Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#31

Post by jtchang » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:24 PM UTC

EarthIsHome wrote: post #26

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.

Like a bloom filter!

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#32

Post by tbrake » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #27

tbrake wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Correct. They're often already playing at ~95% engine matching moves and/or with negligible difference in centipawn loss. Getting the help to push that to 98% would be a dominant advantage.

Funnily (to me) post-game analysis often highlights the computers finding incredible defensive resources instead of attacking ones. But it's exactly these kinds of moves - the fearless counter-thrust to equality while your king's position looks hopeless - that are the most inhuman of all and likely to draw suspicion.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#33

Post by debacle » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

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.

The other factor is that Regan's process is designed to not produce false positives - if it says you are cheating, you are almost guaranteed to be cheating.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#34

Post by numlocked » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

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…

I also thought it sounded like a plausible explanation, but it's been dismissed as exceedingly less likely than engine assistance by those who know far more than I.

At the Sinquefield (the tournament in question), Magnus had just one team member with him and it's someone who has worked with for many years. The breakdown in the logic of the 'leaked prep' is that no one can come up with a plausible motivation for it to have been leaked - and no serious chess GMs seem to think it is a plausible theory.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#35

Post by Elhana » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

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.

I guess when doing prep work, you analyze most of the top moves computer would suggest, so simply stealing it won't help that much, unless you really missed something. You'd need to find some move/line that your opponent has not prepared, analyze it deeper than he did and hope that actual game goes exactly as planned to implement it. The deeper it goes into a game - less chances you end up with that position on the board.

Also accusing someone should be backed by some kind of proof. Even a subpar player with some luck might memorize something a computer would suggest and implement it, despite that it is way over his expected level, yet not getting actual suggestions during a game. Is that cheating?

There are lots of videos on youtube like "This trap will help you win lots of games", that 600 elo player can memorize and then get labeled as cheater, coz it's way over his elo level.

Next step would be to ponder whether computer assisted prep in general is cheating or not, really.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#36

Post by Chabsff » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

numlocked wrote: post #34

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…

I also thought it sounded like a plausible explanation, but it's been dismissed as exceedingly less likely than engine assistance by those who know far more than I. At the Sinquefield (the tournament in question), Magnus had just one team member with him and it's someone who has worked with for many years. The breakdown in the logic of the 'leaked prep' is that no one can come up with a plausible motivation for it to…

Sounds about right. Thank you.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#37

Post by throw7 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

You either have evidence or you don't. This quasi economic modeling of chess players is ridiculous. He says his models don't know anything about playing chess. OK, let's apply your models to all sorts of areas where we suspect fraudulent play.

This chess drama is corrosive. Speculation from day 1 starting with carlsen.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#38

Post by Double_a_92 » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

The problem is that cheating does not only mean that he used a chess computer to calculate the next best move. E.g. just knowing when you are at a critical point and should think for a for moments longer then usual, can already tip the outcome of the game.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#39

Post by derbOac » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #20

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.

This has been on my mind in reading about this. It would explain a lot.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#40

Post by Elhana » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #20

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.

On the other hand, if Niemann did exactly the same and researched less-known moves, he'd know how to play against them too. That won't actually prove he is cheating at that game. Just the fact that he analyzed them earlier. You'd need a significant number of such honeypot "incidents" to properly accuse someone of cheating.