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

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#101

Post by gsinclair »

jjulius wrote: post #49
frodetb wrote: post #21

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…

>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. That's a completely reasonable position for Magnus to take. It would be even more reasonable for him to simply state that that's why he's acted as such, and yet...

Perhaps it is also reasonable for Magnus to wait until the tournament is over before making such a statement.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#102

Post by SilverBirch »

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…

What is the difference between a 2500 ELO player and a cheater with a computer calibrated to 2500 ELO? Statistically, nothing. That's what I'm saying. What's the difference between a 2300 player taking that odd tip to boost their ELO to 2500. Statistically, again, probably nothing.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#103

Post by Overtonwindow »

Bakary wrote: post #77
Overtonwindow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that Carlsen himself is cheating, and the reason he's angry is because he's cheating, and still gets beat, so the other guy MUST be cheating?

It's not impossible, technically. But it would contradict more than a decade of behavior and performance along with having no circumstantial or hard evidence to back it up.

That’s a good point, and I agree, I was just throwing out this weird devils advocate argument that came to me. I think about cycling, and other events in sports where drugs are involved. People claim they are not on drugs, they go on a crusade against the cheaters, only to be found later to be cheaters themselves.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#104

Post by anothernewdude »

agarden wrote: post #79
thedstrat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regan's analysis works, in part, the way you suggest is better. He looks for tricky moves with non-obvious consequences and looks at one's success rate in those. For the Niemann-Carlsen game, he identified two such moves and Niemann chose suboptimally for both of them. For one is those, Niemann played a nice that could have cost him a tempo. Definitely an inaccuracy.

Niemanns moves fit perfectly for someone using a slightly dated version of Stockfish.

Re: Is Hans Niemann cheating? – Expert analyzes

#105

Post by SideQuark »

SilverBirch wrote: post #102
ChrisLomont wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

What is the difference between a 2500 ELO player and a cheater with a computer calibrated to 2500 ELO? Statistically, nothing. That's what I'm saying. What's the difference between a 2300 player taking that odd tip to boost their ELO to 2500. Statistically, again, probably nothing.

>Statistically, again, probably nothing.

Yes, there still is. Any program tuned to play some level does so by making suboptimal moves enough to get that lower rating, while making really profound moves more often than a player at say 2500 would make. A 2500 human has a certain level of understanding and all of their moves show this.

Ever play a top engine set to play weaker? They make amazing moves far too often for a weak player, and try to compensate by making poor moves once in a while. No weak human plays this way.

Play chess? I've played for decades, and you can see the difference (and certainly top GMs see it too). You hear in commentaries on analysis of top engines making moves that are not human. Any engine does that - tuning it down only makes it do them less, but still enough that someone that plays a lot at a high level will notice.

A human playing 2500 and a computer playing 2500 are not making the same moves, and it shows even there.

If you know any GMs, ask them the same question and see what answer you get. You will get the one I just gave.

Post reply on HN