[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)