Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

en.chessbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#11

Post by [deleted] »

bombcar wrote: post #6
jstx1 wrote: post #3

Fabiano Caruana (former number 2 and World Championship contender) is skeptical of Regan's analysis: > I would take Regan’s analysis with the large grain of salt, and the reason why is not because I have any insight into his algorithm or his methods, but because I know of a case of, a very high profile case, where with absolute certainty I can say that someone was cheating in an important event. And the person was in…

Proving a positive result is much easier than a negative. A positive “this move right here is not reasonable without a chess computer suggestion ♟” vs “we didn’t find anything suspicious”. And if you’re cheating, adding another layer of “try to find moves that aren’t suspicious” would be theoretically possible.

[deleted]

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#12

Post by twawaaay »

I think the discussion misses the important problem.

It is possible to design a system where the algorithm will try to imitate a human being making human errors.

There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for the algorithm for every move, just sometimes. Just enough so that it makes a difference.

If you remember, Allies broke Enigma but decided to restrict the use of intelligence thus obtained to not alert Axis to the fact. Which is essentially the same idea here -- the question is "How much help can I use before it becomes provable that I am getting help?"

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#13

Post by xlii »

While I'm not interested in chess in general, I'm deeply curious how Carlsen (assuming good intent) could figure out Niemann was cheating.

The ideas I have right now would be:

1. To run each early game phase (up to, let's say 3-5 moves) through multiple AI engines and find selection that is: - happening constantly in most of the engines - don't have deviation in multiple rules (i.e. have stable consequence) - aren't well known (that is, aren't well known plays described in literature)

From that probably I'd have some honeypot sequence that I could try to lure cheater out.

2. Find opponent's openings that are: - Successful (i.e. usually winning) - Not recommended by any AI engine whatsoever (so probably could be described as "lucky") - Used often by opponent

...and try to get him into this exact opening seeing how it'll go.

Beyond discovery I find also immensely interesting how to deal with such knowledge. Exposing method would put it in statistical argument of outcome vs chance and would be super easy to walk around in the future. Proving it would true would be almost impossible as well. In the end the only route would be to push hard (exactly as Carlsen did) with a method defendable enough that if there's push-back it can be exposed to save oneself from disgrace.

I doubt we'll ever see resolution, but I find all of it amazing nonetheless.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#15

Post by buzzdenver »

0cVlTeIATBs wrote: post #9

I've heard of two ways one might cheat in chess. This analysis covers receiving engine moves, but does not address the other accusation, stealing opponents' prep work.

Stealing prep might work in something like a world championship game where the two participants play dozen or more games. It would be much harder to steal the prep of half of your opponents in a round robin tournament. Also, if you assume that Niemann is cheating and his real rating is 2450, not high 2600s like it is officially now, then no amount of prep stealing will make him competitive with Magnus.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#16

Post by Bakary »

twawaaay wrote: post #12

I think the discussion misses the important problem. It is possible to design a system where the algorithm will try to imitate a human being making human errors. There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for the algorithm for every move, just sometimes. Just enough so that it makes a difference. If you rem…

There are already chessbots that can mimic medium-strength human players thanks to ML

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#17

Post by dandanua »

Chess became a joke today. People decide if you cheat or not just based on your moves and results. It's nonsense. It's like deciding if an athlete is cheating or not without doping tests - solely based on the "distribution" of success. And Magnus behavior - hinting accusations again and again - is far from ethical too.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#18

Post by tbrake »

twawaaay wrote: post #12

I think the discussion misses the important problem. It is possible to design a system where the algorithm will try to imitate a human being making human errors. There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for the algorithm for every move, just sometimes. Just enough so that it makes a difference. If you rem…

> There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for the algorithm for every move, just sometimes. Just enough so that it makes a difference.

This is something Magnus has said before as well (paraphrasing): "If I got engine help for just one or two positions a game I would win every time."

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#19

Post by spywaregorilla »

I think this is being approached incorrectly. The thing that stands out to me is that people find his analysis of games to be poor. If he can't explain his reasoning, it suggests he may not have reasoned it. This is interesting as there's two sides to this problem. One is that he is good at chess and could be cheating. The other is that he is actually not great at chess and could be cheating.

If people think his analysis skills are weak, then it suggests the latter case, which seems easier to test.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#20

Post by Bakary »

xlii wrote: post #13

While I'm not interested in chess in general, I'm deeply curious how Carlsen (assuming good intent) could figure out Niemann was cheating. The ideas I have right now would be: 1. To run each early game phase (up to, let's say 3-5 moves) through multiple AI engines and find selection that is: - happening constantly in most of the engines - don't have deviation in multiple rules (i.e. have stable consequence) - aren't…

The most convincing theory around this drama is that Magnus employed just such a honeypot by playing an obscure move Niemann responded perfectly to but was unable to later explain.
Post reply on HN