Abstract
This article examines recent regulation in the sport of chess with a focus on cheating. On the one hand, disciplinary law in chess could be considered relatively underdeveloped compared with other sports. On the other hand, however, this kind of ‘underdevelopment’ might be appropriate since chess governing bodies have not yet introduced interventionist rules. These two interacting perspectives shape the aim and the objectives of legal research designed to protect the chess community from cheating by suggesting adequate disciplinary measures. The analysis focuses mainly on two forms of cheating: computer-assisted cheating and match-fixing. The broad concept of cheating and relatively young legal regulation in an under-researched sport call for interdisciplinary analysis, therefore, knowledge of sports law, human rights as well as criminology is applied.
Highlights
It is quite clear that cheating in chess is dangerous per se as it robs the sport of its essential features of uncertainty of outcome and sporting integrity, and accelerates its spin into the forum of entertainment, becoming no longer a sport (McLaren, 2008)
The analysis focuses mainly on two forms of cheating: computer-assisted cheating and match-fixing
These two aspects are analysed separately for the following reasons: the deliberate use of electronic devices is much closer to anti-doping rule violations7 and it is logical to analyse it in the context of the World Anti-Doping Code and related Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) practice, whereas match-fixing in chess is more appropriately analysed through the lens of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention)
Summary
It is quite clear that cheating in chess is dangerous per se as it robs the sport of its essential features of uncertainty of outcome and sporting integrity, and accelerates its spin into the forum of entertainment, becoming no longer a sport (McLaren, 2008). Cheating in chess: a call for an integrated disciplinary regulation This question is not purely philosophical, and two views are usually presented: paternalistic and libertarian. The right to regulate some harmful activities of human behaviour is explained as paternalism, where essentially the state (in the context of cheating in chess, the International Chess Federation (FIDE)) acts as a parent, guiding behaviour. The roots of this perception can be found in J. The shift from libertarianism to paternalism is discussed: the regulation of cheating in chess is too recent to be called paternalistic, but the tendency of legal regulation is towards an interventionist model of law-making. The main method applied in the article is documentary analysis, at times – due to the relatively long sporting experience of the author of the article – the text might resemble an intersubjective ethnographic study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
