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

371–380 of 486 posts

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#371

Post by rowanG077 »

xxs wrote: post #358
rowanG077 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7ms is enough. But that is one in a chain of latencies. 110ms is way too long if you want your trigger to be effective. In 110ms the enemy has moved out of your crosshair. Humans deal with that with dynamic adjustment but the AI will just click the mouse. I'd think you'd need to hit less then 25ms end to end and even that might not be enough for far away targets.

I mentioned earlier - reaction time under 100ms on track events is considered a foul start and the offender disqualified.

You are completely misunderstanding the goal of such a cheat. It's a "triggerbot" as in it fires the mouse when an enemy head enters the crosshair. The classical use case is that the user camps at an edge and waits for the enemy to peek. The user has his crosshair at the correct offset from the edge so that when the enemy peeks he could hit them with a human reaction time.

However a human sees the enemy BEFORE it enters the crosshair and estimates and corrects when the enemy will enter the crosshair. A trigger bot measure exactly WHEN the head is in the crosshair, it has no predictive power of enemy dynamics. This totally changes the latency game. A 150ms trigger latency from the time a head is in the crosshair basically means you shoot when either the crosshair or enemy has moved significant amounts. This also means that you can very obviously cheat with a trigger bot if you use the trigger badly, the human needs to "hide" the trigger latency to make it appear human. You can't compare it to human reaction time at all, a trigger needs to be about an order of magnitude faster to be useable.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#372

Post by me_me_me »

maegul wrote: post #8
paxys wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

carlsen is right saying cheating is an existential threat to chess. if cheating becomes easier to conceal (more subtle) it will kill interest in spectating and double paranoia in player.

i could not care about bike racing due to doping, literally all top racers were doping back when i was following it. i can no longer watch it without doping in the back of my mind after all of it started coming out. Olympiads to me are the same.

if cheating in your sport is not dealt with it will grow like cancer .

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#373

Post by thefringthing »

OJFord wrote: post #345
noxvilleza wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah chess is the perfect type of game for cheating - it has a tiny (relatively) gamestate, perfect information, and it's turn-based. At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate.

> At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate. And the rest! I'm pretty crap (hovering 750-850 on chess.com, idk if I play enough for it to be accurate though, probably lower) but I was still thoroughly impressed when I got thrashed by someone (~1200) playing the entire game in their head. As in I had a local game running on my phone, called…

Surely that kind of play would indicate a rating considerably above 1200.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#374

Post by xipho »

OJFord wrote: post #345
noxvilleza wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah chess is the perfect type of game for cheating - it has a tiny (relatively) gamestate, perfect information, and it's turn-based. At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate.

> At the level of chess player we're talking about it's sorta trivial for them to almost immediately memorize a boardstate. And the rest! I'm pretty crap (hovering 750-850 on chess.com, idk if I play enough for it to be accurate though, probably lower) but I was still thoroughly impressed when I got thrashed by someone (~1200) playing the entire game in their head. As in I had a local game running on my phone, called…

A 1200 playing full games in their head sends up some warning flags to me?! I'm over 1500 on Lichess (yes, ELO calculation is not the same, but likely within 300 points at that level?!) and can't even dream of doing that. Did your friend cheat? ;)

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#375

Post by rossdavidh »

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.

Another explanation is simply that, if you reach early adulthood without deciding to devote your life to becoming good at chess, you are unlikely to do it later. Becoming among the best in the world at anything requires not only natural talent but also focused, almost monomaniacal work, and if you haven't started doing that (for chess) by your mid-teens, it's hard to see why you would start.

If, for some reason, you decided to drop your budding music/engineering/whatever career at age 20 to focus entirely on chess, and you had the natural aptitude to be able to become a GM, perhaps it could happen. But rarely would a person decide to do that, if they had not prior to that point.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#376

Post by rossdavidh »

So, this is all interesting for chess, but I wonder if we should be discussing more the broader implications. How much does this happen during high-stakes tests (professional qualifications, etc.)? How much does this happen during job interviews? How much does this happen during political debates? How much does this happen during any high-stakes activity where the person is supposed to be thinking through it on their own?

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#377

Post by amelius »

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…

Can't we just consider cheating part of the sport?

If you or your team is capable of making a tiny chess computer that fits under your skin and can go undetectable, then congratulations to you.

So basically a bit like Formula-1.

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#378

Post by bombcar »

cellis wrote: post #153
maegul wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are they even useful in training for a player? Are they essential for improvement and competition?

All major sports watch film, and then run drills based on that film. They also now have analytical recommendations. Welcome to 2022

Tony Gwynn wasn't an insanely naturally talented hitter; he spend hours each day watching his own films and painstakingly improving his batting.

There's a story that Ted Williams told him "you need to hit the inside pitches for power" and Tony went and did that; he never became a huge home run hitter but he improved. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-gwynns-hitting-coa...

Re: The Full Chess Cheating Report of Hans Neiman

#379

Post by rybosworld »

rossdavidh wrote: post #376

So, this is all interesting for chess, but I wonder if we should be discussing more the broader implications. How much does this happen during high-stakes tests (professional qualifications, etc.)? How much does this happen during job interviews? How much does this happen during political debates? How much does this happen during any high-stakes activity where the person is supposed to be thinking through it on their…

I'd be willing to bet that the prevalence of cheating is roughly equal regardless of the discipline. Let's say 1% of participants are cheating at any given time (I have no idea if this is a high or low estimate).

For better or worse, this could represent a metric for gauging how well that discipline is at detecting active cheaters.

Post reply on HN