No post body was provided.
The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
131–140 of 486 posts
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#132This 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?
Hopefully you mean, "a 72 page report"... each.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Games are just games, they don't have to mean the same thing to everyone. The way you view them tells more about youself than about the games.
The question is one of incentives and motivations. Am I playing chess because I love chess? To have fun? In that case, cheating is counter to my goals (unless I enjoy the act of cheating itelf, but that's getting besides the point). On the other hand, is chess simply a means to an end? Am I playing chess because I want to win something? If so, cheating is but one of many possible decisions I can undertake to increase…
I don't disagree at all. But there are people who just want to play the game by the rules. There are people who won't cheat for moral reasons. There are people who lack competence to cheat. There are people who are risk averse. Cheating should be expected, but you were implying every single person has more incentive to cheat than not, which just isn't true. You could even argue most people are in fact cheating and I might even agree with you, but without evidence it's just slandering, something even the world champion should be reprehended on.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#134> 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.
In my opinion, this sort of ad-hoc stereotyping weakens the rest of the analysis. There are plenty of counterexamples.
Anand, a former world champion, became a GM at age 19 and is still ranked World No. 9 currently (at age 52). Ding Liren (Current No. 2) became a GM at 17. Grischuk (currently No. 17, peak No.3) became a GM at 17. All three have crossed 2800 ELO at some point.
I hope this is not the sort of analysis that chess.com has run in the other 71 pages of the report.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#135I think the thing I'd like to have clarified: Why does chess.com care about the results of an OTB game?
I can understand their online tournaments being something they care about and why they might rescind an invitation based on these allegations but there's something very strange about them taking it upon themselves to ban him from the platform as a result of his play against someone whose company they're in the process of buying.[1]
It seems to me as though they're inserting themselves into this unnecessarily with their analysis too. They spend a great deal of time explaining their rationale in a few places and then toss in a "In our view, no conclusions should be made from this data." at the end of it. If no conclusions should be drawn, don't bother sharing the data; it's useless. By sharing it in this manner, they are attempting to pretend it's reliable and effectively make the accusation with an out to claim they didn't.
This part too:
And while Magnus’ actions prompted us to reassess the situation, Magnus did not talk with us in advance about our decisions or ask for, or directly influence, those decisions at all.
[1]: https://kommunikasjon.ntb.no/embedded/announcement?publisher...
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your attitude about chess competition was applied toward you in all of your routine irl activities, you would be extremely unhappy. The cop does better in his job by meeting his quota of speeding tickets, so it objectively makes sense that he would issue you a speeding ticket every day with no evidence and over your strenuous objections... except you wouldn't object because the cop is working the system rationally…
The sad fact of reality is honest people finish dead last in the race known as life. Anyone who succeeds in life has cheated in some form or another, unless their life was a miraculous chain of stars aligning one after another. Human society and life isn't one of cooperation and harmony, it's a competition and we're all striving to one up each other to varying degrees. If that involves literally kicking another guy o…
> Anyone who succeeds in life has cheated in some form or another
Totally unfair. Some of us succeed by being dealt unreasonably good hands at birth.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#137No post body was provided.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#138Quoted post unavailable.
I doubt Hans will sue because if he does, then the defendants get to subpoena documents and witnesses and maybe compel Hans to submit to examinations by various experts. For example, subpoena his internet service providers and get his past purchase history from his banks and credit-card companies.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
> nobody saying that it's hopeless
Well, it's a report about cheating which is essentially claiming that if you're not a GM by age 14, then you must be cheating. Which is...kind of the same thing.
Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah it's pretty much exclusively used incorrectly. The original meaning was that an exception to a rule proves that such a rule exists. For example, "no parking on Sunday" is an exception that implies that parking on any day except Sunday is okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
It honestly doesn't bother me as much as when people incorrectly say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question" but I think we're long past the point of us ever correcting any of these.