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

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#21

Post by frodetb »

I wonder if the explanation for Carlsen's move could be far simpler than people are making it out to be. This is the guy who decided not to compete for the world title, simply because he didn't feel like it. He loves chess, and wants to keep playing it for the joy that it gives him, and nothing else.

He could have resigned early simply because going through with the game would have left a bad taste in his mouth. I'll bet it's annoying to play someone with a history of cheating, regardless of whether they are still currently known to be breaking the rules or not. Imagine having to sit through a game that you love to play, only with a nagging thought in the back of your mind that sucks the joy out of the experience and turns it into a chore.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#22

Post by bombcar »

tbrake wrote: post #18
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."

Good players could cheat with a bot. Great players know exactly when they’d use a bot on a single move.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#23

Post by Chabsff »

Early on in this debacle, I remember someone pointing out that Niemann's performance could be explained relatively easily by him having forward knowledge that Carlsen intended to use the unusual opening he went for. This would amount to cheating "in spirit", by way of having an unfair advantage over his opponent, while still being tournament legal.

Whatever happened to this version of events? It struck me as being a lot more credible than engine assistance.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#24

Post by thedstrat »

anothernewdude wrote: post #14

A bell curve. That's it. Is Hans Niemann cheating? Ken Regan is cheating people into calling him an expert.

Agreed. The analyses based solely on a comparison of average centipawn loss is so so flawed. It only takes using an engine move once or twice to completely demolish a much better opponent in a game. These types of analyses don't find this type of cheating.

A much better analysis imo would be trying to find the probability of someone at his ELO finding surprising moves. EG I played a 1900 online recently who happened to completely turn around a game by setting up a forced mate in 6, with several branching moves a few moves down which all happened to result in mate because of incredibly lucky piece positions. I can't calculate the probability of someone at a relatively low level like that finding such a move, but I bet it's very low. This is the type of analysis which I'm guessing Magnus is using to assess Niemann as a cheater.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#26

Post by EarthIsHome »

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…

Regan's algorithm cannot prove that you did not cheat; it can only fail to prove that you cheated.

The question that Regan's algorithm is this: "Did you cheat?"

If the algorithm comes back with "Yes," then you cheated. But it cannot come back with "No." It can only come back with "I failed to prove that you were cheating."

You need another hypothesis: "Did you not cheat?" But this is an impossible test.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#27

Post by Bakary »

tbrake wrote: post #18
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."

At their level of play, a single one-bit message can tip the scales in dramatic fashion. All you have to know is that there is a great move to be found in a particular position, without even knowing what the move is.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#28

Post by bombcar »

roenxi wrote: post #10
bombcar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn't really proving a positive though - maybe the player just got lucky. There aren't that many moves in any given turn, sometimes even a novice will make an inspired move.

True - but identifying a particular move gives a discussion point at least.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#29

Post by Bootvis »

alephr wrote: post #8
jstanley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it was Fabi!

This seems like the most obvious answer but social dynamics make it hard to suggest.

It's suggested here now :) More spicy would be if Kramnik was cheating in his match against Topalov.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#30

Post by Bakary »

Chabsff wrote: post #23

Early on in this debacle, I remember someone pointing out that Niemann's performance could be explained relatively easily by him having forward knowledge that Carlsen intended to use the unusual opening he went for. This would amount to cheating "in spirit", by way of having an unfair advantage over his opponent, while still being tournament legal. Whatever happened to this version of events? It struck me as being a…

It's still widely talked about. It's just that the total amount of drama is overpowering.
Post reply on HN