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

191–200 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#191

Post by mzs »

addicted wrote: post #124

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.

This report is incredibly underwhelming. I only see Hans cheating before 2020-08-12 from the same chart the WSJ published earlier today. To me it seems he was banned again this year for the same offenses yet complied with chess-com terms (save for not sending an email).

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#192

Post by patmcc »

kadoban wrote: post #180
patmcc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Online chess is bigger than ever, and some kind of botting/cheating is possible for virtually every e-sport (indeed I'd say many are easier than chess). I think it's the other way, chess is about as easy to cheat as it gets. With chess you can have a perfectly usable cheating system that isn't on the same computer at all - computer A is clean, and is where you actually play on chess.com, computer B is where you ent…

For shooters, bots or assists that only use vision and normal input (special mouse/keyboard) aren't hard to imagine and I'm positive already exist. I know specifically I read a while back about mice that do recoil correction to improve aim, and things like "click when something that looks like a head is in the crosshairs" would be a weekend project at most for a bored college student. Strategy games may be harder, bu…

It's not hard to make cheating tools, it's hard to run them on the same hardware as the game and not get caught. Chess cheating tools don't need to be on the same hardware, so they're not detectable in the same ways.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#193

Post by jfghi »

tedunangst wrote: post #91
jfghi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be interesting. Have a chess bunker somewhere with 100s of games against a variety of opponents. I think at first there would be some nerves but over time the statistics would become clear. Perhaps there could be a 10 game burn-in.

And as a competing grand master, I want to be a test subject in this bunker why?

To me seems as though chess pros play for the sake of playing. Perhaps this bunker could be placed somewhere secretly in Hawaii and the GMs could be flown out for a free vacation with family.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#194

Post by mzs »

paxys wrote: post #7
maegul wrote: post #5

So page 9 from the last paragraph is interesting. Chess.com basically indicate that apart from Hans, a number of highly rated players (including higher than Hans) have been caught and admitted to cheating. I haven't gone over the report thoroughly, but it's clearly focused on Hans's conduct and not so much on the state of play regarding online cheating, which is, even by Magnus's statement, the chief focus of all of…

Yup that part stood out to me as well. There are dozens of "Anonymous Confessed GM"s on the cheating list, most of them with a rating much higher than Neimann's. And this doesn't even mention the players who are flagged by their algorithm but haven't admitted their guilt. Given the very high ELO range of the offenders (2600-2700), it's clear that a lot of the most popular names in chess are involved. Why not name all…

Also these players will think twice now about crossing chess-com's star players and stake-holders.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#195

Post by mzs »

threatofrain wrote: post #88
maegul wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, it definitely seems a bit suspicious and unfair, which fits frankly with the sport going through growing pains on this. Seems like you gotta beat Magnus for your cheating to matter?! Snark aside, Magnus’s behaviour makes some sense, he wants this to be addressed. But the manner in which it is happening, his conduct included, is just poor form for the sport, even if it was the best overall move Magnus could make.

It appears that chess.com was handling the matter discreetly until Hans made the issue public. It would be unfair if it turned out that the other GM's also challenged chess.com publicly.

Hans didn't make anything public until two stars made public allegations against him.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#196

Post by lmm »

Dalewyn wrote: post #163
ndespres wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sociopathic rationalization for poor behavior. It isn’t true. If you are a compulsive liar and cheater, perhaps you will justify your immoral behavior by deluding yourself into believing that everyone else is doing it too- but it is not so. We are not all behaving this way.

You can claim "Well, we are/I am honest!" all you want, but the reality is nobody is a saint. Nobody. Full stop. If someone says they're a saint, they are lying out their ass. We have all cheated at something at some point in our lives, whether we got caught or not. You also fail to understand I'm not passing judgment on such behaviour. Rather, I'm saying we need to take into account the ruthless nature of reality if…

> You can claim "Well, we are/I am honest!" all you want, but the reality is nobody is a saint. Nobody. Full stop. If someone says they're a saint, they are lying out their ass. We have all cheated at something at some point in our lives, whether we got caught or not.

That's a total non-sequitur. Perhaps no-one is perfect (though frankly I doubt it), but that doesn't mean that cheating more means more success than cheating less.

Cheats definitely exist. But many of them end up doing worse than people who live more honestly, as we see here.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#197

Post by AlbertCory »

I was about to ask "what does Kasparov say?" but decided to research it first. Very disappointing, but coming from him I'm not surprised. See below.

[1] https://www.chessdom.com/garry-kasparov-carlsens-behavior-wa...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaEipwGi0o

His Twitter feed is all Ukraine stuff, AFAICT. Maybe he's said something more than the above (?)

Personal story: I was the host at his Google talk in Mt. View in July 2017. I had to find a room for it, which was super-hard and getting worse all the time. I got a room that held 100 people, and I really didn't know how big a deal Kasparov was. I underestimated that, I guess, but remember that by 2017, Googlers could watch from their computers, so they didn't have to attend in person. I don't think he could have filled up Charlie's Cafe, which holds 450 (if it was even available).

Anyhow, he complained that the room was too small. Jerk.

(If you look this up on YouTube, you won't see me; they used his London talk instead.)

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#198

Post by awb »

oldstrangers wrote: post #187
awb wrote: post #142

It sounds like cheating detection in chess is highly circumstantial, based on outlier data points. Given the massive volumes of chess data out there, I bet it would be easy to make a bot that mirrors the win/loss and blunder/best move ratio of an average GM chess player’s trajectory. Instead of picking the best move all the time, maybe pick a random move out of the top 10 moves. And use a random number generator to d…

Except, chess.com has literal "strength profiles" of every top player. They have enough data to say, hey, this how strong you should be playing, anything outside that expected norm might be suspicious, especially over a long enough time period. It's a similar idea to the 'Biological Passport' seen in sports wherein the biological data of an athlete is stored and you can reference the data points against new test resu…

I was more thinking that cheaters would create a new account and play at a level that’s good but not uncommon like 1700 or 1800 and work their way up to GM status over a few years, careful to coincide their ascension with the historical pace, win rate, etc. of fellow GMs. That way there’s no anomalies in the data.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#199

Post by krick »

cowvin wrote: post #169
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…

One of the most interesting (but inconclusive) points they found was how Hans' evaluated strength dropped after they introduced the 15 minute broadcast delay.

Except, introducing the 15 minute broadcast delay just happens to coincide with Magnus scandalous withdrawal, Hans being especially carefully searched and being stared at by everyone (that is, if we trust how it was evaluated over a couple of games in the first place).

So, again, even though some statement from chess.com was expected, this one probably does more harm than good. Heavy implications, winking and chuckling, but nothing that would allow one to close the case (quite naturally). All of this historical progress evaluation was done by people a month ago already, and did achieve as much as this one. This one is "official" though, so pours another barrel of fuel into the fire.

That said, I wonder why 15 minute (or even more) delay isn't standard in events like that. Seems like the least you could do, given how questionable chess in 2022 is in the first place.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#200

Post by lamontcg »

Dalewyn wrote: post #168
irjustin wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cheating is completely legitimate. 100% disagree. Legitimate would mean condoning cheating. Which then means everyone should be allowed to use engines, which then would mean engine vs engine, which we already have. Human vs human no augmentation.

I commented on this already in another post, but I'll reiterate here: How do you know a player is a cheater? If you can't prove a player cheated, that is if you never catch the cheater, then whatever the player did is legitimate. It doesn't matter if the player in fact cheated and got away with it, it's all legitimate if he wasn't caught. The rules do not and cannot police the act of cheating itself, only the results…

This sense of ethics is literally going to ruin this country.
Post reply on HN