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

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#91

Post by xlii »

Elhana wrote: post #40
Bakary wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That'd be an interesting exercise to figure out how big sample should be and how unlikely the moves would be. This is something for chess analysts I suppose.

I believe that there will never be decisive proof of Niemann cheating. But on the other hand chess is a game of strategy which seems to seep out of the playing board this time.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#92

Post by [deleted] »

cosentiyes wrote: post #86
EarthIsHome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, this is also likely a high precision, low recall approach to avoid false positives ruining a player's career

[deleted]

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#93

Post by [deleted] »

bpodgursky wrote: post #80
rob74 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that, then it's pretty arrogant - I mean, that's like saying: "he's too stupid to make such a good move, so he must be cheating"? Even (relatively) bad players are bound to make good moves from time to time, either through dumb luck or through occasional sparks of inspiration, so that's hardly a reason to be 100% sure they are cheating...

When you are #2 in the world at something you are allowed to be a bit arrogant about it. (down to #8 now, I suppose)

[deleted]

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#94

Post by JacobThreeThree »

treis wrote: post #88
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can find engine moves, especially when they have hours on the clock like in classical chess. If you can consistently spend the majority of your time on the most critical moments when game-breaking moves could be found with enough calculation, that's enough to tip the scales dramatically over many games. Sure, the human won't find the move every time, but it's still a huge edge.

But the point is that there's not really ever this mythical one great move that's going to win your the game. Look at Stockfish's analysis of the game: https://lichess.org/broadcast/sinquefield-cup--grand-chess-t... There's not a single move that significantly improved black's position.

There were several missed opportunities that the engine gave a 0.3 to 0.5 point advantage to. One point in the engine rating is roughly equivalent to one pawn. Many end games are won or lost based on having an extra pawn or two. Two moves of 0.5 points adds up to a significant improvement.

From my experience watching tournaments, it happens regularly that missed opportunities would have given someone a 1 or 2 point engine rating advantage.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#95

Post by John23832 »

rob74 wrote: post #61
bpodgursky wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making moves perceived to be outside his skill class I assume.

If it's that, then it's pretty arrogant - I mean, that's like saying: "he's too stupid to make such a good move, so he must be cheating"? Even (relatively) bad players are bound to make good moves from time to time, either through dumb luck or through occasional sparks of inspiration, so that's hardly a reason to be 100% sure they are cheating...

There are moves and lines that only Super GM’s will calculate. Not IMs, not FMs, not GMs. It’s not arrogant, it’s the level of play.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#96

Post by jfengel »

bpodgursky wrote: post #5
hugh-avherald wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Fabi, but the question must be asked: how does he know (with certainty!) that the player was cheating. Did the player confess? Was he blatantly looking on his phone in front of him?

Making moves perceived to be outside his skill class I assume.

Not so much "outside his skill class" as "unlikely to be played by a human". Computers have a really good idea of what the optimal move is, and it's sometimes not a move any human being would play. The main way to detect cheating is to figure out that they're playing closer to the computer's line than anybody without computer assistance.

In this case, his off-the-board behavior, where he seems unable to explain some of the moves he made, is also suspicious. His skill set is such that there's no move he's not capable of playing, though he should at least be able to tell you what he was thinking when he played it.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#97

Post by hgsgm »

treis wrote: post #88
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can find engine moves, especially when they have hours on the clock like in classical chess. If you can consistently spend the majority of your time on the most critical moments when game-breaking moves could be found with enough calculation, that's enough to tip the scales dramatically over many games. Sure, the human won't find the move every time, but it's still a huge edge.

But the point is that there's not really ever this mythical one great move that's going to win your the game. Look at Stockfish's analysis of the game: https://lichess.org/broadcast/sinquefield-cup--grand-chess-t... There's not a single move that significantly improved black's position.

No post body was provided.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#98

Post by hgsgm »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #90
SilverBirch wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the statistics are wrong, it's that you can't apply statistics to prove this at all. Specifically because the person you're analyzing knows all about chess. They know that a super strong weird move will just expose them, so instead they're going to pick lines that just slightly increase their strength. This is like the statistical analyses that show election rigging by highlighting a statistically impro…

>it's that you can't apply statistics to prove this at all If there are not statistical differences, then there are no performance differences. Cheating by definition should imply performance differences. If he is cheating, then at some point in the future, if that method becomes detectable and he has to stop, then his play will suddenly suffer, which would be more evidence. Claiming that statistics cannot answer thi…

No post body was provided.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#99

Post by Bakary »

treis wrote: post #85
Bakary wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't entirely disagree but consider the following: 1) To be useless to a top player, the decision tree needs to have only long term gains and be barren in terms of short term human-readable profits. 2) In the same vein, the metagaming pruning process you have described has to unfold a certain way, in the context of a game where most of the previous moves have been played by humans and not machines and where there…

The problem is if we're sending 1 bit of information that is something along the lines of "go for it" or "something's there" or whatever. That's just not something an engine can tell you outside of specific scenarios where there is a really good move to be made. You probably could rejigger the engine to factor into account the likelihood of a human finding the right moves and relative downside. Like an engine might r…

I see what you mean. This would indeed be most useful with an accomplice, and a lot dicier and ambiguous without.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#100

Post by gsinclair »

cosentiyes wrote: post #86
EarthIsHome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, this is also likely a high precision, low recall approach to avoid false positives ruining a player's career

However, allowing cheaters to get away with it could eventually ruin chess — that is, ruin all players’ careers.

A delicious conundrum.

Post reply on HN