[HN Gopher] Dear Chess World
___________________________________________________________________
Dear Chess World
Author : shreyas-satish
Score : 244 points
Date : 2022-09-26 19:45 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from
| Niemann
|
| What? I'd like him to explicitly state what rule/law/agreement
| prevents him from saying more. He explicitly accused him of
| cheating. I can't imagine what would prevent him from providing
| details.
| bombcar wrote:
| I expect it's GDPR-covered or similar cheating examples from
| chess.com or whatever site it was that he saw all the list of
| cheaters from.
| gizmo wrote:
| GDPR??? Not at all related.
| djrockstar1 wrote:
| Chess.com already put out a statement saying Carlsen has not
| seen anything about their cheat detection or their list of
| known cheaters.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Slander / libel laws, I would imagine. It seems like he was
| more careful in his phrasing than to make an explicit
| accusation.
| fotta wrote:
| I'd guess it's some sort of legal litigation.
| [deleted]
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| My guess is some sort of FIDE dispute process that binds both
| parties to (partial) secrecy.
| djrockstar1 wrote:
| FIDE already put out a statement saying they know nothing
| about this incident and want Carlsen to put forward initial
| evidence for them to start an investigation. Carlsen's
| statement shows that he has no evidence beyond his feelings
| over the board and Hans' history of cheating online.
| 6nf wrote:
| Magnus owns 20% of Chess.com. Chess.com put out a statement
| basically saying 'we have sent Hans evidence that he cheated
| more than the two times he admitted to'
|
| Chess.com / Magnus is waiting for Niemann to respond.
| [deleted]
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Until it is proven that your opponent cheated you need to be more
| gracious in your defeat.
| CalChris wrote:
| I'm a Magnus fanboy. He's been and continues to be a great
| champion. He's up there in the pantheon with Kasparov, Anand and
| Fischer. We're lucky to have him. That kinda settles this for me.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and
| other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now
| you see him with a shiny new car that you're pretty sure he can't
| afford.
|
| Did he steal it? Not necessarily -- it's entirely possible that
| he got a higher-paying legit job and saved up for it, or
| inherited money from a relative, or got it legally in some other
| way. He shouldn't be convicted of a new crime with no other
| evidence just because he committed similar crimes in the past.
|
| However, it would be entirely natural for a reasonable person to
| assume that theft is the _most likely_ explanation of the facts,
| and to avoid trusting that person.
|
| This is basically what happened with Hans. He has been caught
| cheating multiple times, and then had an unusually fast rise in
| rating. Is that rise impossible? No. But it's consistent with
| cheating, and given his history, cheating is the simplest
| explanation.
|
| So it would be totally normal for Magnus to refuse to trust such
| a person even though it can't be conclusively proven that he's
| still dirty. But even then, Magnus agreed to play against him,
| until further circumstantial evidence came to light and it just
| got to be too much.
|
| So, is it possible that Hans is clean? Sure. If that's indeed the
| case, do I feel sorry for him? No. He made the choice to destroy
| his own reputation when he cheated multiple times. If he doesn't
| get the benefit of the doubt now, it's on him.
| gizmo wrote:
| Why are known cheaters even allowed to participate in top level
| tournaments? It's insulting to all the other chess players.
|
| Magnus is setting the right example by refusing to play Niemann
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Zero tolerance blacklisting of cheaters is probably the best
| way forward. If neither Niemann nor Carlsen recant, then I
| predict chess will fall into general disrepute like baseball or
| billiards. The way for the professional chess community to
| salvage this situation is with zero tolerance blacklisting of
| anybody caught cheating, even as a teenager.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| > fall into general disrepute like baseball or billiards
|
| Could you elaborate, especially on billiards?
|
| I had heard a 99PI episode about baseball cheating, but
| thought it was more isolated incidents and not general
| disrepute.
|
| I enjoy playing pool but know nothing about the professional
| scene or cheating.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I don't know about high-level billiards, but low level
| billiards is basically synonymous with hustling and
| cheating (aka sharking.) Pool sharking is so widespread and
| infamous, I think it casts the entire sport in a sleazy
| light.
|
| With baseball, a lot of high level players have gotten
| caught or admitted it, and have said that it's widespread.
| Jose Canseco admitted to cheating and claimed as much as
| 80% of players use steroids. He specifically accused Alex
| Rodriquez, which was later proven true. Allegations like
| these from admitted/caught cheats might be attempts to
| justify themselves, but personally I think cheating is and
| has been rampant in baseball for a very long time. It's
| still fun to watch though.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Baseball is in general disrepute? TIL.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| The rampant doping got so bad they had a highly publicized
| congressional hearing about it. I doubt it ever stopped.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_baseball#Congressio
| n...
| umanwizard wrote:
| True, but IMO doping is much less of an existential
| threat to the game than computer-assisted cheating is for
| chess.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's fun to watch perhaps, but the world-wide mania over
| record chasing seems to have entirely died with the steroid
| usage around the Bonds era.
| aqme28 wrote:
| But he's not a known cheater!
|
| He cheated as a minor in online play. He has never been shown
| to have cheated as an adult or in OTB play. Someone needs to
| prove one of those things before he can be blacklisted for
| being a cheater.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| If someone makes a mistake at 16, is it a valid reason to ban a
| person for life?
|
| Ok. If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in
| prison for life?
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Enough with the fiction that cheating is a mistake, or that a
| 16 year old smart enough to be a chess grandmaster is
| simultaneously so underdeveloped that they have not learned
| the consequences of cheating.
|
| Your comparison with murder is ridiculous. First of all,
| teenage murderers are regularly sentenced to life in prison.
| A murderer is deprived of fundamental human liberties--
| Niemann is deprived of being able to compete at the highest
| competitive level in a tabletop board game, without
| suspicion.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| He cheated online on a second rate chess site. Nobody has
| any explanations how he could do it over the board.
|
| (Considering that people become more or less aware about
| their responsibilities and consequences of their actions at
| about 15 yo, he is now 4 times the responsible age he was
| at 16.)
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| > Nobody has any explanations how he could do it over the
| board.
|
| If you believe this, its because you aren't looking.
| There's tons of explanations online of how it could be
| possible. Go look at /r/chess.
| roflyear wrote:
| "random redditors say it!"
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Tournament organizers and FIDE were pretty adamant that
| no cheating took place and that anti cheating measures
| were adequate.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| To concede that cheating took place would mean that they
| had failed in their responsibility to stop it happening,
| and that somehow their method of detection only worked
| _after_ the cheating was happening, rather than during or
| before.
|
| For those two reasons, I think that any such "pretty
| adamant" statement can be discounted.
| roflyear wrote:
| He wasn't GM at 16. He was awarded the GM title last year.
| Why make up stuff?
| kjerkegor wrote:
| > First of all, teenage murderers are regularly sentenced
| to life in prison
|
| Maybe in USA. In Europe some countries even have special
| sentences for young adults (older than 18 less than 21).
| Here's for Germany:
|
| "The maximum penalty for any crime committed by a person
| under 18 (or a young adult under 21 who is treated as a
| juvenile) is 10 years"
| bombcar wrote:
| Fagin here, wondering what crime a child could commit
| that would get millions of dollars in resultant profit
| ...
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| playing competitive Chess is a privilege, not a right like
| freedom. I'm totally fine with 0-tolerance, because the only
| penalty is you can't play in competitions. If you want to
| play chess with your mates, no one is going to stop you.
| roflyear wrote:
| It's the dude's livelihood, though. There are laws about
| taking someone's tools if they owe a debt for similar
| reasons. I think it is a very similar thing.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I think there's little dispute that he's a very good
| chess player. He could perhaps earn a modest living as a
| chess tutor. That should be good enough, he's not
| entitled to riches.
| roflyear wrote:
| After being publicly labeled as a cheater by the chess
| community, and having his name drug through the mud?
| Sure.
|
| Then everyone will think his students are cheating when
| they perform well!
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Obviously he wouldn't be able to charge top dollar.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in
| prison for life?_
|
| If you murder somebody at 16, you shouldn't be a free man at
| 19. Three years is not enough time for somebody to mature and
| mellow.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| People really start to mature and become aware of their
| responsibilities and consequences for their actions at 15.
| So 16 years old person has only about 1 year of adult life
| experience vs 4 years at 19.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I think your estimation is about 10 years too young.
| [deleted]
| bombcar wrote:
| Some things matter so little that the penalties can be
| extremely high; for example, nobody needs to play chess so
| the penalty for cheating at chess can be a lifetime ban from
| sanctioned tournaments.
|
| Is it entirely fair to the actually repentant? No. But does
| it keep out the false-repentant? Yes.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| There were multiple examples of people from other online
| sports where former cheaters became world top players and
| important members of the community.
|
| It is immoral to close every redemption path to a former
| sinner.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Repeat offender, he's admitted to cheating at age 12 and
| once again at age 16. Let's not cast this into something
| melodramatic like a "path to redemption", it is just
| chess after all, and the right decision is probably for
| him to be perma-banned, otherwise you're just going to
| end up with more and more of these types of situations.
| roflyear wrote:
| Homie, come on.
|
| I stole stuff at 12 and at 16. I shouldn't walk into a
| walmart now at 30 and be searched when I leave.
|
| Just relax.
| karamanolev wrote:
| You're saying that (shouldn't walk into a Walmart and be
| searched) as it's a given. Doesn't sound that obvious to
| me. May be false, may be true, but regardless, it's
| definitely up for discussion.
| roflyear wrote:
| What? You're barely making sense.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way.
|
| If Hans is cheating (possible, especially given his past) Magnus
| should act and use his connections in the Chess world to catch
| him cheating.
|
| Suspicion is not proof.
|
| Using his reputation as leverage can work to destroy Hans's
| reputation, but there is a high risk of collateral damages.
|
| He should be smarter than that.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Signing the letter with "Magnus Carlson - World Chess Champion"
| had bad optics IMO.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Is he not the World Chess Champion? What's the problem then?
| onemoresoop wrote:
| It's a fools errand to try to catch your opponent cheating,
| they may not be in fact cheating and you're stressing out
| making your game worse.
|
| But general anti-cheating measures should be taken. What are
| those I don't know.
| lvl102 wrote:
| How do you think he can accomplish that exactly? You think
| they're going to install hidden cameras everywhere?
| stale2002 wrote:
| Well, for over the board chess you can have highly sensitive
| metal detectors or x ray machines. And you have mave matches
| delaying the broadcast.
|
| Problem solved.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Magnus is not doing this in the best possible way.
|
| You are assuming that his goal is to somehow uncover Hans
| cheating.
|
| On the other hand if his goal is to highlight that in his
| opinion the security arrangements are not sufficient to be able
| to tell if an opponent is cheating or not, then he is doing
| that just right.
|
| He spoke up and the competition in question introduced anti-
| cheating measures right the next day. That means there were
| things they could have been doing but were not before.
|
| > Magnus should act and use his connections in the Chess world
| to catch him cheating.
|
| How do you propose that could happen? Life is not a TV show
| with Perry Mason moments.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| People have been caught cheating in the past. Chess cheating
| is not black magic.
|
| Chess engines are an integral part of the Chess world now,
| players a training with them, to analyze and prepare. I would
| not be surprised if many players tried to "enhance" their
| rating online with such an engine.
|
| Chess.com probably has stats about this behavior.
|
| My gut feeling is that online cheating is very common, and
| thus, saying that someone was caught cheating online is not a
| very strong proof that he also did it over the board.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I have no opinions on the actual event given I have no clue what
| the details are.
|
| But accusing someone of cheating without any concrete evidence
| doesn't sit well with me. It creates a situation where it
| declares all exceptional cases impossible. It's impossible for
| growth. It's impossible that someone could lose to a weaker
| player.
|
| I suspect that people are able to say "even without concrete
| evidence, this is astronomically unlikely and the simplest
| explanation by far is that they cheated."
|
| Nevertheless, it all just doesn't quite sit right with me.
| There's something manifestly unpalatable about saying, "because
| the unlikely is impossible."
| addicted wrote:
| This is highly disappointing.
|
| For one thing, the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now
| and not weeks earlier is embarrassing.
|
| For another, the evidence he presents is disappointingly weak. I
| can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair enough. But
| the evidence for cheating offline is:
|
| 1) Rapid progress in OTB chess. This rapid progress is still much
| less rapid than many other players and involved Hans quite
| clearly spending nearly 2 years only focused on chess during and
| after the pandemic. 2) Him competing as black in a way only a
| handful of players could. I'd argue there is almost no one who
| stands even a 10% chance of beating Magnus as black OTB. But, if
| all the GMs playing Magnus had a 0.1% chance, then there's a
| 1/2000 chance he loses, and the loss is not likely to be to one
| of the top players simply because there are far more non top
| players. 3) Lack of nervousness. Well, it's hard to see how
| Magnus would be beat by someone who was nervous. On 1 hand, Hans
| had nothing to lose and be nervous about. On the other hand
| Magnus had a ton of pressure on a quest for 2900.
|
| At the end of the day, Hans didn't play a brilliancy to beat
| Magnus. He simply played normal decent moves. The game itself
| presented no evidence of cheating.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| >I can understand being suspicious of online games. Fair
| enough. But the evidence for cheating offline is...
|
| How can people act like the evidence of online cheating doesn't
| affect the likelihood that he cheated OTB? This is the exact
| same person playing both games.
|
| Circumstantial evidence is still evidence
| utopcell wrote:
| But what is the circumstantial evidence here ? The argument
| essentially boils down to: "this guy cheated in the past, so
| I don't trust that he won't cheat in the future". This is
| fair: he should decide whom he wants to play with, but no
| proof was actually presented.
| eklitzke wrote:
| With regards to his recent rating increase, Hans' rating
| increase is not completely unprecedented but it's still very
| rare. The issue isn't that he's a mid-2600s player, or even
| that he's increased by 200 points in two years, it's the shape
| of the ratings graph and the unusual staircase progress he's
| made at the GM level.
|
| It took Hans about five years to go from 2300 to 2500 rating,
| and most of that was pre-pandemic. Increasing your rating gets
| exponentially more difficult as your rating increases, which is
| why there are so few players who ever make it to the 2700 level
| or even the 2600 level. Most players at this level who spend
| multiple years in a rating lull never significantly increase
| their playing ability (there are countless examples, but look
| at someone like MVL for a typical example). There are only a
| small number of cases of people who reach Hans' level who have
| staircase looking ratings progress graphs at the 2500+ level.
|
| Hans' recent rating increase is far from proof that he's
| cheating, but it is definitely extremely unusual.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I play chess casually and wanted to note that 2600 is pretty
| darn good. I'll never reach that number but will never stress
| over it either.
| helaoban wrote:
| What's missing in that analysis is the sheer number of games
| Niemann has played recently, it's simply an enormous amount
| of OTB games - outside the norm. Furthermore, there's some
| consensus that a lot of the younger players are underrated as
| a result of the pandemic when a lack of rated OTB tournaments
| prevented a normal rating increase, and Hans' rapid
| improvement would partially be explained by his official
| rating quickly equalizing with his actual ability.
| yreg wrote:
| >the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not
| weeks earlier is embarrassing
|
| Why?
| roflyear wrote:
| Left the fanbase to stew about it for weeks. Ridiculous. This
| just makes things worse.
| Blackstrat wrote:
| The bigger question to me is why Norman, who had admitted
| cheating in the past, was admitted to the tournament in the first
| place.
| Tenoke wrote:
| He hasn't cheated in a FIDE event as far as FIDE knows. Banning
| him for cheating at 12 and 16 in an unrelated to them place
| (and not even OTB) without anything else would just be bizarre.
| Even more so, when players who have actually cheated in actual
| FIDE OTB games as adults start off with a temporary rather than
| permanent ban.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| People make mistakes. Also, it is kinda difficult to cheat
| uncaught in over the board games.
| neaden wrote:
| Part of it is that he cheated on Chess.com which does not
| publicize bannings for cheating/punishments, so there wasn't
| really a reason for the tournament to not invite him since at
| that point from an organizers perspective it was just rumors.
| rbongers wrote:
| It's not convincing to say that Hans was cheating because few
| people can beat Magnus playing black when Magnus was playing
| poorly in that game. I still feel like more information that
| could come out at any moment that could swing the situation in
| either direction, and this statement doesn't say much. I wish
| Magnus and chess.com would come out with whatever extra
| information they have.
| lvl102 wrote:
| I don't think you understand why cheating is so bad. Once you
| know your opponent COULD BE cheating, your approach changes
| entirely. You will know this if you played against Stockfish.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I believe people might be seriously underestimating just how good
| Magnus may be at detecting cheating.
|
| Dude probably trains with computers regularly. He has a better
| memory than 10 average Joe's combined. He's been the absolute #1
| of the world for what, 10 years now?
|
| He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing.
|
| I personally take his suspicions very seriously, though I agree
| that evidence has to be presented sooner or later.
| noncoml wrote:
| This. It's like how some people in here have built amazing
| intuition about where a bug in a system may be, even if it's a
| system they haven't written or designed themselves
| vikingerik wrote:
| Those data points are cherry-picked by anecdote and
| statistically useless, unless you're also counting all the
| times someone thought they had such intuition that turned out
| not to be correct at all.
| epolanski wrote:
| Hans is known to have cheated, his coach is known to have
| cheated, add low security in the event, Hans beating Magnus (a
| player two tiers above him) on black pieces (Magnus has lost
| only 15 games against black in an entire world champion career)
| and Hans acting suspicious during the game and here we are.
| geertj wrote:
| > Hans is known to have cheated
|
| Do you have a link to this? Proof that this player has
| cheated in the past would be the strongest evidence, I
| believe, he'd do so again.
| noncoml wrote:
| He has admitted privately ti chess.com that he cheated
| twice on online games. I think he has even admitted it
| publicly himself.
| sentientslug wrote:
| Niemann during an interview admitted to having cheated in
| the past
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| This is not disputed, he has admitted to it himself:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6UJz_X8DU
| casion wrote:
| He admitted to having previously cheated. The admission
| happened during the Sinquefeld cup, on stream, during the
| event.
|
| Having cheated in prior history is not a question, but the
| extent and recency of the behavior is.
| sixothree wrote:
| I don't know if there's data but people who have cheated
| in the past often seem to cheat in the future. Having
| watched some videos about the state of speed-running
| video games lately intersected with how gambling cheaters
| seems to never stop cheating supports that.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Magnus is obviously extremely qualified to detect cheating, I
| see many other people who are honestly just as qualified as him
| say that Hans isn't cheating. I'm going to also say emotions
| are going to play a massive role here, both in terms of defence
| of Hans and against Hans.
|
| The interesting thing is the one party MORE qualified than
| Magnus and the other grandmasters to detect cheating is the
| chesscom statistics team and they think Hans has cheated online
| recently and didn't admit to it. Still, there's no smoking gun
| that proves the OTB matches were fixed, Hans can be innocent at
| least in those specific circumstances, but if he's been guilty
| in online chess recently is it truly fair to make the world
| champion play against him OTB?
|
| >He wouldn't risk his whole reputation for nothing.
|
| It is pretty important to realise in terms of Magnus's mindset
| he has given up on defending the world championship and doing
| anything other than achieving 2900 elo, the highest rating ever
| achieved. He is a champion, and that is his goal in life, he
| wants that rating in a way most people can't fathom. If he
| proves Hans Neimann is a cheater, Han's win's against Magnus
| are void, and Magnus's rating goes up. Imagine being the world
| champion and having your dream drift further away because of a
| known cheater beating you when they're at a disadvantage, what
| goes through your head? What goes through your head when you
| think of how many people COULD be cheating and making getting
| 2900 impossible? What can others do about the spectre of chess
| cheating, the world champion, doesn't stand up?
|
| So what I'm saying here is, I wouldn't be super confident that
| Magnus wouldn't throw his reputation in the trash to become the
| greatest chess player who ever lived. I think he would
| absolutely throw away his reputation, but not for nothing.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Mangus is human after all, who occassionally make blunders of
| sub-GM levels:
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+chess+bl...
|
| That just shows that he is fallible, which I empathize with.
|
| Also don't forget the bishop blunder by Nepo in the world
| championship against Magnus. That was a 1800 level blunder
| trapping the bishop. Nepo is in top 5 GM list.
|
| The fact of the matter is that all GMs including Magnus have
| the potential to make blunders.
| buitreVirtual wrote:
| What was Carlsen's blunder in his game against Niemann? If he
| had blundered badly in that game, it would be a very
| different story.
| stouset wrote:
| Niemann, as black, equalized reasonably early on and then had
| a consistent lead against Magnus _the entire game_. Magnus
| did make mistakes in the game, but only after a near-perfect
| grind for 27 moves.
|
| To be clear, I'm not saying this to make a claim that this is
| definitive proof of anything. I'm pointing out that the
| theory that Magnus simply blundered away the game doesn't
| hold water. Niemann had the advantage--as black no less--for
| essentially the entire game against someone who is widely
| known for being capable of grinding away nearly-perfectly for
| extensive periods of time.
| [deleted]
| russellbeattie wrote:
| The questions I have about this are pretty basic:
|
| 1. _How_ would Niemann have cheated? The shoe computer theory is
| a bit far fetched - are devices that small capable enough? Is he
| suspected of having an accomplice?
|
| 2. Why didn't Magnus just say something right away? He could have
| easily made his accusations at the moment to event organizers -
| quietly - and they could have had Niemann remove his shoes or
| something. Instead he threw a tantrum. Obviously this isn't just
| about Hans.
|
| Personally, I think Niemann is just a 19yo kid who has made
| mistakes and Carlsen is a 31yo professional who is absolutely
| _hammering_ this kid to make a larger point. He may be
| frustrated, but taking it out on Hans is a bit much. The
| imbalance of power here is just off the charts.
|
| Even if Hans cheated - of which there isn't a shred of real
| evidence - Magnus is the leader of the chess world and needs to
| accept that responsibility in a _mature_ way. He should have
| taken the high road, simply said "I don't know what happened,
| but it was highly unusual. Let's guarantee that this doesn't
| happen in the future," and directed his frustrations totally at
| the event organizers rather than encouraging the _entire world_
| to attack this one kid.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > are devices that small capable enough?
|
| yes, the tech is there
|
| But yes, I agree that Carlsen should have just refused to play
| Hans after Sinquefield
| onemoresoop wrote:
| The cheating technique could be ingenious in itself. I
| remember what students were coming up in high-school, back in
| the day, without modern technology.
| bombcar wrote:
| Now I'm imagining a Slugworth scenario where someone
| developed a cheating tool and offered it to Carlsen and he
| refused it, but suspects that Slugworth also offered it to
| Hans ...
| 988747 wrote:
| > The shoe computer theory is a bit far fetched - are devices
| that small capable enough?
|
| Yes, they are. The Stockfish game you can install on your
| iPhone would beat Carlsen almost 100% of time.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Why do local compute when you can have a massive Kubernetes
| cluster in AWS running stockfish and every other engine in
| the world through an API call on a tiny ESP32 with ESP-NOW
| protocol to a nearby friend/spy? I/O is a few bytes and ESP32
| has a ad-hoc network range of 50 feet or so. I joke about the
| Kubernetes part :-)
| roflyear wrote:
| The tech is there, but the risk is insanely high, and it isn't
| easy.
|
| It is extremely easy to cheat online. You just open an engine
| on your computer.
|
| For OTB, you'd have to be really sophisticated, and most likely
| have a partner assist you. And you still have to be really,
| really good at chess - Hans, even if he's cheating, is still a
| 2600 rated player.
|
| It is several orders of magnitude harder, so way less
| opportunity, and the risk is much, much higher. Hans would have
| to have nerves of steel, for sure, to pull it off. Not saying
| it is impossible.
|
| But there's no evidence he cheats OTB, either.
| roflyear wrote:
| https://twitter.com/ben_finegold/status/1574506362658181120
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| markwkw wrote:
| Chess is, in a way, doomed. At this point cheating by a smart
| perpetrator is nearly impossible to detect. - Miniature devices
| can even be implanted. You can probably already have a chess
| engine onboard your body. - Accomplices of a cheater only need to
| transmit a few bits of information to be useful - making cheating
| cheap when audience is allowed. - Statistical methods will not be
| able to detect a player increasing their apparent skill by a
| small margin (help with occasional moves, successively picking
| suggestions from a varied group of chess engines so that
| adherence to one engine cannot be proven)
|
| Given this, we will be left with cheaters getting caught rarely
| through obvious slips in op-sec (device falls out, gets picked by
| a detector through unlucky occurrence)
|
| or
|
| We will be forever accusing people of cheating. They will deny
| it. We will ask them to explain why they made certain moves. They
| will fail to explain themselves sufficiently... Are we here yet?
| derac wrote:
| You could play in a Faraday cage, use an SDR and check for
| weird radio signals, and other steps. Some of this would only
| really be feasible at the highest levels, but that's where
| going to those lengths is needed.
| macintux wrote:
| A newer post, but more comments at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32987630
| dang wrote:
| We'll merge that one hither.
| etothepii wrote:
| The fact that cheating is now on the agenda in chess is so lame.
|
| My chess.com rating is only 864 and after making a move that won
| me the game my opponent said they were going to report me because
| "I played an unusual tactic."
|
| It's taking all the fun out of the game.
|
| Edit - to clarify that cheating being on the agenda is a sad
| state of affairs, not that Carlson calling it out is sad.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Some evidence supporting his claim would be nice.
| draw_down wrote:
| jbaczuk wrote:
| It reminds me of the outcry from Trevor Bauer over the MLB not
| enforcing the illegal substance rule for pitchers. He had to take
| matters into his own hands until the league decided to enforce
| the rules.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Look at all the people who had their careers absolutely
| _destroyed_ by the US Postal /Discovery Channel/Lance
| Armstrong/Trek business (including Greg LeMond!) in the era
| where they were accusing Armstrong of the world's largest ever
| coordinated doping program, in the era before Armstrong and
| team were stripped of all their titles.
|
| Ultimately in the fullness of time they were all proven to be
| correct.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Do they do any tests for substances? How about nootropics which
| are known to boost brainpower, are these banned just doping in
| athletics? Would nootropics be considered cheating??
| narag wrote:
| I doubt there's some kind of NZT that would be useful for
| chess. Some ancient masters had a complicated relation with
| alcohol, specially Blackburne.
|
| Adversaries knew and invited him believing it would make him
| blunder, but it seems Blackburne actually played better while
| drunk.
| Belgicama wrote:
| syncerr wrote:
| Hans is clearly cheating. Comparing his past games against what
| an engine would do is pretty damning. Chess engines are far
| superior to players and the best players in the world top out in
| the high 70s percent correlations (Magnus averages around 70%).
|
| Hans has a string of games at 100% correlation[0], meaning he's
| playing perfect games. Past players who achieved this later went
| on to admit to cheating[1]. Magnus knows this because he owns
| part of chess.com and presumably sees the data.
|
| Magnus has a lot riding on his statement. He wouldn't make it
| unless he was sure.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPzUgzrOcQ
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller
| aqme28 wrote:
| That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the
| video even issued a retraction (https://twitter.com/IglesiasYos
| ha/status/1574308784566067201...).
|
| It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine
| correlation" of other high ranked players against similar
| opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is
| "clearly cheating."
| fieryscribe wrote:
| Daniel Rensch and others have said that Magnus has _not_ seen
| chesscom cheating algorithms or lists. It had been a rumor in
| the chess world for a while that Hans has cheated before
| Tenoke wrote:
| He hasn't been officially shown but that doesn't mean that
| someone in the know hasn't leaked it to him. He's deeply
| connected and respected in the chess world.
|
| Further, even if he didn't see it people notice when GMs get
| bans as their accounts turn inactive (which they had in this
| case).
| Sporktacular wrote:
| You mean Magnus?
| dorkwood wrote:
| When I was younger, I spent many, many hours playing one
| particular video game. I became a "known cheater" at the game,
| despite never actually cheating (I'd cheated at other games in
| my early teens, but had since given up that lifestyle).
|
| I can recall several players on discussion boards analysing my
| statistics and explaining how I was clearly cheating because it
| was impossible for a human to play like me. Humans, they said,
| just weren't that accurate.
|
| One cheat-detection algorithm even "caught" me one day, and I
| was promptly banned from that server. Confused about what had
| happened, I sought out the server documentation online so I
| could see what they had used to "detect" me. My crime, it turns
| out, was scoring too many kills per second.
|
| I keep this in mind whenever I see another person accused of
| something similar. Sometimes people have just put in more
| effort and study than we choose to comprehend.
| joemazerino wrote:
| How did Niemann cheat? Magnus uses Niemann's outplaying as
| evidence but is there anything concrete?
| RavingGoat wrote:
| Remote control anal beads is the cheapest, easiest to conceal
| and readily available.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Like, read Morse with your behind?
| alasr wrote:
| From the horse's mouth:
|
| "I had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully
| concentrating on the game in critical positions, while
| outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of
| players can do. This game contributed to changing my
| perspective."
|
| ---
|
| Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to
| convince me that Niemann is a cheat. However, I would love to
| see more evidence before I change my position on this issue.
| naasking wrote:
| > Personally I don't think that's strong enough reason to
| convince me that Niemann is a cheat.
|
| Given he has admitted to cheating before, the "is a cheat"
| test is arguably satisfied. Whether he also cheated here is a
| different question.
| matsemann wrote:
| I agree. But at the same time it's absolutely destructive for
| other players playing a known cheater, spending so much
| energy on "is he cheating against me now?"
|
| With how Hans responded to Carlsen's unorthodox opening and
| his history, it made Carlsen unsure and wrecked the rest of
| his game. And given Hans couldn't even explain his moves
| later..
| ouid wrote:
| I am very sorry to see this position being posted. Niemann has
| been caught cheating in chess twice before, less than three
| years ago. He should never have been allowed to play in the
| cup. It was FIDE's decision not to collect the concrete
| evidence that would have caught him in the first place, and we
| must make do with the circumstantial evidence. As it stands,
| Niemann is a demonstrated cheater, and has more to gain by
| cheating in a game against the world champion than at any other
| time. It is very unlikey that Hans only cheated exactly the two
| times he was caught, and his failure to produce other instances
| than the times when he was caught are a mark against him.
|
| Remember that we are not giving him the death penalty, we are
| just trying to establish which scenario is more likely. It is
| important to be able to render most likely judgments based on
| incomplete information. Its not a courtroom.
| jfengel wrote:
| Niemann has admitted cheating, but only in online chess, not
| over the board.
|
| That's not to say he should be allowed to play, but only to
| note that live play is kind of a different ball game compared
| to doing it online. Online, it's you alone in a room (with a
| second computer). Similar cheating over the board would
| require some kind of hidden communications device, and
| probably an assistant.
| petilon wrote:
| > _Niemann has admitted cheating, but only in online chess,
| not over the board._
|
| That's a distinction without a difference.
| roflyear wrote:
| Wrong. I've stolen things (I'm sure you have too - theft
| can be really small!) does that mean I should be labeled
| a thief in perpetuity? Beyond that, does it mean that I
| should be publicly shamed for it?
|
| Come on. You people need a heart.
| petilon wrote:
| If you have a criminal record, you will not be hired into
| certain jobs. Try getting a job in a cloud vendor such as
| AWS, Azure or GCP. They do background checks for a reason
| -- you will have access to customer data of banks, the
| CIA, and other high-risk data. These cloud vendors have
| controls, and one of the controls is to _not_ hire people
| who don 't pass background checks.
|
| So yes, if you have admitted to cheating in chess in the
| past, you lose certain privileges, such as competing in
| world chess championship.
| roflyear wrote:
| If we're conflating this with crimes, then Magnus is
| doubly in the wrong - we have standards for innocence
| until proven guilty.
|
| Where is the proof?
|
| There's a reason why things like this are in different
| categories.
|
| I could have been an alcoholic for years, but I shouldn't
| be branded as one forever to everyone I meet, etc.. it's
| just wrong. Totally immoral.
| petilon wrote:
| It is not possible to prove unless the Chess Federation
| subjects players to cavity search. I don't think the
| Chess Federation wants to set such an extreme precedent.
| So, the alternative is to exclude people who have
| admitted to cheating in the past. That's not wrong or
| immoral. Cheating is immoral. Losing some privileges goes
| with the territory and should be expected.
| roflyear wrote:
| Correct, it is not possible to prove. If Magnus had
| anything - anything - other than "I felt this way" and
| "he seems too chill" I would suspect something. Those
| things could be:
|
| - Hans was walking weird (something in his shoe)
|
| - He was making weird movements
|
| - He was distracted, or similar, indicating he's messing
| with some device
|
| etc... then sure.
|
| Magnus did not say these things, and that is telling.
|
| What I believe happened is Magnus (someone who has
| presented a lot of anxiety in the past - see this video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR-4_ouXUV4 but easy to
| find other examples) was really nervous that Hans may be
| cheating, and that impacted Magnus's play (he played a
| very poor game).
| ouid wrote:
| The largest state that we have successfully managed to
| isolate from communication with the rest of the universe is
| on the order of 15 qubits. I think you do not appreciate
| just how easy it is to get information through a channel.
| Or rather how difficult it would be to prove that such a
| channel was used.
|
| This is, however, irrelevant. Hans Niemann is a chess
| cheat. Allowing him to set the narrative to "I've only
| cheated online" is the same as allowing him to set the
| narrative to "I've only ever cheated while wearing green
| clothes".
| roflyear wrote:
| You and probably 99% of the people here have stolen
| something (myself included) does that make us thieves,
| where we should wear "I'm a thief" on our heads for the
| rest of our lives, when we go on dates, job interviews,
| etc..?
|
| Man, I'd hate to live in your world!
| vikingerik wrote:
| The somewhat-concrete evidence is that analyzers have now found
| many instances where Niemann's moves correlate highly with
| engine-suggested moves.
|
| I don't know the details as to whether that claim is credible.
| Is this correlation really any more for Niemann than any other
| grandmaster of similar strength? Are the analyzers cherry-
| picking data points that fit the narrative? And of course it is
| possible that Niemann is legitimately that good.
|
| Reddit's /r/chess has loads of viewpoints and speculation, if
| you want to read more there.
| Dave_Rosenthal wrote:
| There is a guy named Ken Regan who is one of the leading
| experts in this question of whether the correlation with
| engine moves is at a normal or abnormal level. His statement
| is that he analyzed the last two years of Hans' games and
| found no evidence of cheating. So, yeah, the people on Reddit
| are probably cherry picking.
|
| (https://en.chessbase.com/post/is-hans-niemann-cheating-
| world...)
|
| The counter to that is that it looks likely that a clever
| high-level player could probably use an engine once or twice
| in a game in a judicious way and not raise statistical alarm
| bells. But still, Ken's work tries to suss out things like
| that--e.g. does the player in question make good moves in
| 'key' positions. Plus, continued use of such techniques over
| time would leave a statistical trail.
|
| Honestly, Magnus' statement of, "well, he beat me and it
| didn't look like he was thinking hard" is pretty thin. Magnus
| knows that Hans has a history of cheating in online games
| when he was younger and to me it feels like he's just seeing
| ghosts and deep into confirmation bias territory. Especially
| since the game in question took place at a high-level
| tournament with rigorous anti-cheating scanning, etc.
| hellcow wrote:
| Fabi (for those that don't know, he's another one of the
| best chess players in the world) gave a statement along the
| lines of, "I know of at least one case where I was certain
| cheating happened, and Regan's analysis missed it, so take
| any of his analysis with a huge grain of salt."
|
| So here we have a whole bunch of the world's best chess
| players and chess.com believing that Niemann repeatedly
| cheats, in addition to Niemann's own admission to cheating
| in the past, and Regan taking the opposite stance.
| roflyear wrote:
| Fabi also said (during the same interview, I'm sure) that
| he doesn't think Hans cheated. Your last statement there
| is really misleading and even dishonest.
| ouid wrote:
| having a history of cheating in a game that is mostly
| otherwise honor bound is a very very very bad sign. Don't
| be fooled by the "when he was younger" bit. Everything that
| you did you did when you were younger, it has been less
| time since hans was last caught cheating than the interval
| between that time and the previous one.
|
| Don't let the statisticians convince you that they know
| what they're doing either. Statistics, as a discipline, is
| essentially predicated on the principle that the objects of
| study do not know that they are being observed. Without
| this assumption, the domain is now more accurately
| described as game theory. Statisticians will happily and
| confidently ignore this and draw very wrong conclusions as
| a result.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Statistics, as a discipline, is essentially predicated
| on the principle that the objects of study do not know
| that they are being observed.
|
| There is no such "principle" in statistics. Statistics is
| based on statistical methodology, i.e. formulas, models,
| and techniques that are used in statistical analysis of
| raw research data, which is collected, organized,
| analyzed, interpreted and presented. The Hawthorne
| effect, "a type of reactivity in which individuals modify
| an aspect of their behavior in response to their
| awareness of being observed,"[1] arose from analysis of a
| statistical study.
|
| > Without this assumption, the domain is now more
| accurately described as game theory.
|
| Game theory is utilized for decision-making in strategic
| environments where rational agents interact with each
| other. Statistics, on the other hand, is employed for
| reasoning in non-adversarial settings where the samples
| are assumed to be generated by some stationary and non-
| reactive source.
|
| > Statisticians will happily and confidently ignore this
| and draw very wrong conclusions as a result.
|
| Contradiction. You've already claimed that statistics is
| "essentially predicated on the principle that the objects
| of study do not know that they are being observed." Yet
| now you're claiming experts "confidently" ignore their
| discipline's "essentially predicated" principle.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
| ouid wrote:
| There is a difference between a subject that changes with
| observation and a subject that changes adversarially with
| your statistical methods. A qualitative difference.
| roflyear wrote:
| How old are you? Are you over the age of 14?
| Maursault wrote:
| Statistical methods may include observation during the
| gathering of data. Whether or not change is measurably
| different from adversarial change depends on the
| variables chosen. It is clear that two distinct
| disciplines can approach the same problem with varying
| results without invalidating the entire other discipline.
| There is a difference between sound argument and a straw
| man employing equivocation. A qualitative difference.
| jfengel wrote:
| Nobody knows how he was cheating. Without a strip search
| there's no way to be sure.
|
| It is known that it's not technologically impossible. There are
| ways to do it, some of them rather outlandish but not
| infeasible.
|
| Unfortunately, that's as far as it can go. Either you start
| doing something really extreme to ensure that players can't
| cheat (that aforementioned strip search, making them play in a
| Faraday cage, etc), you'll never really know.
|
| Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on during
| the match. It could have been as simple as old-fashioned
| spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had made, and
| learning their weaknesses before the match even starts.
|
| You can't really prevent that. The best you can hope for is for
| a chess expert to opine that this move seems like an unlikely
| thing for a human to play without the assistance of a computer.
| Carlsen is just such an expert, but obviously his opinion alone
| is much too biased.
| hobo_mark wrote:
| > Even worse than that, the cheating may not have gone on
| during the match. It could have been as simple as old-
| fashioned spying: studying what preparations Carlsen had
| made, and learning their weaknesses before the match even
| starts.
|
| How is that even "cheating"?
| jfengel wrote:
| That would require spying on him, perhaps by having
| suborned one of his preparation team, or conceivably even
| by bugging his hotel room.
|
| I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just explaining what I
| meant. Those preparations are private, and getting inside
| intel is cheating.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| If your opponent is playing white and someone from their
| team tells you "He's going to open with X move", so that's
| the only one you have to prepare against, that goes a long
| way to eliminating white's advantage.
| u10 wrote:
| "Buddy was acting strange, must be cheating".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Said buddy has publicly admitted to cheating multiple times
| prior.
| roflyear wrote:
| He's trying to own up to his mistakes.
| markers wrote:
| In case you haven't seen it, some new evidence surfaced
| yesterday: https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ
| roflyear wrote:
| That's hardly evidence.
|
| Me, as a 1600 player, have played some 0-0-0 games on Lichess.
| I didn't cheat. I just play a lot of chess games and during
| those games, my opponent was really bad, so I had a perfect
| game (according to the engine).
| mikenew wrote:
| You're conflating accuracy with engine correlation. Having a
| perfectly accurate game means you didn't make any moves that
| caused a centipawn loss. Having 100% engine correlation means
| you're making the exact moves the engine would make.
| dak1 wrote:
| I think I have on 3-4 occasions played a game where, after
| evaluating on chess.com, got a 100% accuracy (which is
| engine correlation). A couple times were all theory and
| then blundering a mate in 1, but...
|
| I did have one game where I didn't know the theory except a
| very vague recollection in the beginning. I actually
| thought I had blundered in that game and was trying to
| figure out what I'd do if my opponent made a certain move
| -- they didn't find it, I ended up winning material in a
| tactic and they resigned -- I was in complete shock when it
| came back 100% accuracy (and I definitely did not see the
| engine response to the move I was worried about, which was
| the best move).
|
| I'm only around 1600-1700 on chess.com.
|
| Not taking a position either way on Hans, but I have no
| doubt he knows far more theory than I do (and I do know
| some lines 20+ moves deep), and correlating with an engine
| is not impossible even outside of book.
| roflyear wrote:
| Those games don't have 100% engine correlation, either. The
| entire video is a mess.
| boole1854 wrote:
| So there are "really bad" opponents at the 1600 level, but is
| it reasonable to think there are "really bad" opponents at
| the 2600 level? It's a different world up there.
| iends wrote:
| Right, op is making a mistake in thinking that a perfect
| game against a 1600 is the same as a perfect game against a
| GM. GMs will intentionally play less perfect moves to head
| towards complications where they will come out ahead. When
| I start to bang out 15 moves of theory against a IM/GM they
| will recognize it and play something I'm not familiar with
| and just win more quickly.
| roflyear wrote:
| Those games were against opponents 100-200pts lower rated
| than Hans, in some cases.
| boole1854 wrote:
| While interesting, this does not seem very convincing to me.
| They successfully show that Niemann was playing many games with
| a high percentage of "engine perfect" moves, but they do not do
| enough to show that this is inconsistent with what top players
| usually do. A whole distribution of scores is shown for Niemann
| but only limited summary statistics are shown for other top
| players. A proper comparison would involve showing the same
| type of data for both.
| VanillaCafe wrote:
| > They successfully show that Niemann was playing many games
| with a high percentage of "engine perfect" moves, but they do
| not do enough to show that this is inconsistent with what top
| players usually do.
|
| I thought the video very much did make that case. A single
| known cheating game had a 98% correlation (Sebastien Feller
| Paris 2010), other GMs have generally at most 75% average
| correlation. The analysis had more than half a dozen games
| with Niemann at 100% correlation. If that's cherry picking,
| it seems like there are a lot of cherries to pick.
| roflyear wrote:
| Yah and Hikaru was able to find games of his that were 100%
| too, fairly quickly:
| https://clips.twitch.tv/FaintCuteKumquatPhilosoraptor-
| hDvbAj...
| usgroup wrote:
| Well she shows 6+ games where he has 100% correlation with
| the engine. What are the chances?
| boole1854 wrote:
| Yes, that's the question that I wish she had tried to
| answer. What are the chances? Without checking for that
| pattern by other 2600+ GMs, we don't know the answer.
| aqme28 wrote:
| > What are the chances?
|
| We don't know! That's why this is an incomplete analysis. A
| comparison against other players of his caliber would
| answer that question.
| [deleted]
| johncessna wrote:
| And then explains the odds, to both this one and the
| parent's question
| noncoml wrote:
| That's interesting, but what I would like to see, in order to
| draw some conclusions, is a couple more similar analysis for
| other players. Let's say one stronger than Niemann and one
| slightly weaker.
| bombcar wrote:
| This seems interesting, any chess-knowing people willing to
| take the hit for the team and watch all 23 minutes?
| tpoacher wrote:
| the gist seems to be that he has unrealistically high
| correlation with game-engine recommendations, often all the
| way up to 100%, but only when playing "tough" opponents, and
| far lower / realistic correlation scores (around 50%) in
| other games.
|
| for reference, magnus carlsen's correlation score at his peak
| averages around 70% (according to the video)
| Invictus0 wrote:
| He played several games with 100% correlation with what chess
| engines considered to be the best move, and also played in 5
| consecutive tournaments with such a high fraction of engine-
| preferred moves that his performance rivals the best players
| in history at the pinnacle of their careers.
| roflyear wrote:
| Yes, and so does.... everyone else that is 2600+. And lots
| of people who aren't.
| Loughla wrote:
| What is your connection to this debate? You seem to want
| to shoot down any criticism of Hans.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| root_axis wrote:
| Why not address the substance of the comment instead of
| casting aspersions on the author of the comment?
| roflyear wrote:
| No connection. I just think it is stupid that a lot of
| people who consider themselves intelligent reduce
| themselves to this level of drivel.
|
| I mean, come on. There's a guy that replied to you who is
| insinuating that I AM Hans. LOL!
|
| Let the conspiracies fly, I guess!
| roflyear wrote:
| It's been talked to death. The consensus is you cannot just
| cherry-pick some games and claim he's cheating.
|
| Everyone has games that are perfect. Everyone. Not just GMs
| or Super GMs. I have at least a few perfect games and I'm
| half the rating Hans is.
|
| The games analyzed also have crazy blunders by his opponents.
| [deleted]
| tgtweak wrote:
| Using an ultra-high ELO chess engine to score each possible
| move, then reversing through the players moves and seeing how
| often it would have been a positive move (one that shifts the
| balance of the game in your favor) - or perfect move (not
| sure which). It is extremely rare to make 100% perfect moves
| in a game, let alone a series of games. Typical gameplay for
| high level chess player doesn't peak over 72-75% for a given
| series of N games. Niemann has several tournaments over this
| and several games with 100% perfect moves. The inconsistency
| is also a concern since he goes from mid-60's to 78/79 in a
| span of one tournament.
|
| His games against Magnus were exceedingly high.
| activitypea wrote:
| It's also worth pointing out that a player's odds of making
| the perfect move are inverse to their opponent's ELO: as
| the level of play rises, finding the right play becomes
| exponentially harder. The data suggests he's _sometimes_
| playing other grandmasters as good as those grandmasters
| would play a rando on Lichess.
| roflyear wrote:
| It's not extremely rare. Stop pulling things out of your
| butt.
|
| THE FIRST GAME Hikaru opened when he tried to check his
| games was 100%. He opened a random fucking game!
| amflare wrote:
| GP is not pulling this out of their butt, they are
| summarizing the video like GGP requested.
|
| Also, your anecdote doesn't prove anything.
| User23 wrote:
| If someone wins the powerball the first time they buy a
| ticket it's still a rare event.
| robswc wrote:
| It would be nice to get an ELI5 on this too. I used to play
| chess and have an understanding of the significance... but I
| don't think I can fully appreciate it as well as someone with
| a solid background in both.
| primitivesuave wrote:
| FM Yosha puts forward a fairly convincing argument about odds
| and engine correlation, but another commenter rightly pointed
| out that these statistics are not seen as incriminating in
| and of themselves. Unfortunately, even when the preponderance
| of evidence seems to be against a player - best example is
| Sebastian Feller
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Feller) playing
| with superhuman accuracy at crucial moments, and whose team
| captain later admitted to helping him cheat - they can still
| cast enough doubt to be allowed to continue playing at the
| highest level.
|
| Here is a blunder that Feller played on move 13 just over a
| month ago (https://new.chess24.com/wall/news/grandmaster-
| blunders-mate-...) - this same guy managed to draw against
| Magnus Carlsen in 2008, in a game where Carlsen also found
| the moves/mannerisms of his opponent highly unusual.
| usgroup wrote:
| Yeah this is interesting ... she shows that Hans had many
| tournaments where he shows record setting move accuracy as
| measured by correlation to Stockfish 15, and that 6 of these
| tournaments occurred in a row. She also shows that for those
| tournaments even by Reagans model, Hans results would be like a
| 1/70000 chance if legit.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| This is complete garbage. Real statistical analysis has been
| done, and has been inconclusive so far. Cherry picking games is
| ridiculous - at the 2800 level, a GM will only deviate from the
| engine's top moves 0-3 times. It would be expected that an
| exceptional performance would remain within top engine moves if
| someone was able to play at that level.
| [deleted]
| Tenoke wrote:
| In one of those games, Nieman was losing by 1.3 points in the
| first 10 moves despite being 100% according to this analysis so
| I'll take it with a grain of salt. This only looks at having
| moves within the top 3 engine moves done by one of the engines
| tested, and sometimes there's just 1-2 good moves so doing 1
| out of 10 (or whatever) possible moves doesn't mean you did
| anything good. Further, it's unclear how cherry-picked it is.
| If it was that obvious I'd think the other analysis would've
| caught it which they didn't.
|
| You can find more discussion of it on reddit, but the threads
| are generally all over the place.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xofl99/one_of_the_10...
| Etheryte wrote:
| A 1.3 difference out of an opening sideline is neither rare
| nor lost, and mostly simply comes down to the fact that the
| engine doesn't understand the opening. Even the mod pin in
| the link you posted clearly outlines that this is a
| misleading way to frame this. It would be better to read more
| into the discussion before helping misinformation spread.
| roflyear wrote:
| 1.3 is evaluated as more than a pawn, which is significant.
| Tenoke wrote:
| I didn't describe it as lost like the poster did, I said
| 'losing by 1.3' which is accurate. At any rate, if you
| actually did read deeper you'd see that losing by 1.3 is
| plenty relevant, when claiming 100% engine play
| correlation, and that the mod is somewhat cherry-picking.
| At any rate, playing openings where you are -1.3 in 2000
| blitz is fine, but in super GM games 1.3 points down is
| more often than not pretty bad.
| [deleted]
| tgtweak wrote:
| Hard to cheat statistics.
|
| This is how they find accounting fraud as well.
| Tenoke wrote:
| It's actually fairly easy to cheat statistics. It happens
| literally all the time in Academia. There's a thousand ways
| to make a statistical analysis believably say what you want
| in a way where even other professionals don't realize is the
| case unless an expert does a thorough analysis.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| It's easy to cheat a statistic you create. It's quite hard
| to cheat a statistic where you don't know who will look
| when at which particular data points.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Which is exactly the case here, as they decided what data
| to look at and how, and possibly had a bias.
|
| Further, clearly the analysis wasn't so irrefutable given
| that they admitted faults with it after others pointed
| out mistakes[0]
|
| 0. https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566
| 067201?
| roflyear wrote:
| Yeah, but it is also extremely easy to misrepresent
| statistics!
| BeetleB wrote:
| No - this is how they find _suspects_ for accounting fraud.
| They still need to show actual proof of fraud.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| How you suggest they do that in online tours?
| edmcnulty101 wrote:
| We need a TSA body detector before a match between Magnus and
| Niemann.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| You'd need a full blown X-ray to catch implants. I don't think
| technical countermeasures are the solution; even this is
| technically and logistically feasible highest levels of play,
| it wouldn't be something you could practically apply to the
| mid/low levels of play.
|
| Inexpensive technical countermeasures like the metal detecting
| wands are reasonable enough, but probably not enough to stop
| the reputational harm that cheating scandals do to the entire
| sport.
| matsemann wrote:
| They often have that. But if you have an accomplice placed with
| the spectators that person could just discreetly signal stuff.
| Like scratching the nose or so. At least for the WC matches
| they also often sat behind one-way glass.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jdoliner wrote:
| It seems like if Nieman wants to clear his name he should offer
| Carlsen explicit permission to say whatever it is he can't. If
| Magnus is bluffing and that information doesn't amount to much
| he'd wind up looking a lot better.
| bergenty wrote:
| So give him a carte blanche to say whatever he wants and ruin
| his reputation- warranted or not? Why would someone do this?
| It's akin to talking to the cops without a lawyer.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's pretty obvious to me that Carlsen has evidence of Hans
| cheating _after_ the 16-year old incident that we know of.
| And so he 's trying to maneuver Hans into a bad place; so
| that would be reason for Hans to not say anything (which also
| looks bad; it's the horns of a dilemma).
| paxys wrote:
| No the best way to clear his name is to keep playing and keep
| winning. If he can do that then the chess world will get over
| Magnus's whining pretty quick.
| loxs wrote:
| Isn't it time to just abandon chess as a competitive sport? It's
| (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on. I will probably be
| downvoted to oblivion, but I'm absolutely serious and would love
| constructive commentary.
|
| What's the big appeal of chess? We (as humans) can't beat
| computers. It's probably useful for further research, but I see
| absolutely no value in (human) competitions.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > It's (mostly) a solved game for f* sake, move on.
|
| This is completely incorrect. We have fully solved chess with 7
| pieces, and 8-piece tablebases are in progress. The initial
| chess position has 64 pieces, and solving gets exponentially
| harder as more pieces are added.
|
| > We (as humans) can't beat computers.
|
| We can't beat cars at races either yet competitive foot races
| still exist.
| bombcar wrote:
| I took "solved" as in "the computers can whip our asses
| sixteen ways to Sunday".
|
| But the competition in chess was never about the computers,
| it's about the players. And that's true for many sports,
| otherwise we'd only ever watch the Olympics.
| Bakary wrote:
| A car can go faster than Usain Bolt yet I'm still going to
| watch him. If you were familiar with chess culture, you would
| already be aware of the appeal of human chess champions. If
| anything, the sport has grown enormously in the last few years.
| What ismprobably going to decline is the relative focus on OTB
| Classical.
|
| Chess is far from solved, either. AlphaZero's play has actually
| led to the emergence of additional theory.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Isn't this like saying we should abandon professional road
| cycling as a sport, because motorcycles have been invented and
| exist and are a faster method of two wheeled transportation?
|
| Or we should abandon rowing as a sport because we now have 9hp
| Honda outboard motors?
| loxs wrote:
| Well, cycling is plagued with lots of similar problems
| (doping, people hiding electric motors in their bikes etc.),
| so yeah, I would argue the same there. On the other hand the
| very act of cycling improves health, so it's much more
| suitable as a sport for humans. Chess may have some arguable
| benefits, but it's very hard to detect so.
|
| Of course, everything depends on "the market" - if people
| want to watch human chess tournaments (or cycling
| tournaments), they will... but I suspect with time it will
| either have to become a hilarious, anti-cheat porn or it will
| die out. I'm rooting for the latter :-D. I'm sure we can
| invent much better competitive games that are not that prone
| to these problems.
| l33tman wrote:
| Well very many people think it's fun to watch sports or other
| competitions regardless of if a robot could do it better. I
| don't think anybody cares about if its "solved" or not, it's
| just fun to see humans interact in a controlled dramatic way I
| guess.
|
| Chess also has the added bonus of providing a lot of
| interesting puzzles for those interested, they can sit and
| analyze lines with engines after the games as well or watch
| Agadmator on YouTube analyze it. It's fun!
| loxs wrote:
| I'd love to watch robot football (the European variety) where
| robots beat humans. If they can do that, it's probably
| singularity time (or robot apocalypse).
|
| I agree that puzzles are fun, but cheating will be a problem
| for the competitive part. And I think it will degrade the
| appeal to watch/follow.
| mzs wrote:
| This is carefully worded to never claim cheating at the
| Sinquefield Cup but heavily imply it.
| a-dub wrote:
| they should play a game inside one of these: https://www.ets-
| lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-...
| chrisshroba wrote:
| It wouldn't do much good since Stockfish could easily run on a
| raspberry pi or similar inside of that, say, in a player's shoe
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Meta: The top displayed "replies" to his post are indicative of
| how utterly trashy Twitter is.
| foobaw wrote:
| I'm actually curious what the Chess.com statement would be - they
| seem to have some bombshell that's coming soon. Also curious how
| Hans' will react to all of this.
| perihelions wrote:
| It's very remarkable that Carlsen is suspicious of Niemann's game
| against him in Sinquefield, since there's a clear consensus among
| other top chess players that there was absolutely nothing unusual
| about it (or at least about the moves played).
| ilc wrote:
| Not really.
|
| If you think about it: Magnus, is Magnus. He has an aura about
| him. People make blunders playing against him they wouldn't
| against others. This is known. Magnus is ALSO very good. But
| that "aura"... doesn't hurt him.
|
| If for whatever reason, Hans saw far enough ahead, to not be
| worried... and Magnus hadn't, what does that say about Magnus?
|
| He mentioned Hans wasn't nervous, in comparison to Magnus he
| had nothing to lose.
|
| I won't defend his prior cheating. I will say: Prove it Magnus.
|
| ---
|
| I'll draw a parallel to a game I have played at the national /
| international level. Bridge.
|
| Bridge has had a TON of cheating scandals. People knew
| something was fishy. But they took the time, watched the
| videos, and figured out what happened.
|
| Recent ones during the time I played:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantoni_and_Nunes_cheating_sca...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_and_Schwartz_cheating_s...
|
| A whole article on the topic:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge
|
| ... I want the smoking gun Magnus. Not your gut.
| bombcar wrote:
| Bridge cheating is a bit different, because you can _find_
| the smoking gun from video reviews, etc.
|
| I wonder if "bridge supercomputers" as a cheating method has
| been tried. I assume the percentages on finesses working,
| etc, are easy enough for the experts to learn that they're
| not very worthwhile.
| ilc wrote:
| Well, remember, you don't have full information. Especially
| in an "all pass" auction from opponents.
|
| Interestingly, the computers would to MUCH better on
| defense. Because as you bid, you speak about the
| distribution of your hand, and your partner does the same
| about theirs. (Even in negative inferences.)
|
| And trust me: Good opponents will use that information,
| already.
|
| So far, bridge has found the smoking guns because honestly:
| The cheaters have sucked at cheating.
|
| If they bothered to actually encrypt their signals at all,
| they would have been suspected, but not caught.
|
| ---
|
| To answer the question: Even today. Good players will know
| the answer to when to take which finesses. Where good, is
| probably around Life Master and a bit under.
| [deleted]
| ninth_ant wrote:
| It's a bit misleading to say that there was absolutely nothing
| unusual about the game. The Sinquefield game in question showed
| a very high correlation between engine optimal moves and the
| moves played by Niemann. His gameplay accuracy here is within
| the bounds of what the very top players can achieve in
| individual games, but high enough to raise some suspicion.
|
| The next step is to place that mild suspicion in the context of
| both his history of admitted cheating, his
| unwillingness/inability to explain his remarkable moves post-
| game, and the additional context of many other games played in
| the last few years with _extraordinary_ accuracy. Now something
| that could be explained by just a very strong game appears very
| suspicious.
| addicted wrote:
| And he wasn't suspicious about his game when he beat Hans a few
| weeks earlier itself.
|
| If Hans did go to all those extremes to cheat OTB it's really
| surprising he would do so while playing black against Magnus
| Carlsen in an otherwise kind of pointless game.
| why-el wrote:
| This is not true at all. For instance Nepominatchi commented on
| game saying Niemann's play was "more than impressive"[1]. Not
| commenting on the situation per se, merely your "clear
| consensus among other top chess players" comment.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEPmminIC7g
| roflyear wrote:
| Can mean anything. It was very impressive.
| why-el wrote:
| You are hung up on the wrong thing. Parent writes: "[clear
| consensus that] there was absolutely nothing unusual about
| it", I quote one of the greats saying the game is "more
| than impressive", which, at least we should agree, is the
| exact opposite of claiming there is "nothing unusual about
| this game". Onus is on parent to come up with a list of
| grandmasters claiming the game was "usual", at least I
| provided one refutation but there are many.
| roflyear wrote:
| Correct. They will not come up with a list of GMs saying
| Hans cheated. Many GMs have said that it doesn't seem
| like he did (at least during the game with Magnus).
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Alireza, Ian, Magnus, Fabi, Wesley, and Levon have since
| made statements that imply they believe Hans cheated, or
| at least that they were suspicious of his play, as well
| as Yasser and Hikaru.
|
| That's the majority of the players in the Sinquefield
| cup. Even Levon, who was initially skeptical, has since
| reversed his position.
|
| As is tradition in chess, no one says "He cheated" they
| say things like "his moves were better than one would
| have expected" or "superhuman" or "I felt like I should
| trust my opponent over my calculation".
| roflyear wrote:
| Blah. You need to get off reddit a little.
| dmix wrote:
| Is there a good summary by a chess expert on how he may or may
| not have cheated? (Ideally a video).
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| In chess you cheat by receiving external assistance.
| Nowadays, especially at the high level, that assistance is
| basically always from a computer.
|
| Other than that your guess is as good as mine as _how_ he
| could have received said assistance, I've seen some wild
| theories.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| What theories? That would be interesting to read.
|
| A micro-vibrating motor in his shoe, buzzing morse code? f4
| to g5 for example?
| lacker wrote:
| Yeah, they make devices like this for stage magicians,
| that you can simply buy online. For example:
|
| https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper
|
| Some of them seem small enough that they won't trigger a
| metal detector. Currently they don't constantly scan the
| playing hall for wireless activity, which is what you'd
| need to detect this in use. I bet they start scanning for
| wireless transmissions soon, though.
| detaro wrote:
| for some reason the _wild_ theory in this particular
| instance has been "vibrating anal beads". No, I don't
| know why.
| Loughla wrote:
| I have a theory about why that exists, in particular.
|
| 1. The trope of the 'Depraved Homosexual' has a long
| established history in pop culture and cinema. Anal beads
| as the choice for cheating would fall, comfortably, into
| that trope. [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/
| DepravedHomosexu...]
|
| 2. Chess is full of VERY smart people. One of the most
| common ways to insult a smart person is to call into
| question their sexuality; hence why we have to have
| entire movements related to calling out anti-lgbtq+
| statements like "that's so gay".
| [https://welcomingschools.org/resources/stop-thats-so-
| gay-ant...]
|
| Anyway, combine those two things, and you get your
| answer. It's because the world hasn't really evolved at
| all in the last 30-40 years, outside of what we have been
| forced to do by law. It's easy and socially acceptable to
| call a man gay as an insult, so in a roundabout way,
| that's what we're getting with the anal beads talk.
|
| I sort of laser focused on this last week when I heard
| this theory for the first time. It just struck me as so.
| . . odd. Why would that be a thing? That's what I came up
| with.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| You're reading way way way too much into it.
| krisoft wrote:
| I don't think the "vibrating anal beads" theory is
| important because people actually expect it to be true in
| this instance. It is more about the chrisis if a mind
| sport where computers defeated humans soundly and
| througly.
|
| The simple fact is that computers vastly outcompete human
| chess players. And not just big and expensive purpose
| built machines but the kind of computers everyone has
| access to.
|
| Furthermore at the skill levels these players are you
| don't even need constant handholding from a computer. A
| few hints at key moments would be enough to basically
| shift the balance in someones favour.
|
| So if someone wants to cheat all they have to do is to
| receive a few bits of information from an accomplice. The
| question is not even if someone cheated in that
| particular game, but if cheating is possible.
|
| We can imagine all kind of spy gadgetry one could use to
| communicate those few bits. People have two hangups with
| many of them: they can be found in a security screening,
| or they sound too sci-fy.
|
| The vibrating anal beads combine three properties: - they
| could transfer the few bits of information needed to tilt
| the game in favour of a cheat. - they are not too far
| fetched. You can buy them right now commercially. - they
| would be very hard to detect by security arrangements. It
| feels very unlikely that players would agree to the kind
| of invasive probing which would be necessary to detect
| one.
|
| So it is not that people think that this particular
| player in this particular game actually used vibrating
| anal beads. It is more about the idea that someone could
| cheat at chess with covert communication methods.
| bombcar wrote:
| Because it's sensational.
|
| The key takeaway is that if you have someone assisting
| you (entering the information into the computer) they
| only need a very simple way of sending a signal - which
| could be a "do something unexpected" or "this move is
| crucial". And you'd only need a time or two in a game to
| get the edge, assuming you're already skilled at the
| game.
| esaym wrote:
| Not really. The best you could hope for would to just be
| digging through the large threads on the subreddit:
| https://teddit.net/r/chess
| ninth_ant wrote:
| https://youtu.be/jfPzUgzrOcQ fits the bill
| esaym wrote:
| >at least about the moves played
|
| You missed a large part. Some of his moves were "somewhat
| suspect". However, he was interviewed after the game with
| Magnus and he really could not explain why he was making the
| moves he made. Even the interviewers were almost laughing as he
| gave his "analysis" for his own moves. He played off his top
| engine moves as just getting lucky, while at the same time
| stating he didn't make other moves because they would have
| weakened his position (when in fact it was the other way
| around), while also stating he made other moves to strengthen
| his position (when in fact it was weakening).
|
| Nothing he said made sense. He is playing against the top
| players in the entire world, and he can't really describe his
| games. This is super genius territory, and yet he just claims
| his skills to mostly just be based on luck.
| aqme28 wrote:
| A lot of top play ends up being a certain percent intuition.
| Him beings bad at explaining his intuition is the lowest form
| of circumstantial evidence.
| bsaul wrote:
| You should see the sequence. He was totally unable to
| explain any lines he had in mind, stating some positions
| were << obviously winning >> (where it was absolutely not
| obvious, and in fact the engine marked it as loosing), etc.
| A total disaster.
| aqme28 wrote:
| I have seen the sequence. I have also watched other chess
| interviews and while bad, it's really not as bad,
| comparatively, as you describe.
| bsaul wrote:
| This post-game analysis sequence is IMHO the major reason the
| chess community grants full credit to magnus version.
| Loeffelmann wrote:
| Do you have a clip of the interview?
| esaym wrote:
| The gmhikaru youtube channel has several of the interviews
| with live commentary as it was happening.
| roflyear wrote:
| Hans also is trolling. Who knows if he can't explain or just
| doesn't want to. It means nothing.
| Revery42 wrote:
| If you choose to troll you gotta pay the toll
| MauranKilom wrote:
| The reasons Carlsen gives for being suspicious are not "the
| moves played were unusual" but about Niemann's behavior
| surrounding them.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| When Robert Fischer achieved an unprecedented scores in the
| pretenders matches prior to winning the champion title, I
| believe that the biggest factor was not the quality of the
| play of Fischer, but the way he mentally unbalanced and broke
| his opponents, who absolutely did not give a performance they
| were capable of.
| kova12 wrote:
| We can be reasonably sure that Fischer has not been
| cheating above and beyond unusual conduct. There hasn't
| been a way to meaningfully cheat. In our times however
| there are computers which can materially help, and there
| are technologies allowing someone to receive it, use of
| which is very difficult to detect without an unacceptably
| invasive search
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Btw think of this: If Fischer would play with such
| results in our days, Petrosyan fans would _scream_ loud
| that he is cheating.
| morelisp wrote:
| In this case it seems most of the unusual behavior occurred
| after the match, where (I've seen claimed) Niemann gave
| obviously wrong reasons why he had played so well on such
| an uncommon line, and was also not able to explain why he
| made particular choices he did playing it.
| chongli wrote:
| Not only did he fail to explain his reasoning in any
| satisfactory way, but the suggestions he gave as
| responses to alternative lines from his opponent were
| outright losing which showed that he had a poor grasp of
| the position. This is extremely suspicious behaviour from
| a player who had just defeated the world champion while
| using the black pieces.
|
| The consensus among the top GMs was that Hans's postgame
| analysis was way below the level you would expect from a
| player of his rating, never mind a player near Carlsen's
| rating (which is much higher)!
| MisterSandman wrote:
| Could that not just be explained as nervousness? Not
| saying he didn't chest, but that's hardly evidence
| mav88 wrote:
| No it can't and it is damning evidence. When you wipe the
| world champion off the board as black (which he did), you
| need to be able to show you understand how the game
| progressed in a post-game analysis. Neimann's
| understanding of his own remarkable performance was
| seriously deficient.
| [deleted]
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Which are totally subjective. And they dont really make
| sense. He thought he was too relaxed? How would cheating OTB
| against Carlsen be relaxing? Carlsen is being really
| unprofessional here, even if he turns out to be correct. But
| the window has closed - we will never have evidence that he
| was cheating at this tourney.
| mach1ne wrote:
| Hypothetically, using AlphaGo as your cheating engine could
| produce moves which are undetectable to originate from an engine.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Alphazero plays very differently than a human, and you can
| analyze if the player is playing the same moves as it, just as
| well as you can with another engine. Less importantly, modern
| stockfish also uses neural networks.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Nobody has access to alphazero as far as I know. Regardless,
| it is an interesting point. The TCEC has a ton of oddball
| engines, many probably open source, that are virtually
| unknown but are still far stronger than any human. Could make
| sense to choose one of those if you don't want to be caught.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Leela Zero is similar enough and available that the point
| stands.
| erdevs wrote:
| A key fact to understand in thinking about cheating in over the
| board chess: a strong player can defeat a _much_ stronger
| opponent with just 1-3 hints per game indicating the strongest
| move. For example, most chess experts agree that a ~2600 rated
| player with 2-3 hints at key moments per game would be expected
| to beat a ~2800 rated player. Many people might assume that a
| cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requiring a
| potentially more obvious cheating mechanism. That is not the
| case.
|
| Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the board
| chess competitions. So, this is possible. Moreover, one needn't
| carry a device on themselves. A cheater may have accomplices
| providing hints, if they carry a device.
|
| It will be interesting to see how chess tournaments, as well as
| FIDE, chess.com, and other major chess institutions react to this
| situation. The potential for cheating has now been brought to the
| absolute forefront of chess discussion. And Carlsen's actions
| have been questioned by FIDE in recent interviews, with FIDE
| staff condemning "vigilantism" of a kind.
|
| Some set of resolutions seems necessary--perhaps standards for
| security in major chess tournaments, perhaps an alliance to share
| cheating or reliability data amongst major chess operations,
| perhaps a standard term in major chess tournament agreements that
| no previously identified cheaters (online or otherwise) will be
| allowed to play, and perhaps sanctions in some form against
| Carlsen (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges).
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| > Also, clever cheating devices have been found in over the
| board chess competitions
|
| The most convincing candidate for such a device I've seen is an
| Illuminati Thumper Pro hidden in Hans's shoe:
| https://illuminati-magic.com/products/thumper. If you watch the
| footage of him getting scanned before his match with Alireza
| (and, crucially, before Magnus announced he was dropping),
| there are a couple of subtle things that are consistent with
| this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIulWkTHuu0:
|
| 1. He swallows (seemingly nervously) at 4 seconds shortly
| before his left shoe is scanned.
|
| 2. As the left shoe is being scanned, there are 2 beeping
| noises that at least to me, sound like they are coming from the
| wand, but are seemingly ignored by the wander. The same beeps
| do not repeat when his right shoe is scanned (that is, it's not
| just metal parts built into the shoes themselves). Two caveats
| to this part: First, I've heard differing opinions on whether
| the thumper will trigger metal detectors. Second, it's possible
| (even if unlikely IMO) that those beeps are not from that wand
| and it's just a coincidence that another wand or object beeped
| - since we can't see the wand in frame.
|
| 3. At 1:17 he starts nervously fidgeting with the credit card
| as the RF scanner gets close to his left foot and noticeably
| slows down when the scanner switches from his left foot to the
| right foot, and appears to stop completely as soon as the
| scanner is moving up away from his right foot. The RF scanner,
| to my understanding, would only detect devices that are
| actively transmitting which the thumper _shouldn 't_ need to do
| at all if Hans were using purely to receive engine moves/hints
| during the but the fact that it theoretically could transmit
| would explain why he'd be nervous about getting scanned anyway.
|
| Of course none of these observations are proof but they sure
| look suspicious to me.
| maxbond wrote:
| It's interesting speculation, I wouldn't say I was convinced
| but I did see what you meant.
| swyx wrote:
| is there any thinking on how many bits of information do you
| need to cheat, and how many can be communicated via thumper?
|
| e.g. is the bit of information "move the knight" aka theres
| only about 4 bits of info, or is it "move the knight to E6"
| which is a good deal more bits, that could be lossy/error
| prone.
|
| just on the surface of it, i dont see how this thing could
| give enough info but i suppose with a loooot of training you
| could improve the info transfer rate?
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| I would think a shorthand code would be employed
| swyx wrote:
| we're dealing with bits of info here, thats the shortest
| hand there is
| Bud wrote:
| Not many at all. For instance it takes a maximum of 6 bits
| to encode a given destination square on the board. This is
| probably sufficient, or very close to it.
| rococode wrote:
| Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating:
|
| "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a
| match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just
| the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a
| possibility of winning and here you need to be more
| careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost
| invincible."
|
| Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be
| enough to boost the strength of a GM. An accomplice
| coughing in the background to let you know there's
| something to watch for. For a strong player - and there's
| no doubt that Niemann is a strong player, the question is
| just _how_ strong - that 's all they need to avoid making
| mistakes. GMs can solve insanely hard puzzles, because they
| know it's a puzzle and has a specific solution. Same thing
| with 1 bit of info.
|
| Of course, realistically they could simply use Morse code
| instead of "bits" and transmit two squares (just 4 Morse
| "letters").
| swyx wrote:
| yes but _against magnus_ , who is supposedly _two levels_
| above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he 'd have
| to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which
| is an awful lot of information to transmit.
|
| i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking
| about things in terms of information theory since this is
| a remarkable applied case
| viraptor wrote:
| At their level it's pretty much known what location / piece
| they're thinking about. For key moments, it may be enough
| to transmit the piece name only. And have some follow up
| for destination if they _really_ need them.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| From what I understand you only need one bit. The
| assistance doesn't need to be "move piece P to square S",
| but "this position is critical, if you spend extra time
| exploring here you will find a winning move".
|
| As these players are on timers there is a race against a
| clock. So if you know where to focus your time/effort you
| can easily gain an advantage.
| walrus01 wrote:
| You don't need something that transmits if you're searching
| for bug-like devices or any general integrated circuits with
| a nonlinear junction detector:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_junction_detector
|
| I am very far removed from anything related to Chess, but if
| they want to get serious about this they should hire people
| who specialize in the federal-contracting adjacent field of
| TSCM (technical surveillance countermeasures).
|
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-
| b-d&q=tscm+tech...
|
| I also think that people putting a lot of focus into shoes or
| other clothing articles underestimate the motivation and
| capability of people to use the traditional "prison wallet"
| method of concealing things.
| roflyear wrote:
| Now analyze a video of Magnus being wanded!
| Bud wrote:
| Why? Has Magnus admitted to cheating on multiple occasions
| in the past? No. He has not.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| As a control.
|
| You want to look for evidence that such an intense level
| of scrutiny is _too_ good at finding signs of ill intent.
| roflyear wrote:
| Lol.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > (or Niemann, if concrete evidence against him emerges)
|
| This window seems closed though. Carlsen seems to have no
| evidence. Where else could the evidence come from? All we have
| is character attacks. Even if justified, they can't prove that
| he cheated.
|
| All we know for sure is that Carlsen accused him of cheating
| with no evidence.
| stouset wrote:
| What hard evidence--exactly--do you expect Carlsen to be
| _able_ to produce? Alternatively, imagine anyone in a similar
| position. What hard evidence can anyone produce in situations
| such as this?
|
| 100% serious question.
| roflyear wrote:
| I don't expect him to produce evidence, but I expect him to
| say more than "I suspect he cheated"
|
| If he saw something unusual, like "Hans was messing with
| his shoe" or "I heard several vibrations coming from Hans
| during the game" etc.. that would be at least something.
|
| It would be something. Magnus has given nothing.
| stouset wrote:
| Magnus has produced what he can given the situation and
| has staked something of extreme personal value--his
| legendary near-2900 ELO--on it with his move-1
| resignation.
|
| If he'd heard the guy's damn shoe buzzing he would have
| insisted on a search.
| roflyear wrote:
| Blah. Magnus has given nothing. Could have still insisted
| he was searched. He didn't. Magnus has anxiety.
| andrepd wrote:
| Doesn't than line of thinking mean that anybody can accuse
| somebody of cheating when they unexpectedly beat them?
| stouset wrote:
| No, it means that the reality of catching cheaters in
| chess is _fundamentally_ if you don 't manage to catch
| them red-handed.
|
| This accusation hits many of the heuristic high notes.
|
| That doesn't mean he definitively cheated. But to me,
| with ~15 years of chess under my belt, it does make this
| accusation _credible_.
| yesseri wrote:
| Niemann have admitted cheating before when playing
| online, so Carlsen is just not making this up about any
| random player. There is a history of cheating.
| toolslive wrote:
| You're right: the hint doesn't even have to be a move. It could
| also be an evaluation "it's better for white", or even: "there
| is a winning combination" which might be enough to get them to
| focus on finding it.
| paxys wrote:
| I don't think people are saying that it _cannot_ happen, just
| that you need to prove it instead of hurling empty accusations,
| especially when it can destroy someone 's career. I personally
| think it sets a bad precedent if every top player immediately
| starts crying "cheating!" when beaten by a lower ranked one.
| acheron wrote:
| ...by a lower ranked one _who is already a known cheater_.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every
| move, thereby requiring a potentially more obvious cheating
| mechanism. That is not the case._
|
| IMO, this reasoning potentially implicates every high level
| player. If it's possible that two hints can account for the
| difference between 2600 and 2800, and a 19 year old kid under
| heavy scrutiny can exploit this weakness without being
| detected, it seems assured that other more experienced players
| are also exploiting this.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport.
|
| Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against
| each other.
|
| Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They
| are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single
| picture they produce is better than what any artist ever
| could produce.
|
| Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win
| conditions are comparatively simple).
|
| I'm rambling now and I think that's enough wall of text for a
| hot take.
| lairv wrote:
| > Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting.
|
| I think this is questionable. While we can understand the
| physical limitations of a human compared to an engine, we
| tend to alleviate the intellectual limitations. Just like
| an engine can deliver far more power than a human could
| ever do regardless of their training, a computer performs
| far more chess move computations than a human ever could,
| regardless of their training. It's just that our brain is
| biased toward alleviating computational cost, because we
| implicitly think "in the end, a human could as well play
| the same moves as a computer"
|
| I do agree however on the premise that chess is a zombie
| sport, but I think it has more to do with the ease of
| cheating. If you consider cycling for example, there has
| also been cases of cheating with an electric engine inside
| the bike, and new cheating methods are likely to be
| developed faster detection procedures. And in this case
| "Bike engines are like car engines are to sprinting"
| derac wrote:
| And yet the audience for chess engine tournaments is
| basically 0, while millions(?) watch human tournaments.
| andrepd wrote:
| Chess engines have outclassed humans for about 15 years
| now. Yet chess is more popular than ever.
|
| Why would chess engines playing very well mean human chess
| stops being interesting? I don't see the relation.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| In a similar vein, Tool Assisted Speedruns for video
| games can always outperform human players, but TAS
| streams and youtube videos don't get nearly as many
| viewers as real humans running. And human speedrunners
| caught cheating and using tools etc. have drastic hits to
| their popularity after they're exposed.
| esrauch wrote:
| A bunch of grandmasters have now talked about the
| psychological aspect of even just _wondering_ if your
| opponent could possibly by cheating, and second guessing if a
| bad looking move by your opponent might actually be a
| brilliant engine line.
|
| It seems that might even be enough for Hans as a 2675 rated
| player to get an edge against 2800+ player without even
| actually cheating
| xani_ wrote:
| That doesn't scale down the skill level. At top level of just
| about any thing the difference between player is decided by
| few mistakes (by that I define less than optimal action).
|
| If average player does 100 mistakes per match fixing 4 of
| them won't matter. But if great player makes 6, fixing even
| single one can be deciding
| duxup wrote:
| Very interesting. I don't really understand chess beyond the
| basics but when I think of sports the difference between good
| and great really seems to be, in baseball just a hit or two per
| week, in American football a running back who has the vision to
| cut decisively a second or less before another running would.
|
| When you see it consistently the difference seems enormous, but
| the math ... is surprisingly tiny.
| Tenoke wrote:
| 200 points difference means a 25% chance to win, so I doubt
| just 1 hint is enough to bridge that gap consistently. Many
| high level games are won by grinding out a small advantage.
| I'll take a 2700 with 3 hints against a 2800 though.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| The "200 points difference means 25% chance to win" breaks
| down at the highest levels. It works fine near the middle of
| the bell curve -- i.e. 800-2000 Elo -- but once you get to
| 2200 Elo you are talking about the >99th percentile. For
| example, I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score
| an average of 0.25 against 2600 players.
|
| Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do _not_
| score 0.25 against 2000 rated players. More like 0.1 if I 'm
| feeling sharp.
| stouset wrote:
| As an example of this, until the Niemann game Magnus had a
| 53-game win^H^H^Hunbeaten streak. Prior to this he had a
| 125-game unbeaten streak. Many (most?) of these games were
| played against competitors within 200 Elo. Many of these
| were played against the 10 next-best chess players in the
| world.
|
| The back of the envelope percentage calculation absolutely
| does not apply at this level of chess. In reality if
| Niemann were to play Magnus in 100 games, he would be
| exceedingly lucky to win _one_ game.
| dfan wrote:
| I disagree with the second paragraph but not enough to
| get into a public debate about it. But it is worth
| pointing out that Carlsen's 53-game streak was a non-loss
| streak, not a win streak. Many of those games were draws.
| stouset wrote:
| You are of course correct on that point and I have edited
| my comment.
| andrepd wrote:
| So hitting a 1/100 chance means he is cheating? 1% is
| slim, but far from impossible.
| stouset wrote:
| First, I said he would be _lucky_ to have a 1 in 100
| chance. Second, absolutely nobody is saying that 's the
| only reason to be suspicious of this game. Regardless of
| whether or not you believe Niemann cheated, if you think
| the fact that he won is the only claim in this accusation
| you simply aren't paying attention.
| jefftk wrote:
| It's not just the winning, it's also how he played
| dfan wrote:
| The Elo system is calibrated so that that the expected
| value from playing a player 200 points stronger than you is
| 0.24. This is true independent of the strength of the
| players. If you are scoring 0.10 against players 200 points
| stronger than you (that would mean, for example, 1 draw and
| 4 losses over 5 games) but maintaining a stable rating,
| then you must be crushing players that are weaker than you
| and/or doing very well against players at your level.
|
| (FWIW, I am 2000 USCF and an expected value of 0.24 vs a
| 2200 and 0.76 vs an 1800 feels quite reasonable to me.)
| Tenoke wrote:
| >I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an
| average of 0.25 against 2600 players
|
| I mean, you can look at the stats. They play all the time
| and while it becomes less accurate at the highest ratings
| (more so at the 2800+ level), 2400 vs 2600 does still
| result in something in the general range of 0.25. However,
| if it's 0.1 (like in your example) then my point is even
| stronger since it would be even harder to turn that into a
| win consistently with just 1 hint.
|
| >Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not
| score 0.25 against 2000 rated players.
|
| If you are noticing that at your level, it is probably
| either selective memory or specific to your play as ELO-
| estimated winning chances hold up well enough at 1800-2000.
| SCAQTony wrote:
| Perhaps play naked in a Faraday cage?
| swyx wrote:
| this is really the only way (maybe not naked, but change into
| preapproved uniforms)
| BipolarCapybara wrote:
| ok but why not, let's do it the classic greek way
| p1necone wrote:
| You could still run a chess engine offline on a decently
| powerful phone that would beat high rated players afaik.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| What's the split in the chess community like here? Do most people
| agree with Magnus?
| gkoberger wrote:
| My read is that people believe it's very possible (even likely)
| he cheated, but are also frustrated that Magnus has brought a
| lot of other players into this without making (prior to this)
| any actual statement. Even with this statement, he hasn't
| formally accused him or presented any proof.
|
| I'd say the vibe of the community seems to be a general
| distaste for drama, rather than taking a particular side.
| i_am_jl wrote:
| I'm not a strong enough player/analyst to have a meaningful
| opinion on whether or not Niemann cheated. It's possible he
| cheated.
|
| I'm taken aback at the manner in which these accusations have
| been made. I guess that Magnus felt that the only way he could
| force FIDE and tournament organizers into action was with a
| big, public, shocking act.
|
| It feels like a black eye for chess no matter the outcome.
| Either Niemann is proven guilty and professional chess has to
| grapple with that hit to its integrity, or the situation isn't
| resolved and the question of Niemann's (and pro chess')
| integrity is left open indefinitely.
|
| I don't know to what extent Magnus has pushed for anti-cheating
| measures or increased scrutiny of Niemann behind closed doors,
| but I'll be very disappointed if it turns out that this public
| spectacle could've been avoided.
| bombcar wrote:
| Dear Chess World,
|
| At the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I made the unprecedented
| professional decision to withdraw from the tournament after my
| round three game against Hans Niemann. A week later during the
| Champions Chess Tour, I resigned against Hans Niemann after
| playing only one move.
|
| I know that my actions have frustrated many in the chess
| community. I'm frustrated. I want to play chess. I want to
| continue to play chess at the highest level in the best events. I
| believe that cheating in chess is a big deal and an existential
| threat to the game. I also believe that chess organizers and all
| those who care about the sanctity of the game we love should
| seriously consider increasing security measures and methods of
| cheat detection for over the board chess. When Niemann was
| invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly
| considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to
| play.
|
| I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more recently -
| than he has publicly admitted. His over the board progress has
| been unusual, and throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I
| had the impression that he wasn't tense or even fully
| concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying
| me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.
| This game contributed to changing my perspective.
|
| We must do something about cheating, and for my part going
| forward, I don't want to play against people that have cheated
| repeatedly in the past, because I don't know what they are
| capable of doing in the future.
|
| There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this
| time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission
| from Niemann to speak openly. So far I have only been able to
| speak with my actions, and those actions have stated clearly that
| I am not willing to play chess with Niemann. I hope that the
| truth on this matter comes out, whatever it may be.
|
| Sincerely, Manus Carlsen - World Chess Champion
| Victerius wrote:
| "I'm not saying Hans Niemann cheated in this very specific
| instance against me. I'm just saying he's a professional
| cheater, and that fact may or may not be related to my
| withdrawal in a game against him after just one move."
|
| Carlsen is all but accusing Niemann of having cheated against
| him. Why can't he go the extra step? Is this something his
| lawyers have advised him to do? (I don't have a dog in this
| fight)
| bombcar wrote:
| In a carefully worded statement like this (clearly it has
| been reviewed by legal council) you will say things that
| cannot be charged as defamation in the appropriate courts.
|
| It's also a gambit to get Hans to say something like "sure,
| Carlsen, say whatever you want" which could be used as a
| defense in a defamation case.
|
| There's even a hint that Carlsen has evidence of cheating
| that has yet to be revealed (but not this game).
| Y_Y wrote:
| The aforementioned Twitter Gambit first having been
| developed by Capablanca.
| Bakary wrote:
| I was about to say that the word is counsel but, come to
| think of it, Carlsen can well afford an entire council of
| lawyers.
| bombcar wrote:
| Ha! Good catch (did you have a computer help you!!!) but
| I daresay Carlsen's lawyer and perhaps Chess.com's have
| reviewed the statement.
| itronitron wrote:
| Cheaters gonna cheat. Personally I don't think Carlsen needs
| to elaborate any further.
| tptacek wrote:
| Yes. Niemann has admitted to cheating in the past, and has
| apparently been banned from some past events for cheating. So
| Carlsen can safely relate to the public that he believes
| Niemann to be a "cheater". But to say for a fact that Niemann
| cheated in a specific match, he'd be communicating a
| statement of fact. If that statement is false, or could
| colorably be argued as false, then Niemann can take him to
| court for defamation, and even if Carlsen prevailed, it would
| still be painful and expensive.
|
| Remember that statements of opinions, including opinions that
| are analyses of previously disclosed facts, are protected
| from defamation claims. Defamation can only consist of a
| damaging false statement of fact, or the allegation that
| you're aware of specific undisclosed facts like that to
| support your opinion.
| bombcar wrote:
| Note that the above defamation is the US-based one, I
| believe.
|
| Other countries have vastly different statues, and in some
| cases _true statements of fact_ can be defamation (if they
| were not widely known, I believe).
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Japan is like that - making someone look bad by
| publicizing their provably-true behavior is considered
| defamation
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I think the UK is that way.
|
| You could call out Lord St. Buggering-Little-Boys,
| complete with films, DNA evidence, and witness testimony,
| and still lose (and be on the hook for legal fees).
| moralestapia wrote:
| But he already accused Neimann of cheating ... the
| slander is already there.
|
| If I were Neimann I would actually sue now.
| tptacek wrote:
| Neimann has already admitted to cheating in the past, so
| that claim is dead.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >I believe that Niemann has cheated more - and more
| recently - than he has publicly admitted.
|
| Plus, a very strong implication thag he did so at the
| Sinquefield Cup.
|
| Neimann may have something.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's why Carlsen is being _very_ careful at what he
| does.
|
| He hasn't said anything beyond provable facts, and let
| people read into his actions what they want.
|
| Suing someone for defamation because they resigned to you
| in a tournament is going to be a pretty high bar.
| [deleted]
| defen wrote:
| If you're 49% sure someone cheated against you / would cheat
| against you, that's probably enough to make you never want to
| play against them, but also not enough to prevail in a court
| case.
| [deleted]
| cxr wrote:
| Please don't post manufactured troll quotes.
| throw7 wrote:
| Read his statement again. He does accuse Niemann of cheating
| against him at the Sinquefield Cup. His reasoning is more
| feel/behaviour based.
| bergenty wrote:
| I don't like this. You can't just imply someone is cheating
| without proof or some indication of proof. I understand we need
| to crack down on cheating but this is not the way.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| Magnus doesn't _imply_ Niemann is cheating. He states his own
| belief that Niemann is cheating, and explains why he believes
| that to be the case.
| [deleted]
| alphabetting wrote:
| Saying he needs legal permission to say more seems ridiculous.
| Hans' reputation is in the gutter and Magnus has accused him of
| cheating. That's likely enough grounds for legal action and why
| would the most powerful chess play in the world be afraid about
| facing some kid in court?
| peter422 wrote:
| For all the people defending Hans, he has admitted to cheating in
| real, official, prize money online tournaments, and chess.com
| believes that in his apology he still lied about the extent of
| his cheating.
|
| Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part
| about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to
| break. And Hans had proven to the world that he _would_ cheat.
|
| I personally don't think Hans did cheat in that particular
| tournament but at the same time I don't think he deserves too
| much sympathy. Cheaters literally destroy the game, and Hans at
| the very least was a cheater.
| neaden wrote:
| To be fair to Hans, his claim is he cheated in a prize money
| tournament when he was 12. If he cheated in prize money games
| besides that it would be different, but I think most people are
| willing to forgive a 12 year old.
| frumper wrote:
| It's one thing to say an old man cheated when he was 12 years
| old, it's yet another to say a 19 year old did it just a
| handful of years ago. He's still a kid.
| nicoburns wrote:
| My intuition is that there's evidence out there that shows
| he cheated more, but people grow up _a lot_ from age 12 to
| 19. That time period is basically the entirety of
| adolescence! I don 't think it's fair to pin the actions of
| their 12 year old self on a 19 year old.
| oh_my_goodness wrote:
| Again, as so many others have already pointed out, he was
| caught cheating at age 12 and again at age 16.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _but people grow up a lot from age 12 to 19._
|
| I did broadly equivalent stupid shit when I was 12, 16,
| 19... I don't think I mellowed out until I was 25-30. 19
| is young, 19 year olds are generally still in their peak
| stupid teenager years. Crime stats back this up:
| https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve
| jstanley wrote:
| It's a third of his life ago. Were you the same person at
| 19 as you were at 12?
| cryptoanon wrote:
| A third of a life at 19 is barely a life at all
| frumper wrote:
| The trust is broken and equating it to fractions of
| someones life is the wrong measure. What has he done
| since he cheated at 12? Oh, he cheated in random games at
| 16. Surefire way to rebuild trust...
| umanwizard wrote:
| He cheated at 16 by his own admission.
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years old
| (just 3 years ago)
| chongli wrote:
| And the worst part is that Chess.com released a statement
| saying they've suspended Niemann's account because they
| have evidence that his cheating was not limited to these
| two instances. They've invited him to look at the evidence
| and respond privately to their concerns but it is not
| publicly known if he has done so.
| kjerkegor wrote:
| Just 3 years ago in that age is a lot. Also he said that he
| didn't cheat in prize money tournaments or tournaments at
| all at 16, he cheated because he wanted to boost his rating
| and play better players, not saying that is okay. I don't
| know if he cheated against Magnus or not, but to say that
| he cheated because something he did at twelve is stupid.
| Magnus saying that Hans wasn't tense and concentrated is
| far more important than this other stuff.
| neaden wrote:
| Right but the claim he made is at 16 he cheated only in no-
| stakes games, not for prize money.
| frumper wrote:
| You realize you're putting your trust in the word of
| someone admitting they cheated. It only goes downhill
| from there.
| roflyear wrote:
| No, just trying to put into perspective that people are
| morons and witch hunts are not fun for anyone. He's just
| a kid, he made a mistake.
| landryraccoon wrote:
| That argument doesn't make sense to me. If someone has
| acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO
| stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat
| if something is on the line?
|
| If anything someone who is already known to cheat "just
| because" is even more likely to cheat when there is
| something to gain.
| neaden wrote:
| The claim in the original comment that I replied to was
| that Hans had admitted to cheating in "real, official,
| prize money online tournaments", which was when he was
| 12.
|
| As for cheating and stakes I think it all depends. His
| claim is he cheated when he was 16 to boost his rating so
| he could player higher level opponents on stream and
| boost his career. If you accept that claim it would make
| sense that he rationalized it that he was just cheating
| to get to his "true" Elo and stopped cheating once he got
| there. Now Chess.Com seems to believe that he cheated
| beyond that but they haven't specified more at this
| point.
| bombcar wrote:
| How can a game be no-stakes and also rating-boosting?
|
| It sounds like he's saying he cheated to get to where he
| was going faster, but that he would have gotten there
| eventually so it's fine.
|
| It would be like Armstrong saying he only cheated during
| trials and training.
| neaden wrote:
| Well steroids and doping are different because they
| effect your body but sure, if Armstrong had cheated
| during trials with something like a small motor but not
| during the actual tour it would have tarnished his legacy
| but I don't think it would have ruined it like his
| cheating did.
| [deleted]
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Yes, the maturity jump from 16 to 19 is marginal at best.
| If you generalize from crime statistics, a 19 year old is
| actually more likely to be dishonest than a 16 year old.
| Criminality peaks in the late teens and drops in the early
| 20s.
|
| https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve
|
| (Yes yes I know, Pinkerton are evil. they have the best
| plot of this correlation I could find. The crime-age
| correlation is the strongest that exists in the entire
| field of criminology.)
| bombcar wrote:
| I wonder if you plotted "risk/reward" behavior during
| that same time if you'd get a similar curve, just going
| to show that adolescents are bad at risk/reward
| calculations.
| boole1854 wrote:
| It is relevant to remember that he "admitted" to cheating
| on two different occasions only _after_ he was caught and
| banned for doing so. He did not voluntarily come forward
| and confess of his own volition.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| > He's admitted to cheating at 12 years old and at 16 years
| old (just 3 years ago)
|
| I see the pattern forming. He clearly has improved his play
| since but he could also have improved the cheating
| technique, as others pointed out, just needing a hint or
| two in the most decisive moments of the game. Has he not
| cheated against Magnus it's a pity that he got accused with
| no proofs.
| zwerdlds wrote:
| If it's reasonable for a 12yo to be able to play in a for-
| money tourney, then I don't think it's unreasonable to think
| they should know the difference between right and wrong.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| As a parent of a now 13 year old - it is not reasonable for
| a 12 year old to play a for money tournament. 12 year olds
| may "know right from wrong" in some sense, but they do not
| have adult brains. Expecting them to make decisions like an
| adult, or understand "right and wrong" the same way an
| adult does, is ludicrous.
|
| This is equally true of a 19 year old.
| ZetaZero wrote:
| He admitted to cheating at 16. He's only 19 now.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Look, maybe he did not cheat but it's hard to prove he
| didn't nor that he did. The fact that historically he's not
| blemish free makes it harder to celebrate his victory.
| Tough luck indeed..
| 6nf wrote:
| Chess.com (Magnus is a 20% shareholder) did put out a public
| statement calling out Niemann for cheating more than the once
| or twice that Niemann admitted to. Chess.com forwarded
| evidence to Niemann. We're still waiting for a response.
| epolanski wrote:
| It is very unlikely a 2700 GM can beat Magnus on black pieces.
|
| Moreover the live coverage showed an Hans way too relaxed about
| moves with 100% accuracy he was pulling.
|
| He could also not give an explanation about of his moves in the
| game in an interview.
|
| This, coupled with Magnus complaining about low security
| standards in the tournament make all the things very
| suspicious.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could
| easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB
| against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and
| ultimately meaningless.
| roflyear wrote:
| People just spewing their garbage everywhere around this.
| It is amazing. It is almost like politics. It is crazy how
| people are getting about this issue.
| [deleted]
| epolanski wrote:
| Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two
| clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Except that you can't really call things a clue if you're
| just looking for things to confirm your existing opinion.
| _Any_ stance Hans could have had during that game be
| construed as indication of him cheating.
| roflyear wrote:
| Very unlikely is not impossible. People with similar ratings
| have beaten Magnus as black.
|
| > Moreover the live coverage showed an Hans way too relaxed
| about moves with 100% accuracy he was pulling.
|
| Source for that, are you just spewing up bile like everyone
| else?
| [deleted]
| blangk wrote:
| [deleted]
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Maybe Hans did cheat OTB, maybe he didn't, but the tough part
| about reputation is it is very hard to build and very easy to
| break.
|
| The problem is this was true a month ago. And a year ago. And 2
| years ago. If he should be banned by reputation then it should
| have already happened. If they do it now they just weaponize
| cheating accusations.
| addicted wrote:
| So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not cheat
| in the OTB game.
|
| And if you also agree with Magnus that cheating is a major
| problem then him singling out a single player who happened to
| beat him in OTB chess, as opposed to asking for wholesale
| changes for the past so many years to tackle cheating more
| seriously when he owns one of the top chess organizations and
| has partnerships with nearly every other chess organization,
| seems like him just being a sore loser.
|
| I don't need to defend Hans's cheating to point out that
| Magnus's response has been ridiculous because it's entirely
| focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large
| scale problem of cheating in chess. A guy who happened to beat
| him OTB in a game where he likely did not cheat at all.
| simonh wrote:
| > So you agree that Magnus is wrong and that Hans did not
| cheat in the OTB game.
|
| There's a world of difference between holding a personal
| opinion that X is probably true, and agreeing that X is an
| established fact.
|
| > Magnus's response has been ridiculous because it's entirely
| focused on 1 individual player as opposed to the actual large
| scale problem of cheating in chess
|
| From the letter: "I also believe that chess organizers and
| all those who care about the sanctity of the game we love
| should seriously consider increasing security measures and
| methods of cheat detection for over the board chess."
| icambron wrote:
| But you can't go about punishing him this way.
|
| If FIDE or Chess.com or whoever wanted to ban him from events
| for his past behavior--or players simply wanted to ostracize
| him by refusing to play in tournaments with him--they needed to
| have banned/ostracized him for that behavior. I don't think
| anyone would complain if Niemann were caught cheating and then
| permanently banned. That's what Carlsen implies he's after and
| it's fine.
|
| In contrast, this is "well, you cheated in the past, but we're
| going to let you play, unless you play really well, in which
| case we'll assume you cheated". This is just not a sane way to
| go about it, and creates the scenario in which Niemann is
| playing with a sort of externally-imposed skill cap. An
| accusation has to come with evidence specific to that
| accusation, not some hazy combination of past history + unease
| with his play. This all sounds like a slow-motion tantrum,
| which Carlsen can get away with because he's Magnus Carlsen.
| flawn wrote:
| I could also decide to cheat when being in the top players in
| the world. Even better, because I would only need to use my
| cheats sometimes and hide it even better because my knowledge
| holds up enough.
| bombcar wrote:
| The second best player in the world would be best positioned
| to cheat; they'd need a small advantage to become best.
|
| And the best player in the world could cheat, too, reducing
| their mental load and taking it easy.
|
| Both cases would likely be exposed by the cheaters getting
| lazy.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| I don't think you become the best or second best player
| through a mindset that includes "I'll cheat if that's what
| it takes to reach the top".
| medvezhenok wrote:
| All the history of doping in the Olympics would disagree.
|
| It is possible that some people can reach quite a high
| level but top out in their natural abilities well below
| the absolute top of the game and be incentivized to cheat
| to break through their personal, natural ceiling.
| floor2 wrote:
| Or even further, look at professional cycling in the 90s
| and 2000s. It wasn't just people doping to break through
| their ceiling to reach the top, literally everyone at the
| top was doping and it was necessary to be able to keep
| up.
|
| Even worse than "some people are cheating to make it to
| the elite level" would be "everyone at the elite level is
| cheating, you can't compete without cheating".
| evol262 wrote:
| I'm not sure why you think anything has changed, in any
| sport.
| [deleted]
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Lance Armstrong would like a word with you.
| sodality2 wrote:
| No, but once you're there, it becomes an easier mental
| hurdle to jump over, because they're already incredibly
| talented and skilled. They can justify it with phrases
| like "it's just a small edge to help. I could easily do
| it myself with more training but this is
| easier/faster/more bulletproof". you'll find that at the
| top level morals can be corrupted easier because it's
| such a small edge needed. Oh, i'll only use the move
| generator once, i'll only use it to catch obvious
| blunders, etc.
| peter422 wrote:
| Yes and I think this is the real risk that Magnus or others
| who cares about chess are worried about. Not the 1200 player
| who plays like the world champion which is blatently obvious,
| but a 2700 player who selectively uses computer assistance to
| play like a 2800 and get into the elite circuit of the top
| players (which also is where all the money is).
| root_axis wrote:
| As an outsider to the chess world, this all seems like a
| roundabout way of saying "we have no evidence that he cheated,
| but in lieu of evidence let's go with gut feelings".
| casion wrote:
| He did cheat in impactful events, and he admitted it.
| roflyear wrote:
| He cheated online, not "impactful events" lol
| blangk wrote:
| Hans?
| roflyear wrote:
| Yeah. He cheated online. By his own admission. I wouldn't
| say that is impactful events.
| casion wrote:
| Online games often:
|
| - are how players make their living in cash tournaments
|
| - qualify for OTB events (including wct events)
|
| - are rated by FIDE or national organizations
|
| - count for points in otb/online hybrid tournaments.
|
| All of those are significantly impactful for a
| professional player.
| roflyear wrote:
| That's barely true.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| A documented history of cheating online counts as "no
| evidence" in your book?
| roflyear wrote:
| It is zero evidence that Hans has ever cheated OTB, yeah.
| root_axis wrote:
| Is a conviction evidence of a future crime? No, it isn't.
| krembanan wrote:
| It certainly doesn't help his case. If you have had
| troubles with the law prior to a new crime, it gets taken
| into consideration negatively by the judge. Same with
| cheaters. It means he _is_ a cheater by definition and
| has the moral compass to cheat again.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| That's exactly what this means.
| roflyear wrote:
| Yeah it is 100% what it means. In contrast with the me-too
| stuff, Magnus did not even see Hans cheat. If Magnus could
| say
|
| Most people just don't like Hans. They don't like his
| personality, so they have motivation to pile on. See this
| comment that has been linked EVERYWHERE: https://talkchess.co
| m/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=80630&start...
|
| Nevermind have people shot down this dudes analysis, but he
| says in the post "But, if you will permit some
| editorializing, despite Niemann's claims that "it's
| impossible to play under these conditions," he gives every
| indication of quite enjoying the attention."
|
| What fucking garbage that is a smear on the face of chess.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| It kinda smacks of some deficit in the modern game. Consider
| a hypothetical chess player who does not cheat, never has
| cheated, but through some combination of the occasional
| atypical move or odd behavior, makes players think they are
| cheating.
|
| They seem to be saying that such behavior can confer an
| advantage -- that to _seem_ to be cheating is itself
| cheating.
|
| I say we carry on like normal. Either Niemann's success falls
| apart, he messes up and gets caught, or we find out he's
| actually onto something brilliant.
| [deleted]
| utopcell wrote:
| This is a statement from one of the two players.
| jointpdf wrote:
| Speaking seriously, how plausible is a teledildonics-based ruse?
| (context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23094477)
|
| Would a thoughtfully designed device be detectable via the pre-
| screening methods at OTB tournaments? You only need to send a few
| bits of information to swing a chess game.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Magnus isn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner by refusing
| to play Hans. He has stated before that merely having suspicions
| (e.g. based on past cheating as in Niemann's case) about your
| opponent possibly cheating completely ruins one's mentality
| during a game.
|
| He simply wants to avoid going through that, which imo is
| understandable.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Any opponent could cheat at anytime. Cheating in chess is a
| fact of life, and can't be stopped. Other professional sports
| have mostly come to terms with this, and chess needs to as
| well.
|
| When you have _proof_ of cheating the sport 's authorities take
| action (not individual players). When you don't you let the
| games go on knowing some folks are getting away with it
| sometimes.
| Revery42 wrote:
| That's understandable, but if that's the case then I believe
| the most likely scenario is that Magnus has lost legitimately
| to Niemann twice.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| This is easy to check/prove. Make them pass an x-ray machine and
| play alone in a Faraday cage. No external signal will pass while
| the cage still can send video through cables. This can be
| deployed automatically by organizers in next public event and is
| quite cheap, no more than a few thousand dollars.
| Andugal wrote:
| So Magnus can't prove it (yet?) but has a strong feeling about
| it.
|
| It reminds me of other cases in cycling or athletics...
|
| Let's hope the truth also triumphs this time.
| jl6 wrote:
| It's a deeply unsatisfactory situation, because on one side we
| expect evidence for such a serious accusation, and on the other
| side we know such evidence is all but impossible to gather
| retrospectively.
| krisoft wrote:
| I believe the takeaway is exactly that. We are in a situation
| where we can't know for certain. We can't go back in time and
| learn if there was cheating going on. But we can go forward and
| increase security so the next time we are more likely to be
| confident about if cheating happened or not. And that is what
| Carlsen is asking for.
| roflyear wrote:
| Magnus can't even say he KNOWS he cheated. He only says he
| SUSPECTS he cheated. That's all he can say.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| The discussions in this thread remind me a lot of the Mike Postle
| Poker scandal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21161043
|
| It was a similar case where cheating was theoretically possible
| and alleged, but could not be proven. Only difference is that the
| Mike Postle case was a far bigger statistical anomaly.
| [deleted]
| ukgenv wrote:
| I don't particularly mind Carlsen's actions (leaving the
| Sinquefield cup and resigning a game against Niemann in the
| Julius Baer Cup).
|
| I also watched Niemann's games in the Julius Baer Cup, and he
| certainly has an uncanny ability to switch on some form of an
| afterburner against people like Aronian, Ivanchuk, Pragg and
| Duda. Perhaps he is that talented, but I can understand that the
| top players do not feel at ease.
|
| On the other hand I'm not too happy about chess.com turning into
| some form of credit rating agency for top chess players. If I
| were above 2500, I wouldn't play there. Too much to lose if their
| proprietary algorithms misfire.
|
| As a European, I'd certainly issue a GDPR information request for
| my cheating score, followed by a deletion request for all
| personal data.
| niyazpk wrote:
| So basically, no concrete proof (yet), except the fact that
| Niemann has past history of cheating in online chess.
| draw_down wrote:
| rednerrus wrote:
| The analysis evidence is pretty damning.
| roflyear wrote:
| What analysis? Lol. There does not seem to be ANY analysis
| that stands up to any criticism, which to me is pretty
| damning!
| aqme28 wrote:
| If you mean the "100% correlation" video, I highly disagree
| that it's damning.
| abnry wrote:
| I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of his
| reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess.
|
| The first mistake was still choosing to play when he had
| reservations once Hans was invited. The second mistake was
| quitting the tournament and messing up the standings once he
| lost. The third mistake was making an insinuation through a
| tweet. The fourth mistake was resigning in two moves his next
| game with Hans.
|
| Even though Hans is suspicious and untrustworthy, Magnus is
| taking on himself the authority to be judge, jury and
| executioner. If he is concerned about cheating being an issue,
| proactively bring up the issue, don't do it re-actively.
| JoshTko wrote:
| The fact that Magnus fully understand all the implications of
| such a statement and still went forward with this speaks to how
| sure he is of his intuition. He will forever tarnish his
| reputation if ultimately it's proven that he was simply flat
| out wrong. He is basically saying that Hans is playing
| impossibly well and that he does not exhibit the same
| behavioral patterns as any other player. And that he also has
| access to some other incriminating info that he can't yet
| share.
| roflyear wrote:
| Magnus basically cannot be proven wrong - but time will tell.
| If Hans continues to perform well in OTB tournaments, and
| he's not caught cheating, eventually I think the suspicion
| will die down.
|
| The issue is that will he get that chance at all?
|
| Also, Hans has won some great games in short time controls.
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| How do you prove a negative?
|
| Sinquefield Cup arbiters already sent a press release saying
| they found no evidence of cheating.
|
| Magnus' intuition is not evidence, full stop.
|
| Hans' play itself is not evidence, full stop.
|
| Only actual evidence of cheating , the means and methods
| used, the conspirators, are sufficient.
|
| By all means, the court of public opinion is for all to own,
| but Magnus is already "flat out wrong" by the actual
| standards of competition.
| bee_rider wrote:
| If he can't provide the evidence, he should stay quiet or
| tell people to stop bothering Niemann until he is able to. I
| mean, his intuition is obviously very good, but in the end a
| serious league can't go by the intuition of the best player
| and secret info.
| tshaddox wrote:
| In what sense is he trying to be judge, jury, and executioner?
| It seems to me that he is resigning games and not trying to get
| those results changed. Do you mean the fact that he is arguably
| using his position in the chess world to influence organizing
| bodies to change their rules? That might be the case, but I
| don't think that's bad or wrong in principle.
| jVinc wrote:
| > I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of
| his reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess.
|
| I think the unspoken truth but also the thing both chess.com
| and Magnus are hinting at is that Niemann has cheated a lot
| more than he lets on, perhaps his entire stream was built on
| cheating, who knows. But chess.com can't just start sharing
| information like that, and they are walking a fine line just
| with their public statement where they affirmatively assert
| that Niemann is underplaying the reality of his cheating.
| Magnus probably has insider information from chess.com but is
| bound by NDA and this is also why he's now challenging Niemann
| to give him permission to speak on the matter.
| Nokinside wrote:
| daniel rensch from chess.com said few days ago that Magnus
| has no special insider information. https://old.reddit.com/r/
| chess/comments/xj932e/daniel_king_i...
|
| > So again:
|
| >- MAGNUS has NOT seen chesscom cheat detection algorithms
|
| >- MAGNUS was NOT given or told a list of "cheaters"
|
| >- and he is and has completely acted 100% on his own
| knowledge (not sure where he got it!) and desires to this
| time
|
| >I will also address a comment made to this post about Ben's
| (Perp Chess) podcast and say that, yes, some top players (not
| Magnus!) have been invited at times, under NDA, to see what
| we do... and by extension, they also saw some reports of
| confessed cheaters (there were many more cheaters - but we
| only share those who confessed in writing, and only privately
| under the NDA). Magnus and the team from C24 are not on that
| list.
| neaden wrote:
| Yeah, I think Magnus is making a mistake conflating two things.
| It is totally fine to think that Nieman should have been
| punished more for online cheating, but combining it with his
| accusation of cheating at the Sinquefield Cup come off as sour
| grapes. Watching the Crypto Cup there was obviously no love
| lost between the two of them but they played each other, it's
| not until Magnus losses to Hans (which based on their rating
| had about a 5% chance of happening) that this refusal to play
| happens.
| alephxyz wrote:
| It's even less than 5% since Magnus had whites.
| bombcar wrote:
| How accurate are those rating calculations? Is it really
| "Hans vs Magnus will be 1 vs 19 win rate" or is it something
| else?
|
| I would assume that I'd have absolutely no chance of winning
| against either even with a handicap.
| neaden wrote:
| They are pretty accurate, though of course when you are
| dealing with the person at the very top it's going to be
| hard to say how accurate it is. I think broadly though most
| experts agree that Hans beating Magnus was an unlikely but
| possible ting to happen. For comparison a 1400 rated
| player, which is someone who plays and studies a decent
| amount of chess but isn't devoted, would have a 0.0000014%
| chance of beating Magnus.
| bombcar wrote:
| "So you're telling me there _is_ a chance! "
|
| I think as the skill differential becomes greater you
| have a better chance of identifying where the "master"
| screwed up allowing the neophyte to win. But it sounds
| like Hans and Carlsen are too close in skill (at least in
| this game) to identify a flaw in Carlsen's play that was
| able to be exploited.
|
| And perhaps Hans went in expecting to lose and played
| loose and free and surprised himself with a win.
| roflyear wrote:
| Also, it is likely that Hans is higher rated than he is,
| which would make his chances better. Chess rating is
| earned so you can be underrated.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I doubt they are very predictive in those rating bands.
| Based on a quick Google, since 2011, Magnus has lost a
| total of 20 games as white, mostly against much higher
| rated opponents than Hans. It had been almost 2 years since
| he lost as white, against Levon.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Yeah, the tone I'm getting from reading this basically boils
| down to "I was uncomfortable with how he played so I quit".
| Isn't that part of the metagaming in chess? Poker has always
| been about unnerving your opponent through stoicism or
| deception. I don't see why chess can't have the same layer of
| subtlety, and if it really concerns him then he should be able
| to wear a visor to block everything but the game board.
| Otherwise, just take your loss and stand your ground.
| abnry wrote:
| I want more of this metagaming in chess. That's one of the
| things I find interesting about Hans. His interviews suggest
| he's taking a sort of meta game approach. He suggested once a
| move of his against Alireza was a bluff because Alireza
| doesn't like attacking chess.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| This is extremely common in high level chess. Every chess
| player will study their opponents history and recent play
| patterns and practice against that.
|
| Hans claimed he studied against Magnus' opening because
| Magnus had played it a few months ago. It turns out Magnus
| has never used that opening in a recorded game. The dialog
| has now changed to "well by move 20 the board state became
| identical to a previous Magnus game" but Hans didn't say he
| spotted the similarities at move 20, he said he studied
| that specific opening.
| roflyear wrote:
| Magnus did have the same opening, but not the same
| sequence of moves (transposition) in several games. So
| that's just wrong.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It only became identical by turn 20, that's midgame, not
| an opening.
| roflyear wrote:
| So what? What does that matter? 20 moves of prep is not
| unusual. Also opening/midgame/endgame is not defined by #
| of moves. This was still very much in the opening, and it
| was still very much "known theory" as in games have been
| played in that same line.
| [deleted]
| oneoff786 wrote:
| That may be part of mind games. It is not part of meta games.
| dgritsko wrote:
| I think it boils more down to this:
|
| "I was uncomfortable with how he played _because he has a
| history of cheating_ so I quit "
|
| Which is entirely reasonable, if you think that cheating is
| an "existential threat" to chess itself.
| addicted wrote:
| Magnus is claiming that cheating is widespread and a big
| problem in chess.
|
| Who are all the other cheaters that Magnus has quit
| against?
|
| Why is the only cheater he has publicly made a show of
| having a problem with in all these years the one who
| recently beat him OTB playing black?
| Invictus0 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think the statement is a little bit more nuanced than
| that:
|
| "His over the board progress has been unusual, and
| throughout our game in the Sinquefield Cup I had the
| impression that he wasn't tense or even fully concentrating
| on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as
| black in a way I think only a handful of players can do."
|
| This isn't just "I got weird vibes" or something, this is
| the professional analysis of someone who has spent a
| lifetime analysing particular board states, the overall
| flow of the game, and the psychology of his opponents. He
| may have his hands tied in terms of what exactly he can say
| at this time, but the telegraph here is that he suspects
| cheating because of specific, observable factors in how the
| prior game(s) went down.
|
| And those factors may ultimately be too subtle to be judged
| by anyone other than a jury of other top-tier professional
| chess players, but ultimately that doesn't matter, if it's
| enough to trigger a more thorough investigation then
| concrete evidence will emerge one way or the other and show
| Carlsen to be right or wrong on his hunch.
| roflyear wrote:
| Hans is a super weird dude. And Magnus was worried going
| into the event.
| roflyear wrote:
| Cheating ONLINE - very much a different game, really, I
| would argue.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If he didn't want to play against him, he shouldn't have
| already done it weeks ago and then proceed to agree to a
| rematch, which he doesn't cancel until the last minute. I
| find it very hard to believe that Magnus only found out
| about Hans' history after the first move... unless he had
| someone assisting him in realtime.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| it was just part of the rules you can't resign until you
| play 1 move
| smoldesu wrote:
| Withdrawing attendance is also an option, which Carlsen
| himself says is a possibility he acknowledged.
|
| If he wants to follow through on this, we better see some
| damning evidence. If this entire hubbub was for nothing,
| the chess community as a whole is going to have egg on
| their face.
| jbaczuk wrote:
| Except it's impossible to prove non-existence, so it will
| never reach that point
| unethical_ban wrote:
| The best time to do the right thing is yesterday, the
| second best time is today.
|
| Perhaps a person knows they should have done more sooner,
| but still chooses to do what they think is right when
| they make a decision.
| devin wrote:
| They were both under contract at that point, so I don't
| think there was much choice in the matter.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Basketball, hockey, and football players are expected to
| perform under the roar of tens of thousands of fans AND those
| that hate them.
|
| Tennis players and Chess players are expected to be granted
| absolute silence.
|
| Is that an inconsistency? I don't think so. It's part of the
| expectation of the sport. Sport is in general a weird type of
| impure competition. Sponsorships, TV contracts, etc, all
| contribute to mixed priorities.
|
| So no, I don't think it's appropriate to equate Poker and
| Chess in this regard. Their best practices can be evaluated
| on their own measures.
| Tenoke wrote:
| >Poker has always been about unnerving your opponent through
| stoicism or deception
|
| As much as TV would make you think so that's mostly a myth.
| It was probably more so the case in the past but now it's at
| most a very minor part of the game, and most (typically all)
| of your edge comes from better card playing.
|
| A huge river bluff is viewed in the lens of 'I've represented
| a range which includes strong hands, and I make money if I
| get a fold X% of the time while increasing the call chance by
| Y% when I do have a good hand in this spot' and not 'I'm
| going to unnerve him by throwing money to make a bad
| decision'.
| timwaagh wrote:
| I'm not sure I have ever understood the Magnus hype. This whole
| thing... It makes me certain he did not deserve it. Unless he's
| proven right somehow... But generally as a sportsman it's not up
| to you to play referee. Maybe they should take bullying in chess
| just as seriously as cheating.
| mikenew wrote:
| ...you don't understand the "hype" around the best player in
| the history of the game?
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| planetsprite wrote:
| There are two things that must be understood before making any
| judgement on this case:
|
| 1. It is solidly within the realm of possibility that a person
| who spends all his time devoted to succeeding in tournament chess
| would be able to devise a cheating method that cannot be easily
| detected by standard protocols
|
| 2. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to
| disprove Magnus' claims
|
| With these things being said, it is both possible that Hans
| didn't cheat and we'll never know for sure, or that he did cheat
| and we'll never know how. Given these facts, the most productive
| analysis would be to find just how unusual Hans' performance,
| both in the game and prior, really was.
|
| A few things could be determined:
|
| 1. How many other high level players have a history of cheating?
| Have any players who have once cheated in a lower stakes match
| later been proven to have cheated in a higher stakes one?
|
| 2. Based on improvement per game played, how unusually rapid was
| Hans' development in the past 2 years? Are there other players
| which have progressed as rapidly as he has despite having
| progressed slower earlier in their careers?
|
| 3. Do all the engine correlation analyses that implicate Hans not
| fire warning signals when analysis any other game by confirmed
| non-cheaters? Do they signal cheating in a similar way when
| analyzing games of proven cheaters?
| Maursault wrote:
| > It is impossible to prove a negative
|
| Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a
| paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.
| planetsprite wrote:
| I'll amend my statement
|
| It is easier to prove a positive since it requires only the
| "smoking gun" to be made apparent. It is much harder to
| disprove a negative because it requires hypothetical smoking
| gun that could have caused the effect (Han's beating of
| Magnus) to be disproven. Since we don't have a record of
| every electromagnetic and sonic wave which passed through the
| room the day Hans beat Magnus, disproving the cheating claim
| is likely impossible.
| keepquestioning wrote:
| I last played chess in high school. I'm following this for the
| drama.
|
| I guess "over the board" chess means an IRL chess game.
|
| Can someone explain how the fuck someone would be able to do this
| and not make it obvious? Why is this being continually glossed
| over?
|
| Am I dumb?
| unfunco wrote:
| Potentially with vibrating anal beads.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/20/carlsen-v-niem...
| solarparade wrote:
| It is possible to have a device in your shoe that will not trip
| metal detectors that can feed moves from the outside.
|
| It doesn't even have to be that complex, for a super GM even
| just a simple signal that indicates "this position has a
| crushing move, spend extra time thinking on this move" is
| enough to significantly improve their performance
|
| Unless you catch the method of cheating directly, it's
| basically impossible to definitively determine if someone was
| cheating from a small number of games, they could just have
| gotten lucky or have been especially prepared in a given line
| like Niemann claims to have been
| roflyear wrote:
| Outside, like where?
|
| Hans has performed well in tournaments where there was no
| live broadcast. What's the explanation?
| smoldesu wrote:
| If that's a big concern, why would you even allow audiences
| to spectate in real-time? If the integrity of the game takes
| precedent over the spectacle of the match, why do we care
| about anything but the results?
|
| This reductive approach to looking at cheating will just end
| with both of these shmucks sitting naked in an empty room,
| surrounded by an audience of a single referee who's job is to
| stop them from physically attacking one another. If he wants
| to accuse someone of cheating, he should do it - otherwise,
| dragging someone in public and refusing to make public
| statements doesn't reflect well on his professional
| integrity.
| bombcar wrote:
| The extent that anti-cheating measures in Contract Bridge
| have gone to is hilariously insane. The players are
| effectively in telephone booths and cannot say or do
| anything except mark a bid indicator or slide a card, and
| at regulated intervals, too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge
|
| Bridge is an imperfect information game so the
| opportunities are much larger, but something similar can
| happen in chess.
| ilc wrote:
| Honestly, at the level these guys are at, compared to the
| engines, chess is an imperfect knowledge game also.
|
| In Magnus' statement he specifically spoke of how he
| felt, Hans felt. This shows how much information beyond
| the 64 squares that chess players take in.
|
| I'd argue the opportunities are larger in chess, because
| "what to do" is much more concretely correct.
|
| Bridge has its own problems... and people will cheat as
| long as there are physical devices. (Fantunes / Fisher-
| Schwartz) Imagine if they used any simple encryption
| algorithm, they'd be fishy, but impossible to catch at
| that time.
|
| BBO is the future for bridge IMHO.
|
| Chess, will become an in person game with nobody else but
| the arbiter, players, and cameras in the room.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Then by all means, I'd encourage Carlsen to start the XFL
| of chess tournaments! The XCL?
|
| Whatever the case is, I don't think a public crusade is
| the right option. If he had conclusive evidence of him
| cheating during the match, he wouldn't have made such a
| protracted statement on it weeks afterwards.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, some of it seems like regret that he didn't
| withdraw from the tournament before the match, and some
| of it doubling down.
|
| Still could be correct, however. I suspect that Carlsen
| has certain knowledge of Hans cheating at games later
| than 16 but not the one he lost that hasn't been revealed
| yet.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Makes me wonder if they ever point nonlinear junction
| detectors[0] at people that aren't supposed to have
| electronics on them in these kinds of events. I think it
| would be pretty hard to cheat then. Or would something like
| The Thing[1] escape that?
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_junction_detector
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
| perihelions wrote:
| Wow!
|
| - _" Such a technique was used in the 1980s construction of
| the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Thousands of diodes were mixed
| into the building's structural concrete making detection
| and removal of the true listening devices nearly
| impossible."_
| yreg wrote:
| jstanley here on hn made such a cheating device as a hobby
| project:
|
| https://incoherency.co.uk/blog/stories/sockfish.html
| Maursault wrote:
| Carlson should just challenge Niemann to a 30 game over the board
| televised match in their shorts (no shoes, no shirt) at Madison
| Square Garden. With the revenue generated from ticket sales and
| advertising, they could both retire and international chess can
| put this episode behind them.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Everyone in the audience has to be in their shorts, and the
| players need to be surrounded by one-way mirrors otherwise
| someone in the audience could use a computer and signal the
| players.
| vsareto wrote:
| Remove all of the players' teeth because they could pick up
| Morse signals with fillings
| utopcell wrote:
| And the air temperature should be controlled because someone
| may signal single-bit information otherwise.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Be sure to pause train traffic through Penn Station,
| otherwise the Amtrak dispatcher could transmit seismic data
| depending on platform routing.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| And then a very noisy motorcycle drives by the stadium during
| a tense moment and everybody is left wondering, what if...
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Inside a faraday cage, turn it into the world's first cage
| match.
| qwertox wrote:
| Just make sure it takes long enough for any battery to drain.
| Yizahi wrote:
| There are hidden headphones which can be inserted in the ear
| and contact ear drum directly. Totally invisible. And this is a
| mainstream cheap tech today, students use them at exams.
|
| Also in the public setting he wouldn't even need any device on
| him, he'll simply have an accomplice showing signs.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Carlson already has enough $ to retire, and he certainly would
| have nothing to gain from such a "spectacle for the masses".
| His place as #1 in the world (and arguably, history) is not
| threatened by Hans.
| nindalf wrote:
| Doesn't really prevent the usage of vibrating anal beads
| (https://kotaku.com/chess-champion-anal-bead-magnus-
| carlsen-h...)
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Don't even need that. Niemann just has to make one ?! and
| that will be enough to rattle Magnus.
| sen_armstrong wrote:
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-06-26%202.
| ..
|
| https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&star.
| ..
|
| Nice.
| abraae wrote:
| I'm not goingto click that link, but this comment answers the
| first question I had in my mind.
| MisterSandman wrote:
| To make things fair, both players will be encouraged to wear
| anal beads
| browningstreet wrote:
| These situations are never great.. there's no "best way to handle
| things" when the drama reaches a certain level.
|
| Carlsen specifically mentions that there are Niemann details he
| can't or won't reveal. Niemann could release him from that
| confidence, but I think Carlsen's reputation is strong enough
| that doubting this doesn't seem reasonable.
|
| Personally, I think shading Carlsen, in isolation, seems
| misguided to me.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > there's no "best way to handle things" when the drama reaches
| a certain level.
|
| I agree, but that's mostly where my frustration with Carlsen is
| rooted. He had the choice with how to handle this - he went out
| of his way to choose the dramatic route.
|
| He better have some conclusive evidence to back up the
| hurricane-sized shitstorm he's whipped up here. If it turns out
| the entire chess community got manipulated by a single rockstar
| and his badly-hurt ego, it would be hard to take the sport
| seriously again at a professional level.
| tux1968 wrote:
| Carlsen has an impeccable reputation for being principled and
| magnanimous in defeat, and always complimentary and
| respectful of his opponents after a loss, acknowledging their
| deserved win and well played game. Frankly, i'm shocked more
| people aren't being supportive of this single decision of
| his, that stands alone in his long and rather glorious
| career.
| roflyear wrote:
| Lol, you guys need to stop pulling stuff out of your butts.
|
| Just google "magnus sore loser" and there are tons of stuff
| that comes up, including videos.
| tux1968 wrote:
| Being extremely competitive is not being a sore loser,
| and he is playful and spirited in trash-talk. But he
| ultimately always shows respect towards his opponent,
| even when he's extremely disappointed in himself.
|
| Being upset at a loss, which you'll see in a few videos,
| is much different than disrespecting the person who beat
| him.
| roflyear wrote:
| I don't think Hans is very respectful. At this point it
| is all subjective anyway, and you'd moved the goalposts I
| feel, so good luck to you.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Well, he is just a person. Under high level of stress, we all
| make bad decisions that lead to more drama. I can easily
| think of several worse ways he could have handled this -- at
| least he didn't go into any weird public rants.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Interesting how in the 90s the concern was GM's where helping the
| machines (Kasparaov vs Deep Blue), and today the concern is the
| machines are helping the GMs.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| What i think should happen is, Hans should play in tournaments
| which have much more security, and play against Magnus. If he did
| cheat it should be really obvious because his performance will
| suddenly drop. If he didn't than he will play the same, but now
| with the added security he won't have to face unbacked
| accusations, and there is no excuse for Magnus to refuse to play
| with Hans like he has been doing now.
|
| Even if Hans really did cheat, if there is no credible evidence
| you can't fault him. And IMO it's not enough that he cheated many
| years ago. Right now all the criticism he's getting is unfair
| because it's based on _speculation_.
| lumb63 wrote:
| Didn't he play the remainder of the tournament he beat Magnus
| in, and proceed to lose six straight under heightened security
| against worse players?
| songeater wrote:
| not quite, but he didn't win again: https://chess-
| results.com/tnr670809.aspx?lan=1&art=2
| Someone wrote:
| If he were a computer, that would work. Being a human, the
| added stress of _"this game will be used to decide whether I
| will be considered a cheater"_ may be enough to make him
| perform worse than he did before.
| kjerkegor wrote:
| > If he did cheat it should be really obvious because his
| performance will suddenly drop
|
| I mean, Magnus is so much more better player than Hans that
| even if Hans didn't cheat he would probably be worse in
| rematch. But in all sports sometimes underdogs win. In couple
| yt videos i watched it was said that Magnus played bad game and
| that Hans already gained an advantage in opening. Hans said
| that he prepared opening play but if he is indeed a cheater he
| maybe used engine just for opening. We'll probably never get an
| answer if there was cheating or not
| roflyear wrote:
| Of course he used an engine for the opening. Before the game,
| 100% certain he did.
| jVinc wrote:
| But why though?
|
| Lets assume just for the sake of argument that Magnus has
| insider information from chess.com making him 98% certain that
| Niemann is cheating.
|
| Why would he hand him a game that's going to be watched
| worldwide, where Magnus has nothing to win. Since if he wins we
| really still don't know anything one way or the other. But he
| also has everything to lose. If Hans is cheating and manages to
| pull off something again, then Magnus is cripeling his own
| reputation.
|
| Magnus seems to be doing the right thing here, which is voicing
| his concerns, refusing to play him, and asking Niemann for
| permission to speak on the matter fully. Niemann is doing what
| you'd expect of a cheater, which is to stay quiet, dismiss the
| discussions, having difficulty explaining his plays, and pretty
| much just holding back from letting chess.com or Magnus divulge
| what information they have from the inside of his bans.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-26 23:00 UTC)