai only had 9 checkers left on the board, he rolled a 6 and 1,but he only played the 6. Thus, he beared off only for the 6, but did not move for the 1. Why did this happen and why again did nobody notice this?
The cheat from NA gave him an extra 1.2% MWC according to Extremegammon, the strongest AI in the world. Meanwhile, BB broke the rules of not speaking up when he realised that NA's clock had been running the whole time, and 25% of your time bank (5 minutes) at this early point in the match, is for the average player worth way more than 1.2% match winning chance. So you the objectively result is, that BB gained much more equity out of the situation than NA.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Like you said Marc...you don't know these players...NA's natural play is extremely fast...the 5 minutes,in regards to him,means nothing...P.s...thats the speed backgammon is meant to be played at...clocks,and shuffling your checkers around until you're satisfied with your move is akin to cheating if you played traditional BG...said it before.this form of backgammon can be so tedious to play and watch,and if you're used to playing a naturally fast game,your opponent can lull you to sleep with their slow play...clocks should be speeded up...
Marc: about the Claudia move. She would NOT have moved 8-5, 7-5, as you suggested, she would have played (as she initially intended) 7-4, followed by 8-6: ok, that's not quite so good, because she wants to activate 4-4, but we all know that when moving your OWN checkers under stress, it's very easy to make a mistake. But that's mega-different from moving the other player's checkers! 🙂
@@winthorpetrois The one with the long blond hair? Yes, definitely: I talked with her during the final, sitting next to her. Maybe you should have gone to Specsavers. 🙂
good video Marc i recorded all my matches at the uk open and i made a few checker errors if i wasnt transcribing my matches i might not have known, even experienced opponents missed them and if my matches were not recorded i would have been virtually certain of complete checker play accuracy the best ppl to have called attention to this problem was the commentator team. i noticed Neculai losing time as soon as i watched the 11 incident unfold. the fair resolution in my opinion....... give back Neculai his 5min clock time Put Brendans checker back on the 23 brendan Plays on with 61 as the roll. i dont know either player, i disagree with moving an opponents checker quietly, especially from a correct position to a wrong position but we are all different. that in itself surely cannot be beyond reasonable doubt sufficient for such a ruling i cant imagine how neculai must be feeling i hope this leads to a rule change no opponent is allowed to reposition an oppopnents checker without express consent and acknowledgement of the position change by the other party.
None of it happens if Brendan doesn't grab the dice to begin with. That too is a violation. The first one. They need to fix the rules so that a dropped cup is OK if it hits nothing. Saved by video. How would it have gone without video? A violation I suspect. I want to know how bad a move he made on the 1-1. I would do the same. You said 2 direct hits were created but I only see one, 2-7. What is the other? Really. How bad was the move?
Marc, you may say that Brendan was breaking a rule here, but he thought it was clearly an illegal roll, and, as with cocked dice etc it's pretty normal, if a die is on or near your side of the board, to pass it back to the opponent to enable him to re-roll. At the hectic pace of this match, it wasn't surprising he did that.
I guess Brendans action was an instinctive reaction, but that doesn't make it right. But, as there was ultimately no dispute as to what numbers the dice came to rest on, it was of little consequence. As to moving cocked dice before your opponent has concurred Peter: bad idea!
Well, it was ruled to be a valid roll, since the cup only touched the surface AFTER the dice had been rolled and didn't touch the dice to interfere with them. So it was not an illegal roll. Brendan definitely broke a rule here. Nevertheless it was an innocent and unintentional mistake that human players makes all the time and there are absolutely no shame in that, EVERYBODY makes small mistakes, and only a few even know all the rules.
Brendan DID break a rule but it was utterly irrelevant as he accepted the ruling on the 11. The subsequent - and far worse - transgression is the only relevant matter, so I don't know why people keep diverting with waffle about Brendan's inconsequential pick up of the dice, or about the dice cup drop. Nobody cares about either, but they're being framed as somehow relevant to the core issue.
@@g.c.muttley1715 Didn't mean that: usually the hand goes to the dice and already in that split-second, the word "cocked" has been spoken. I took that as a given.
I can see how and why Neculal moved the checker, because he wouldn't have made that move in the first place, with the aces. If back checkers were split. Due to the dice being clearly changed he was squeezed. So now he assumed it got moved. And corrected it. And you're absolutely correct he should have mentioned that split checker and questioned it. He didn't because it was too early in the game. I don't see intentional cheating. Especially when being filmed or so early in the game. He was winning it doesn't make sense. Another point is if he was in control or it was a premeditated move he wouldn't have missed the clock not being paused. This was a MEGA Blunder by all involved IMHO
This is a forth roll position and he literally watched his opponent play that ace not 2 seconds before. Your argument that he didn’t realize they were split is ridiculous.
alternatively, he snapped playing his aces due to Brendan's intervention. he did so without realising he was leaving a direct shot, because he was only focused on getting the move in as fast as possible. Then when he sees he has left a direct shot, he decides that's not fair. If it wasn't for the interference, he wouldn't have left a direct shot. So he enacts his own vigilante justice by taking the shot away, picking his moment while everyone is distracted. If challenged he just claims it was a little mistake. Mistakes happen all the time, don't they?
Marc you are a great ambassador for our game, and I like that you automatically see the best in people BUT you weren't there and by admission do not know the players. Please leave this matter to the tournament referees.
We can discuss the rulings in public, right? Backgammon Galaxy was the sponsor of the event, and had given two expensive boards plus promotion of the event. And the match was streamed on Backgammon Galaxy's youtube page in a Backgammon Galaxy production.
Great analysis Marc. Based on the video alone, the decision of the ruling committee seems extreme and doubtful to say the least. I sure hope they have some other evidence against Neculai besides this video that we’ve been provided. Video alone is not and can not be enough. In the moments of distraction and high stress mistakes can happen, even in high level matches. I’ve had reputable opponents make illegal plays that favoured them, I’ve had a GM opponent ‘correct’ my legally played move etc. In all of these cases I was sure it was unintentional as I know these people fairly well (not to mention it was partly my responsibility as well to spot it). I’ve made few illegal plays myself over the years… it just happens. When you record and transcribe all of your matches you see all sorts of things happen from time to time (illegal moves, incorrectly reconstructed position after someone has shuffled too much etc.). It’s rare but it happens. Play, record and transcribe few hundred matches and you will know what I’m talking about. If you never do it you will never even notice some of the irregularities. Not sure why people got so upset that Marc mentioned Claudia. I think it’s quite clear that he was simply giving an example that honest mistakes do happen in backgammon (some people seem to be completely unaware of this fact). Neculai would have to be absolutely crazy to attempt any kind of intentional manipulation in front of all those people and knowing it’s streamed as well. Worth noting that with his ‘adjustment’ he increased his match winning chances by only 1,2%, hardly a decider. To make this kind of extreme ruling (taking away someone’s title and ALL of their prize money!) one has to be pretty damn sure (probably close to 100%) that what Neculai did was intentional cheating and not an honest mistake. I don’t see it here. (again I don’t know Neculai personally and I am only basing this on the video)
@@jjmckenna My point is that you're assigning very bad intentions to Axinte, basically pretending that you can read his mind. That is not helpful and not a fair way to treat any player in a dispute. We should stick to the factual evidence and always start with an assumption of good faith.
@@jjmckenna It's not lofty, it's only fair to treat players that way. As Olsen and many other players have pointed, people make mistakes, sometimes even terrible, suspicious looking mistakes that benefit themselves; especially under stress and in chaos. This does not mean one can't rule for deliberate cheating short of a confession. If circumstantial, indirect evidence makes a very strong case for bad intentions and there isn't a good way to explain the behaviour from a "good faith" presumption, then one could still rule something as deliberate cheating. In this case, the evidence *might* suggest bad intentions, but it isn't strong evidence. Also, there is an explanation for his behaviour from a "good faith" perspective. Given that, it is rather extreme to accuse someone of deliberate cheating with the strong consequences disqualification bring to a winner of the tourney. "Black was looking at the board for multiple minutes, said nothing, and then acted without saying anything. " -- We can't really see what NA is looking at, I see him in a chat and debate about dice rolling and cup dropping most of all. Much less can we know what he was thinking when he did look at the board. He may have only noticed the split backcheckers seconds before play resumed and thought they had been disturbed and pushed them back. That he didn't say anything and moved opponent's checker is illegal and worthy of a penalty. But it doesn't say anything about bad intentions.
Moving your opponents checkers is an intentional act. I like the ruling. He probably didn’t drop the cup on purpose. If you are able to control the dice during the roll, that would be cheating. People have been able to control the dice rolling from a cup before. They can also control the dice in the game of Craps even though the dice have to hit the back wall.
It is intentional, but that doesn't mean the intentions were bad. If one thought those checkers had been disturbed during the 6 minute ordeal, it would make sense to correct their position before resuming play. Of course Neculai still should have handled it differently then and his behaviour can be penalized. But without solid evidence of bad intent, disqualifying the winner of a tournament completely from all his results, after the fact, is an extreme ruling.
@@ZorbaTheDutch How would you ever know that someone subtly moving their opponent's checkers during a match are cheating or just confused? And what would be the disincentive not to do it if there are no consequences?
@@EclipseDan As I wrote, moving opponent's checkers is illegal and can be penalized as such. Just like many other illegal actions in backgammon. But one should be very hesitant to conclude cheating, with bad intentions, if there isn't any real evidence for it.
@@michaelblankenau6598 I can be done. Remember that the house edge is less than 0:5% if you take maximum odds all the time. That’s not much to overcome. You only need partial control to beat that. You simply must avoid all other bets on the Craps table. Dice control is all about reducing the 7. 7 comes up 1 out of 6 times. If you reduce it to 1 out of 6.5 times, you have a winning game. It takes lots of practice. You have to stand with good posture and have good control of your minute muscular coordination.
Can someone answer a question? I have a question for anyone who can answer: All of my players were in but one and on my board, the fourth space was empty but two pieces on the fifth space. I had nothing on the sixth space. My last roll with one player out was a six and five and if I had moved a six first, i would have landed on the fourth space, then I would have been required to take out a five, leaving one piece on the fourth position and one piece on the fifth position. Instead, i chose the first move as a five, giving me now three pieces on the fifth position and since i did not have any pieces on the sixth position, i took in one player from the three I had on the fifth space, resulting in all pieces, as being covered. He told me this is wrong and said that I need to move six first, then five. Reply
Your point on "has he done that before ❓" is totally relevant to the ruling. There may be other accusations 🤔 The bottom line is he shouldn't have even considered touching his opponent's checkers. Putting it simple, he is actually cheating ❗ Cheers to you Backgammon Galaxy 🤟✨
@@MrCarlSellars that didn't happen both players were aware it was 11. I admit it should have been put immediately on 11, but there is no insinuation that BB tried to change the dice roll.
The Ruling Committee was put in a difficult position and I sympathise with them. However, I agree with your analysis here. I would guess that all of us who play over the board for years will eventually do something as strange and suspicious as moving the checker back to the 24. We just likely won't even notice it when it happens. There but for the grace of God go we all! And tactically, even if someone were a cheater, they would never decide to cheat in this way when the reward is so limited and the risk of getting 'caught' is near 100%. So more likely than not this was a mistake rather than deliberate. But even if that weren't the case, I would much rather let a guilty person go free than rush to judgement and punish an innocent. Unless there is some key information we're missing I would give Neculai the benefit of the doubt.
We all make mistakes with our own checkers, but I seriously doubt if ANYONE would adjust opponents' checkers without asking. I've never done it, or even seen it, or heard about it, in 35 years of backgammon, If it is done, it would be intentional cheating 99% of the time. There may be a very small doubt, but I doubt if it's "reasonable". All the best, see you again some time, when I'm not so tired, lol!
@@PeterOzanne I see players touching and moving opponent's checkers all the time. Mostly, they are correct when they do it, and usually (but not always) they say something. But players need to be aware that when they do not follow proper process, ruling are likely to go against them.
@@jebhorton1830 Oh yes, of course: sometimes I will touch an opponent's checker if it has not been put clearly and nicely on the right point - and of course, we always touch opponent's checkers when we hit them!
An interesting discussion. I played tournament chess a long time ago. If you play an illegal move, you lose the game, but obviously it’s much easier to do in backgammon, but no one would consider the person a cheater. The only realistic time it could happen is in a time scramble. In chess you write down the moves, so it’s easy to check illegal moves. There’s no chance to gain by such a play, since your opponent will certainly catch it. However you can see intentional cheating by playing an illegal move in park games by hustlers, but that’s in blitz games with no one writing down moves. Some hustlers are very good at it, doing something like using a shirt sleeve to knock a piece, and then fix the piece by putting it on a different square, thus essentially making two moves.
You don't lose a chess game by making an illegal move . That is nonsense . An illegal move is simply retracted and a legal move substituted . What you're saying for example is that if you put me in check and I move my King to a square that is still covered I automatically lose the game . That's not how tournament chess is conducted .
I don't get it. Why is one guy getting the stockades for moving his opponent's checker, but the other guy, Brendan Burgess, gets off scot free for reaching over and actually changing his opponent's dice roll from a good 11 to the worst roll 51 ? Oh this video deserves a big thumbs up !
@@alex324ization It was clearly accidental, he was passing the die back to his opponent - just as you or I do if the dice are cocked - because he thought it was an illegal roll.
Don't you get it? If a cocked die lands near you, you pass it back to the opponent to re-roll. If you think the roll was not rolled legally, many players probably do the same. I've known Brendan 30 years, and knocking the die over was not intentional, 100% certain.
it happens very often that a player accuses another to be able to cheat without being noticed, the attention is no longer on him... MAybe not on Backgammon but on other game it's happens
The rules state that the dice cup cannot touch the playing surface when you are rolling the dice out. The edge case scenario where somebody drops the cup on the board, after the dice has been thrown and doesn't touch the dice, have not been specified. Therefore the stated rule is up for interpretation by the tournament ruling committee. A very tough decision, but either way makes sense and is justified it seems. Nevertheless, after the ruling has been made the game must continue.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Well the UKBGF has this rule: 1.2 Etiquette (i) GENERAL - Tournament directors and players are expected to behave in the spirit of the game which is to show generous sportsmanship and fair and considerate behaviour. (ii) HANDLING OF EQUIPMENT - Players must handle the equipment in a suitable manner. Clearly dropping the dice cup on the board wasn´t "suitable" and was what caused confusion and doubt on whether the throw was valid in the first place. . It shouldn´t matter if the dice are influenced by something being dropped. More important is if there is doubt about the validity of a throw. And we don´t always have a recording to go back on. Backgammon rules should be simple and easy to handle. So people: Don´t drop your glasses, sandwich or dice cup on the board, and if you do be prepared that your roll will not count.
I agree he was worried that the 11 was going to be taken away from him which is why he snap-played it. It all emanated from that. The snap-play is the key. It demonstrates not only the (misplaced or legitimate)concern that the roll would be removed, but also that he was confident he could make the play super-quickly without playing it wrongly. Once he’d played it he could breathe easy, he thought. They come round to look and eventually say it stands. But then as Neculai looks at the board for the first time after the protracted debate he realises that the checker on the 23 is in the wrong place. He’s not really even shocked or aghast. He reasons in this way: he knew the 11 had been an incredibly good roll, he had certainly known how to play it - make two points - and the fact that he had made two points MUST have meant that the checkers had not been split. ‘I would never make a mistake like that,’he says to himself in a split second and then corrects it. The fact that he thinks nothing of correcting the position corroborates this. He doesn’t ask: why would he need to ask? The fact that Brendan says nothing, as does no one else does nothing to take him out of this cast-iron line of thinking. I have played Neculai a few times and his weakness is exactly this arrogance that he thinks he knows best and for the time being he has come acropper. We all have it to some degree. There was no will to manipulate. If anything, it was Brendan’s responsibility to call it to Neculai’s attention. The ruling is ridiculous and should be overturned on appeal.
"No will to manipulate?". He looked at the board for 5 minutes and then flicks his opponent's checker into a worse position just as they're about to resume. I don't know how much more blatant you need it to be.
“If anything it was Brendan’s responsibility to call it to Neculai’s attention”. Sorry, but that is a ‘Cheat’s Charter” (I’m NOT saying that Neculai did cheat, as I’ve stated several times elsewhere). However, your statement amounts to “It’s fair game to cheat if my opponent doesn’t notice”. That Is unconscionable.
@justin everybody was distracted by the dice cup situation. Even Brendan didn't know where his own checkers belonged. Are you putting 0% likelihood that they were simply not just confused?
Have to disagree with you on this one, Simon. How can you put the responsibility on Brendan? Cheating of this nature only works when it goes unnoticed. Neculai may not have been intentionally cheating, but that is neither here nor there. He moved his opponent's checker without consulting, which, regardless of intent, is incredibly obviously not fair play. I don't understand how anyone expects cheaters to be caught if they don't accept this video as evidence. We can very plainly see someone break the rules in a way that is not negligible, and here we have people saying that because we don't know what was going on in his head, he is not beholden to the consequences of his actions. If proving intent is the most important element, good luck ever catching cheaters.
The rules are unambiguous, as they need to be. 1) As the dice are being rolled they should not touch the player’s hand and the cup should not touch the board. The dice must roll freely and come to rest lying flat on the playing surface of the board to the roller’s right of the bar. If this is not the case, the roll is deemed invalid and must be retaken. If the opponent has given his permission, the dice may be rolled to the roller’s left of the bar. 2) MOVES - Players must move clearly and use only one hand to move the checkers. Repeated transgressions by a player in breach of this provision may result firstly in a warning, and subsequently in penalty points. 3) HANDLING OF CHECKERS - A player should not touch his own checkers or his opponent’s checkers during his opponent’s turn. Repeated transgressions by a player in breach of this provision may result firstly in a warning, and subsequently in penalty points. To call someone a cheat is not something that should be done without all due consideration, but that is not the same as saying that someone has broken the rules. Rules were broken by both players. Ruling bodies decisions should be respected. This was not a football match.
Dropping the cup is understandable, but playing at this level moving checkers into different positions from where they should be according to the dice roll is cheating. There's NO EXCUSE. I've seen so many cheaters in Backgammon competitions who constantly make illegal moves and try to get away with it. Sorry, but the basically simple math of Backgammon, there are NO EXCUSES for not making legal moves. Independent umpires should be on their game. It's not rocket science!
Hey Steve. I disagree with two of your points. 1. Moving that checker to a different position, in this case back to the 24-point, or making other illegal moves, is only "cheating" if the act is done intentionally. _cheat; to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage_ If it truly was an _honest_ mistake, then he couldn't have acted _dishonestly._ I've made illegal moves before, simply because I misread the dice. According to you, I cheated. And that's not correct. 2. Twice you capitalized NO EXCUSE. Yes, there IS an excuse for not making legal moves. The excuse is "we're human" and because of which, we make mistakes. We misread dice. We count wrong. I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions, or other penalties involved. If you make an illegal move you're subject to whatever penalties there are for doing so. But with your emphasis, you act like it shouldn't ever happen. Well, it's going to.
If it was a deliberate act to leave an incorrect position, then yes it was cheating. But NOT if, after the extended stress of the rolling incident, it was an honest belief they were correcting the position. As many have said, to try to cheat in front of so many seems unlikely, even though it actually went through!
@@squirrelpatrick3670 I understand that. But that doesn't make any difference at all. We're talking about "cheating." Cheating requires intent. If he didn't do intentionally, he made a mistake, to be sure, but that is not cheating. He shouldn't have done it, to be sure, but if was an honest mistake on his part, then by definition he was not cheating. Cheating requires one to act dishonestly.
I am with Sean Clennell: kibbitzers should be allowed to draw players' attention to possible illegal moves and misplays. (The kibbitzer that Sean says spotted the checker been moved back, should have reported it to the TD immediately). But, of course, at present kibbitzers are not allowed to comment to the players, so what has happened here is effectively kibbitzers reporting the possible infringement to the TD well after the event. This is less than ideal but, I feel, sufficient for the TD to investigate further. I cannot see how Nicolai's true intention - i.e. to cheat, or to correct a wrong position - can be determined from any amount of video analysis (any more than it might by asking him). In moving the checker back without advising his opponent, he broke the rules, but sufficiently to be disqualified? [in the St Albans Open, players are encouraged to display a "kibbitzers may comment" flag]
Play the video at 1/4 speed. You will see at 2:53 the dice cup catches the edge of the board and the entire board moves a smidgen. This is why the player dropped the cup. The board moving prior to the dice hitting the surface will impact the outcome of the roll, so the roll is illegal. As such I do *NOT* believe the player did this on purpose it was an accident, but the roll should have been rerolled. The ruling is wrong, the player did not maliciously try to cheat IMHO, however the roll *was* an illegal roll.
Hi Marc, interesting aspect concerning the spectators - what do the tournament rules say in their regard? Are they in a certain way “part of the game”, means that they should (verbally) correct any misplay or mistake of the players, or are they supposed not to interfere, as this is up to the responsibility of the players only (as it was common sense in any tournaments I played in the 80 and 90 years)?
it is strange that kibitzers are not allowed to say anything. To have agreement with opp at the start for kibitzers to be able to highlight illegal moves is sensible, with a symbol to that affect by the board so kibitzers are aware.
@@jonbarnes8249 One general problem, among others, with kibitzers saying things arises when one player has friends watching and the other doesn't. The kibitzers may point out the mistakes of the player's opponent more readily than those of the player they are friends with. For that matter, noticing mistakes, intentional or otherwise, is part of the skill of being a player, so winning is more noteworthy when you haven't had help from kibitzers.
It's true that a spectator cannot correct an illegal move. But in this scenario, where it is the tournament staff observing, and they had stopped the game (even though NA's clock was still running), I think they would have definitely stepped in if they had seen the position was incorrect. In a normal game flow, they would not be allowed to interfere.
UKBGF: _If an illegal move is noticed by either player before his opponent has made a valid roll or offered a valid double, it must be corrected. Only the players, the Tournament Director and any official match monitors are required to point out an illegal move unless the players have clearly stated an intention to the contrary to observers including any match annotator. An illegal move will stand once the opponent has made a valid roll or offered a valid double._
Have there been any other cheating scandals in backgammon? I'd love to see more videos like this. Especially with what's been going on in the chess world lately
I agree that players should not touch the opponent's dice or checkers. Mochy has a nervous habit of aligning checkers that are fractionally out of place. Many of us do this as we consider what move to make. However Mochy adjusts his opponents checkers to align them perfectly. I am surprised someone hasn't called him on that. I would. Touching your opponents checkers should only be done during board setup between games or when a player cannot remember where his checkers were when he wants to put them back to the original position to reconsider his/her options, even then its best to point to the points where the checkers belong rather than move your opponents checkers.
What a mess. My opinion is that the UKBGF were put in an awkward position and I strongly support their decision. Marc, I don’t think you were fair to compare this example with Claudia and in doing so are not comparing like for like. It is like comparing a Jag to a Corsa because they both have 4 wheels. Claudia should not be labelled the same at all and you should apologise.
I didn't label Claudia as a cheater, quite the contrary. Did you even listen to what I said? I even said something like "Even grandmasters make unintentional illegal plays". Should I apologise to all grandmasters in the world as well? /Marc
Marc. Sorry. Good video & fair opinion. Players make mistakes. Ruling committees make mistakes. The B G community is making a mistake in attacking you. Content creators opinions are not mistakes. Let them make their own video with their opinion, or STFU.
There is a difference between making a mistake and cheating. And I think this is a great illustration of this. The biggest clue to me that this was not intentional which is an important part of cheating is that the score is 5-2 in an 11 point match. Cube not turned. It's not a vital stage in the match in the least. Plus it's streamed, plus you have directors all over the place looking over the board. In a confusing situation, it seems one thing being wrong become 10 things being wrong. I see it again and again in backgammon as well as poker. Because confusion and fluster breeds mistakes. That's what happened here. And if they are indeed playing legal moves, isn't the opponent obligated to point out the illegal move of sliding the white checker from 2 to 1? It's kind of scary they took everything away from Neculai because mistakes can and will happen and we will all make them. Will we be banned and everything taken away? The claim of cheating needs to be strong with solid evidence, because it's so serious. I hope Neculai can appeal and somehow get some justice because it seems so draconian to me, especially to these particular players who are obviously strong players, but not world class. And thanks for the great analysis Marc.
I think this analysis of a clue to potential motive is a bit naïve. Do you watch football, or remember Rivaldo diving to the floor clutching his face against turkey in the 2002 world cup? Brazil were playing their first match, in front of an audience of tens of millions, being broadcast all over the world, winning the match, after 90 minutes had been played AND were waiting to take a corner - and he still took it upon himself to cheat. It's a madly specific example but just serves to illustrate that it's probably not as easy as we'd like to identify when cheating is most likely (assuming it would only happen at a key moment) versus something just being a mistake. Am not saying he definitely cheated and completely agree with your poker analogy tho and agree the whole situation leaves a bad taste in the mouth :/
@@89psychedelicmess I agree. Superdan's and others' assertion that A+B=C doesn't hold water as proof. Humans are often capable of doing totally irrational things. It was a most serious rule infringement, and he condemned himself by not checking with his opponent or the match-monitor.2
@@vinr6867 Weren't those admissions for online chess play, while the current scenario is live chess play? It's harder to cheat over the board. Not impossible, but harder.
He moves Brendan's checker WHILE Brendan is adjusting the clock and then looking across to pick up the dice. It's very easy to do something so that no-one notices. Some people actually practice this skill, and make a career out of it. Marc, I've seen it before, it's happened to me. One just can't believe it, doesn't even WANT to believe it. So it could be accidental, or not. Either way, it's illegal and brought him a big advantage!
wow, a comedy of errors. Marc's analysis is spot on in so many ways. And IMO disqualification is way too harsh a punishment. The 2 scenarios are totally different. Scenario A just a bunch of errors on both players part because IMO they both got more and more titled as the discussion move forward....both were titled... PLayer BB is down 3 games....Player NA dropped his cup.....Dice were touched and moved.... just 2 players totally tilted IMO. Scenario B, a simple mistake that was not caught by anyone, games moves on. No fouls, just unfortunate. I dont think any player intended to cheat.
I think this is a fair and sophisticated analysis. I can't stand Nekulai but I do not believe that his manipulation of the checkers was deliberate cheating. I think that after the time it took to start play, he obviously had half a mind thinking this was a restart and he mistakenly tidied the board. In any event, his opponent should have realised where his checkers were disposed and questioned his new position. Again I say, I don't like the man and consider his bad temper and unsportsmanlike demeanour to be appalling. However, I do not believe him to be a cheat. I'd like to know his input into this debacle. I think that the UKBGF committee have shown little imagination and sought a decision that would sit well with small minded members.
How? Easy, everyone was distracted by all the tedious discussion of the legal/illegal roll. Whether intentional or not in this case, this is a common (distraction) technique of pickpockets, magicians etc.
It's a pretty big accusation to say that NA dropped the cup on purpose to create a distraction to eventually make a cheating play that gave him +1.2% MWC according to XG, but lost 5+ minutes on the clock in the process, which probably makes the sequence minus EV for NA. I would prefer to have 5 minutes more on the clock at this score, than 1.2% MWC. For an accussation like that you need proof. We have the semifinal and final live streamed and there wasn't a single other incident of this from NA.
I replayed this in slow motion repeatedly and Nicolai hit 1:1 so his move was correct. The Irish guy touched the dice and turned it very fast into 5 on purpose. Otherwise why he would jump so fast on touching the opponent’s dice???
Some players will react to your impending hit of one of their checkers by picking it up themselves and placing it on the bar. I always quickly nip this in the bud and inform them I will not allow their hands on the board or handling the checkers whilst I am in play.
At 1:13:00 of the recording of the full match, Nekulai rolls a six and one as he is bearing off but he only takes off one checker and does not move a second checker to use his one. This looks like cheating also. Opinions?
His hand movements might make it seem like cheating, but it isn't. With a 6-1 he is allowed to play the one first 4/3 then the six 3/off, amounting to 4/off which is what he plays.
I am not a player but it seems to me that the opponent that touched the dice should be immediately disqualified. The player that touched his opponents checker should immediately be disqualified. If the rules were enforced rigidly nobody would touch their opponent's checker more then once, same for the dice. There is a substancial amount of money involved so clear rules and stringent application is required. Also when your clock is running you should be the only person aloud to touch your checkers and dice. Immediately after you stop your clock you cannot touch anything 9nbthe board.
I have played a million games and one of the things that happened when I played was my opponent would move the checkers then he would move them again then again it ended up I never knew where they were at the start I had forgotten. Looking at these guys you would have thought they had just started playing touching your opponent's dice and moving your opponent's checkers my opinion is he never cheated.
I've known Brendan 30 years, and so have all the players in Ireland, as well as many in England. He plays 100% fair. He would NEVER move opponent's checkers. When your opponent rolls cocked dice near you, you touch them, don't you? Every player I know passes the dice back, to be helpful. Same if you think the roll was illegal - you pass the die back without thinking, when you are in the pressure of a match. Not a big deal.
This is such a difficult ruling to make. It's very harsh, but the intent by Neculai is debatable. It's possible he did it without thinking. It's possible everyone was confused and this was an accident - in fact, likely. The fact none of the other 4 people did or said anything makes me feel the penalty was too harsh. To take his entire prize moneys is outrageous.
Your analysis seems fair. There was much confusion and the game state could easily have been messed up during all the hassle. In a friendly, low-stakes game, this sort of adjustments can become a habit even.
It looks to me like both players should be disqualified. If it isn't a rule that a player shouldn't touch his opponent's dice while on the surface of the board for any reason it needs to be, but the checker movement is just out and out cheating.
I think calling NA a cheater is a harsh when you consider that the tourney officials are right there over the board and the match was being recorded. Knowing that, why would NA think he could get away with moving his opponents checker and it not be seen. Obviously NA made an impulsive move because he thought his opponent's checker had to be there for his double 1 position to be correct. One should never touch their opponents checker. If a mistake is made just point it out to your opponent and let them correct their move. In this case, it's not even worth the risk of cheating where they were in the match. Based on what I'm seeing they should just replay this match and the finals. The imperfect solution is to have a tournament official observe all the matches where prize money is involved, so that rulings are timely and they catch illegal moves and help players manage their clock. Yes, i know tourney officials were there, but your mindset is different when your told specifically what to be looking for as an observer. But still if humans are involved mistakes will happen even with an observer. With regards to the clock, I've always felt the player is responsible for managing their clock. NA let his time tick away during the ruling. That's his fault. He shouldn't get the time back. But I know we typically give back time if mistakes are caught.
I'm sure you know humans often don't even see things that they don't expect, or wouldn't dream anyone would dare to do. IF it was intentional, and it was noticed, he could talk his way out by saying, "Oh, I thought it was there". You say "Obviously" he thought it was there, but you cannot know that: you simply assume. People do very strange things on impulse, but even if it was not intentional cheating, it is very different from playing illegally with your own checkers, which is hard to prove anyway. What he did was illegal (moving opponent's checkers). He didn't ask, and he moved it to his own great advantage. But I agree with you that match monitoring should be improved.
just to be clear , there were no tournament officials right there over the board, just other tournament players. The person ruling re the legal/illegal dice roll and the guy in charge of streaming had moved away from the board.
I agree. I don't know how you let Necolei win the tourney and then say "wait a minute, let's go back to the previous match (where they were standing right there watching) and because he moved a checker (assuming his intent to cheat) we are going to take away his trophy and prize money.
Why did Brendan try to grab the dice so quick on the dropped cup... to change the 1/1 to a 5/1... seems both players were attempting some slight of hand... I mean he was fast to touch the opponent roll of dice. He just didn't get away with it.... all focus was on Neculai for dropping the cup. But he *saw* his 1/1... so Brendan didn't get away with it at all. LOL I think Neculai was just trying to pay back the attempted cheat... LOL. Good JOB on OP for noticing this fact at about 8:30 time. But the point is... both were attempting cheats. Both were "handsy" with the other player's game.
An opponent’s checker was moved to an inferior position silently. That is the one actual fact in evidence and it is blatantly cheating. Whether it was rational or not to cheat in front of a camera, it was done.
Until now I thought backgammon is a gentlemen's game, but i see it's the same thing everywhere, human being is weak, specially when money or power are present... So sad...
Terrible to compare what Claudia did to what Nicolai did. The cup issue is irrelevant. Nicolai moved his opponents blot from the 23 to the 24 pure and simple. All the rest is noise. Nicolai was rightly stripped of his victory. I have never in my life done what Nicolai did. I probably have done what Claudia did dozens of times. Honest mistake versus blatant cheat. and by the way. I would not stack the 5 in Claudia's 3-2. I would put a checker on 6 and 4. You move your opponents checkers. You cheat. End of story.
I had a fender bender in my own driveway 2 days ago. I went out for 10 minutes to pick up a relative from the train station and bring them back to my house. On backing up into the driveway I hit a neighbor's car who had popped over to see my wife. I was both confused as I wasn't expecting a car to be there and distracted while talking to my relative. The confusion and distraction from the previous sequence of events can upset the sound mind of even strong players. I agree with Marc completely.
@@EclipseDan Being deprived of the (£5k?) tournament winnings and the Galaxy board is a very heavy consequence. (You can throw in the trophy, title, and I guess ranking points into the mix.) Some might feel that they would swap a UKBGF life ban for this. Is he banned by the UKBGF for any period (as well)? There are other events that he may be able to enter. It may yet transpire that not all tournament organisers will presume he had a fraudulent intent, as UKBGF have effectively done.
The analogy is incomplete. Did the neighbour then emerge with a baseball bat and smash your car to pieces, and then receive support from people on youtube who instead blamed YOU for setting the chain of events in motion?
human error ! its natural. Nikoli didnt cheat. he genuinely ( but mistakenly) thought the back pair werent split. why else would he nonchalantly move the pair back in front of everyone for all to see. bad ruling from committee !
I was for years Tournament Director and helped writing EUBGF (now: WBGF rules) which states: As the dice are being rolled they should not touch the player’s hand and the cup should not touch the board.
So, in my opinion: Neculai should re-rolled becuse cup touched the board clearly. Secondly, Brendan should not have touched the dice while opponent's turn.
Thirdly, Neculai changed the position by misplacing Brendan's checker. We can argue if this was on purpose or not. But the main question which is weird is neither Brendan nor Tournament Director noticed it, so illegal move should stand. Please not that any spectator other then players or TD should remain silent if illegal move happened.
It is controversial to disqualify the player retroactively when the match finished. They should have reacted while illegal move happened.
Very poor decisions by the Ruling committee.
Cheers
Leonardo Jerkovic
Very good summary. You are right on all points.
But, I guess, They punished him to discourage others from cheating in the future.
this is how it works in Chess - and their rules seem much better enforced. some lessons should be taken.
In my opinion a poor comparison; “illegal move” translates as misplaying one’s own chequers - to clarify, making a move that does not accurately represent the moves dictated by the dice outcome - hence not legal. Usually completely unintentional and not always favourable or an advantage to the player who makes the mistake. However, moving one’s opponents chequers, with the exception of placing on the bar, is plain cheating. The action was not an interpretation of ANY dice roll. Misreading the dice forces an illegal move. In this case there were no dice to read. Blatant adjustment of opponents chequers = Cheating. Simple. What other conclusion is there?
Becca I simply don't get it... how can you say that. You have to prove intent. This can only be done if Necolai admits to that ... which he most certainly doesn't. .. there at least five people interfering with the adjudication. Are you saying the commentator was complicit because he didn't report it... most certainly not... there was so much confusion..if you saw my video Necolai cup fell on the left hand side earlier on ..his had brushed over the checkers ...he was quiet within his right to presume it was he who put the checker on the 23...
Far be it for me to judge the whole situation nor the decisions made by any party Tariq, and I agree with you on some points. I just don’t agree with the comparison made to an entirely different kind of error as the circumstances do not compare (in my opinion).
@@tariqsiddiqi10 If we do not consider it to be cheating unless you can prove intent through admission (your words), how on earth do you ever expect to catch cheaters? Do you think that cheaters just willingly admit to their wrong-doings when they are caught?
I have no idea whether Nikolai intentionally cheated or not; but he broke the rules in a way that affected the game, so he bears the burden of responsibility for his actions.
An illegal move is an illegal move, you are not the official judge of definitions.
Watching the replays -- I think that Mr. Burgess grabbed the dice because he wanted to stop play because he thought that the role was illegal -- and he did not want to be accused of stopping play because he did not like that role.
My comments are in support of the Ruling Committee, who had a very unfortunate, no-win, and thankless duty to make a decision - especially with dozens of viewers soon to be watching replay video while pretending to have the ability to accurately understand a players true intent by analyzing body language, game situation, level of player, number of witnesses, etc.
The fact is that, whether with mal-intent or not, Mr. Axinte moved the opponents checker. That is against the rules of backgammon. The white checker play was not in question with the dropped cup, so thinking they were in a different position and arbitrarily moving them was at best a lapse of judgement - and lapses of judgement are often penalized. Of course we all know that the proper action when we think checkers are in the wrong position is to: ask the opponent, tournament officials, or view the recording - not touch and move the checker.
While the checker movement was likely a small equity variation when done, Mr. Burgess having split checkers with the roll of 6-1 would have allowed him to put two on the bar against a 2 point board and depending on the response, possible cube - all potentially altering the game and match dramaticallly.
My thought is the Ruling Committee likely spent much time reviewing the recording, talking to players, discussing the rules, etc. before making their decision. I would like to honor their work and their decision.
Why would you think the guy was cheating? That seems odd. He could be penalized for breaking the rules without considering it cheating.
So, the fact that BB rolled the 61 you think is crucial? Apart from the simple fact that he may not have rolled it without that illegal change by NA, this random outcome increases the severity of NA's action? Give me strength!
I don't feel sorry for the rules committee because they were called upon to do what rules committees do. What does it matter to them that people would soon be watching? Better to defend a stupid ruling if no one else sees the action? If it is thankless and no win, then don't do it. But wishing they didn't have to do what they exist for, make rulings, is puzzling at best. Honor what? Turning a brain fart into cheating? Pretending to know what is in someone's head is wrong. Labeling a person a cheat takes obvious, strong evidence. Where is it?
Time to separate the wood from the trees. 1) The decisions were taken by the tournament committee, not the UKBGF. 2) Marc's second example is a red herring and should not have been used. That was a genuine (and common) error where someone makes an illegal move with their own checkers. I did the commentary on the NY Open Final earlier this year and the players managed to start one game with the checkers incorrectly set up and nobody (except me) ever noticed. Genuine mistakes do happen. 3) In my opinion (and it is an opinion - I can't prove anything) Neculai very deliberately moved Brendan's checker from the 23-pt to the 24-pt. I know nothing of his mindset at the time but, in my humble opinion, that is very clearly cheating. 4) Brendan is culpable for not noticing the infringement and correcting it as he was the only person who could legally have done so. 5) Other observers failed to spot the infringement but they cannot interfere during play. 6) Does the punishment fit the crime? To me this is the key question. I think there are other ways the issue could have been dealt with that are not quite so draconian as the one employed. Therefore, I don't agree with the committee, but I will still support them because they may be right and I may be wrong. Some of this is subjective so there will always be differences of opinion. 7) This highlights the need for some new rules to clarify this area. 8) In summary this was an almighty mess and it is a great shame for our game that it happened at all.
I agree in general but what were the less draconian options? The only one I can think of is to replay the semi with a points penalty, but that's a lot of trouble and might be awkward!
Hey Chris. Nice to hear your analysis.
ad 1) I am sorry that I misspoke, you are right, it was not the UKBGF, but the UK Open TD who sets the ruling committee.
ad 2) I don't think it was a red herring, it was stating that human errors happen, and if they are not done with intention of cheating, then we don't retrospectively punish a player, since all players have made this mistake many times over. I do understand that there is a difference between touching your own and your opponent's checkers, but I think my argument is still valid: intent matters.
ad 3) Anybody can agree that he "deliberately" moved the checker. That is not what matters in my opinion, what matters is if he "deliberately" did it to cheat, or "deliberately" did it to correct a wrong position. What if Neculai had been correct?
ad 4) watch my new video tomorrow morning, Brendan gets distracted by something in the moment, and I think that is why he doesn't notice that Neculai shuffles his checker. I won't spoil why here :)
ad 5) I actually think, that given the situation that they had just stopped the match to have a ruling, that the tournament staff would have been in their good rights to interfere to get the original position correct. And I think they would have done it by instinct if they had seen it. There is a difference between interfering in a game that is flowing and interfering in a game that is already stopped for a ruling, and even an iphone had been used to replay video to make the ruling. But in a normal situation, you would be correct, spectators or tournament staff are not allowed to interfere even if an illegal play is made, it's up to the players themselves to correct it.
ad 6) I agree that the punishment does not fit the crime. I actually don't think there has been any crime, even though both players broke the rules.
ad 7) I think the illegal play rules are just fine as they are. If it's not corrected when the second roll is made, the illegal play stands. If you then catch somebody cheating with intent, THEN you can DQ them, but not without intent.
Best regards, Marc Olsen from the Galaxy youtube account.
Dear @Wuzzle.
One could argue that justice has already prevailed, that even though Neculai gained 1.2% MWC according to XG, he lost 25% of his time bank, which is worth way more than 1.2% MWC at this point in the match. Brendan was a huge NET WINNER in terms of equity in the match with this sequence. And given the fact that Neculai didn't do it to cheat on purpose, why would you retrospectively punish THIS illegal play, when all other illegal plays are being ruled according to the normal rule: If an illegal play is not corrected within the next two rolls then the illegal play stands.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Hi Marc. In my mind this is clearly different to an illegal play and that's why there is a deterrent level punishment. How much mwc he gained is beside the point. Perhaps what will come out of this is a clear distinction between an illegal play and moving your opponents checkers in the rules.
Btw the clock time makes no difference to Neculai, I doubt he ever uses more than a minute or two of his bank.
1) Neculai plays very fast and I have seen many experienced players play double 1 this way in this position. However he plays it is irrelevant. The clock is down to Neculai so did not get cheated out of his time. The observers are not allowed to Kibitz so hence said nothing. I know a player who was standing there at the time and saw him move the man back but could not say anything. There is a huge difference between miss playing and miss reading the dice as we all do than cheating. So moving forward is Backgammon going to learn from this and change the rules ? 1) Allow spectators to comment on illegal plays during streamed matches , as they can be checked quite quickly or better still 2 ) Why not have a Referee in the semis and finals of major tournaments ? 3) All streamed matches should be played with Black Dice. They are by far the best for the players to read correctly. Defo for viewing on live stream and makes it much easier for the commentators who need to know the roll instantly.
I've read the USBGF and UKBGF rules after seeing this video. I think the crux of the problem is that neither set of rules defines 'cheating.' They only define legal/illegal move. I'm guessing the difference between cheating and a simple illegal move is the presence of bad intent. But how to prove it?
Both players seemed more than willing, on multiple occasions, to literally "take matters into their own hands." They were so confident in themselves, why consult with others when they 'know' they're right. So, N drops the cup and B immediately grabs N's dice rather than simply pausing play and talking about it. So, N sees the checker on the 23 point and reaches over to put it back on the 24 point, without stopping to talk about it. Arrogance and recklessness on both sides. No wonder this is a mess.
The person in question should have immediately gone to the TD who was in the next room and less than 15 seconds walk away.
Neculai was well aware of where white's checkers were. While awaiting the result of the ruling he adjusts the checkers on white's 3-point to even them up. If he thought white's back checkers should not have been split he could have alerted someone at that point. It's possible that he realised white had a direct shot, and with the clock stopped he could not change his own move. He may therefore have willfully changed white's position once play resumed to remove the direct shot thereby gaining an advantage. In the absence of Neculai's rationale for this play, I would assume the ruling is correct.
Note that during the 6 minute ruling, NA's clock was still running. So it was still his turn.
I don't know what the ruling exactly was, other than the 1-1 roll stood, but I strongly believe NA should have finished his own turn by pressing his clock, after the ruling. This would have also given him the opportunity to change his move, which was interrupted by BB's dice grabbing (also illegal BTW).
Instead, BB ended NA's turn by operating the clock. Probably also illegal. And another factor that caused this dispute.
WRONG, Neculai's clock was running throughout this episode, he could have changed his play had he wanted to.
It seems like one of the possible cruxes of the debate is whether moving the other player's checkers incorrectly should disqualify you *whether or not* it was deliberate.
Some commenters think a player should be disqualified even if we knew for sure that they simply made an honest accident. Others think you should only be disqualified if it is done as part of a deliberate attempt to cheat. It would be interesting to know where the Ruling Committee comes down on this issue. Both views seem to have some merit.
"Some commenters think a player should be disqualified even if we knew for sure that they simply made an honest accident"......ok assuming he didn't intend to cheat - you're saying there are only two views and in this case it classifies as an 'honest accident'. Maybe there are some of us who think that moving your opponents checkers for them, after deciding for yourself they're in the wrong place, without checking or consulting with anyone....to be fairly arrogant and fairly illegal. If you're terming this as an 'honest accident' then yes, i guess there are some of us who think he's brought this on himself and should be disqualified for an honest accident.
Robert & Al, I've liked both your comments. Not sure Robert was actually stating that he thinks it was an honest mistake, just that a major part of the debate and differences in views centre around intent.
I agree with that, and I am firmly of the view that rulings should apply with virtually no recourse to intent whatsoever when a transgression is so obvious. Where do you draw the line? How could anyone EVER "prove" intent, if an adequate defence is simply waving your arms around saying you were confused? This doesn't even apply in criminal law defences, never mind backgammon tournaments.
Al's earlier golfing analogy of having incorrect clubs is a very good one. I think in the future additional wording is required that retains full power of sanctions but refrains from any mention of actions being deliberate or not. We can achieve the same integrity in rulings without having to even open that can of worms.
Coming from chess I'm flabbergasted that you guys don't have touch move rule. You touch a checker you have to move it. You release a checker to a different point you have to move it there. If the touch move is illegal opponent gets 2 extra minutes, and then you make a different move.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree here Marc. I think the whole cheat vs accidental argument is a bit of a strawman - I think there are adequate grounds for him to be DQ'ed regardless of intent. If we want backgammon to be taken seriously, we can't just have people randomly moving their opponents checkers around in a tournament worth a lot of money and just expect a chorus of shoulder shrugs. Would chess tolerate someone nudging a pawn one square and allow the match to stand? Of course not.
2 other things:
1. The cup drop element was totally irrelevant; nobody is suggesting that was deliberate.
2. The comparison with Claudia's position is a non-starter. That was a simple misplay, which happens all the time. Moving your opponent's checkers when it isn't even your move is completely different.
A failure to act here by the ruling committee would send a terrible message to people potentially interested in the game, and would set a terrible precedent for any similar future incidents.
"A failure to act here by the ruling committee would send a terrible message" -- But is the proper way to act here to retroactively disqualify the player from all his matches in the entire tournament, including the 10k prize money he just won?
What if his misplacing the backchecker had been spotted shortly after, would the ruling be that he immediately loses the entire match? Or even be disqualified at the spot? I doubt it. Maybe a penalty point, maybe just a warning.
Also, it might be unsatisfying, but the illegal moves rule states that once play continues, the move stands. BB nor anybody else pointed out the misplaced checker. Even after rolling the 6-1, which would've double hit, BB apparently had no idea his backcheckers were split originally and didn't object to his two checkers on 24 at all. If BB had such a bad recollection of where his backcheckers were before the incident, it seems plausible that NA might have been honestly mistaken about it as well.
@@ZorbaTheDutch The rule states that about "illegal moves" i.e. "illegal plays". But how can it apply to this situation, where it wasn't actually even a move/play? A move or play entails rolling the dice, and then moving those numbers. (Or cube decisions.)
@@PeterOzanne I think it was still his move during the entire ruling, as the clock was never stopped.
However, I do not know what was said during the OTB ruling about how to continue the game, but it seems weird that the 1-1 move wasn't finished by the player himself (opponent stopped his clock).
The example with Claudia's illegal move makes little sense, since the alternative legal move with the 3-2 wasn't the inflexible 8/5 7/5 (a 0.060 error) but 8/6 7/4 of course which has almost exactly the same equity as Claudia's illegal move 8/6 7/5. Perhaps this 8/6 7/4 was also the play she intended at first and got confused. Either way, the play didn't gain anything.
I guess you missed the point. The point was that good, honest players makes illegal moves all the time.
@@BackgammonGalaxy it's one thing to make an illegal move with your own checkers, it's another thing to make an illegal move with your opponents checkers. You don't address that in your analysis and I think you've made a false equivalence with the Claudia example.
Plus you completely downplay the impact of the illegal play on the outcome of the match. Brendan's 61 puts two on the bar without the illegal play and with four behind for Neculai gammons go up from 17% to 24% and wins from 52% to 57% for Brendan. 5-2 to Neculai could have easily turned to 6-5 to Brendan with the cube turned here. For you to downplay that is very very questionable.
@@BackgammonGalaxy I noticed a lot has been said about this in other comments already. Your point that illegal moves with no bad intentions are made all the time stands well on its own. However, in this video, it is used in relation to Neculai's actions. As such, it is very poorly chosen I'd say, as I don't think anybody would ever think Claudia's move was a cheating attempt (there wasn't even anything to be gained), whereas Neculai's action of moving an opponent's checker deliberately (even if we are unsure of good or bad intentions) is pretty rare, highly dubious and very clearly to his advantage.
I'm not convinced Neculai cheated, but it's certainly very possible. Therefore the point you were trying to make with the other example doesn't seem very helpful.
@@stardancer6331 butterfly effect, the 61 roll would have been a new outcome
I spotted that too.
Marc: I disagree with both the tone and the logic of your video, which spends a lot of time discussing goings-on that are not the central issue, which is whether the player reaching over and moving his opponent’s checker was cheating in this case. Personally, I see no reason for his hand to be in that part of the board other than to move the checker to his advantage. It is not relevant to the cheating issue that he might have been upset. This may be relevant to understanding why he might have done this, but being upset is not a defense for cheating.
Your comparison of this action to another player’s illegal move is particularly troublesome. She made the type of misplay that is common in live play. This is completely different from moving an opponent’s checker during a period of distraction. That no one except the commentators noticed is also not relevant to the cheating accusation.
It was up to the tournament committee to consider the totality of the circumstances before coming to a decision, but respect for their process is absent in your video. It is likely that the committee members gained more knowledge about the facts than what you have been able to access, so I give more weight to their decision than to your declaration of what you would have done based on less information.
Agree wholeheartedly. Well said.
Human beings, being human, make mistakes. A rule was broken. A quite important rule. It is the act that counts, not the intent.
Our Marc can spin a tale of human mistakes, but if it were a court case, mens rea is not needed, merely actus reus.
Perhaps his intent was merely a restoring of position after the board had been jostled. He should have, by rule, called his opponent's attention to his action in the moment had that been his intent. His failure to do this makes it an act of cheating by definition.
@@George4943 Perfectly put!
Disqualification is the only way to handle this. Actually, there is no need to discuss this at all.
NO "comparison" was not made. Marc cited Claudia's play as an "example" of how honest players make mistakes all the time. What is 'troublesome' is your misrepresenting it as a comparison, that's dishonest.
Marcs claim that this happens all the time is just wrong: I can´t remember this ever happening in any match I´ve seen or played: " Moving opponents checker to an inferior position while opponent is distracted, and without notifying opponent of doing this" If we find any other player doing that we should support some kind of sanction. I do agree that moving both checkers with the same die a common illegal move, but not comparable in any other way then that both actions are illegal.
an angle you didn’t consider marc - you imply that necolai had in his mind that the back chequers were both on the ace point, hence this was why he played the double aces that way. i agree that this is a possibility of his mindset at the time, but what if instead, he only just realised that the back chequers were NOT both on the ace point, and out of pure tilt from making the blunder, tried to manipulate the position.
we cannot know for sure, but the organisers must have felt like they needed to protect the integrity of the game since cheating could have potentially occured!
worth thinking about.
I see your point. I dont think he had any nefarious intentions but your point is valid and that is why you have rules committes and decision makers. Read my post above and see my opinion.
A lot of players will make this move even with the opponent's back checkers split, and not realize it's a blunder.
Nicolai's clock was still running, he could have re-played the 1-1.
In front of 5 observers?
@@DavidKlausa I'm still not convinced it was that bad a blunder. We were never told. I would do it now. Announcer said he created 2 direct shots. I see 2-7. The other?
I agree in Marc say if a phone ring your blunder chance go high up, so why is it that there is so much noise at thise events.
This could all have been avoided had Neculai simply showed Brendan what he was doing.
Moving your opponents checkers without telling them is a world away from inadvertently making an illegal move, which happens all the time, and is unavoidable for those with normal human brains. It's surprising that Marc considers them comparable.
That said it looks very much like an unfortunate error of judgement or misapprehension of the rules. Not underhand. In fairness to Neculai this could be clarified.
It's great we get to see live streamed matches but this was probably an accident waiting to happen - perhaps we need to relax the kibitzing rule in these cases.
Onwards and upwards!
Agreed, moving your checkers players when they aren't looking has very little similarities to inadvertently making an illegal move with your own checkers. If you don't know that moving your opponent's checker without informing them is not fair play, that still does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
@@mackenzieusher8025 Yes, but should the consequences of your actions be so severe as a retrospective DQ from a semi final, after you've won the final?
@@g.c.muttley1715 Yes, I believe upholding the integrity of the game is important.
@@mackenzieusher8025 That makes two of us, but I also believe in a sense of proportionality, particularly as - despite his troublesome reputation - he may not have been TRYING to gain an unfair advantage.
@@g.c.muttley1715 not sure what other options the committee had - I suppose they could've relegated Neculai to being a losing semifinalist, but personally I don't think that's enough of a deterrent
Statement from the UKBGF
As many of you are now aware, the result of an unfortunate incident during a semi-final match at the recent UK Open has led to a barrage of differing opinions and speculation within the backgammon community.
As the incident was not reported at the time of its occurrence, in accordance with the Rules governing the event, the Tournament Directors thereafter established an independent Ruling Committee which made a determination on the issue.
Due to a technical reason the determination of the Ruling Committee was annulled, and the Tournament Directors subsequently requested that the UKBGF alternatively determine the resolution of the matter.
The UKBGF accepted the request, held a specially convened board meeting and reached a determination which was believed to take into account all relevant information (including the representations received from Neculai Axinte (NA) and Brendan Burgess (BB) and to be the most equitable to all parties involved.
The determination of the UKBGF is that:
the semi-final match between NA and BB shall be deemed null and void;
the final that had been played between NA and Eric Westbrook (EW) shall be deemed null and void;
an equitable split of any monetary prize winnings shall be determined and distributed amongst NA, BB, EW and any other relevant players;
any non-monetary prize winnings shall remain as already distributed; and
there will be no winner of the UK Open 2022.
The UKBGF would like to state that the organisers of the UK Open 2022 clearly stated that the currently existing Tournament Rules of the UKBGF would govern the event, a copy of the rules was made available at the event (and is publicly available for viewing on the UKBGF website) and accordingly all players participating in the event are deemed to have agreed to be bound by those rules. The UKBGF believes that the Tournament Directors and the UKBGF have also acted in accordance with those rules.
Yours faithfully,
The UKBGF Board
Why haven't the UKBGF posted this on their website?
It was, after all The UK Open,and the UKBGF,from what I've been led to believe,is supposed to underwrite the tournament .
This is a pretty harsh and polarizing ruling. If the reason given is that: he did this to gain an advantage - consider this:
1. He did this in front of the tournament director.
2. Nobody said or did anything about it even though the game commentator noticed. He should have said something to the players. This was irresponsible.
3. It could have easily been rectified had one of the 4 players/directors over the board noticed.
4. It was clearly a very confusing moment for all - and as Marc said, this leads to mistakes.
The entire premise of this video is flawed. The comparison between a misplay in Jason Champion's match and the illegal manipulation of the correct position is ridiculous.
To be clear. It is totally true to say that people accidently misplay positions all the time. It is down to both players to correct this at the time or the moment is gone. That's how it should be.
The disqualification incident is not a misplay. The hand movement towards the checker on pip 23 is deliberate. He didn't accidently knock the checker back onto pip 24. It's a deliberate movement.
Not a misplay!
A deliberate movement!
Both these points are factually correct.
Had Brendan double hit from 6,1 as he surely would have done then the gammon chance goes right up. That hugely changes the scoreline. So, the illegal manipulation is worth at least a 3 point swing.
This video suggests that the scoreline doesn't point towards cheating and that the act itself is just like a misplay. Both work from a totally false premise.
The facts of the case are clear.
It's not a misplay.
It's a deliberate act
And it alters the entire course of the match.
How do you know it was a deliberate act to cheat and not just a deliberate act to correct an incorrectly shuffled position?
@@BackgammonGalaxy that distinction doesn't matter. Only that it was a deliberate act which drastically altered the course of the match.
There's only 2 options. It's either accident or deliberate. Clearly it's a deliberate motion. To describe the decision to disqualify as disgraceful is clearly untrue. The premise for disqualification is far more salient than many of the points raised in this video.
@@BackgammonGalaxy to use a football analogy, it's like a defender reflexively using a hand to stop a ball going into a goal. Doesn't matter what is going through the defender's head, they are sent off. Neculai had no license to move his opponent's checkers. If you do so and you are wrong it is absolutely correct that you are heavily sanctioned.
Any professional magician will tell you that it is not hard to do egregious things in plain view of an audience without them noticing. Magicians earn their livelihood based on this principle. (If you don't believe me, find a professional magician and show them this video and ask for their opinion.) So it is not even remotely surprising that Neculai could move that checker without being noticed. I didn't notice it myself while watching this video until it was pointed out. Nor is it too surprising that Neculai would try such a thing. People who do this sort of thing on purpose know when people's attention is distracted in a way that they can take advantage of, and in the unlikely event they are caught, they can always make some kind of excuse (and maybe count on people on social media rushing to their defense!). As for the idea that Neculai was correcting an illegal move, it wasn't as though Brendan had just made his move. Neculai had witnessed the move, rolled his dice, and made his own move. So you're saying that five minutes later, after a detailed discussion of the situation with everyone reviewing the video footage, *then* he decides to correct an "illegal move" on the *previous* roll, without alerting the opponent and all the officials standing right there? And it just so happens that the "correction" turns his own hasty blunder into a good move? I'm very surprised that anyone would defend Neculai's illegal action.
There's a lot of contention here where it shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should never move your opponent's checkers in a tournament context.
This doesn't mean illegal moves cannot be corrected. We've all watched many hours of tournaments and with that, we've seen many illegal plays made and corrected.
The key difference is that players move only their own checkers, so when an issue arises where an opponent's checkers are concerned, you stop the play and communicate your grievances. If the opponent is in agreement with the proposed correction, great! Play on, and if not, wait for an organiser's help.
That's it, it's not that hard.
I made a long post yesterday evening that has now disappeared. Is Backgammon Galaxy censoring comments? If so, why? Would it not be better to inform the person who made the post? And to inform viewers that their comments are subject to censorship?
Maybe it was too long. Nobody wants to read long comments.
I don't know if anybody mentioned this yet, but you can clearly see that Neculai's cup hit the corner of the board as he rolled, thus causing him to drop the cup.
I didn't notice this in the analysis. /Marc
No way would someone cheat during a ruling that has used the ongoing video recording of the match. If he was cheating and fully aware during this car crash why loose more benefit letting his clock run down. I have played doubles with him many times as his partner he has eastern European speed and confidence. He did not cheat
Huge difference between illegally moving your own checkers and moving your opponent's checkers. I'm tired of the excuse-making and gaslighting. The ban is correct. He'll do it again if you don't.
Thats bullshit. And also the ban for only one error is too much.
I'd like to know what N said when asked why he moved his opponent's checker backwards?
@@PROPERTY68601 I think, he played the aces soo fast, in the mind, that the opponent didnt split his backcheckers, because he would never make the mistake to give the shot. So in his mind, the 23 has to be on 24 and he correct it. (for his point of view)
Ok if you want to ban one player for touching his opponents checkers, than ban the other player for touching the dice on his opponents roll.
He made a rules violation in a heated situation. I see no proof of intent to cheat.
Just to show support for a strong ruling by the committee & hopefully UKBGF will be equally strong in the event of any appeal. IMO this whole thing about accidental vs cheating and trying to reason away why he might have done what he did has clouded the real issue - you can't deliberately & illegally handle your opponents checkers, gain an advantage from it and then expect to just get away with that. James N already said it below & I agree - in no other sport or game would you be allowed to do something that's clearly deliberate & illegal, (whether the intention is to cheat or not), is also clearly to your benefit in doing so - then expect to be able to just explain it away with wishy washy crap about being distracted. If you're arrogant enough to think you can unilaterally decide your opponents checkers are in the wrong place and then move them without consulting with anyone.....tough luck there are going to be harsh consequences. Same as if a pro golfer loses the masters after he's found with 15 clubs in his bag - it doesn't matter if it's a plastic club your 5 year old daughter has put there, some things are just a player's responsibility. Not doing deliberately illegal stuff is one of them...
I fully agree with this. Much as I respect you Marc your analysis is flawed and mostly irrelevant. Making a comparison with Claudia’s honest mistake is also inappropriate as Tim Cross has indicated.
The clock, the score, the drop of the cup and Brendan’s unfortunate handling of the dice are all irrelevant. After all, Neculai’s 1-1 move was allowed to stand without query once the cup issue had been resolved.
The only important thing is that Neculai moved Brendan’s checker thereby gaining a material advantage. A serious breach of the rules whether it was it was intentional or not. Indeed is it not unreasonable to suspect it may have been intentional: why would the checker be on the 23pt by accident and shouldn’t Neculai have remembered Brendan’s previous splitting move? He had just been studying the video feed after all
I’m not saying it was deliberate or not, only that a serious illegal checker adjustment has taken place. The ruling committee have had a very difficult situation to deal with and I think you are unfairly critical or their decision
But you can grab an opponent's dice from the table, change the 1 to a 5 and push them back toward the opponent? Doesn't matter why, correct? Send them all to the guillotine when you have the chance, because for once you have some real evidence to contemplate, rather than "he said, she said"?
Does this tough approach also apply when you deliberately, illegally pick up opponent's dice while he's still making his move, and put them back on the board, changing the dice roll?
@@ZorbaTheDutch No. Admittedly that was unfortunate as Mike mentioned above. IMO I think you have to base a judgement on what most players would deem to be reasonable and acceptable behaviour. Clearly it's reasonable to assume after a dice cup has flown across the board, it's an illegal roll and Brendan just did what anyone does when it's a similar situation with cocked dice, he passed them back. I think it's an illegal roll but as Marc says the rule is a bit ambiguous and you can see the side for both interpretations of it. Flip side and Neculai - how often do you see someone just deciding to move their opponents checkers into a different place on the board, without checking with either your opponent or anyone else? I can't see why anyone would think this is reasonable or acceptable behaviour?
@@alwoods3462 "Clearly it's reasonable to assume after a dice cup has flown across the board, it's an illegal roll "
How can that ever be clear if a 6 minute ruling decides it's legal?
If anything, the ruling shows how bad it is to pick up opponents dice. Just don't touch them and call the TD.
As to NA's behaviour, NA might ave thought it reasonable to move the checker if he thought it has been displaced during the preceding 6 minutes. He should have never done this, especially not without consultation. It's illegal and deserving of some penalty, but bad intent is not clear and the ruling should not assume this bad intent.
Given the extremely harsh punishment, it seems bad intent was taken into account. This seems dubious to me, unless of course there's evidence we haven't seen (yet).
At 13:13, the checker in question was moved back to the ace point before it was moved correctly to the two point.
Honestly, even if Nikolai is a known cheater, this would be the absolute dumbest way to cheat. Moving a single checker in a position that four people were staring at is just a dumb way to cheat. Your analysis is spot on, Marc.
Taking £10,000 and harming the reputation of an amateur is utterly disgraceful over a decision that had probably about 0.2 equity influence on the game. I am sure that in my local club, we have made human errors that are far worse and didn’t even notice
After your comment I went back and re-watched the original video. The checkers do remain on the 24 and 23 points during the entire kerfluffle about the dropped cup.
In re-watching the original I did notice something else kind of interesting, though. Look at about 26:20. Play was paused because of the dispute. N reaches in to pick up his cup and, in doing so, it slips from his hand and falls into the home board, hitting the two white checkers. Was it possible that, after the dispute was over, N thought, "The cup must have hit those checkers" and repositioned them?
To be honest both of these guys seemed to be playing fast and loose. When N first drops the cup, B - without hesitation - reaches in and grabs N's dice. Clearly B thought N's roll was invalid. But instead of talking about it or calling a TD, B took into his own hands (probably because they were both racing to see who could play faster).
I meant to add that both players seemed pretty quick to assume and "correct" instead of wait and discuss. No wonder this was such a disaster.
@@brionbrooks8761 DON'T TOUCH THE DICE until u know it is your turn, period.
Agreed. Don't touch ANYTHING (dice, checkers, cube, clock) unless/until you know its your turn. That would have avoided a host of errors in this (and other) matches.
I am struggling to see how anyone could think, looking at checkers perfectly positioned on the 24 and 23, that they had been split by a cup, and been so certain as to reposition them without drawing attention to the alteration. Plus, I don't think Neculai has given any explanation for why he did it, except for pointing to a position later in the game where he corrects a potential illegal move from his opponent.
I think Neculai just is distracted. When the play starts again after 5 minutes he for a short moment thinks they are about to start a new game and he moves the checker from 23 to it's starting position on 24 without actually being aware of what he is doing.
I don't believe that, but if that were the case, he should replace it soon as Brendan rolled. In the facebook chat he implied he was fixing a wrong position
That's actually what I thought too. In all the commotion he could have thought a new game was starting and just automatically put the checker back . Don't think it was intentional .
I agree with your analysis and conclusion. The only thing I can add is the fact that some of the kibitzers may have noticed the illegal move and felt they were not allowed to comment on the game.
You are correct they are not allowed.
@@drdark9134 Most spectators do not know that something like this should be immediately reported to the TD.
@@jebhorton1830 Given that 'most' spectators are in fact also players, I disagree, and would add that they will also be fully aware that although they are not allowed to comment to the players, they are allowed to report it to the TD.
If the video was the only evidence, then the verdict was excessive. An illegal action, sure, so some type of penalty would be OK. Yes, it could be an attempt to cheat, but it could also be something happened in the general confusion from the previous roll and ruling and under the tension of the finals. I have a few questions:
1) Did the ruling committee interview Neculai? If so, what did he say?
2) Is there any pattern of behavior like this by Neculai?
3) What is the proper procedure in asking for a ruling? Should Brendan not wait for the move to be completed (clock pressed by Neculai), then stop the clock and ask for a ruling? If the move does not need to be completed before the ruling (that could be reasonable because the question is whether the 11 roll can stand), should then not the checkers be moved back to the position before the 11 play, and again the clock be stopped?
4) When the checker was moved back to the 24 from the 23, should any bystander noticing this not have a duty to make a remark?
When was this cheating noticed? I assume after the match had finished. Unless there is more information I might rule a penalty of twice the equity gain from moving the back checker from the 23 to the 24. And give both players a stiff talking to about proper play procedures and Neculai a warning.
See George Steele's answer above, on "cheating by definition". It's clearly put.
1st thing I noticed is the dice cups, I have two FM boards and one of them has these exact cups; they are small and slippery! I do not use them for the exact reason that happened here! From watching this video I would give the benefit to Neculai, the movement of the checker was done with 3 members of the committee there! In Neculai's mind he might have have thought the checker was moved with the movements of the cup landing on the board and Brendan moving the dice, but I would have ASKED my opponent if the checker was there legally before; moving another person's checker(s) should NEVER be done. I think the committee should have made sure everything was in place correctly before they resumed play. Also, this might benefit the case for making baffle boxes preferred in big tournaments! Thanks for the video Marc!
I am one of the people who the ruling committee reported to so I will not be making any comment at all about the main incident until all this is finalised. I was really disappointed to see Claudia's name brought into this, she is a wonderful ambassador for the game and even though of course no accusation is made I am not happy that her actions were even compared to the incident.
Fully agree, comparing it to Claudia's match is totally inappropriate in this case.
Not making any comment at all and not being happy that a wonderful ambassador... Aren't they antithetical??
I think Marc made a fair point with Claudia; she made an illegal move just like Neculai did. Why is one labeled a cheater and the other not?
@@vinr6867 There's a world of difference between misplaying a checkers during your turn and moving checkers (your opponent's at that) without agreement after a turn has finished.
@@GXObserver I agree, BUT both plays are illegal is my point.
The galaxy app is not working. Was getting hype as it is sponsor
It's initializing the environment on your phone really slowly if you have slow internet. It might appear to be frozen, but let it load for 1-2 minutes. After it has loaded, the rest of the time it should load instantly.
We are working really hard to resolve this problem, and it will be in 1-2 months!
the nebulousness and flexibilities of the rules is a problem - you explained the angle shoot exactly, and he could have easily picked up the cup with an "oops" if it was a bad roll, regardless of whether it touched the dice. there needs to be some tightening of this to prevent that.
It's a bit hard to tell when you can't hear them talking. I would have assumed an automatic re-roll after dropping the cup. What if the other guy was not paying attention to the result of the dice as he was expecting the re-roll, he was perhaps not changing the dice so much as passing them back for the re-roll.
On the other hand it almost looks like he is trying to turn the dice one time as he moves it over. Shame we can;t heart what they are saying.
Oh the white checker he moved. Seems a bit suspect fir sure but he was thrown off by all the commotion, perhaps he caused the commotion in order to start a distraction, was strange he didn't notice as he was picking up the dice at almost the same time.
I wonder if he has a history of cheating or magic tricks? He may have chosen that moment to move the checker because the judges were walking back to their seats at this moment. perhaps his opponent was starting to look up at them or to talk with them a they were sitting down. Perhaps he thought his opponent was trying to cheat by changing to the 5 so he thought he had to do something n return.
They should have made him do the re-roll. lol
Allot of scenarios and many of them could be possible.
As much as I'd like to think he wouldn't move that checker on purpose, it seems that way after watching it several times.
I feel he knew what was happening on that board 100%
My first post gave him benefit of the doubt but I see it differently now.
Sad that he felt he needed to get back at him for messing with his roll.
But it still bothers me knowing he knew he was being recorded.
He shouldn't have been mad because he was winning.
Only one person knows the truth.
@@mrboags The more i think about it the more it seems it might have been played out from the cup drop. The opponent might not have meant to move his dice but that part does seem a bit strange, he might have just been passing them back asking for a re roll and expecting one. But the other player with black may well have done the drop just to cause a commotion as a distraction and had his eye on putting that white piece back to the start. But then again, with all the time wasted he may have only then realised his mistake and perhaps putting the white back to the start became intentional later. I really doubt he thought it had been knocked from it's starting position but sometimes the brain does strange things when we are not thinking straight. Perhaps they both have a shifty reputation or one of them brought out or triggered the worse in the other one.
Ask their school friends. Ask their brothers etc. lol
I've played Neculai on a couple of occasions...he's definitely a contentious person,but I would never call him a cheat...if the UKBGF have ruled against him, and taken away the win,the prize money, and the prestige of winning the tournament, then maybe they should consider giving him his entry money, hotel and travel costs back...I spoke to someone connected to the UKBGF prior to the final, and we both agreed that Neculai would not be a popular winner with a lot of other players...maybe if this had happened to another player, the punishment wouldn't have been so harsh...
It has been observed here by more than yourself that N has a rep for causing trouble. But, as you imply, this is VERY different to one for cheating, and should not have influenced the Ruling Committee in any way. (I'm not saying that it did.)
Also, the fact that B then rolled the double hitter 61 (with the correct position ofc) though ironic, should be irrelevant to any judgement. One hopes this was also the case.
Knowing nothing about the two players personally and in the absence of further information, I think this ruling is foul and stupid. After a series of emotional moments, misplays, the presence of the ruling committee, etc. to deprive a player of his winnings and throw him out of the tournament for moving one checker is to me foul and stupid. In my view, the only 'cheating' was done by the rules committee and all the members of that committee involved should be banned for life from any ruling committee in any tournament anywhere in the world. I have sent the video and a copy of my comments here to tournament directors whom I respect with notice that if I see the names of any of these committee members on the ruling committee of any tournament, I will not participate.
Ah, you don't know the players' records and history etc. That explains your reaction, and that of the committee, perhaps
I agree that I know nothing about the two players. However, I have served on tournament commttees at importnat tournaments including the World Championship and have dealt with player problems of all kinds including an accusaiton at the WC of a registered player 'being a cheat'. The point is that that we have video confirmation of BOTH players, probably in the heat of the moment, doing something illegal on camera. Yet one player was thrown out of the tournament and cost (from the audio commentary) thousands of pounds for 'cheating' (moving a checker a single pip with a match equity change somewhere many many places to the right of the decimal point)?!! I renew my objection to this decision and to those who made it having anything to do with players' fates in the future.
is this the same Douglas Mayfield who consistently touched Akiko's dice during her turn in the MC final?
@@douglasmayfield6411 There is no equivalence between the players' actions: one did something very minor, which happens accidentally all the time, and the other did something very major, and rare, which was not accidental. After many warnings and bans elsewhere. The other is known and loved in the BG community since 30+years.
@@jonbarnes8249 Sure I did it as a courtesy but she said she didn't want me to do it so I stopped. How is this relevant to the current disucssion?
Marc, I find your analysis and reasoning completely spot on from beginning to end - 100% agree!
Excellent analysis by Marc. I quit playing in tournaments after the Florida State event about 5 years ago when I was playing the finals and asked a couple well known players who were making a lot of noise in their private game very close by, to quiet down. That didn't go well.
A few years before I had traveled to Istanbul for an event, got cheated on a crucial play by a local player, and lost the ruling of course. Also of course, there was no live stream, no witnesses, just an opponent who says he rolled a number he didn't roll. Very common. How can you make the correct ruling when there is no evidence? My opinion: Don't travel to play backgammon. You won't have time to enjoy the surroundings anyways. Play online. Thanks to Marc Olsen for creating Backgammon Galaxy.
Another point to note is that the UKBGF wrote to all members saying not to privately speculate or comment. Why not? Even in the Olympics the BBC analyses and has opinions as do viewers. It is not healthy to run UKBGF as a closed shop. It is refreshing to bring comments and analysis. There is one UKBGF member who has a bias against the player accused of cheating
Not a good look for UKBG. Shameful to take away prize money after the Romanian player had won the tourney! The illegal move was made right in front of them? Do they not share any blame??
Not just one, probably over 200: one must ask why.
@@vinr6867 If someone robs you and you don't notice it, are you to share the blame for the theft? Or do you deserve to have your possessions back if the thief is later caught?
@@mackenzieusher8025 if someone robs me in front of policemen and they notice but I don't?
@@PeterOzanne Because he's loud and contentious...you seem to have a big problem with the man Mr Ozanne...you're just not honest enough to say so!
Played Neculai on a few occassions,but can never say he's a cheat.
Nice analysis.
This reminds me of my days in law school where your given a hypothetical set of facts and have to argue the pros and cons.
I watched this match live and couldn't figure out why the opponent, three observers, AND the commentator all must have seen the illegal checker play, but NO ONE did ANYTHING to correct it.
If N. was cheating intentionally, it was incredibly foolish, given that he already knew the match was streamed (he was just shown the playback on the dropped cup issue) and knew so many were standing over the board watching. (I mean, its not like he moved the checker as his opponent was bending down to pick up a dropped die -- his opponent was looking directly at the board reaching in to pick up the dice after having restarted the clock.)
It's all incredibly confusing and sad for all sides.
I guess the other question, not answered so far, is on what basis the tournament even revisited the issue? A simple illegal move isn't reviewable after a few moves have passed, right? Did Brandon look at the video and complain to the tournament officials? Did someone watching the livestream complain? Did an official look at the video later and raise it themselves?
Oh yeah, and why didn't the ruling committee criticize the TD for allowing such "blatant cheating" to occur right before his/her eyes without stepping in to stop it?
So sad for everyone.
"Must have"?? People don't notice things. Try telling people "You must have noticed someone picked your pocket" "You must have seen the trick/scam/whatever. Even if it was a mistake, everyone was distracted, no-one would believe someone would do that - and Brendan was adjusting the clock and picking up the dice, so his attention was on something else, and must have helped to distract the observers. Everyone relaxed their alertness after the stress of the discussion about the dice roll. It has been proved with tests that we are terribly bad witnesses, it's just a scientific fact, so don't "assume" everyone must have seen it. I was watching keenly, and didn't see it first time. And REALLY, you are wrong to suggest the TD "allowed" blatant cheating without stepping in. Nobody saw it, except KG commentating, and they aren't allowed to step in.
@@PeterOzanne Correct. Everyone else who was looking at the time saw it; they just didn't perceive it!
@@PeterOzanne The commentator did not mention it after the match and let the final to continue...your comments have all the making of a kangaroo court ...guilty until proved innocent...amazing how you ignore Brenden changed the roll to 5 1... perhaps that doesn't suit your agenda...
If any of the observers had seen it they would have called it out. The cheating would be so unexpected that no one would watch for it. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I certainly have not ignored the issue of Brendan's touching/knocking over the die! I have answered this question multiple times all over this post: ok, you missed that. Then I will repeat.
Players like us touch the opponent's dice all the time - normally when their roll is cocked, and dice land near our side of the board. Then we naturally pass them back without thinking, so that they can re-roll, right? This situation was very unusual - but similar. Brendan thought it was an illegal roll, and instinctively passed the die back.
Dice often get knocked over, for example, when we roll our dice. Players then often move the dice next to the bar, especially if they are near checkers they want to move. I, and many others, have knocked dice over in this situation. Brendan has a spotless reputation: I, all the players in Ireland, and many in the UK, have known him for 30+ years, and know that he would not deliberately change the dice.
Regarding the "kangaroo court" and the illegal checker "move" - in the above answer I did say "even if it was a mistake" - leaving that possibility open. I had to use examples where people don't see what's in front of their eyes, where people are deceived, for example, by the trick of a magician (more neutral than my other examples for sure). All I'm saying is that it is POSSIBLE to trick people deliberately, and it's also POSSIBLE that it could happen accidentally. But the checker move did not happen by accident, and it's a most serious rule-break, and that's why they decided on the disqualification. It's a tough situation, because there is no perfect solution IMHO. All the best to you.
Is it incorrect to say that Neculai's 1,1 move had already been made since the clock was still ticking? Could he not have changed his move instead of waiting 5 minutes to pick up his opponent's checker and put it in a much worse position?
yes, strictly speaking!
@@jonbarnes8249 Just a straight YES will do.
There was another strange non-move that Neculai made later in this match at the game of 6 to 9. Towards the end of that game, when Neculai only had 9 checkers left on the board, he rolled a 6 and 1,but he only played the 6. Thus, he beared off only for the 6, but did not move for the 1. Why did this happen and why again did nobody notice this?
He played 4/3/0, this was a completely legal move and the commentator also praised him and said "good play".
@@BackgammonGalaxy thank you for clarifying Marc. Missed this.
Wait. Equity-wise it was not a big cheat? After you just explained what a big blunder his play was with the 1s due to the back checkers being split?
The cheat from NA gave him an extra 1.2% MWC according to Extremegammon, the strongest AI in the world. Meanwhile, BB broke the rules of not speaking up when he realised that NA's clock had been running the whole time, and 25% of your time bank (5 minutes) at this early point in the match, is for the average player worth way more than 1.2% match winning chance.
So you the objectively result is, that BB gained much more equity out of the situation than NA.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Like you said Marc...you don't know these players...NA's natural play is extremely fast...the 5 minutes,in regards to him,means nothing...P.s...thats the speed backgammon is meant to be played at...clocks,and shuffling your checkers around until you're satisfied with your move is akin to cheating if you played traditional BG...said it before.this form of backgammon can be so tedious to play and watch,and if you're used to playing a naturally fast game,your opponent can lull you to sleep with their slow play...clocks should be speeded up...
Marc: about the Claudia move. She would NOT have moved 8-5, 7-5, as you suggested, she would have played (as she initially intended) 7-4, followed by 8-6: ok, that's not quite so good, because she wants to activate 4-4, but we all know that when moving your OWN checkers under stress, it's very easy to make a mistake. But that's mega-different from moving the other player's checkers! 🙂
That's a woman?
@@winthorpetrois The one with the long blond hair? Yes, definitely: I talked with her during the final, sitting next to her. Maybe you should have gone to Specsavers. 🙂
@@PeterOzanne I see Neculai and Brandon, and they sure look like guys to me.
@@winthorpetrois Ah, wrong match, the Claudia match that Mark was talking about is later, you need to fast forward 🙂
HE moved his opponents checkers…not miscounting a pip….he waited until the focus was reaching for the clock….
good video Marc
i recorded all my matches at the uk open and i made a few checker errors
if i wasnt transcribing my matches i might not have known, even experienced opponents missed them
and if my matches were not recorded i would have been virtually certain of complete checker play accuracy
the best ppl to have called attention to this problem was the commentator team.
i noticed Neculai losing time as soon as i watched the 11 incident unfold.
the fair resolution in my opinion.......
give back Neculai his 5min clock time
Put Brendans checker back on the 23
brendan Plays on with 61 as the roll.
i dont know either player, i disagree with moving an opponents checker quietly, especially from a correct position to a wrong position
but we are all different. that in itself surely cannot be beyond reasonable doubt sufficient for such a ruling
i cant imagine how neculai must be feeling
i hope this leads to a rule change
no opponent is allowed to reposition an oppopnents checker without express consent and acknowledgement of the position change by the other party.
None of it happens if Brendan doesn't grab the dice to begin with. That too is a violation. The first one. They need to fix the rules so that a dropped cup is OK if it hits nothing. Saved by video. How would it have gone without video? A violation I suspect. I want to know how bad a move he made on the 1-1. I would do the same. You said 2 direct hits were created but I only see one, 2-7. What is the other? Really. How bad was the move?
Marc, you may say that Brendan was breaking a rule here, but he thought it was clearly an illegal roll, and, as with cocked dice etc it's pretty normal, if a die is on or near your side of the board, to pass it back to the opponent to enable him to re-roll. At the hectic pace of this match, it wasn't surprising he did that.
Another valid point. 👍
This game was trouble from the very beginning.
I guess Brendans action was an instinctive reaction, but that doesn't make it right. But, as there was ultimately no dispute as to what numbers the dice came to rest on, it was of little consequence. As to moving cocked dice before your opponent has concurred Peter: bad idea!
Well, it was ruled to be a valid roll, since the cup only touched the surface AFTER the dice had been rolled and didn't touch the dice to interfere with them. So it was not an illegal roll. Brendan definitely broke a rule here. Nevertheless it was an innocent and unintentional mistake that human players makes all the time and there are absolutely no shame in that, EVERYBODY makes small mistakes, and only a few even know all the rules.
Brendan DID break a rule but it was utterly irrelevant as he accepted the ruling on the 11. The subsequent - and far worse - transgression is the only relevant matter, so I don't know why people keep diverting with waffle about Brendan's inconsequential pick up of the dice, or about the dice cup drop. Nobody cares about either, but they're being framed as somehow relevant to the core issue.
@@g.c.muttley1715 Didn't mean that: usually the hand goes to the dice and already in that split-second, the word "cocked" has been spoken. I took that as a given.
Just curious what Neculia had to say about the moving of the 2 point to the 1 point....i feel it was a nervous tick and was uncomfortable.
I can see how and why Neculal moved the checker, because he wouldn't have made that move in the first place, with the aces.
If back checkers were split.
Due to the dice being clearly changed he was squeezed.
So now he assumed it got moved.
And corrected it.
And you're absolutely correct he should have mentioned that split checker and questioned it.
He didn't because it was too early in the game.
I don't see intentional cheating.
Especially when being filmed or so early in the game.
He was winning it doesn't make sense.
Another point is if he was in control or it was a premeditated move he wouldn't have missed the clock not being paused.
This was a MEGA Blunder by all involved IMHO
This is a forth roll position and he literally watched his opponent play that ace not 2 seconds before. Your argument that he didn’t realize they were split is ridiculous.
@@BenFriesen maybe so but he still moved a checker while competition and being filmed.
Really? I think it was a knee jerk reaction. Totally innocent.
@@BenFriesen it was over 5 min later. And after a whole lot of confusion.
@Ben Friesen Did you see the video Marc made?
alternatively, he snapped playing his aces due to Brendan's intervention. he did so without realising he was leaving a direct shot, because he was only focused on getting the move in as fast as possible. Then when he sees he has left a direct shot, he decides that's not fair. If it wasn't for the interference, he wouldn't have left a direct shot. So he enacts his own vigilante justice by taking the shot away, picking his moment while everyone is distracted. If challenged he just claims it was a little mistake. Mistakes happen all the time, don't they?
Marc you are a great ambassador for our game, and I like that you automatically see the best in people BUT you weren't there and by admission do not know the players. Please leave this matter to the tournament referees.
We can discuss the rulings in public, right? Backgammon Galaxy was the sponsor of the event, and had given two expensive boards plus promotion of the event. And the match was streamed on Backgammon Galaxy's youtube page in a Backgammon Galaxy production.
Claudia's misplay is pretty inconsequential, the correct play would simply leave spare checkers on 6 and 4 instead of 6 and 5, hardly significant.
Great analysis Marc.
Based on the video alone, the decision of the ruling committee seems extreme and doubtful to say the least.
I sure hope they have some other evidence against Neculai besides this video that we’ve been provided. Video alone is not and can not be enough.
In the moments of distraction and high stress mistakes can happen, even in high level matches. I’ve had reputable opponents make illegal plays that favoured them, I’ve had a GM opponent ‘correct’ my legally played move etc. In all of these cases I was sure it was unintentional as I know these people fairly well (not to mention it was partly my responsibility as well to spot it). I’ve made few illegal plays myself over the years… it just happens. When you record and transcribe all of your matches you see all sorts of things happen from time to time (illegal moves, incorrectly reconstructed position after someone has shuffled too much etc.). It’s rare but it happens. Play, record and transcribe few hundred matches and you will know what I’m talking about. If you never do it you will never even notice some of the irregularities.
Not sure why people got so upset that Marc mentioned Claudia. I think it’s quite clear that he was simply giving an example that honest mistakes do happen in backgammon (some people seem to be completely unaware of this fact).
Neculai would have to be absolutely crazy to attempt any kind of intentional manipulation in front of all those people and knowing it’s streamed as well. Worth noting that with his ‘adjustment’ he increased his match winning chances by only 1,2%, hardly a decider.
To make this kind of extreme ruling (taking away someone’s title and ALL of their prize money!) one has to be pretty damn sure (probably close to 100%) that what Neculai did was intentional cheating and not an honest mistake. I don’t see it here. (again I don’t know Neculai personally and I am only basing this on the video)
@@jjmckenna ‘Hmm, I don’t like that direct shot, I think I’ll just change that.’
Axinte didn't say that. You are saying it.
Did you watch the entire analysis video, Justin?
@@jjmckenna My point is that you're assigning very bad intentions to Axinte, basically pretending that you can read his mind.
That is not helpful and not a fair way to treat any player in a dispute.
We should stick to the factual evidence and always start with an assumption of good faith.
your thoughts are logical and concise, MK, much like your backgammon play.
@@jjmckenna It's not lofty, it's only fair to treat players that way. As Olsen and many other players have pointed, people make mistakes, sometimes even terrible, suspicious looking mistakes that benefit themselves; especially under stress and in chaos.
This does not mean one can't rule for deliberate cheating short of a confession. If circumstantial, indirect evidence makes a very strong case for bad intentions and there isn't a good way to explain the behaviour from a "good faith" presumption, then one could still rule something as deliberate cheating.
In this case, the evidence *might* suggest bad intentions, but it isn't strong evidence. Also, there is an explanation for his behaviour from a "good faith" perspective. Given that, it is rather extreme to accuse someone of deliberate cheating with the strong consequences disqualification bring to a winner of the tourney.
"Black was looking at the board for multiple minutes, said nothing, and then acted without saying anything. " -- We can't really see what NA is looking at, I see him in a chat and debate about dice rolling and cup dropping most of all. Much less can we know what he was thinking when he did look at the board. He may have only noticed the split backcheckers seconds before play resumed and thought they had been disturbed and pushed them back.
That he didn't say anything and moved opponent's checker is illegal and worthy of a penalty. But it doesn't say anything about bad intentions.
Moving your opponents checkers is an intentional act. I like the ruling. He probably didn’t drop the cup on purpose. If you are able to control the dice during the roll, that would be cheating. People have been able to control the dice rolling from a cup before. They can also control the dice in the game of Craps even though the dice have to hit the back wall.
It is intentional, but that doesn't mean the intentions were bad. If one thought those checkers had been disturbed during the 6 minute ordeal, it would make sense to correct their position before resuming play.
Of course Neculai still should have handled it differently then and his behaviour can be penalized.
But without solid evidence of bad intent, disqualifying the winner of a tournament completely from all his results, after the fact, is an extreme ruling.
@@ZorbaTheDutch How would you ever know that someone subtly moving their opponent's checkers during a match are cheating or just confused? And what would be the disincentive not to do it if there are no consequences?
@@EclipseDan As I wrote, moving opponent's checkers is illegal and can be penalized as such.
Just like many other illegal actions in backgammon.
But one should be very hesitant to conclude cheating, with bad intentions, if there isn't any real evidence for it.
How can they control the dice in craps even with the dice hitting the back wall ?
@@michaelblankenau6598 I can be done. Remember that the house edge is less than 0:5% if you take maximum odds all the time. That’s not much to overcome. You only need partial control to beat that. You simply must avoid all other bets on the Craps table. Dice control is all about reducing the 7. 7 comes up 1 out of 6 times. If you reduce it to 1 out of 6.5 times, you have a winning game. It takes lots of practice. You have to stand with good posture and have good control of your minute muscular coordination.
Can someone answer a question? I have a question for anyone who can answer: All of my players were in but one and on my board, the fourth space was empty but two pieces on the fifth space. I had nothing on the sixth space. My last roll with one player out was a six and five and if I had moved a six first, i would have landed on the fourth space, then I would have been required to take out a five, leaving one piece on the fourth position and one piece on the fifth position. Instead, i chose the first move as a five, giving me now three pieces on the fifth position and since i did not have any pieces on the sixth position, i took in one player from the three I had on the fifth space, resulting in all pieces, as being covered. He told me this is wrong and said that I need to move six first, then five.
Reply
We recommend you to post this in the "Backgammon Strategy" Facebook group! facebook.com/groups/backgammonstrategy
Your point on "has he done that before ❓" is totally relevant to the ruling. There may be other accusations 🤔
The bottom line is he shouldn't have even considered touching his opponent's checkers.
Putting it simple, he is actually cheating ❗
Cheers to you Backgammon Galaxy 🤟✨
But changing your opponents dice from a strong 11 to the worst possible roll 51 is nothing ?
@@MrCarlSellars that didn't happen both players were aware it was 11. I admit it should have been put immediately on 11, but there is no insinuation that BB tried to change the dice roll.
@@MrCarlSellars - You think that was intentional?? Please….
Craig T: Making an illegal move is not the same as cheating.
The Ruling Committee was put in a difficult position and I sympathise with them. However, I agree with your analysis here.
I would guess that all of us who play over the board for years will eventually do something as strange and suspicious as moving the checker back to the 24. We just likely won't even notice it when it happens. There but for the grace of God go we all! And tactically, even if someone were a cheater, they would never decide to cheat in this way when the reward is so limited and the risk of getting 'caught' is near 100%.
So more likely than not this was a mistake rather than deliberate.
But even if that weren't the case, I would much rather let a guilty person go free than rush to judgement and punish an innocent. Unless there is some key information we're missing I would give Neculai the benefit of the doubt.
We all make mistakes with our own checkers, but I seriously doubt if ANYONE would adjust opponents' checkers without asking. I've never done it, or even seen it, or heard about it, in 35 years of backgammon, If it is done, it would be intentional cheating 99% of the time. There may be a very small doubt, but I doubt if it's "reasonable". All the best, see you again some time, when I'm not so tired, lol!
@@PeterOzanne I see players touching and moving opponent's checkers all the time. Mostly, they are correct when they do it, and usually (but not always) they say something. But players need to be aware that when they do not follow proper process, ruling are likely to go against them.
@@jebhorton1830 Oh yes, of course: sometimes I will touch an opponent's checker if it has not been put clearly and nicely on the right point - and of course, we always touch opponent's checkers when we hit them!
@@jebhorton1830 When I said "adjust", I didn't mean "touch" - I meant "move to a different point". Without asking.
@@jebhorton1830 Moreover, not during play.
An interesting discussion. I played tournament chess a long time ago. If you play an illegal move, you lose the game, but obviously it’s much easier to do in backgammon, but no one would consider the person a cheater. The only realistic time it could happen is in a time scramble. In chess you write down the moves, so it’s easy to check illegal moves. There’s no chance to gain by such a play, since your opponent will certainly catch it. However you can see intentional cheating by playing an illegal move in park games by hustlers, but that’s in blitz games with no one writing down moves. Some hustlers are very good at it, doing something like using a shirt sleeve to knock a piece, and then fix the piece by putting it on a different square, thus essentially making two moves.
You don't lose a chess game by making an illegal move . That is nonsense . An illegal move is simply retracted and a legal move substituted . What you're saying for example is that if you put me in check and I move my King to a square that is still covered I automatically lose the game . That's not how tournament chess is conducted .
I don't get it. Why is one guy getting the stockades for moving his opponent's checker, but the other guy, Brendan Burgess, gets off scot free for reaching over and actually changing his opponent's dice roll from a good 11 to the worst roll 51 ?
Oh this video deserves a big thumbs up !
yes, you don't get it
Brendan was making a physical intervention saying 'void roll'. He was absolutely not trying to change the roll to 51.
@@alex324ization It was clearly accidental, he was passing the die back to his opponent - just as you or I do if the dice are cocked - because he thought it was an illegal roll.
Don't you get it? If a cocked die lands near you, you pass it back to the opponent to re-roll. If you think the roll was not rolled legally, many players probably do the same. I've known Brendan 30 years, and knocking the die over was not intentional, 100% certain.
@@PeterOzanne ok, it was not clear on the video, he gave back the dice to reroll I understand now.
So is cheating prevelent in backgammon as well? I've left two other gaming organizations (NASPA and ACC) for their condonement of cheating.
No cheating is extremely rare, and this was not a case of deliberate cheating.
it happens very often that a player accuses another to be able to cheat without being noticed, the attention is no longer on him... MAybe not on Backgammon but on other game it's happens
Anytime you drop anything else than the dice the entire roll should be void.
The rules state that the dice cup cannot touch the playing surface when you are rolling the dice out. The edge case scenario where somebody drops the cup on the board, after the dice has been thrown and doesn't touch the dice, have not been specified. Therefore the stated rule is up for interpretation by the tournament ruling committee. A very tough decision, but either way makes sense and is justified it seems. Nevertheless, after the ruling has been made the game must continue.
@@BackgammonGalaxy Well the UKBGF has this rule:
1.2 Etiquette
(i) GENERAL - Tournament directors and players are expected to behave
in the spirit of the game which is to show generous sportsmanship and
fair and considerate behaviour.
(ii) HANDLING OF EQUIPMENT - Players must handle the equipment in a
suitable manner.
Clearly dropping the dice cup on the board wasn´t "suitable" and was what caused confusion and doubt on whether the throw was valid in the first place. .
It shouldn´t matter if the dice are influenced by something being dropped. More important is if there is doubt about the validity of a throw. And we don´t always have a recording to go back on.
Backgammon rules should be simple and easy to handle.
So people: Don´t drop your glasses, sandwich or dice cup on the board, and if you do be prepared that your roll will not count.
I agree he was worried that the 11 was going to be taken away from him which is why he snap-played it. It all emanated from that. The snap-play is the key.
It demonstrates not only the (misplaced or legitimate)concern that the roll would be removed, but also that he was confident he could make the play super-quickly without playing it wrongly. Once he’d played it he could breathe easy, he thought. They come round to look and eventually say it stands.
But then as Neculai looks at the board for the first time after the protracted debate he realises that the checker on the 23 is in the wrong place. He’s not really even shocked or aghast. He reasons in this way: he knew the 11 had been an incredibly good roll, he had certainly known how to play it - make two points - and the fact that he had made two points MUST have meant that the checkers had not been split. ‘I would never make a mistake like that,’he says to himself in a split second and then corrects it. The fact that he thinks nothing of correcting the position corroborates this. He doesn’t ask: why would he need to ask? The fact that Brendan says nothing, as does no one else does nothing to take him out of this cast-iron line of thinking.
I have played Neculai a few times and his weakness is exactly this arrogance that he thinks he knows best and for the time being he has come acropper. We all have it to some degree.
There was no will to manipulate. If anything, it was Brendan’s responsibility to call it to Neculai’s attention. The ruling is ridiculous and should be overturned on appeal.
"No will to manipulate?". He looked at the board for 5 minutes and then flicks his opponent's checker into a worse position just as they're about to resume. I don't know how much more blatant you need it to be.
“If anything it was Brendan’s responsibility to call it to Neculai’s attention”.
Sorry, but that is a ‘Cheat’s Charter” (I’m NOT saying that Neculai did cheat, as I’ve stated several times elsewhere). However, your statement amounts to “It’s fair game to cheat if my opponent doesn’t notice”. That Is unconscionable.
@justin everybody was distracted by the dice cup situation. Even Brendan didn't know where his own checkers belonged. Are you putting 0% likelihood that they were simply not just confused?
Have to disagree with you on this one, Simon. How can you put the responsibility on Brendan? Cheating of this nature only works when it goes unnoticed.
Neculai may not have been intentionally cheating, but that is neither here nor there. He moved his opponent's checker without consulting, which, regardless of intent, is incredibly obviously not fair play.
I don't understand how anyone expects cheaters to be caught if they don't accept this video as evidence. We can very plainly see someone break the rules in a way that is not negligible, and here we have people saying that because we don't know what was going on in his head, he is not beholden to the consequences of his actions. If proving intent is the most important element, good luck ever catching cheaters.
@@BackgammonGalaxy what's the procedure for adjusting a position you believe to be wrong? given that you are not 100% sure?
Excellent analysis.
The rules are unambiguous, as they need to be.
1) As the dice are being rolled they should not touch the player’s hand and the cup should not touch the board. The dice must roll freely and come to rest lying flat on the playing surface of the board to the roller’s right of the bar. If this is not the case, the roll is deemed invalid and must be retaken. If the opponent has given his permission, the dice may be rolled to the roller’s left of the bar.
2) MOVES - Players must move clearly and use only one hand to move the checkers.
Repeated transgressions by a player in breach of this provision may result firstly in a warning, and subsequently in penalty points.
3) HANDLING OF CHECKERS - A player should not touch his own checkers or his opponent’s checkers during his opponent’s turn.
Repeated transgressions by a player in breach of this provision may result firstly in a warning, and subsequently in penalty points.
To call someone a cheat is not something that should be done without all due consideration, but that is not the same as saying that someone has broken the rules.
Rules were broken by both players. Ruling bodies decisions should be respected. This was not a football match.
Dropping the cup is understandable, but playing at this level moving checkers into different positions from where they should be according to the dice roll is cheating. There's NO EXCUSE.
I've seen so many cheaters in Backgammon competitions who constantly make illegal moves and try to get away with it. Sorry, but the basically simple math of Backgammon, there are NO EXCUSES for not making legal moves. Independent umpires should be on their game. It's not rocket science!
Hey Steve.
I disagree with two of your points.
1. Moving that checker to a different position, in this case back to the 24-point, or making other illegal moves, is only "cheating" if the act is done intentionally.
_cheat; to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage_
If it truly was an _honest_ mistake, then he couldn't have acted _dishonestly._
I've made illegal moves before, simply because I misread the dice. According to you, I cheated. And that's not correct.
2. Twice you capitalized NO EXCUSE. Yes, there IS an excuse for not making legal moves. The excuse is "we're human" and because of which, we make mistakes. We misread dice. We count wrong. I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions, or other penalties involved. If you make an illegal move you're subject to whatever penalties there are for doing so. But with your emphasis, you act like it shouldn't ever happen. Well, it's going to.
If it was a deliberate act to leave an incorrect position, then yes it was cheating. But NOT if, after the extended stress of the rolling incident, it was an honest belief they were correcting the position. As many have said, to try to cheat in front of so many seems unlikely, even though it actually went through!
@@MrEdwardCollins he wasn't playing a move when he moved his opponent's checkers.
@@squirrelpatrick3670 I understand that. But that doesn't make any difference at all.
We're talking about "cheating." Cheating requires intent. If he didn't do intentionally, he made a mistake, to be sure, but that is not cheating.
He shouldn't have done it, to be sure, but if was an honest mistake on his part, then by definition he was not cheating. Cheating requires one to act dishonestly.
@@MrEdwardCollins "it's not a lie if you believe it". Why do you think there is a rule that you are not allowed to touch your opponent's checkers?
I am with Sean Clennell: kibbitzers should be allowed to draw players' attention to possible illegal moves and misplays. (The kibbitzer that Sean says spotted the checker been moved back, should have reported it to the TD immediately). But, of course, at present kibbitzers are not allowed to comment to the players, so what has happened here is effectively kibbitzers reporting the possible infringement to the TD well after the event. This is less than ideal but, I feel, sufficient for the TD to investigate further.
I cannot see how Nicolai's true intention - i.e. to cheat, or to correct a wrong position - can be determined from any amount of video analysis (any more than it might by asking him). In moving the checker back without advising his opponent, he broke the rules, but sufficiently to be disqualified?
[in the St Albans Open, players are encouraged to display a "kibbitzers may comment" flag]
Play the video at 1/4 speed. You will see at 2:53 the dice cup catches the edge of the board and the entire board moves a smidgen. This is why the player dropped the cup. The board moving prior to the dice hitting the surface will impact the outcome of the roll, so the roll is illegal. As such I do *NOT* believe the player did this on purpose it was an accident, but the roll should have been rerolled. The ruling is wrong, the player did not maliciously try to cheat IMHO, however the roll *was* an illegal roll.
Hi Marc,
interesting aspect concerning the spectators - what do the tournament rules say in their regard?
Are they in a certain way “part of the game”, means that they should (verbally) correct any misplay or mistake of the players, or are they supposed not to interfere, as this is up to the responsibility of the players only (as it was common sense in any tournaments I played in the 80 and 90 years)?
I think they are not allowed to say anything.
it is strange that kibitzers are not allowed to say anything. To have agreement with opp at the start for kibitzers to be able to highlight illegal moves is sensible, with a symbol to that affect by the board so kibitzers are aware.
@@jonbarnes8249 One general problem, among others, with kibitzers saying things arises when one player has friends watching and the other doesn't. The kibitzers may point out the mistakes of the player's opponent more readily than those of the player they are friends with.
For that matter, noticing mistakes, intentional or otherwise, is part of the skill of being a player, so winning is more noteworthy when you haven't had help from kibitzers.
It's true that a spectator cannot correct an illegal move. But in this scenario, where it is the tournament staff observing, and they had stopped the game (even though NA's clock was still running), I think they would have definitely stepped in if they had seen the position was incorrect. In a normal game flow, they would not be allowed to interfere.
UKBGF:
_If an illegal move is noticed by either player before his opponent has made a valid roll or offered a valid double, it must be corrected. Only the players, the Tournament Director and any official match monitors are required to point out an illegal move unless the players have clearly stated an intention to the contrary to observers including any match annotator. An illegal move will stand once the opponent has made a valid roll or offered a valid double._
Have there been any other cheating scandals in backgammon? I'd love to see more videos like this. Especially with what's been going on in the chess world lately
Play65/GammonEmpire.. ;)
What’s been going on in the chess world?
@@GumbyTheGreen1 chess speaks for itself
@@jomancool55 What does that mean?
@@GumbyTheGreen1 Ask Google about "Hans Niemann chess speaks for itself."
I agree that players should not touch the opponent's dice or checkers.
Mochy has a nervous habit of aligning checkers that are fractionally out of place. Many of us do this as we consider what move to make. However Mochy adjusts his opponents checkers to align them perfectly. I am surprised someone hasn't called him on that. I would. Touching your opponents checkers should only be done during board setup between games or when a player cannot remember where his checkers were when he wants to put them back to the original position to reconsider his/her options, even then its best to point to the points where the checkers belong rather than move your opponents checkers.
for Claudia,she could have play 7/4 8/6 wich is almost the same...
What a mess. My opinion is that the UKBGF were put in an awkward position and I strongly support their decision. Marc, I don’t think you were fair to compare this example with Claudia and in doing so are not comparing like for like. It is like comparing a Jag to a Corsa because they both have 4 wheels. Claudia should not be labelled the same at all and you should apologise.
I didn't label Claudia as a cheater, quite the contrary. Did you even listen to what I said? I even said something like "Even grandmasters make unintentional illegal plays". Should I apologise to all grandmasters in the world as well? /Marc
@@BackgammonGalaxy you used her play as an example and it was not the same
Marc. Sorry. Good video & fair opinion. Players make mistakes. Ruling committees make mistakes. The B G community is making a mistake in attacking you. Content creators opinions are not mistakes. Let them make their own video with their opinion, or STFU.
There is a difference between making a mistake and cheating. And I think this is a great illustration of this. The biggest clue to me that this was not intentional which is an important part of cheating is that the score is 5-2 in an 11 point match. Cube not turned. It's not a vital stage in the match in the least. Plus it's streamed, plus you have directors all over the place looking over the board. In a confusing situation, it seems one thing being wrong become 10 things being wrong. I see it again and again in backgammon as well as poker. Because confusion and fluster breeds mistakes. That's what happened here. And if they are indeed playing legal moves, isn't the opponent obligated to point out the illegal move of sliding the white checker from 2 to 1? It's kind of scary they took everything away from Neculai because mistakes can and will happen and we will all make them. Will we be banned and everything taken away?
The claim of cheating needs to be strong with solid evidence, because it's so serious. I hope Neculai can appeal and somehow get some justice because it seems so draconian to me, especially to these particular players who are obviously strong players, but not world class. And thanks for the great analysis Marc.
I think this analysis of a clue to potential motive is a bit naïve. Do you watch football, or remember Rivaldo diving to the floor clutching his face against turkey in the 2002 world cup? Brazil were playing their first match, in front of an audience of tens of millions, being broadcast all over the world, winning the match, after 90 minutes had been played AND were waiting to take a corner - and he still took it upon himself to cheat. It's a madly specific example but just serves to illustrate that it's probably not as easy as we'd like to identify when cheating is most likely (assuming it would only happen at a key moment) versus something just being a mistake. Am not saying he definitely cheated and completely agree with your poker analogy tho and agree the whole situation leaves a bad taste in the mouth :/
@@89psychedelicmess I agree. Superdan's and others' assertion that A+B=C doesn't hold water as proof. Humans are often capable of doing totally irrational things. It was a most serious rule infringement, and he condemned himself by not checking with his opponent or the match-monitor.2
Not to mention, Brendan is the guy to stop Nikolai’s clock ending his move time after all this!
This might actually be illegal too. Not sure what the exact ruling about the 1-1 was but BB effectively ending NA's turn for him seems dubious.
wow cheating is drama at backgammon and chess at the moment what a coincidence
No real proof against Hans YET though. Doesn't look good that Hans has admitted to cheating twice before!
@@vinr6867 Weren't those admissions for online chess play, while the current scenario is live chess play? It's harder to cheat over the board. Not impossible, but harder.
@@dvakil right it was online, when he was 12 and 16. But if there's a will there's a way.
He moves Brendan's checker WHILE Brendan is adjusting the clock and then looking across to pick up the dice. It's very easy to do something so that no-one notices. Some people actually practice this skill, and make a career out of it. Marc, I've seen it before, it's happened to me. One just can't believe it, doesn't even WANT to believe it. So it could be accidental, or not. Either way, it's illegal and brought him a big advantage!
wow, a comedy of errors. Marc's analysis is spot on in so many ways. And IMO disqualification is way too harsh a punishment. The 2 scenarios are totally different. Scenario A just a bunch of errors on both players part because IMO they both got more and more titled as the discussion move forward....both were titled... PLayer BB is down 3 games....Player NA dropped his cup.....Dice were touched and moved.... just 2 players totally tilted IMO. Scenario B, a simple mistake that was not caught by anyone, games moves on. No fouls, just unfortunate. I dont think any player intended to cheat.
Fully agree here. These mistakes/misplays happens all the time..
I think this is a fair and sophisticated analysis. I can't stand Nekulai but I do not believe that his manipulation of the checkers was deliberate cheating. I think that after the time it took to start play, he obviously had half a mind thinking this was a restart and he mistakenly tidied the board. In any event, his opponent should have realised where his checkers were disposed and questioned his new position.
Again I say, I don't like the man and consider his bad temper and unsportsmanlike demeanour to be appalling. However, I do not believe him to be a cheat. I'd like to know his input into this debacle.
I think that the UKBGF committee have shown little imagination and sought a decision that would sit well with small minded members.
Thanks Marc! I was a live watcher. How did everyone miss the checker repositioning?
Looking forward to the UBC match!
How? Easy, everyone was distracted by all the tedious discussion of the legal/illegal roll. Whether intentional or not in this case, this is a common (distraction) technique of pickpockets, magicians etc.
It's a pretty big accusation to say that NA dropped the cup on purpose to create a distraction to eventually make a cheating play that gave him +1.2% MWC according to XG, but lost 5+ minutes on the clock in the process, which probably makes the sequence minus EV for NA. I would prefer to have 5 minutes more on the clock at this score, than 1.2% MWC. For an accussation like that you need proof. We have the semifinal and final live streamed and there wasn't a single other incident of this from NA.
I replayed this in slow motion repeatedly and Nicolai hit 1:1 so his move was correct. The Irish guy touched the dice and turned it very fast into 5 on purpose. Otherwise why he would jump so fast on touching the opponent’s dice???
I think I prefer that version of backgammon where you don't move your opponent's checkers or change their dice rolls.
Some players will react to your impending hit of one of their checkers by picking it up themselves and placing it on the bar. I always quickly nip this in the bud and inform them I will not allow their hands on the board or handling the checkers whilst I am in play.
Out of all the confusion why can't they just play a rematch?
At 1:13:00 of the recording of the full match, Nekulai rolls a six and one as he is bearing off but he only takes off one checker and does not move a second checker to use his one. This looks like cheating also. Opinions?
His hand movements might make it seem like cheating, but it isn't. With a 6-1 he is allowed to play the one first 4/3 then the six 3/off, amounting to 4/off which is what he plays.
@@ZorbaTheDutch Thank you.
I am not a player but it seems to me that the opponent that touched the dice should be immediately disqualified. The player that touched his opponents checker should immediately be disqualified. If the rules were enforced rigidly nobody would touch their opponent's checker more then once, same for the dice. There is a substancial amount of money involved so clear rules and stringent application is required. Also when your clock is running you should be the only person aloud to touch your checkers and dice. Immediately after you stop your clock you cannot touch anything 9nbthe board.
I have played a million games and one of the things that happened when I played was my opponent would move the checkers then he would move them again then again it ended up I never knew where they were at the start I had forgotten. Looking at these guys you would have thought they had just started playing touching your opponent's dice and moving your opponent's checkers my opinion is he never cheated.
I've known Brendan 30 years, and so have all the players in Ireland, as well as many in England. He plays 100% fair. He would NEVER move opponent's checkers. When your opponent rolls cocked dice near you, you touch them, don't you? Every player I know passes the dice back, to be helpful. Same if you think the roll was illegal - you pass the die back without thinking, when you are in the pressure of a match. Not a big deal.
This is such a difficult ruling to make. It's very harsh, but the intent by Neculai is debatable. It's possible he did it without thinking. It's possible everyone was confused and this was an accident - in fact, likely. The fact none of the other 4 people did or said anything makes me feel the penalty was too harsh. To take his entire prize moneys is outrageous.
Your analysis seems fair. There was much confusion and the game state could easily have been messed up during all the hassle. In a friendly, low-stakes game, this sort of adjustments can become a habit even.
It looks to me like both players should be disqualified. If it isn't a rule that a player shouldn't touch his opponent's dice while on the surface of the board for any reason it needs to be, but the checker movement is just out and out cheating.
I think calling NA a cheater is a harsh when you consider that the tourney officials are right there over the board and the match was being recorded. Knowing that, why would NA think he could get away with moving his opponents checker and it not be seen. Obviously NA made an impulsive move because he thought his opponent's checker had to be there for his double 1 position to be correct. One should never touch their opponents checker. If a mistake is made just point it out to your opponent and let them correct their move. In this case, it's not even worth the risk of cheating where they were in the match. Based on what I'm seeing they should just replay this match and the finals. The imperfect solution is to have a tournament official observe all the matches where prize money is involved, so that rulings are timely and they catch illegal moves and help players manage their clock. Yes, i know tourney officials were there, but your mindset is different when your told specifically what to be looking for as an observer. But still if humans are involved mistakes will happen even with an observer. With regards to the clock, I've always felt the player is responsible for managing their clock. NA let his time tick away during the ruling. That's his fault. He shouldn't get the time back. But I know we typically give back time if mistakes are caught.
I'm sure you know humans often don't even see things that they don't expect, or wouldn't dream anyone would dare to do. IF it was intentional, and it was noticed, he could talk his way out by saying, "Oh, I thought it was there". You say "Obviously" he thought it was there, but you cannot know that: you simply assume. People do very strange things on impulse, but even if it was not intentional cheating, it is very different from playing illegally with your own checkers, which is hard to prove anyway. What he did was illegal (moving opponent's checkers). He didn't ask, and he moved it to his own great advantage. But I agree with you that match monitoring should be improved.
just to be clear , there were no tournament officials right there over the board, just other tournament players. The person ruling re the legal/illegal dice roll and the guy in charge of streaming had moved away from the board.
I agree. I don't know how you let Necolei win the tourney and then say "wait a minute, let's go back to the previous match (where they were standing right there watching) and because he moved a checker (assuming his intent to cheat) we are going to take away his trophy and prize money.
"Think"? Perhaps he didn't. People often don't.
Totally agree with you Marc and your superb breakdown of the sequence of events.
The so called "legal Moves" rule is indeed stupid, I totally agree Marc
Great Video Mark. Nice to hear an independant view that has balanced a lot of factors.
Why did Brendan try to grab the dice so quick on the dropped cup... to change the 1/1 to a 5/1... seems both players were attempting some slight of hand... I mean he was fast to touch the opponent roll of dice. He just didn't get away with it.... all focus was on Neculai for dropping the cup. But he *saw* his 1/1... so Brendan didn't get away with it at all. LOL I think Neculai was just trying to pay back the attempted cheat... LOL. Good JOB on OP for noticing this fact at about 8:30 time. But the point is... both were attempting cheats. Both were "handsy" with the other player's game.
An opponent’s checker was moved to an inferior position silently. That is the one actual fact in evidence and it is blatantly cheating. Whether it was rational or not to cheat in front of a camera, it was done.
Until now I thought backgammon is a gentlemen's game, but i see it's the same thing everywhere, human being is weak, specially when money or power are present... So sad...
Terrible to compare what Claudia did to what Nicolai did. The cup issue is irrelevant. Nicolai moved his opponents blot from the 23 to the 24 pure and simple. All the rest is noise. Nicolai was rightly stripped of his victory. I have never in my life done what Nicolai did. I probably have done what Claudia did dozens of times. Honest mistake versus blatant cheat. and by the way. I would not stack the 5 in Claudia's 3-2. I would put a checker on 6 and 4.
You move your opponents checkers. You cheat. End of story.
I had a fender bender in my own driveway 2 days ago. I went out for 10 minutes to pick up a relative from the train station and bring them back to my house. On backing up into the driveway I hit a neighbor's car who had popped over to see my wife. I was both confused as I wasn't expecting a car to be there and distracted while talking to my relative.
The confusion and distraction from the previous sequence of events can upset the sound mind of even strong players. I agree with Marc completely.
But you still had to pay the damages, right? It may have been confusion - or not - but you still have to live up to the consequences.
@@EclipseDan The consequences could and should be far worse if he had deliberately driven into the vehicle, with bad intent. But he didn't.
@@g.c.muttley1715 That's why he was disqualified from the tournament but not banned for life.
@@EclipseDan Being deprived of the (£5k?) tournament winnings and the Galaxy board is a very heavy consequence. (You can throw in the trophy, title, and I guess ranking points into the mix.) Some might feel that they would swap a UKBGF life ban for this. Is he banned by the UKBGF for any period (as well)? There are other events that he may be able to enter. It may yet transpire that not all tournament organisers will presume he had a fraudulent intent, as UKBGF have effectively done.
The analogy is incomplete. Did the neighbour then emerge with a baseball bat and smash your car to pieces, and then receive support from people on youtube who instead blamed YOU for setting the chain of events in motion?
why drop the cup on purpose? you can't guarantee what the dice roll would be
human error ! its natural. Nikoli didnt cheat. he genuinely ( but mistakenly) thought the back pair werent split. why else would he nonchalantly move the pair back in front of everyone for all to see. bad ruling from committee !
Then you tell a rules official and your opponent. You don't touch an opponent's checkers.
Thank you Marc for that lovely episode of "CSI Gammon city". keep 'em coming, great job!
CSI Leamington Spa