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

The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

chess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#121

Post by Dalewyn »

moron4hire wrote: post #90
Dalewyn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that online cheating is so widespread even among top chess players is certainly news to many, including me. Not to me. When the stakes of winning are so damn valuable, sometimes literally so, it would be patently stupid to not cheat and increase your odds of winning. Remember: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught. If you're never caught, cheating is completely legitimate. These aren't games of pleasu…

A game is defined by its very specific set of rules. This can easily be seen in chess, which has a huge variety of variants. Or how one, minor rule change in baseball and you've got people wondering if the Hall of Fame even make sense anymore. Once a set of rules are defined, competitions and tournaments within those rules are meant to determine the best people in that game. When a player cheats, and rationalizes it…

Here's the thing though: How do you know a player cheated? Because you caught him. So what about all the cheaters who are never caught? You can't say they're cheaters.

Therefore, if a player cheats but is never caught, he isn't a cheater. If a player isn't a cheater, whatever he did is legitimate and it isn't a problem.

Therefore: Cheating is only a problem if you're caught.

Put another way, the rules only tell you there will be consequences if you are caught breaking them. The rules do not and cannot police the act of cheating itself, only the results of such actions and only if the act of cheating becomes known.

So the optimal way to play a game to win is always to play skillfully /and also/ cheat without getting caught. Not cheating is not optimal to winning. It is absolutely a high risk, high return course of action, but that's the nature of optimizing.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#122

Post by tomcam »

htrqball wrote: post #34
erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Shall we compile a 72 page report on Silicon Valley CEOs who have lied?

I am not even a little averse to that

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#123

Post by maegul »

erdevs wrote: post #27

This report provides a detailed background of Hans' potential cheating, and detailed breakdowns of certain aspects of chess.com's cheat-detection methodology, including previously unknown (or little known) methods such as window focus change event monitoring and post-focus-change move analysis.[1] The report also reveals Niemann's engine move correlations alongside over two dozen chess Grandmasters who have admitted…

> [1]Tangentially, this induces an obvious concern about cheat and cheat-detection arms races. A clever cheater might scrutinize this report and refine their cheating plan. For example, they might recognize the need to use a second device (such as a phone) to cheat. They might use the data corpus presented in this report to establish limits on how often they use chess engine moves per game, and they might manage their ratings progress over time carefully, so as to stay in acceptable ranges of engine move correlation, rate of improvement, etc.

Important point I'd say. I really can't shake my personal feeling that chess as a sport is just simply dead, especially as an online e-sport. Especially in combination with the possibility that there's plenty more cheating that they're not catching/detecting.

Taking this report along with Hans's admission to only cheating twice, for example, and accepting Chess.com's assessment as accurate, it would seem that Hans's mistake was to confess only to the instances of cheating that he thought had been caught. Which indicates the mentality and experience involved where the actual game is not getting caught and many, just as Hans was before beating Magnus, are playing it successfully.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#124

Post by addicted »

Where was this report say 1 month ago, before a certain Magnus Carlsen lost to Niemann over the board?

Is Chess.com gonna reveal similar reports for every other player or is this privilege only for those who are accused by a chess.com part owner of OTB cheating.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#127

Post by addicted »

seer-zig wrote: post #53
htrqball wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aronian was a late bloomer. No evidence here at all.

The exception the proves the rule?

One of the stupidest phrases vert.

Almost by definition the exception disproves the rule.

There’s literally no logical sense in which the exception can prove the rule unless the rule is not really a rule but more of a suggestion.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#128

Post by dhikapow »

JadeNB wrote: post #52
glenstein wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How representative is Aronian as an example of skill trajectories in chess?

> How representative is Aronian as an example of skill trajectories in chess? It doesn't really matter, does it? There's a big difference between telling someone "if you're not a GM by age 14 [but actually I mean 15], then don't bother, it's hopeless" and "a typical top-level player reaches GM by age 14, but it is possible to reach that level even if you are a relatively 'late bloomer'." I'd prefer not to err on the…

There's a big difference between "[if you're not a GM by age 14], it is unlikely that you can reach the top levels of chess." and "..then don't bother, it's hopeless". The former statement is perfectly valid, nobody saying that it's hopeless

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#129

Post by addicted »

bsder wrote: post #66
lysp wrote: post #19

> The conventional wisdom is that if you are not a GM by age 14, it is unlikely that you can reach the top levels of chess. > While that statement may seem discouraging, it has been borne out in modern chess. > Greats like Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, and almost all of the modern GMs who have been established as top five players, were notable GMs by age 15 at the latest Wow.

> > The conventional wisdom is that if you are not a GM by age 14, it is unlikely that you can reach the top levels of chess. This is confusing correlation and causation. One thing that people don't realize is the sheer amount of money required to become a "GM". You have to get a certain number of "norms" from FIDE and the requirements list is a PITA: https://chessgoals.com/how-to-get-a-grandmaster-norm/ If you don't…

This also ignores a once in a century pandemic.

It’s an absolutely ridiculous basis to make a claim.

Post reply on HN