[HN Gopher] Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster 'Likely C... ___________________________________________________________________ Chess Investigation Finds U.S. Grandmaster 'Likely Cheated' More Than 100 Times Author : freefal Score : 190 points Date : 2022-10-04 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com) | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Cheating at 3+2 games while streaming? How's it is even possible | to input all moves/positions into a chess program in parallel too | main game and also while commenting? IMO it is impossible without | some very specialized software or external assistance who would | do the clicks. And how does he cheat in over the board events? | beardyw wrote: | It is very easy indeed. Stockfish would be an immense help. | Best moves are calculated progressively, that is they are | refined over a few seconds. Inexperienced players are given | away by delaying over obvious moves waiting for the best move. | It is definitely not rocket science. You can download and run | Stockfish yourself. I think chess.com possibly runs it in the | browser. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I know the basics how to do it, it is rather obvious. I just | feel that operating two boards manually is really a chore, | and definitely not while streaming. | Bud wrote: | Are you familiar with professional Starcraft II? Those guys | are executing ten moves PER SECOND. While streaming. | | This is two to four orders of magnitude faster than chess | players in a classical game. One to two orders of magnitude | faster than blitz. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | StarCraft players also aren't really thinking, all micro | is mostly almost reflexes. Chess does require way more | analysis, so if you are on a very short time limit, | checking up with an engine and operating it would eat all | your time. | perihelions wrote: | Computer vision for chess is widely available (and very | useful!) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19563768 ( _" | Chessvision.ai - Analyze chess position from websites, images | or video"_, 49 comments) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21162466 ( _" Show HN: | ChessBoss - enhancing physical chessboards with computer | vision"_, 36 comments) | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Things that are easy for some members of HN crowd are likely | not that easy for a 19yo person who's only notable | achievement in life so far is being really good at chess | (well, presumably). Such software also doesn't explain his | OTB results, which are consistent with his online results. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Some OTB tournaments allow players to go to the bathroom | with their phone, others allow audience in same room - so | an accomplice (such as Hans' coach Maxim Dlugy - another | admitted cheat) could relay moves via signal. I've seen | suggestion on Hiraku's channel that current scanning for | players for communication devices is sub-par, although Hans | has offered to play naked to disprove that theory (some | porno site is calling his bluff by offering him $1M to | actually do it). Anal beads? I dunno ... | | Magnus has estimated it would usually only take one or two | computer corrections per game for himself to play | perfectly, so we're not talking about every move, just at | key points. Apparently even just an indication that there | is some key/winning move at a given point, without | indicating what it is, is enough for the player to stop and | put in the time to find it. | ccooffee wrote: | Here's a story from Reddit about someone using these systems | during over-the-board play to cheat: https://www.reddit.com/r | /BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/xigy... | fxtentacle wrote: | Human assistant? | Version467 wrote: | I don't know how market leading chess cheating software works, | but it's not that hard to imagine that it just captures the | screen, or scrapes the moves in any number of ways | automatically is it? I'm sure it's not needed to manually type | in all the moves. | | As to how he'd cheat over the board, that's the big question. | There are a couple of theories floating around, some more | realistic than others, but if we knew for sure than this whole | debacle would already be over. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Anyway his over the board results are more or less consistent | with his online results, so either he has invented some | cheating method that had evaded detection for many years at | top level events, or that he is really good on his own. | FireBeyond wrote: | I mean, probably the worst way to cheat is 'mindlessly'. If | you're doing nothing more than 'transcribing' moves from | one client to the other, sure. But if I'm cheating and | trying to figure out maximum ROI, I'm looking at what the | computer did for me, trying to understand it and figure it | out. That way I can learn and get better myself, as well as | talk/bluff intelligently about why "I" might have made a | certain move. | bluecalm wrote: | 3+2 is a lot of time to input the moves several times over and | prepare coffee in the meantime. Seriously, it's not a slightest | problem for a competent online blitz player. | | OTB cheating: there are many possible ways. The simplest one | being having a script reading the moves from the live broadcast | and feeding them to an engine and then sending the info to the | player. Hans' strength magically decreased in the Sinquefield | cup once broadcast delay was introduced for example. | energyy wrote: | > Hans' strength magically decreased in the Sinquefield cup | once broadcast delay was introduced for example. | | This might be the solution. But then on-site audience would | need to be monitored as well. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | > Hans' strength magically decreased in the Sinquefield cup | once broadcast delay was introduced for example. | | So you discount a possibility that the controversy and | allegations against him had at least _some_ effect in him | playing worse in the Sinquefield Cup? | | Anyway, there were studies out there that there were no | statistical differences in his rating gains in tournaments | broadcasted with delays and without it. Study by Kenneth | Regan also found no irregularities in his play, so the only | 'evidence' of him using computer help are allegations by a | company that is in business relationship with Carlsen, and | his 'bad' analysis in post game interview. I'm not very | impressed. | jsnell wrote: | > Anyway, there were studies out there that there were no | statistical differences in his rating gains in tournaments | broadcasted with delays and without it. | | It is exactly the opposite of what you claim: there is a | massive statistical aberration in his performance of | broadcast tournaments vs. non-broadcast. He is _200 Elo_ | higher in the former. | | https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?p=933597&sid=1fd | 7... | | You're clearly very invested in this case. How can you | possibly be getting the polarity of the evidence wrong? | Bud wrote: | Yet earlier in this thread, you were incredulous about even | the possibility that a chess game state could be entered | into software or communicated during play. Which is clearly | a ludicrously blind statement. So pardon us if it's hard to | be particularly impressed by, well, whatever you are | impressed or not impressed by. Because you don't seem to | have much grasp on the basics involved, here. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | > Which is clearly a ludicrously blind statement. | | This statement came from an experiment I conducted. I | just tried playing lichess 3+2 game while running a | nearby chess.com/analysis on a second display. ... | | ... and I was barely keeping up with all the clicks, and | in the endgame was unable to keep up. So no, efficient | cheating in fast games requires at least a special | training, and better some automated software to keep up | with the moves and to communicate best moves back to | player. | bmacho wrote: | This is the most interesting part for me: | Computers have "nearly infallible tactical calculation," the | report says, and are capable of beating even the best human every | single time. The report says dozens of grandmasters have been | caught cheating on the website, including four of the top-100 | players in the world who confessed. | | I can't really comment it, but I leave it here if you haven't | read the article. | wisnoskij wrote: | I can 100% garenty you that anyone interested enouhg to get | into the top 50k chess players is going to be interested enough | in chess to want to play around with a chess engine, and why | not use it in the most convenient way possible, to play a few | chess.com matches with it. | shagie wrote: | Gift link - https://www.wsj.com/articles/chess-cheating-hans- | niemann-rep... | whartung wrote: | So, I'm not much of a chess person, much less a competitive chess | person. | | Can the "over the board" cheating potential be reduced with a 5 | minute "tape delay" of broadcasting the game? Is that enough time | to thwart the influence of an external signal? | | Seems to me the only way this person can redeem himself is | through over the board play under strict conditions ("Come | dressed in shorts, a t-shirt and sandals"). | | But I don't know if how long they're allowed per move, and if 5 | minutes is enough time to thwart external influence. | sh4rks wrote: | The delay would have to be a lot longer than 5 minutes. It's | not uncommon for players to take 30+ mins on a single move in | OTB chess. | | Also, if your cheating device allows you to somehow input chess | positions, then you wouldn't even require an external signal. | Though it would be extremely impressive if somebody could pull | that off. | umvi wrote: | Depends on the game type and cheating type. | | If blitz type game where players have <5 minutes to decide a | move, then yes, delayed broadcast might be effective. Other | game types allow for >5 minutes per move so tape delay would be | ineffective since cheater could just stall. | | Cheating type also matters. There's external help (friend in | the audience communicating 1 or more bits of information via | auditory, optical, radio, or some other signal), and there's | also internal help (raspberry pi zero + battery and pressure | sensor embedded in your shoe or something). There are so many | ways to cheat that it's hard to enumerate all of them let alone | prevent all of them. | Hamcha wrote: | In blitz, 5 minutes totally would work, in classical chess I | have my doubts. | | The Sinquefield Cup (the tournament where the drama started) | added a 15 minute delay which would be much more noticeable and | less forgiving. | robswc wrote: | That's a question I was going to ask. Sure, not _every_ move | is 5 min, but wouldn't a 5 min delay almost ensure any | cheater would play mostly more than 5 min, each turn? | (besides some simple moves, ofc) | | Or is it that they only need to cheat at a few points where | taking more than 5 min wouldn't be abnormal at all? | cantaloupe wrote: | The latter. The article briefly points out that cheating on | only a few moves can give one grandmaster a significant | advantage, which makes cheating difficult to detect. In | discussion of a previous article, some HN commenters | suggested that even having a binary "be careful here" | signal based on a chess engine could make a big difference. | robswc wrote: | So one could take on average ~5 min per move. On any | moves they want help with, they could wait out the 5 min | and have an accomplice send the signal? | | Honestly, it does seem next to impossible to stop a | dedicated cheater if any feedback makes it out of the | room in a reasonable amount of time. | bombcar wrote: | It might work if there are _no_ spectators live in person. | Otherwise you can easily have someone in person relaying the | information to a computer, or you have to search everyone, not | just the players. | ActorNightly wrote: | If it happened, I don't think it happened realtime. | | Given sufficient notoriety and money involved, it would be | possible to just hire someone to essentially run a training | model of alpha zero against moves specifically selected to be | likely to be made by Magnus, and then all you really need is | memorization of key scenarios (which for a good chess person | should be no problem) to identify the right move to make. | bombcar wrote: | That specific scenario is just considered normal good prep | - they will even play games against people who "play" their | opponent's openings. That's all well known but you can't | memorize enough to make a major difference. | ianferrel wrote: | I don't think that what you described is cheating. | moralestapia wrote: | Keep this in mind(!) | | Magnus Carlsen is a majority shareholder in chess.com. | MAXPOOL wrote: | The next _' move'_ for cheaters is to use chess computers in a | way that passes _' Chess Turing Test'_ and makes cheating | indistinguishable from normal human play under analysis. | | When there is money in the game, there is incentive to cheat. | | > The report says dozens of grandmasters have been caught | cheating on the website, including four of the top-100 players in | the world who confessed. | | There are probably smart cheaters already playing who are able to | evade detection. | somenameforme wrote: | Cheat detection isn't done by only by move analysis, but by an | extensive profiling of a person and games based on many factors | beyond even just the moves. For instance one of the easiest | ways to catch a weak player cheating is move times. Such a | player will have no idea whether a move is trivial or works | only due to an exceptionally precise and lengthy series of | counter-intuitive calculations that no human could do without a | significant think. And so they'll tend to rely both in | approximately the same amount of time. | | Even during the Carlsen-Niemann game it was meta-factors that | initially clued Carlsen in. Niemann was playing without any | significant effort or tension, in spite of playing in a game | where he was outplaying the world champion. And after the game | he was unable to explain his own ideas, proposed ideas that | were simply losing, referenced games that did not exist, and | was generally (relative to the class of player here) clueless. | None of that final section is definitive proof of cheating to | say the least, but it helps create a probabilistic profile of a | player (and a game). | | The point of this is that even a computer that played human- | like (which I would argue will not happen for the distantly | foreseeable future), would be just one factor among many in | busting cheaters. I expect this is why Magnus was also | initially reluctant to directly accuse him of cheating. He | _felt_ he was cheating based on the meta-factors and probably | got folks more capable than himself to evaluate the technical | factors, and when that also came up as a redflag - yeah, the | dude 's a cheater. | KennyBlanken wrote: | This is exactly how I get clued in on how someone is cheating | in a shooting game I play. | | You can tell how experienced someone is based off the gun | they use (some are stronger than others), whether they use | cover or just run out into open spaces and shoot, how they | move, whether they use 'gadgets' like grenades, and so on. A | lot of novice players don't even use the sprint function to | run. | | When someone who literally just walks around the map but can | laser everyone with headshots (which have a significant | damage multiplier)? They're cheating. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | > Niemann was playing without any significant effort or | tension, in spite of playing in a game where he was | outplaying the world champion. | | Carlsen was making mistakes. That wasn't his best game at | all. Are we sure we aren't talking of this because someone's | ego was hurt? | | > And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, | proposed ideas that were simply losing, | | That doesn't mean anything at all | | > referenced games that did not exist, | | That did exist close enough to the period he mentioned. | Remembering the position and analysis is necessary, | remembering when exactly this position happened and even | between whom exactly is utterly useless. | | > and was generally (relative to the class of player here) | clueless. | | He didn't make a clueless impression to me. But I'm not | Carlsen's fanboy whos accusations can cloud my own reasoning. | If I was, I'd probably believe that Niemann is a proven | cheater and would look for facts to confirm that bias. | bambax wrote: | > _For instance one of the easiest ways to catch a weak | player cheating is move times. Such a player will have no | idea whether a move is trivial or works only due to an | exceptionally precise and lengthy series of counter-intuitive | calculations that no human could do without a significant | think_ | | Ok, but what prevents the helper to communicate the | difficulty or the number of minutes to think-pretend as well | as the move itself? | | Everything that can be measured can and will be gamed. That's | why anti-fraud units are so secretive. | pyuser583 wrote: | What happens when it's a strong chess player who is cheating? | | Even a strong player can benefit from consulting a computer. | Chess games can win fail based on a few moves. | | A strong player would only need to consult the computer on a | few moves to get a considerable advantage. | colechristensen wrote: | The strongest players would be the "best" cheaters but also | the least likely to cheat. Top _n_ players for small _n_ | would only need one "this move is important" hint per game | to significantly improve their rating. Very hard to detect | of course. But when you hear the actual top players talk | about chess they genuinely seem interested in playing the | game and not so much driven by chasing some accomplishment | of winning. It's quite hard to get to that level without | having the genuine interest. | | But also their games are subject to the most scrutiny and | study and they themselves will spend a lot of time publicly | talking about and analyzing their own games, those "cheat" | moves would stand out as ones which were hard to see and | had bad explanations after a while. | z9znz wrote: | > What happens when it's a strong chess player | | A strong chess player would have to weigh the risk of | losing all their progress and reputation if caught | cheating. | | After this current situation, I expect the penalties for | being caught cheating will be severe. Whether the cheater | is banned from all future events or not, nobody will want | to support them, nobody will want to associate with them, | and they will essentially be cast out of the entire chess | world. | avar wrote: | > And after the game he was unable to explain his own ideas, | proposed ideas that were simply losing, referenced games that | did not exist, and was generally (relative to the class of | player here) clueless | | Aside from Niemann's case, how is it strategically beneficial | to a chess player to provide the "inside scoop" on his plays? | | You're presupposing incompetence, but another explanation | would be a deliberate strategy to throw off future opponents. | pessimizer wrote: | > makes cheating indistinguishable from normal human play under | analysis. | | From what I understand, Niemann got into trouble because people | thought that he wasn't able to adequately provide the analysis | i.e. the reasoning behind some of his own moves. You'd need a | live auxiliary AI to tutor the cheater in how to explain why a | particular move was made. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Well, that's only one of many reasons. GM Hikaru was laughing | at him on his channel when replaying that interview with Hans | - a lot of his answers were strange and deflective. A player | at this level should be able to fluently describe their | analysis at any move in the game. | | At one point he described one of his own moves as "a weird | move" without offering any explanation, sounding more as if | he was observing the move rather than being the one who had | actually analyzed it and chosen to play it! | bombcar wrote: | The best players only need one or two notes, even something as | simple as "there's a good play here" twice a game could throw | things dramatically. | | That is harder, almost as hard as playing for real, but doable. | Much easier to just be a mechanical turk for sharkfish or | whatever it's called. | andy_ppp wrote: | You could train a neural network to filter through likely human | moves from the engine's top recommendations and never get | caught. | tobyjsullivan wrote: | Interesting piece. It highlights how it's hard to differentiate | between someone genuinely playing at a level higher, and a | cheater. A few things I noted from this article: | | 1. The driving force behind the original accusations is that | Magnus felt his opponent wasn't "exerting" himself enough, | compared to other young prodigies. | | 2. Chess.com's case is that his results are "statistically | extraordinary." | | 3. There is a history of cheating | | 4. Allegations that he admitted cheating privately (though it's | not clear to whom) | | 1, 2, and 3 could easily be cause for suspicion; however, that's | not the same as evidence. The one crucial piece absent from this | article is any suggestion of _how_ he cheated. | | Without providing a means, I find this piece premature and | questionable. That said, I don't know anything about chess, lot | alone cheating at the master level. So maybe the "how" is common | sense and not difficult? | | And of course, there's also this: | | > The report also addresses the relationship during the saga | between Carlsen and Chess.com, which is buying Carlsen's "Play | Magnus" app for nearly $83 million. | EddySchauHai wrote: | > it's hard to differentiate between someone genuinely playing | at a level higher, and a cheater | | Actually, it isn't! Great chess bots have very different play | styles and there are people currently studying them. It's very | unlikely someone will come out of nowhere so to speak (as in, | not on some amazing rise as a young child) with these types of | techniques. I'm nowhere near these levels of chess players but | have played competitively for my county as a school-kid and | still play a couple hundred games a year so have some idea. | chrisherring wrote: | A smart cheater isn't just going to replicate bot moves and | make it easy to detect. They may just use it to decide | between 2 moves they were 50/50 on already. Do this 2 or 3 | times and it would make a big difference at the grand master | level. This would be quite hard to detect. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | FIDE are doing their own investigation, but the chess.com cheat | detection algorithm is apparently well regarded, and online | cheating is obviously very simple to do. He's admitted cheating | online as recently as 3 years ago. If he can reasonably be | proved to having cheated online more often and more recently | than he has admitted to, then that gives good reason to suspect | he'll have cheated OTB too given the chance. | | There are various ways one might cheat OTB, from taking one's | phone the bathroom in the middle of a tournament (some allow | this!!), to getting signals from an accomplice who is seeing | the game in real time. Signals could be electronic to some | device on the player, or visual from an audience member in the | room. It's been proposed to introduce a 15-30 min broadcast | delay in tournament games as one way to prevent cheating. Some | tournaments scan the players for electronic devices - not sure | how foolproof this is. | boredtofears wrote: | Wow that last bit seems like a rather important disclaimer that | I didn't know about when this saga first unfolded. | j-krieger wrote: | The fact that an athlete in a competitive sport was allowed to | partake in an event even after admitting to cheating not only | once, but twice, is outrageous in itself. | antiterra wrote: | The admissions were from when he was 12 and 16; many so | societies generally believe in redemption from childhood | transgressions. | devindotcom wrote: | Report says over 100, as late as 2020. | smaryjerry wrote: | He already admitted to cheating a lot. He didn't say he | cheated in two games, he said cheated at two times in his | life. He even detailed how his second time was pumping up | his rating, you can't pump a rating with only one game. | Sounds like if it went to 2020 then he would have been 17 | at least, not 16 but that's pretty close at least. | curiousllama wrote: | The report hasn't even been released yet - it didn't exist | when they allowed him to play | robswc wrote: | 12 is fine... 16 is iffy... it was only 3 years ago. | | I'm personally a bit frustrated with the ever changing | standards for adolescents. They are as responsible or naive | as people want them to be for whatever their bias calls for. | (not saying you btw, just in general). | wisnoskij wrote: | neither ages make him exempt from repercussions. If a 9yo | pro chess prodigy had cheated in a profession tournament he | absolutely should of gotten temporary bans or fines. But | even if a 60 yo chess prodigy used a chess engine in one | online stakless match, other than a week chess.com ban I do | nto see what sort of punishment would want to give them | that would be reasonable. | | What we are talking about here is a minor who admitted to | using a chess engine in a meaningless online match 2 times. | Like all the grandmasters don't play with chess engines | just to see how they work. | largepeepee wrote: | 12 is only "fine" if you were caught and demonstrated you | learned to stop. | | 12 is horrible if you have a track record of blatant | cheating and only getting worse for years till they | permanently banned you. | t-writescode wrote: | Personally, I'm not a fan of permanent Scarlet Letters for | .... I think I may go so far as to say _anything_. | nordsieck wrote: | > Personally, I'm not a fan of permanent Scarlet Letters | for .... I think I may go so far as to say _anything_. | | What's your opinion of the National Sex Offender | Registry? | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | > _What 's your opinion of the National Sex Offender | Registry?_ | | People are on it for simply peeing in public. And teenage | minors in a relationship sending nudes to each other due | to a lack of "Romeo and Juliet" laws. | | Not much is black & white. | jamiek88 wrote: | Not this meme again. | | I challenge you to post ONE example of this. | sixstringtheory wrote: | Now that the easy stuff is out of the way, what do you | think about people on the registry for violent sexual | assault? | willcipriano wrote: | I talked to a guy who was on a sex offender registry for | "urination in public" at a bar one time. Sounded like a | travisty of justice when he explained it that way. Talked | to someone else about him afterwards and while yes he was | "just peeing in public" he did so in the view of a few | young girls who walked past his house on their way to | school on multiple occasions and with a erection. | | Knew another guy who did a few years in prison for "just | a bag of weed", again that was true in a technical sense, | he was on parole for a strong arm robbery and had the bag | in plain view when he got pulled over. | | I'm not saying nobody is ever innocent, but everyone I | talk to claims to be and it never holds up. | andirk wrote: | Is there a National Murder Registry? | twelve40 wrote: | yes in a way, it's called criminal record | | also probably because people who commit murders and do | the time are not always in a permanent urge to do more of | that, unlike. | robswc wrote: | Neither am I... I honestly have no idea what the kids | punishment should be. Not irredeemable by any means... | that seems cruel for the sake of being cruel... but its | also not fair to have people compete with a known cheater | (and potentially, hopefully not, a liar). | | He may have to take a long break. | lamontcg wrote: | This assertion keeps on being made and it seems almost | deliberately obtuse to me. | | If you do something bad when you are 17.9 should we wipe the | slate clean once the odometer rolls over to exactly 18.0 | where for some reason that age creates a solid barrier where | the person emerges like a chrysalis and all their sins are | washed clean? | | And as a 50 year old, the difference between a 16 year old | and a 19 year old are not very big. An unfortunate fact is | that if you fuck up pretty big when you're 16 that people | aren't going to trust you very much when you're 19. You need | to do the time to build up more collateral. I've seen people | who were assholes when they were teenagers change, but they | didn't wake up on some magic birthday a new person. They were | still assholes in their early 20s but their trajectory was | such that by the time their early 30s came around they had | changed themselves. | fairity wrote: | The rate at which we forgive and forget prior actions | should decrease as someone ages in a monotonic way. Reason | being an individual's capacity and willingness to learn and | change their values and behavior decreases with time. Sure, | the 18yo cliff makes no sense. | briandear wrote: | Are we calling chess a sport? | stonemetal12 wrote: | They started playing it online so now it is an esport. /s | freetime2 wrote: | I had the same thought. I don't have a particularly strong | opinion about whether chess players should be called athletes | or not, but this was the first time that I had ever seen | chess players referred to as athletes. | | The first result when you google "Are chess players athletes" | says no [1], but I realize that this is more of an opinion | piece. I would be curious to hear what more members of the | competitive chess community think of the designation as | athletes. | | Edit: Upon further googling, I have learned that the IOC | recognizes chess as a sport. Reading up further on how the | matches last for 7+ hours, and how important physical | conditioning is, I think it's totally valid to refer to chess | players as athletes. In different sports there is wide | spectrum of physical and mental demands - and I think chess | just falls on the incredibly-demanding-mentally-but-less- | demanding-physically end of the spectrum. | | [1] https://herculeschess.com/are-chess-players-athletes/ | | [2] https://olympics.com/ioc/recognised-international- | federation... | adamckay wrote: | Yes. | | It's recognised by the International Olympic Committee - | https://olympics.com/ioc/recognised-international- | federation... | | A common definition is: "Sport pertains to any form of | competitive physical activity or game that aims to use, | maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while | providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, | entertainment to spectators." | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport | paxys wrote: | Is there a single sport in the world where a player will get a | lifetime ban for admitting to cheating in the past? All major | ones will let you compete even after being caught doping/fixing | a half dozen times in your career. The bar is a lot lower than | you think. | mzs wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sportspeople_banned_f. | .. | mkl95 wrote: | There are a few competitive sports where the same pattern | occurs. Namely decentralized sports, particularly boxing where | it's not rare for some elite athlete to be banned temporarily | after testing positive for PEDs. Most bans are for 6-12 months | which is a joke. | | My guess is that the more decentralized a sport is, the more | likely it is for cheating to occur and go unpunished. Chess is | unofficially becoming a decentralized sport since the pandemic | due to the shift to online playing. Even if some organizations | claim to be in power, there is only so much they can do. | Banning cheaters permanently may not even be possible. | cool_dude85 wrote: | Presumably any long FIDE ban would be the end of a serious | chess career, right? | cco wrote: | > Most bans are for 6-12 months which is a joke. An athlete's | professional career is roughly ten years* with the majority | of their earning potential to be an even smaller set of those | years. A ban from being paid for 12 months may represent 10% | or more of an athlete's career earning potential. | | *Of course this varies a lot by sport, gymnastics careers are | obviously very short, a golfer's career may be much longer. | iudqnolq wrote: | Even worse, professional athletes fund full-time training | through ways that wouldn't be available during a ban. Skip | full-time training for a year and you'll probably not be | competitive after. | pclmulqdq wrote: | This is, I think, the single biggest factor in the | proliferation of cheating. Most cheaters are smart enough to do | the math on how they should win at the sport, or is smart | enough to hire someone who can do the math. In other words, | cheaters are rational actors. | | Allowing people back into the sport swings the EV math heavily | in favor of cheating if the penalty isn't massive given that | the chance of getting caught is so low (as long as you know | what you're doing). The only way to make the EV of cheating | negative is to make the sanction very, very bad. Losing all of | your future earnings from the sport is a good way to do that. | | I used to run Magic: the Gathering tournaments, and there was a | tremendous amount of "minor" cheating - forgetting the rules | when it benefits them, shuffling in suspicious ways, peeking at | opponents decks, etc. Many competitive players even openly | admitted to doing this. Even if a tournament official could | call them on the cheating and disqualify them (which was | frowned upon without hard evidence), they would likely not be | suspended from sanctioned play at all unless the evidence was | overwhelming. Several famous cheaters did it many times and got | caught several times. Minor cheating was very common as a | result. | whatshisface wrote: | The alternative - an environment where innocent people were | sometimes getting expelled - would be worse when it's just a | game. | pclmulqdq wrote: | A tournament with a >$200,000 prize pool (the Sinquefeld | cup or a Magic pro tour) is hardly "just a game." | jonny_eh wrote: | Sometimes people are caught red-handed. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Yeah, it doesn't have to involve banning people for life | on borderline cases of cheating, but if you are caught | red-handed, a lifetime ban seems in order. | throwawaysleep wrote: | This is why I constantly cheated in school. I got caught once | and the penalty was a 0 on the test and a talking to. And | only because I was a cheating noob. | | The benefits were in the thousands and thousands of | scholarship dollars. | | I cheat now in my employment. I work three full time jobs | remotely and do the bare minimum in each. The risk is getting | fired (and if I only get fired from two of the jobs, I am | still ahead of honest work). The payoff is decades taken off | my working life. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Selling your labor to multiple buyers and delivering | acceptable work is not cheating. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Technically, they might sue you if you represent that you | are working exclusively for them, which is a clause in | most of these contracts. Still, not illegal. | threatofrain wrote: | Being a TA and discovering that about half the class was | engaged in a singular cheating ring (that does not mean the | other half is free from cheating) changed my perspective as | to how cheating should be dealt with. | | In general I feel that if enough people are doing the | "wrong" thing, then punishing most of the population is | probably an even worse move. Failing individuals, marking | their transcript, or kicking them out of college may seem | acceptable when you have the perspective that only | individuals cheat. But when you hypothetically punish over | half the student body by taking their money and kicking | them out... | soperj wrote: | Then why even have rules about it. You're basically | screwing honest people. | sirshmooey wrote: | This aptly describes the modern state of thoroughbred horse | racing. The sport is littered with these so called "super- | trainers". All of which possess precedent defying win | percentages. It's gotten so bad, a federal governing body has | been tasked to combat it. The anti-doping rules will take | effect this January [1]. | | [1] https://www.hisaus.org/about | bee_rider wrote: | I'm slightly confused about the relationship between chess.com | and these tournaments. If he gets caught cheating at a FIDE | tournament, they could do whatever they want -- ban him for | life, whatever, it is up to them. If he gets caught cheating on | an online game, whether it is chess.com or counterstrike, who | cares? It is an unranked online game (or the ranking is tied to | some account gamerscore thing). | | Unless their chess.com scores feed into their FIDE ELO scores | or something? | wisnoskij wrote: | when they were 12. | j-krieger wrote: | One time when they were 17. Obviously the sanction at 12 | wasn't bad enough. A barring for 5 years would've maybe | helped him learn his lesson | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Whatever happened during online play on a second rate chess | site is hardly a reason to ban player from OTB events | without evidence of cheating in such events. | jrm4 wrote: | Right? I completely didn't understand this part? In pretty much | everything else, you cheat, you're basically done. | jayski wrote: | I'm not a fan of this player, I don't even play chess. | | Still it sounds a bit harsh to me that a child that cheated | online can never in his adult life participate in chess | tournaments. | | If he had cheated as an adult I would have a different | opinion. | fredoliveira wrote: | Well, that's where the report comes in. He has cheated | several times as an adult too. | [deleted] | smaryjerry wrote: | If you consider 17 an adult and that the report is | correctly identifying those games. This is no different | than cheating in a video game online. It's playing random | people from matchmaking for rating points tied to that | game. Maybe there were multiple tournaments as well for | small prizes (probably under $1000 prize money) if the | report on the report is correct though. I'd compare it to | an NBA player cheating in a pick up game of basketball. | j-krieger wrote: | > If you consider 17 an adult and that the report is | correctly identifying those games | | For him, that was 2 years ago. | Bud wrote: | Oh. Really? I mean, not in baseball. Not in football. Not in | basketball. Not even in President of the United States. | | What is this alternate reality you're in, and what is your | list of "everything else"? Citations, please. | jrm4 wrote: | I didn't go deep on it, but it seemed like dude's cheating | was repeated, open, and notorious. | Bud wrote: | It was. | | I was addressing the other part of your statement, | however. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | Citation: Pete Rose, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, | Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling will never get in the | Hall of Fame. | | You're right that that's not "basically done," but once | they're retired, HoF is all they have to look forward to. | Being officially in disgrace is pretty done. | Bud wrote: | Yet I can cite hundreds of cases of cheating in all the | major sports in which, yes, there was a suspension or | other penalty, but the players or people involved were | then allowed to participate again. The examples you cited | are very extreme, but even in these cases, they don't | support your argument. None of those players were removed | from the game during their playing careers and barred. | And again, those are just the most extreme cases. There | are many, many less severe cases, all of which support my | argument and not yours. | | You might want to remove Schilling from your list, btw. | He hasn't been accused of any cheating; instead, he did | other embarrassing things. | paxys wrote: | > In pretty much everything else, you cheat, you're basically | done. | | The penalty for cheating in most major sports is way more | lenient than you think. Most leagues will suspend you for a | handful of games in the first instance. In the NBA for | example you can be caught three times before being suspended | for one season. | lamontcg wrote: | MLS you catch a 10 game ban (out of a 34 game season) for | your first PED offense. | ENOTTY wrote: | In case you're looking for whether this says anything about the | butt plug allegations, this report does not. It only concerns | cheating on an online platform, not in person cheating | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > "Outside his online play, Hans is the fastest rising top player | in Classical [over-the-board] chess in modern history," the | report says, while comparing his progress to the game's brightest | rising stars. "Looking purely at rating, Hans should be | classified as a member of this group of top young players. While | we don't doubt that Hans is a talented player, we note that his | results are statistically extraordinary." | | I basically made the argument that, in any sport, when a player | does statistically much, much better than their previous | performance would predict, that in and of itself should be | considered evidence of cheating - perhaps not _conclusive_ | evidence, but definitely evidence warranting further | investigation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32990022 | | > All this talk of "Carlsen accused him of cheating with no | evidence" reminds me of the blowback against some athletes in the | 70s and 80s who accused rivals of taking PEDs "with no evidence". | | > Sometimes the evidence of someone doing monstrously better than | can be expected by their history is sufficient IMO. I mean, look | at this article about swimmer Shirley Babashoff [1], dubbed | "Surly Shirley" at the time by the media, for suggesting the East | German women were on PEDs in the 70s. Nowadays we look back on | those images of the East German women, looking more manly than | any dude I've ever seen, and wonder how we considered with a | straight face that they weren't on a boatload of drugs. | Similarly, it completely baffles me how any sane person can think | that Flo Jo wasn't on PEDs in the runup to the 1988 Olympics - | her 100m dash record still stands today. | | > I'm not saying Carlsen went about it in the right way, because | now Niemann is basically in an indefensible position, but I'm | also not willing to quickly dismiss it because Carlsen has "no | evidence". | ehsankia wrote: | I think the biggest tell is how he wasn't able to explain his | play and just threw a smug response whenever asked to describe | anything. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I might take into consideration rapid rise in ratings, and | even this chess.com report, but please, this argument about | post game interview is pure nonsense. It is not a 'tell' in | the slightest. Any player with at least IM title will give | you a decent analysis of that position _if he wants_ , and | Niemann is certainly better than IM even without alleged | computer help. He was visibly disinterested in the interview | and it was conducted in a rather hostile manner, so it is | perfectly understandable that he probably just wanted a break | and rest. | Tenoke wrote: | Other players have had questionable post-game interviews. | This is evidence but without history of cheating it wouldn't | mean much. | raydiatian wrote: | Yeah you pointed out something special here. It's like those | unsung Russian sub captains who didn't start the nuclear | apocalypse because they had an intuitive understanding between | faulty and genuine threats. You can't explain why you know | something you just know it. | | Besides, Magnus genuinely has never seemed like the guy to get | petty and up and throw a fit, he's lost plenty of times without | doing such. | javajosh wrote: | _> never seemed like the guy to get petty and up and throw a | fit_ | | More than that, Magnus is a very fierce competitor and he | doesn't withdraw from tournaments. He's 31 and this is his | first withdrawal AFAIK. | manimino wrote: | Magnus cares deeply about the image of chess as a sport. He | has done a great deal to popularize chess. Cheating | threatens the legitimacy of chess itself. | | It makes sense that Magnus would take a stand on it, even | if he risks losing face by doing so. | JetSetIlly wrote: | > You can't explain why you know something you just know it. | | The way Carlsen described his suspicions reminded me of | "connoisseurship" in the art world. Now that's a "skill" | that's not as important as it once was but once the science | has given its results and there are still no firm | conclusions, connoisseurship is all you have. | raydiatian wrote: | Cheater connoisseurship. Nice. | ed-209 wrote: | Serious question: why isnt online play excluded at this level of | competition? Why not restrict these "pro" matches to regulated | conditions as in any other pro competition? | | We dont generally place full trust in online job interviews so | why lower the bar to "honor system" when it comes to the most | cheat-friendly competition in the universe? | paxys wrote: | Because it takes a lot of time and money to set up an in-person | tournament. A virtual one is basically free and will get a lot | more participation from top players. | buscoquadnary wrote: | Pandemic happened that's the big reason. | tzs wrote: | GothamChess coverage on YouTube [1]. Part of this is showing and | reading the article itself so if the WSJ paywall is getting in | your way you can read it in the video. | | Hikaru coverage on YouTube [2]. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1DCqoBjR4s | | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptbNKbHQiM | zqlamp wrote: | The chess.com campaign continues. 100 games are nothing online, | Carlsen/Firouzja play that in a single night. The headline is | pure propaganda and omits the word "online". | | In fact, the article tries to paint Niemann as a liar while the | purported facts pretty much match what he admitted to. One | cheating in a titled tournament at age 12 and multiple cheats at | the beginning of 2020. He said he was 16, so he was barely 17 | according to the article. That isn't a lie, that can easily | happen in an interview. | | If that is all that chess.com has, their behavior is extremely | poor. Also, what about all those other cheating titled players | who did not have the misfortune to win against multi-million | asset Carlsen? | | It is time for Europeans to send GDPR requests for cheating | scores etc. and terminate their accounts. The risk is too great. | angio wrote: | He cheated in prize money tournaments. That's borderline fraud. | ghank wrote: | Here is Carlsen taking a move from Howell in a Lichess prize | tournament, which he'd never do OTB: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMcnrmb97g | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | The move was pretty obvious. | klrobert wrote: | Then why does Carlsen ask "how?" before playing it? This | is a conversation that would never have happened in an | OTB tournament. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Likely, because he was thinking of something else. It | happens often when playing weaker opponents, you are so | concentrated on some genius master plan to defeat an | opponent, that when an opponent does something dumb you | fail to see it immediately. Of course, my lichess rating | is _slightly_ below Carlsen 's so I'm probably not the | world's best expert on such things. | | (I don't quite understand what you mean by 'those | conversation would never have happened .. ') | mda wrote: | So a half drunk Howell blurts a single move to half drunk | Carlsen in a bullet game and this is cheating? | frumper wrote: | Did I miss where cheating online is somehow not as bad as | cheating in person? I understand it's harder to cheat in | person, but I never thought it was "worse" to cheat in person | because it's the worst thing you can do to your opponents in | either an online, or an in-person game. | ghank wrote: | You miss that 100 _classical_ games OTB are an eternity, and | 100 online _blitz_ games are nothing. | | And yes, while cheating online is shabby, hardly anyone took | online chess seriously before the big money tournaments | started during the pandemic. | | And that the whole chess.com affair is a side show that is | exploited for streamer content and clicks. The relevant issue | is cheating or not cheating in the Sinquefield cup. | frumper wrote: | A cheater is a cheater. They are making a choice to cheat. | It's not an accident. They know it's wrong, they know their | conduct is hurtful. It doesn't make any sense to say that | no one took it serious. I'm sure people that lost to him | would feel otherwise. If he's so good why would he even | bother cheating in tournaments? | zhivota wrote: | Why don't they just put the players into a Faraday cage with | wired cameras on the inside? No communication out of the box by | any means in that case. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I could actually cheat in that situation, if my people could | hack the camera controls and dilate the iris or move it or | something... | tempestn wrote: | You can run a chess engine that can beat any human on a small | portable device, so external communication wouldn't be | necessary. Perhaps combined with a metal detector it could | work? Honestly though I think the more significant reason is | that that would require building the cages, and would prevent | live audiences. | 2devnull wrote: | Knew it! | Madmallard wrote: | How is this person like at all able to even compete over the | board? Seems like this type of history and even a history of | cheating at all should just be a permanent nix. | spuz wrote: | He is a genuinely very good player. That also makes it | potentially very hard to detect if he has indeed cheated. His | current coach has been quoted in a past interview saying how | easy it would be to cheat undetected if you were already at GM | level. You only need the engine to guide you in 2-3 moves to | swing a game. | | 2013 Interview with Max Dlugy: | https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-shoe-aistant--ivanov-forfe... | | Also, before you ask, "if he is already at GM level, why does | he feel the need to cheat?" the answer is that the stronger | players and athletes often feel more inclined to cheat because | they have such high expectations of themselves. Past cheating | scandals in sports have proven this. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | It's important to note that the investigation was conducted by | chess.com, which is hardly an impartial authority in the matter. | Version467 wrote: | How aren't they impartial? They are obviously an interested | party, but do they have an incentive to skew the facts? If so | in which direction? Not doubting you, just genuinely | interested. | axxl wrote: | Magnus owns a decent stake in them (20% maybe?) and has been | very publicly making accusations as well. | suetoniusp wrote: | Its not that much, but the article ignores the fact that | chess.com knew all of this and invited him to their | tournaments. Then once the Singfield cup event happened and | Magnus got mad they banned him. | | They have been selectively releasing information about him | and his one time coach for a few weeks now. While in the | past they have never, not once, released any of their | cheating information. Why now? | | If they dont release the report they are talking about then | this article is nothing. | bombcar wrote: | Apparently they have a policy of only dealing internally, | with their own online systems. Basically they just | quietly ban players caught cheating, and don't report it | anywhere normally. | | Even now, they haven't released this publicly yet. | heartbreak wrote: | Their deal with Magnus hasn't closed, but yes, they are | purchasing his company. | Version467 wrote: | Oh, I didn't know that chess.com wanted to buy chess24. | That does make it more difficult. | darkwizard42 wrote: | As mentioned in the article they are in talks to buy Magnus's | app Play Magnus. | | That being said, if they have literal screenshots of the | discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to | cheating and appealing the ban, those seem like smoking guns | in addition to all this other analysis | edgarvaldes wrote: | On the other hand, the analysis is about online games on the | chess.com platform. | perihelions wrote: | https://archive.ph/TtSEO | fxtentacle wrote: | I believe the critical aspect here is not the specific cheating | that chess.com found, but that this appears to contain written | statements by Niemann himself which contradict his public | statement. | | And if it now turns out that he lied in his confession, too, then | that's a really bad look w.r.t. his trustworthiness. | perihelions wrote: | - _" written statements by Niemann himself which contradict his | public statement"_ | | The article doesn't say that Niemann's admissions to Chess.com | were about cheating in prize-money tournaments, nor the other | disputed facts. The spreadsheet of incidents they show us isn't | what Niemann admitted to cheating in, but was Chess.com's | internal anticheat flagged -- we can tell because they label it | as _" suspect games"_ and it uses qualifiers like _" likely"_. | The inferences that the cheating was for real money prizes, or | at an age older than 16, or on for-profit Twitch streams, are | drawn from from this list of suspected games. | | We don't currently know what facts Niemann confessed too: it's | not public whether the facts Niemann is allegedly lying about | overlap with the facts Niemann admitted to in writing in 2020. | WSJ may have evidence that's dispositive on this point (i.e. | those Slack texts), but they haven't printed it yet. | threatofrain wrote: | Confessions have an important role in forgiveness, but given | that, the public arena is never the right place for | confessions; i.e., do you expect someone to say "Actually, I | also hit on another employee last May." That would get you | nailed to a cross and no lawyer would ever advise that except | on the calculus of further damage control. | kjeetgill wrote: | There's a huge difference between not confessing and making a | false confession. | [deleted] | chaoticmass wrote: | If he really is so good, why doesn't he start doing IRL | tournaments and rise through the ranks that way? | chesscom wrote: | There is so much more to our report than what was focused on in | the WSJ article. The full report will be shared shortly... | mzs wrote: | >Rensch had previously said that Chess-com had never shared a | list of cheaters or the platform's cheat detection algorithm | with Carlsen. | | So who did chess.com share those with? | largepeepee wrote: | And why would they ever share full details of confidential | agreements? | | Ie, their secret sauce. | mzs wrote: | Cause they shared Dlugy's private emails last week? Cause | they leaked this report to the WSJ before putting it on | their site? Cause Rensch worded the non-denial denial | specifically like that? | largepeepee wrote: | Like I had mentioned previously, why would they reveal | their entire hand? | | It makes sense to show the relevant part of their | upcoming case and who knows what kind of agreement they | had with Dlugy and with lawyers before deciding to reveal | that snippet. | | Like in poker. Just because they showed one card, doesn't | mean they are now obligated to show their hand. | jquantf wrote: | Indeed. How did the rumors start? Who received the list? Was | it legal? | | https://gdpr.eu/fines/ | aluminum96 wrote: | It's a real red flag that he plays stronger moves after the | browser window loses focus. I'd argue that's much less | circumstantial than anything else so far. | IceWreck wrote: | Even if he was cheating, its a dumb move to do that. It's super | easy to stop websites from knowing that you're switching tabs | or windows. | | https://github.com/IceWreck/Page-Visibility-User-Script | | I made this a while ago. | | Or just use another computer. | FireBeyond wrote: | Which shows ... I don't know ... naivety, or cockiness, or | something. If I'm cheating at chess (or poker or whatever) | online and I know that there are likely to be some form of | anti-cheat scanning happening... why wouldn't you run your | chess client on a computer beside you - then everything | surrounding that is undetectable (processes, focus, CPU | utilization, etc.) | kuboble wrote: | Because he likely wasn't aware they they track it and having | this other computer introduces other risks. | | If he accidentally showed a picture of his second computer on | the same desk during e.g. a stream it would be akin to guilt | admission. | williamcotton wrote: | Cheating is a bad decision to begin with. I'm not surprised | that further bad decisions were quickly in pursuit. | bena wrote: | People are still rather short-sighted when it comes to what a | computer can do. | | They can really only think in front of them. If I put | information into this program, I get information out. They | don't think that applications can monitor their own meta- | state. Or the state of other applications. | | So I'm not terribly surprised that he thought running the | engine in another browser window would have been sufficient. | He might have even had it open in "incognito mode". And since | it's incognito, it can't be detected, right? | KennyBlanken wrote: | Most people don't realize that the online chat functions | for a lot of customer service sites show every character | you type, not when you hit 'enter' or 'send'. | bambax wrote: | Didn't know that. Is this really true? What would be the | point of it? | | When chatting with a customer support it's quite apparent | the csr is involved in many chats at once; wouldn't it be | quite taxing for them to have to monitor not just the | responses but every keystroke of the people they interact | with? | bena wrote: | You could passively record without having to force the | CSR to engage. You could also then use that text to help | prompt the CSR. | [deleted] | rjj wrote: | Just to make sure I read this right: he most likely cheated in 11 | online tournaments from 2015 - 2020. | | Why not analyze his recent and over-the-board games? | jfghi wrote: | I imagine everything is being analyzed but given that cheating | in 11 online tournaments is enough to invalidate someone's | career it makes for an appropriate topic of article. | rjj wrote: | I get that. Just checking I had it right that this is ~not | really the analysis we most want. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Kenneth Regan did that and came to a conclusion that there were | no cheating. | jbverschoor wrote: | I'd say he could not come to a conclusion that there were | cheating. | Jabbles wrote: | From the article: | | _While it says Niemann's improvement has been "statistically | extraordinary." Chess.com noted that it hasn't historically | been involved with cheat detection for classical over-the-board | chess, and it stopped short of any conclusive statements about | whether he has cheated in person. Still, it pointed to several | of Niemann's strongest events, which it believes "merit further | investigation based on the data." FIDE, chess's world governing | body, is conducting its own investigation into the Niemann- | Carlsen affair._ | mzs wrote: | One of the reporters adds a detail that several from the WSJ | article means 6 (which we all would have immediately known had | chess.com simply published on their site instead of leaking the | 72-page report): | | >The report made no conclusions about Niemann's in-person games. | But it also flagged his play from six over-the-board events, | saying those merit further investigation. | | https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380477807300626 | energyy wrote: | do I really need to login/pay to read this news? | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | an archive.ph link and a gift-article link have been posted | here in the comments. | energyy wrote: | yeah, saw that after posting this.. thanks | suetoniusp91 wrote: | arecurrence wrote: | Why don't cheaters just use two machines or even just their phone | and a laptop? The evidence is often around other processes or | browser tabs running on their device (and in this case also focus | loss) but an immediate thought must be to simply use multiple | devices. | paxys wrote: | No, the evidence is usually around analysis of the moves and | how they compare to those generated by chess engines and how | the same player has played in the past. The mechanics of the | cheating are mostly irrelevant. | arecurrence wrote: | You're totally right, some of the articles I looked at | focused on tangential causes... whereas analysis of moves | compared to decisions by a vastly superior system has got to | be the smoking gun. | | I suppose new algorithms will be designed or trained to | account for the user's performance history. | ActorNightly wrote: | Traditionally chess engine moves were identifiable easily | enough by regular players, and chess.com even has algorithms in | place to detect this. | | Thats all going to change now though, and its totally possible | to cheat using a second computer with an engine that will be | undetectable. | slivanes wrote: | You mostly read about cheaters who get caught. | olliej wrote: | Yeah, I think fail to consider survivor bias to be relevant | in cases like this. | | It's also why there are occasional surges in cheating (or | crime, or whatever) after significant instances - subsequent | examination then finds other cases because it's now looking | for them, but the reality is the cheating (or whatever) was | always there and just not noticed. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-04 23:00 UTC)