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

291–300 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#291

Post by rowanG077 »

xxs wrote: post #274
rowanG077 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Serial mouse/keyboard trivial? You'd need to make a custom mouse that receives data from your second PC. You'd probably want it to be wireless else you will have 2 cables coming out of it. And no just having a second fake mouse is not fair. That's easily detectable by software and would definitely raise a lot of red flags.

This is how: take ESP32 - it has bluetooth, wifi and serial port all integrated and it costs couple of dollars. It's small and it runs on 3.3V, it has a voltage regulator that it allows to connect to 5V. I can do the code and place the esp32 in a mouse on a Saturday (my C is always rusty, not using it professionally). And I am a hobbyist at best. So the original serial mouse/keyboard are connected to ESP32 that norma…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#292

Post by wruza »

Dalewyn wrote: post #121
moron4hire wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I cannot agree. First, your position comes with an assumption that one feels okay when cheating. Many people simply do not, for personal integrity, anxiety and other reasons.

Also, if you expect a game to bring profits in a long run, risk assessment may become too complex, if you can be caught retrospectively (like that top-score trackmania guy for example). Some people understand it from the beginning and decide to not put themselves into an unstable trap for life, even if cheating is compatible with their values.

You’re right that games (businesses, situations) themselves may have a long-term model which includes cheating as an optimal solution. But assuming that people playing it are all cheating sociopaths is incorrect. Tbh, your persistence all over this subthread is a sign that you have some sort of a close personal relationship with this topic.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#293

Post by TrackerFF »

crystaln wrote: post #20

Seems to be happening in the poker world as well. https://twitter.com/dexerto/status/1575867098328289280

Yes, when you reach a certain level - any plays which do not conform to the "best practices" of the day, will look highly suspicious. In poker, when you're playing at the top level, against top level people, it is assumed that all players on the table know things like GTO, etc.

When people start to deviate from stuff like that, it is either assumed that the player is cheating, or a complete beginner.

Same with chess. When top players start making really weird moves, they're either getting computer assistance - or they've made a nonsensical move. And for people that seemingly never do nonsensical moves, it is easy to conclude that they must be cheating.

It is actually not too different from video game speed runs. The margins are so small, and all the top level players know every move. Discovering new stuff can take years - so if a newcomer suddenly starts making waves, beating seasoned pros left and right with seemingly genius strategies - is he a genius, or cheating? Most in the community will go for the latter.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#294

Post by 72deluxe »

sigmaml wrote: post #224
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…

> Tangentially, this induces an obvious concern about cheat and cheat-detection arms races. This exists in every domain, and is - perhaps - inevitable. Look at what SEO has done to web search.

The one thing that baffles me with SEO is how it's just guesswork yet is a massive business. It's like promising to someone that you'll get their name listed sooner in the phonebook without any control over the phonebook itself, and then that person pays you to do it.

It's no different, since we have no control over Google's ranking mechanism and they won't explicitly tell you what the algorithm is (and change the rules daily), so it's just guesswork.

Baffling an entire colossal "industry" is built from guesswork.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#296

Post by thexumaker »

chafporte wrote: post #216
ddalex wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a chess specialist, but he pulled out a couple of unusually good moves on a very uncommon line of play without thinking too much about it, almost looking casually. His excuse was "it just happens that I studied this line last night ". This doesn't happen.

It was a line that Magnus has already played once or twice in tournament. Hans wondered how Magnus could surprise him. So Hans studied various lines rarely played by Magnus including this one. This was very clear in Hans interview.

did you even read the chess.com report?

> In fact, Magnus has only played 4.g3 twice previously (both before 2010), and the position after Hans castled on move four had never been seen in any of Magnus’ games. Hans in a later interview commented that Magnus had previously played the opening against Wesley So in the 2018 London Chess Classic,24 but there is no such game on record.25 Magnus did play a g3 Nimzo-Indian against Wesley So in a rapid game in Kolkota in 2019, but the move order and emerging position in that game had no similarities to the game against Hans. Hans’s 9...cxd4 had only been played once previously, in a June 2022 Titled Tuesday game between Rasmus Svane and Stelios Halkias.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#298

Post by vkou »

lmm wrote: post #166
maegul wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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 thei…

> 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. 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). This is a major scandal that s…

Cheating is common in e-sports, but it is rare in high-level competitive e-sports. Sure, you may be a 'gaming chair enthusiast', using a cheat when in your online Apex or Forntite pub games, but you can't bring it with you to a tournament.

Starcraft is about the only e-sport where I can see tournament cheating providing a very large advantage for a single bit of information - a player who can be notified that he is being all-inned would have a huge advantage in tournament play.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#299

Post by chafporte »

DangitBobby wrote: post #231
chafporte wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a line that Magnus has already played once or twice in tournament. Hans wondered how Magnus could surprise him. So Hans studied various lines rarely played by Magnus including this one. This was very clear in Hans interview.

The featured article talks about this. It didn't go down even remotely the same way in Magnus' previous game. He also references a game which never actually happened.

He is not in charge of maintaining a chess database. Did Magnus played this before: yes. Can Hans have know about this: yes. Can he have studied this line because Magnus played it before: yes. Was the line exactly the same: no, he explained that he spent several minutes to evaluate if the transposition was possible. Very credible (contrary to Magnus insinuations)

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#300

Post by camaaaargue »

pedrosorio wrote: post #239
quadrifoliate wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Anand, a former world champion, became a GM at age 19 At the age of 18: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand#Early_chess_... Also, according 2700chess.com he was #96 in the world with a rating of 2520 on January 1988. That's right after turning 18. Growing up in India (before the chess boom). Before chess engines existed. 6 months later he was #49 in the world. https://2700chess.com/players/anand A year…

> Make it make sense.

Hans Niemann didn't win the game. The incredibly dominating world champion lost it. He bodged the game and then threw a tantrum calling the other, weaker, player a cheater to save face because he couldn't stomach his own incompetence.

The rest is what is called "circumstantial evidence" in the lay press.

Post reply on HN