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

Dear Chess World

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Dear Chess World

#561

Post by asimpletune »

psychphysic wrote: post #390
root_axis wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people might assume that a cheater needs guidance every move, thereby requiring a potentially more obvious cheating mechanism. That is not the case. IMO, this reasoning potentially implicates every high level player. If it's possible that two hints can account for the difference between 2600 and 2800, and a 19 year old kid under heavy scrutiny can exploit this weakness without being detected, it seems assured…

Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport. Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other. Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single picture they produce is better than what any artist ever could produce. Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win conditions are comparatively simple). I'm rambling now a…

Yeah I know what you mean but human chess is much more exciting because you can see themes appear in a player's strategy. You can sort of follow what they're thinking. Computer chess is next level precisely because the computer has decided that is the best move, but it's not part of some kind of narrative, it's just based on the engine's analysis.

Re: Dear Chess World

#562

Post by kryogen1c »

School-Cotton wrote: post #491

Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now you see him with a shiny new car that you’re pretty sure he can’t afford. Did he steal it? Not necessarily — it’s entirely possible that he got a higher-paying legit job and saved up for it, or inherited money from a relative, or got it legally in some other way. He shouldn’t be convicted of a n…

Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me.

If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.

Re: Dear Chess World

#563

Post by derefr »

swyx wrote: post #490
rococode wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating: "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible." Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boo…

yes but against magnus , who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are…

> he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit.

Perhaps a top-level player can jump to a higher level if they can stop worrying about coming up with brilliances in the macro strategy, and instead focus entirely on making their micro-level play spotless.

Re: Dear Chess World

#564

Post by diehunde »

yesseri wrote: post #489
andrepd wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't than line of thinking mean that anybody can accuse somebody of cheating when they unexpectedly beat them?

Niemann have admitted cheating before when playing online, so Carlsen is just not making this up about any random player. There is a history of cheating.

Also Carlsen didn't accuse other players of cheating the other times he's lost

Re: Dear Chess World

#565

Post by [deleted] »

gamegoblin wrote: post #295
Tenoke wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 points difference means a 25% chance to win, so I doubt just 1 hint is enough to bridge that gap consistently. Many high level games are won by grinding out a small advantage. I'll take a 2700 with 3 hints against a 2800 though.

The "200 points difference means 25% chance to win" breaks down at the highest levels. It works fine near the middle of the bell curve -- i.e. 800-2000 Elo -- but once you get to 2200 Elo you are talking about the >99th percentile. For example, I don't know of a single 2400 player who can score an average of 0.25 against 2600 players. Even at my own mediocre level of 1800, I definitely do not score 0.25 against 2000…

[deleted]

Re: Dear Chess World

#566

Post by adamdusty »

noncoml wrote: post #524

Here is a crazy idea. If you get caught cheating, even once, you should be banned for life. Otherwise we end up in a lose-lose situation. It’s almost impossible for Magnus to prove Niemann cheated on that game. It’s impossible for Niemann to prove he didn’t cheat. But shouldn’t matter. He was caught cheating before, he shouldn’t have been allowed to compete again. I don’t remember Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong getti…

Lance wasn't 16 and Hans didn't win multiple championships becoming the best chess player of all time.

Re: Dear Chess World

#567

Post by contravariant »

School-Cotton wrote: post #491

Imagine you know someone with a history of stealing cars and other valuable objects. He has been caught multiple times. Now you see him with a shiny new car that you’re pretty sure he can’t afford. Did he steal it? Not necessarily — it’s entirely possible that he got a higher-paying legit job and saved up for it, or inherited money from a relative, or got it legally in some other way. He shouldn’t be convicted of a n…

I'm not sure if letting the chess players be the arbiters of this is the best course of action though.

Re: Dear Chess World

#568

Post by titanomachy »

epolanski wrote: post #277
nonethewiser wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cheating wouldn't explain a relaxed state. You could easily expect that he'd be nervous as fuck to cheat OTB against Carlsen. This is just wildly speculative and ultimately meaningless.

Sherlock Holmes used to say that a clue is just a clue, two clues are just two clues, but three clues make a proof.

You know Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person, right? Saying that a fictional character "used to say" something is odd.

Re: Dear Chess World

#569

Post by qq66 »

This is way too much accusation without any evidence, and a terrible blow to Carlsen's sterling reputation. What he should have said was:

"Niemann is an admitted chess cheater, and has cheated even more than he has admitted to, per Chess.com's recent statement. Cheating destroys the game and I refuse to play against known cheaters. I will not play Hans Niemann or any other known cheaters."

Re: Dear Chess World

#570

Post by cool_dude85 »

swyx wrote: post #490
rococode wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a relevant quote from Magnus regarding cheating: "I would just needed to cheat one or two times during a match, and I would not even need to be given moves, just the answer on which move was way better, or here there is a possibility of winning and here you need to be more careful. That is all I would need in order to be almost invincible." Even just 1 bit - an indication to be careful - would be enough to boo…

yes but against magnus , who is supposedly two levels above Hans, this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes, which is an awful lot of information to transmit. i dont have a horse in this race i just like thinking about things in terms of information theory since this is a remarkable applied case another way to decide this - have them play blitz (where the moves are…

>this is not just a one move cheat, he'd have to cheat + have a continuous absence of mistakes

Blunders are exactly what a device like the one described would seriously help with. If the buzz means both "there is an only move here and it's not immediately obvious" and "at least one of the natural moves here is a blunder or very inaccurate" then you need to just send a buzz and you've probably cut inaccuracies significantly. That said, a very simple communication device like this is probably badly hurt by a 15 minute delay.

Post reply on HN